How will you choose between MS & Sony's new consoles?

Newaglish · 08-08-2013 3:33pm

COYVB wrote: »

The fact that so few people know about it outside the more core gamers

Everyone I know uses it. I was looking for some kind of a source? Is your comment based on PS+ versus regular PSN signups or...?

2Mad2BeMad · 08-08-2013 3:51pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I was actually re/thinking on what to get first. I got ps4 booked for ages and 300eu payed out so far. ( it would not be a problem to switch in local gamestop ). The reason of re/thinking is Forza. I really love the series.

So I started thinking:

I already pay ps+ subscription, so it is handy for ps4, because I already use ps3 and vita.
I own already PS vita so Cross play is something that I would use ALOT! I love to play 3ds/ps vita in bed. If I can play BF4 in my bed, while misses watching her crap on TV, then it would be win - win situation for me.
I already like PS4 UI more. Its just personal preference, not just because its better or worse.
The price. This is interesting one. I am not so great financially at the moment. I now now that I need just 100eu and I got ps4 payed off. If I would go for xbox one, then it would mean 200eu and thats before games and second controller. I know some people say that 100eu is not a lot and makes no difference in choice, but not for me. 100eu would mean 2 extra games or a game and 1 year sub for PS+. ( a bit more then 100eu, i know ).
I love PS+ service. This service alone has a huge impact on my decision.

So I scraped Idea about xbox one. Yes, MS did a switch for the better since we sow it announced, but it is still an inferior package for me. Still going with ps4 as first console and getting xbox one later on when I can financially.
I honestly did not knew that 100eu difference could have so much weight in decision too. When both consoles pretty much identical it does not make sense to pay that extra.

the extra is kinect so thats the difference. I want the kinect so the xbox one is great value considering the kinect costs more then a 100quid to build, but for people who dont want the kinect and find the 100e extra too steep then the ps4 is a better option for them

ShadowHearth · 08-08-2013 6:00pm

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

the extra is kinect so thats the difference. I want the kinect so the xbox one is great value considering the kinect costs more then a 100quid to build, but for people who dont want the kinect and find the 100e extra too steep then the ps4 is a better option for them

At least Sony gives me an option to buy it or not. Remove kinect, drop the price to 399eu and you will give me a huge headache on which console to buy.

Grumpypants · 08-08-2013 6:29pm

Zero need or interest in Kinect 2 so having to buy it is a huge negative. Have the Kinect 1 and it is terrible, it is in the same bracket as the wii-mote for awful useless crap.

The Move on the other hand is brilliant mainly because unlike the other two it works. !

2Mad2BeMad · 08-08-2013 6:29pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

At least Sony gives me an option to buy it or not. Remove kinect, drop the price to 399eu and you will give me a huge headache on which console to buy.

the price is great considering what your getting for it IMHO because i want the kinect

1ZRed · 08-08-2013 6:37pm

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

the price is great considering what your getting for it IMHO because i want the kinect

Well factor in that the X1 would have cheaper ram and (presumably) a cheaper graphics card, and the €100 extra for kinect 2 would actually be more.

But that's besides the point. Many hate motion controls, so having a mandatory accessory they wouldn't use is just a big waste of money to them. It's a deal breaker for a lot of people besides you.

C14N · 08-08-2013 6:40pm

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

I'd be very impressed if you could get 2-3 Xbox One/ PS4 games for €60. Even second hand they will still be really expensive.

Not at launch obviously, but at the moment I would normally expect to get at least 2 games with €60 so I expect that will soon become the norm once the One gets a widespread audience.

1ZRed wrote: »

I dunno, it's free everywhere else like on PC. I think they saw xbox users didn't care about spending money on it so they probably said they'd be foolish not to if they can get away with it this time. The fact that PS+ is so good makes a lot of people begrudgingly overlook it, me included.

PSN will have all the xbox online features now so really there's not going to be a difference between them. The only difference is if Microsoft can match PS+ on games, which I doubt given their half assed attempt so far. I think that'll be the biggest factor in swaying people considering party chat and all that is there now.

