Microsoft employee: We can't really speak about specs because we have neither finalized our own, nor do we know the exact detail of Sony's hardware, but both hardware are very capable and in the end, it'll be all about games.
Gamers: DAMAGE CONTROLLLLL!!!
Although the entire totality of your post can be summarized as 'wild fan makes over-the-top generalizations in an attempt to obscure reality', I think there is still some entertainment value (and perhaps genuine debate) we can gain by breaking down this silliness.
1. Do you really believe that in just over 5 months to go to launch, the vast majority of the specs are not nailed down? Do you think that this is a valid excuse to simply not analyze what we already know to be true?
2. Do you believe if it WERE true that they were scrambling to modify the specs at this late hour that it'd be a
good thing? That'd scream half-baked console design, not intelligently designed engineering philosophy that is going to yield great results.
3. It
is damage control. This is undeniable. Refusing to get detailed about your own system specs, even when everyone knows it's far weaker than PS4, and then saying 'um they'll both be capable though' is almost by definition damage control.
Is it wrong for people to point that out?
Microsoft employee: Can you think of any way in which one hardware that seems worse on paper end up actually performing better in real world tests in some ways? The answer to that question is why we're not releasing specs so far.
Gamers: HAHA! So your console is significantly weaker. Confirmed. Go home marketer.
It's patently absurd. Microsoft has lied about every single thing related to their console since things started being leaked about it early this year; literally
every single thing. Now, because they've been caught flatfooted and everyone in-the-know has already come to the conclusion that XBO is inferior to PS4 in virtually every way technically, they're trying to hide behind 'well we have some secret sauce but we can't reveal it. But trust us, it doesn't seem as bad as it does!'
That is classic misdirection, and almost always false. But if you believe they deserve that benefit of a doubt, don't you think the weight is on you to demonstrate why this should be the exception?
Why does Albert even bother? Seriously? We know the XBO is weaker than the PS4 in many ways. But they shouldn't even bother trying to have a discussion about it. They really should let the games speak for themselves, like at E3.
Why should they bother? Because it's about keeping consumers informed. "Letting the games speak for themselves"
alone is highly suspicious as it is for any platform that hasn't released yet: game engines are highly underdeveloped as devs/pubs rush for launch window, the power of both systems aren't even close to being tapped due to the predominance of cross gen ports and relatively fewer exclusives that have really begin to dig under the hood.
Example of why this is important ->
Up until February 21, almost every dev - including all of Sony's first party devs - thought the platform was going to have 4GB of GDDR5. They were all working on engines that understood that inherent limitation. Now they're suddenly working with DOUBLE that. Do you think 'letting the games speak for themselves' is adequate then? Of course not.
Same is true if Microsoft really did improve any specs we don't know about yet.
Therefore, it is essential you lay your cards on the table with potential consumers. It is almost your obligation to do so, so that any potential customer can weigh the cons/pros and decide with their fully educated minds.
Everything needs to be considered: The Kinect 2.0, Microsoft's investment in Cloud and TV tuning, their haptic feedback rumble triggers and XBL; and Sony's touch pad, light indicator, investment in Gaikai and PS+. And yes, the power. And the only way to compare the relative value of the power included in the system, which directly and dramatically impacts the quality of games, we need to know what's under the hood.
Do you not see why it's important as a consumer? Only a
corporation would have a different view on the subject, because they have only their own best interests at heart.
Microsoft therefore has a vested strategic interest in being dishonest about the specs, because it would reveal a system that is significantly inferior to the PS4 and yet costs $500. At the same time, consumers must weight that PS4 is technically superior @ $100 less, but does not come with a camera-like device.
Don't come to a forum, which has an incredibly skewed view of your corporation (due to numerous communication missteps), and try to rationalize with them. It's not going to get you anywhere. Just take the hardware you have, and try to make the best games you can, and let them do the talking.
Uh oh guys, here comes to persecution complex. Guy registers and posts on a forum where he is clearly a fanboy for a particular company that he believes everyone is being big meanies to (in before "I own every system herpity"), and then goes around claiming how SKEWED everyone is on it.
Nobody is SKEWED about the corporation. The CORPORATION released a series of incredibly hostile strategies toward consumers, consumers consist of 100% of this forum population (and every forum population), and the immediate reaction was extremely negative and protective of one's territory.
If Microsoft had not done that, the forum would be engaged in an entirely different bit of theatrics right now. When Sony shit on gamers faces with PS3, this forum did not let that system live it down for years ("$600", "Get a second Job", Why are they focusing so much on Blu-ray to the detriment of their gaming market share, the disaster of Vita at market). When Nintendo shit the bed with its various strategies toward early 3DS, the forum was extremely negative until Nintendo turned it around with the price drop and ambassador program and a slew of games. Same will be true of Wii U if that times come.
Now it's Microsoft's turn to take the shit. And the only difference is is that what Microsoft did was a far more egregious violation of our respect than any company before. That's why it seems relatively louder: not because of any inherent slant or skew of whatever else fills your lakes of tears so you can get through the day to justify whatever warped perspective this train of thought requires.
The worldwide audience won't give a shit about bickering over specs on paper if you just show games and leave it at that.
And of course Microsoft is being "hypocritical" now. Sony was championing the power of the PS2 against the Dreamcast, but shut up against the GCN and the Xbox. Then they were championing the power of the PS3 for the first few years (E3 2005/2006), but then they quickly backed down when most games ended up performing better on the 360.
Are you fucking kidding me? The PS2 dominated the power discussion for that entire generation, and was a pivotal selling point for that platform. Sony continued to talk up its power throughout the entire gen, and the only reason it may seem to you why they reduced the talk is because they had already won the power war with their messaging. By the time GCN and Xbox came out, it was unnecessary for Sony to waste AS much time talking it up as they were... the media already took the ball and ran with it.
Y2Kev summed this up much better than I ever did:
I'm so frustrated by this power thing. The PS2 came out more than 18 months before the Xbox. The console gen was decided before the Xbox was released; it could have been weaker than the PS2 and
it would not have mattered. The whole conversation is meaningless; it does not reveal anything about consumer choices or consumer tastes.
However, if you examine the PS2 in the context in which it was released, you would surely realize that power was a key component of how the system was marketed to consumers. You would know:
- That the hardware components were given humanizing marketing names like "Emotion Engine" and "Graphics Synthesizer"
- That the PS2 was reported on in the media as being a supercomputer ("Sadaam Hussein is importing them TO LAUNCH MISSILES!")
- That the famous "PS9" ad linked the PS2 to a chain of consoles so powerful it became part of your mind
- That Kutaragi spoke about the PS2 as having "Toy Story like graphics" and that players would "jack into the matrix"
Stop being so intellectually dishonest. The PS2 was a monster when it came out. That power mattered.
Yes, it's true that, "The most powerful console has never won the generation!!!!111" But such an observation is facile and meaningless. The SNES and Genesis went head to head on power. The early days of the PS1 vs. Saturn was nothing but a 3d pissing match. The N64 was all about power and it debuted with a paradigm-shifting 3D title. The Dreamcast was a powerful machine ("it's thinking") and the PS2 came out and blew it away.
Am I saying the most powerful machine wins? No. Am I saying power is very important? Absolutely. Even this generation more consumers chose HD gaming machines than non-HD gaming machines and there is the possibility that the PS3 will close out the gen in first place.
So stahp.
I think this is enough to get this discussion started.