I know it's free other places but a lot of people would rather use services like Netflix on their console than on their PC. So now for more casual gamers who want a console that does other non-gaming things but aren't committed enough to pay the sub for gaming, the no-brainer option is the PS4. It just seems very counter-intuitive to drive away an audience that MS previously seemed so keen to appeal to.

COYVB wrote: »

Wasn't good enough, given that so few people know about it outside the more core gamers

I'm not sure how we can really measure that but don't underestimate the value of the core gamers. Come Christmas time they will have ample opportunity to discuss the newest consoles with more casual players and point out how overwhelmingly positive PS+ is, not to mention that old media will cover the new releases and you will probably see newspaper articles and such pop up to show the differences. I feel like MS went into last gen with a much stronger online service which really helped them in the first few years and now Sony have that advantage.

ShadowHearth · 08-08-2013 6:47pm

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

the price is great considering what your getting for it IMHO because i want the kinect

Just because you want it ( I have no idea why would you ), does not mean that everyone wants it bundled in. Its like going to buy brand new car, but salesman only lets you buy highest spec and most expensive car.

There are a lot more people who dont care about kinect 2 and would gladly pay 100eu less and not take that forced rubbish add on.

2Mad2BeMad · 08-08-2013 7:02pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Just because you want it ( I have no idea why would you ), does not mean that everyone wants it bundled in. Its like going to buy brand new car, but salesman only lets you buy highest spec and most expensive car.

There are a lot more people who dont care about kinect 2 and would gladly pay 100eu less and not take that forced rubbish add on.

xbox.com

go to forums
check how many people want it :pac: i am not alone, i said in my opinion , and in my opinion the kinect 2 and xbox one will be much better then ps4
like wise others are saying the ps4 will be better then xbox one
its a matter of preference, and you have my preference, as well as thousands of others on the xbox forum, i am not alone mate

for those who dont want it , their getting a ps4, so dont hate, just enjoy what your buying
which is obviously the ps4 :pac:

also saying "just because you want it" make it sound as if i told MS to bundle it themselfs just for me :L get a grip, lots of people want it, you watch the sales figures after year 1 and tell me im wrong, until then your just speculating, because the kinect 2 has not even been released to the public yet

FlyingIrishMan · 08-08-2013 7:05pm

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

xbox.com

go to forums
check how many people want it :pac: i am not alone, i said in my opinion , and in my opinion the kinect 2 and xbox one will be much better then ps4
like wise others are saying the ps4 will be better then xbox one
its a matter of preference, and you have my preference, as well as thousands of others on the xbox forum, i am not alone mate
for those who dont want it , their getting a ps4, so dont hate, just enjoy what your buying
which is obviously the ps4 :pac:

also saying "just because you want it" make it sound as if i told MS to bundle it themselfs just for me :L get a grip, lots of people want it, you watch the sales figures after year 1 and tell me im wrong, until then your just speculating, because the kinect 2 has not even been released to the public yet

People on Xbox forums support the Xbox? Blasphemy.

sarumite · 08-08-2013 8:01pm

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

the price is great considering what your getting for it IMHO because i want the kinect

The price is only great if you see the kinect as a value propisition. Personally I see it as being 100 euro more for a machine that has slightly lower specs (which being honest is really irrelevant as i dont think you will be able to see the difference) and a a peripheral I don't care about. As such it comes down to whether I think PS+ or XB gold is a better service for me.

ShadowHearth · 08-08-2013 8:14pm

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

xbox.com

go to forums
check how many people want it :pac: i am not alone, i said in my opinion , and in my opinion the kinect 2 and xbox one will be much better then ps4
like wise others are saying the ps4 will be better then xbox one
its a matter of preference, and you have my preference, as well as thousands of others on the xbox forum, i am not alone mate
for those who dont want it , their getting a ps4, so dont hate, just enjoy what your buying
which is obviously the ps4 :pac:

also saying "just because you want it" make it sound as if i told MS to bundle it themselfs just for me :L get a grip, lots of people want it, you watch the sales figures after year 1 and tell me im wrong, until then your just speculating, because the kinect 2 has not even been released to the public yet

I am a member of Irish Subaru club, I own Subaru, a lot of people on forum love subaru and talks a lot of good about subaru. You catch my drift? :pac:

"just because you want it" means that something that you like, does not mean will appeal to other people. Sales figures wount show a thing, because there is only one type of xbox for sale: with kinect bundled in. If there would be non kinect one too, then we would see difference. I could bet my nuts on non kinect xbox outselling kinect version.
Kinect does not need to be released to show that it is just a gimick. Tell me, how will it enchant your experience while playing something like BF4 or Cod? You cant use gestures, because its time off controller and its faster to press button, then **** at a screen. Voice commands? Sounds great, but no way you will be able to use it in multiplayer as most likely you will have headset with mic to communicate with other players. Imagine army of 12 year old shouting: Grenade! Grenade! ****! Grenade!
Am I interested in dancing games or Fitness games? nope...
So the only proper use it has is navigating xbox menu. I will have a controller in my hand, which will navigate menu 10x faster, then me **** each time to flip the page. I dont need inferior way to navigate menus for 100eu extra m8. I just dont need.
Then we come back to same wall, MS forcing us on buying kinect. Yes, there are people who want kinect, but there are a lot more people who dont want it. So make it optional. Problem solved.

C14N · 08-08-2013 8:36pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Just because you want it ( I have no idea why would you ), does not mean that everyone wants it bundled in. Its like going to buy brand new car, but salesman only lets you buy highest spec and most expensive car.

There are a lot more people who dont care about kinect 2 and would gladly pay 100eu less and not take that forced rubbish add on.

But MS didn't include it thinking that most people would want it, they included it because they want it to be a core part of the system. I really get the feeling that they're tired of it being another Wii Fit, in other words, something that a lot of people thought looked cool and bought but ultimately remains unused because it has no games that anyone wants to play. They want Kinect features put into games that wouldn't otherwise have it because honestly, if it was an extra add-on, that probably wouldn't be happening.

ShadowHearth · 08-08-2013 8:40pm

C14N wrote: »

But MS didn't include it thinking that most people would want it, they included it because they want it to be a core part of the system. I really get the feeling that they're tired of it being another Wii Fit, in other words, something that a lot of people thought looked cool and bought but ultimately remains unused because it has no games that anyone wants to play. They want Kinect features put into games that wouldn't otherwise have it because honestly, if it was an extra add-on, that probably wouldn't be happening.

So yeah, they bundled it in to force a sale on you. First time around they got away due to hype. This time around people would be smarter about getting it again, so they just bundled it in.

stevenmu · 08-08-2013 8:51pm

What if I want to download all my games, should I insist they remove the blu-ray player?

What if I want an external HD, should they take out the built in one?

What if I only really only want it for TV and media, should they put a weaker CPU/GPU in it?

Or if I'm going to control everything with the Kinect,

IMHO the kinect is as essential a part of the system as anything else, it's a part and parcel of the console. If they change that Kinect just becomes another gimmicky accessory.

sarumite · 08-08-2013 8:56pm

stevenmu wrote: »

What if I want to download all my games, should I insist they remove the blu-ray player?

What if I want an external HD, should they take out the built in one?

What if I only really only want it for TV and media, should they put a weaker CPU/GPU in it?

Or if I'm going to control everything with the Kinect,

IMHO the kinect is as essential a part of the system as anything else, it's a part and parcel of the console. If they change that Kinect just becomes another gimmicky accessory.

While agree with you, the essential part of the system has added 100euro to the asking price. Personally I don't think that extra 100 euro is worth it myself.

ShadowHearth · 08-08-2013 9:05pm

stevenmu wrote: »

What if I want to download all my games, should I insist they remove the blu-ray player?

What if I want an external HD, should they take out the built in one?

What if I only really only want it for TV and media, should they put a weaker CPU/GPU in it?

Or if I'm going to control everything with the Kinect,

IMHO the kinect is as essential a part of the system as anything else, it's a part and parcel of the console. If they change that Kinect just becomes another gimmicky accessory.

The things you listed are quite stupid, and yes, I presume you just taking a piss.

Your example would be same as going to dealership and asking to buy a brand new car with no Steering wheel, No wheels and no engine.

There are essential things, that we know should be there as standart and there are optional extras that are forced down the throat of consumer.

AlmightyCushion · 08-08-2013 9:22pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

The things you listed are quite stupid, and yes, I presume you just taking a piss.

Your example would be same as going to dealership and asking to buy a brand new car with no Steering wheel, No wheels and no engine.

There are essential things, that we know should be there as standart and there are optional extras that are forced down the throat of consumer.

It's fairly obvious that he's being facetious (I'm quite proud I was able to spell that first time without using Google) but it is a valid point. Look at the HDD. The Xbox 360 doesn't need a hard drive. It's not essential, they could just have the game run off the discs yet for the Xbox One Microsoft are forcing it down the throat of consumers (to use your own language) and not giving them a choice. Microsoft (and Sony with the PS3) are including the hard drive because they think that including it will increase the overall experience and the additional cost will be worth it. They think the same of the Kinect, hence why it is included.

If it used by developers as a crappy gimmick then Microsoft will be proven wrong. If it gets used in new and interesting ways by developers then it will be a big advantage for the console, could lead to more people increased console sales and Microsoft will be proven right.

stevenmu · 08-08-2013 9:23pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

The things you listed are quite stupid, and yes, I presume you just taking a piss.

Your example would be same as going to dealership and asking to buy a brand new car with no Steering wheel, No wheels and no engine.

There are essential things, that we know should be there as standart and there are optional extras that are forced down the throat of consumer.

I am slightly taking the piss, of course I'm not suggesting anyone would actually not want one of those things. But my point is that the Kinect isn't just an accessory that you are being forced to buy, it's an essential part of the system, just like the blu-ray drive, hard disk, controller etc.

To stick with your analogy, the Kinect isn't heated seats, or electric windows, it's the accelerator and brake pedals. And they're every bit as essential as the steering wheel or engine.

sarumite wrote: »

While agree with you, the essential part of the system has added 100euro to the asking price. Personally I don't think that extra 100 euro is worth it myself.

I saw a quote somewhere that it's a lot more than 100 euro, and is almost half the price of the system. That makes some sense when you consider that Sony can use GDDR5, faster GPU etc for 400 euro, without the Kinect the Xbox would probably be much less than 400.

But if it's not completely integrated into the system, it becomes a novelty accessory again. Microsoft are taking a big risk/bet by going for a more expensive system than Sony, but I think only time will really tell if it's worth it or not.

sarumite · 08-08-2013 9:26pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It's fairly obvious that he's being facetious (I'm quite proud I was able to spell that first time without using Google) but it is a valid point. Look at the HDD. The Xbox 360 doesn't need a hard drive. It's not essential, they could just have the game run off the discs yet for the Xbox One Microsoft are forcing it down the throat of consumers (to use your own language) and not giving them a choice. Microsoft (and Sony with the PS3) are including the hard drive because they think that including it will increase the overall experience and the additional cost will be worth it. They think the same of the Kinect, hence why it is included.

If it used by developers as a crappy gimmick then Microsoft will be proven wrong. If it gets used in new and interesting ways by developers then it will be a big advantage for the console, could lead to more people increased console sales and Microsoft will be proven right.

Considering the prevalence of day one patches as well as both the XBLA and PSN store, the addition of a harddrive was imo essential for proper running of the system as was absolutely necessary for MS and Sonys monetary plans in a way that the kinect is not.

TNT2k_ · 08-08-2013 9:28pm

stevenmu wrote: »

What if I want to download all my games, should I insist they remove the blu-ray player?

What if I want an external HD, should they take out the built in one?

What if I only really only want it for TV and media, should they put a weaker CPU/GPU in it?

Or if I'm going to control everything with the Kinect,

IMHO the kinect is as essential a part of the system as anything else, it's a part and parcel of the console. If they change that Kinect just becomes another gimmicky accessory.

Except it's not essential considering you can use a traditional controller for the games and to navigate the menus. The kinect is just an optional extra way of interacting with the box, it's not essential because you can manage fine without one, and for a huge amount of games that aren't 'kinect only' it wouldn't work as well as with an ordinary controller.

It's great if you that's what you like but it is gimmicky. All motion controls have shown they are gimmicky and not as good and practical as their traditional counterparts. That was true for the Wii and PS Move, as well as the first gen Kinect.

ShadowHearth · 08-08-2013 9:46pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It's fairly obvious that he's being facetious (I'm quite proud I was able to spell that first time without using Google) but it is a valid point. Look at the HDD. The Xbox 360 doesn't need a hard drive. It's not essential, they could just have the game run off the discs yet for the Xbox One Microsoft are forcing it down the throat of consumers (to use your own language) and not giving them a choice. Microsoft (and Sony with the PS3) are including the hard drive because they think that including it will increase the overall experience and the additional cost will be worth it. They think the same of the Kinect, hence why it is included.

If it used by developers as a crappy gimmick then Microsoft will be proven wrong. If it gets used in new and interesting ways by developers then it will be a big advantage for the console, could lead to more people increased console sales and Microsoft will be proven right.

Sorry, but hard drive is a very bad example. In fact having some sort of storage on consoles is now a standart. The difference is the amount of that storage.
Sony and MS are offering 12gb and 4gb versions of PS4/360 already. Wii U got 8/32gb and external hdd if you want, So yeah, HDD ( or storage ) is integral part. Even so, they still gave us an option to buy console with hdd, or skip on it. To be honest, HDD is a lot more important part of a console then Kinect. You will be using "storage" every single time, wheres kinect most likely will be used only because it was forced on you by MS. Same like Sony is forcing developers to make all games cross play with Vita, but Sony is not forcing you to buy vita by bundeling in Vita.
Just because MS forced it and use marketing as "essential part" it does not mean I NEED IT. As mentioned above, you can control everything with your controller more efficient then with kinect. Its an optional thing, not essential part of the system. Just because someone calls apple an orange, does not mean it is orange.

FlyingIrishMan · 08-08-2013 9:52pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rIJmGj4g-s&feature=youtu.be

AlmightyCushion · 08-08-2013 10:18pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Sorry, but hard drive is a very bad example. In fact having some sort of storage on consoles is now a standart. The difference is the amount of that storage.
Sony and MS are offering 12gb and 4gb versions of PS4/360 already. Wii U got 8/32gb and external hdd if you want, So yeah, HDD ( or storage ) is integral part.

Of course storage isn't optional. They need somewhere to store the OS. I was talking about a large hard drive as opposed to a small amount of flash storage. A few GBs of flash storage would be essential. 500GBs of space is not essential and it would be easy to make it so the console doesn't require it just like the Kinect.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Even so, they still gave us an option to buy console with hdd, or skip on it.

Not with the PS4 and Xbox One they aren't. Why not make the HDD optional for people who don't want to store media on it, don't care about faster load times and less noise that installing on the hard drive offers or don't want to download games and content?

Microsoft are taking a gamble with the Kinect. By including Kinect, it's more likely to be used by developers. If it gets used right it could be a big selling point for the console and the gamble has paid off.

stevenmu · 08-08-2013 10:27pm

TNT2k_ wrote: »

Except it's not essential considering you can use a traditional controller for the games and to navigate the menus.

It is essential if developers start to use it and build it into their games.

Richard Dower · 08-08-2013 10:36pm

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/pay-play-xbox-one-playstation-4-differ-premium-features-6C10874607

ShadowHearth · 08-08-2013 10:45pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Of course storage isn't optional. They need somewhere to store the OS. I was talking about a large hard drive as opposed to a small amount of flash storage. A few GBs of flash storage would be essential. 500GBs of space is not essential and it would be easy to make it so the console doesn't require it just like the Kinect.

Not with the PS4 and Xbox One they aren't. Why not make the HDD optional for people who don't want to store media on it, don't care about faster load times and less noise that installing on the hard drive offers or don't want to download games and content?

Microsoft are taking a gamble with the Kinect. By including Kinect, it's more likely to be used by developers. If it gets used right it could be a big selling point for the console and the gamble has paid off.

Hdd could be optional, yes indeed. But tell me, what would you take if you could choose only one: kinect or 500gb hdd?
Hdd being part of bundle makes more sense then Kinect.

Xenji · 09-08-2013 9:55am

The main reason I am going with the PS4 is the Indie Games, a lot of developers have complained about Microsoft and how they have been treated by them, they have burned a lot of bridges with them and you will see far more games coming out on the PS4 than the Xbox One, plus the PS4 architecture was designed with developers in mind and many have commented on how much more simplistic the process is now to create a game.

C14N · 09-08-2013 10:43am

sarumite wrote: »

Considering the prevalence of day one patches as well as both the XBLA and PSN store, the addition of a harddrive was imo essential for proper running of the system as was absolutely necessary for MS and Sonys monetary plans in a way that the kinect is not.

But day one patches and such only came about because of the existing storage that was available to devs. Who's to say that next generation there won't be some use of Kinect that will have people saying "considering the prevalence of feature X, having Kinect is pretty essential"? The industry survived for a very long time time without the patches after all and it wasn't a thing that gamers everywhere were talking about back in 2005/6 iirc.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Sorry, but hard drive is a very bad example. In fact having some sort of storage on consoles is now a standart. The difference is the amount of that storage.
Sony and MS are offering 12gb and 4gb versions of PS4/360 already. Wii U got 8/32gb and external hdd if you want, So yeah, HDD ( or storage ) is integral part. Even so, they still gave us an option to buy console with hdd, or skip on it. To be honest, HDD is a lot more important part of a console then Kinect. You will be using "storage" every single time, wheres kinect most likely will be used only because it was forced on you by MS.

Yes, it is the standard now. It wasn't until this generation. For all we know, having some Kinect-like device will become the standard next generation. I just want to re-iterate that although storage might now seems essential, we were all quite happy to play games without it for the majority of video game existence.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Hdd could be optional, yes indeed. But tell me, what would you take if you could choose only one: kinect or 500gb hdd?
Hdd being part of bundle makes more sense then Kinect.

That's missing the point. What he was saying was that it's not about personal preferences, it's about charging a higher price to include features that someone will want. There are a lot of XBO features that you may think are important but others wouldn't use at all but MS has included them anyway. There are loads of places they could have saved money because some people won't want to pay extra for a specific feature.

Some won't want the HDD, they would be happy to chop €50 off and put save games on a memory card or use their own HDD. Some don't need wireless controllers and wish you could buy a wired one to save money. Some won't want to play many games and wish they could save money on the processors. Some people have a wired connection to their TV and could save a bit on the wifi adaptor. I remember a lot of people saying the PS3 didn't need a Blu-ray player last time because it inflated the cost but down the line, the only reason I bought a PS3 was for the Blu-ray.

I was initially opposed to the Kinect as well but there were some good points made here. I still don't want one, I still have no plans to buy an XBO and it might still turn out to be a disaster but there's also the chance that a few years away it will be something really good.

sarumite · 09-08-2013 10:58am

C14N wrote: »

But day one patches and such only came about because of the existing storage that was available to devs. Who's to say that next generation there won't be some use of Kinect that will have people saying "considering the prevalence of feature X, having Kinect is pretty essential"? The industry survived for a very long time time without the patches after all and it wasn't a thing that gamers everywhere were talking about back in 2005/6 iirc.

I disagree it some ways. (Day one) patches were only possible because of the existing availability of storage on consoles. Patches were used on PC games before they were common consoles and so the inclusion of patches wasn't something new in gaming, only in console gaming.

How will you choose between MS & Sony's new consoles?

Comments