No one said it won't change. What can never said is Microsoft might have floundered in the beginning with no games. But everything else is now on point! This gen, clearly they're working on their first party IP. And from the looks of things, they've got some pretty amazing games coming down the pike. If Xbox levels up on first party games to match Sony, yet, they also have everything else on point like they do, that might be what wins next gen for Microsoft. Because they'll be a force to be reckoned with all the way around. That's what this opinion piece is saying. And its true.
Again with the, "power doesn't matter" schtick. Lol.
Both will be powerful and you can bet your bottom dollar that WWS titles will have some of the best graphics
This.
Thats already happening. Whats your point?
Yeah, MS is in the business of buying game studios so they can cancel their games.
I didnt actually. I dont care for Sony type games -- at all actually. Still, your point proves nothing. If power didnt matter there's be no need for a new generation. One of the first things gamers get hyped over is new hardware. The sole reason for that is for the upgrade in graphical fidelity. The more power, the more graphical fidelity. So dont sit and try to pretend it doenst matter.
This is what happens when you don't wait for more information to come to light. You end up making assumptions based on what you feel rather than on what you have observed.
Games arent the only thing that matters though. Because without the hardware, you wouldnt have games to begin with. And Nintendo does their own thing -- much different from the other big boys of the industry. No one expects them to release monster consoles simply because thats not their bag. When you're talking about Sony or Microsoft though, power is definitely part of the equation.
So far, FH 4, G5, OW, SoT and a couple others. The ship has definitely turned around for sure! And there's more coming. ..
Power DEFINITELY matters. Especially at the beginning. It literally sets a precedent for the rest of the console generation. This is why Microsoft went ham on the hardware construct and form factor of the series X. It makes a powerful statement just looking at it, not to mention the specs! But they aren't soley depending on the hardware and form factor of the Series X to win next gen. That's why the price, games, services, accessories etc matter to the overall strategy. And power is one of the big ones.
That has been the exception rather than the rule. The N64 was more powerful than the PS1. The Xbox and Gamecube were more powerful than the PS2. The PSP was more powerful than the DS. The Vita was more powerful than the 3DS. And the PS3 was more powerful than the 360. And even when the more powerful platform has won over its less powerful rival, it comes with an asterisk. In this case, the asterisk is the pricing. Even after Microsoft removed the Kinect in June 2014, the XB1 still cost the same as the PS4.
You're basically saying what Im saying. You said it in your own quote: " CONSUMERS DIDNT BUY THE PS4 BECAUSE IT WAS MORE POWERFUL. THEY BOUGHT THE PS4 BECAUSE IT WAS MORE POWERFUL WITHOUT NEEDING TO PAY EXTRA."
Uh no, I pointed out that there is no causation between power and market success. You can go as far as to prove a correlation, but that does not prove causation. Meanwhile, when I talk about price, it's pretty obvious. People don't buy a worse product that is more expensive or costs the same as the better product. There is far more evidence that proves that there is a causation between perceived value and market success than power and market success.
Yeah, if I respond with as much exaggeration as possible, that will somehow bolster my point. Surely, the amount of power is not determined by developer feedback similar to how developers wanted the PS4 to have 8 gigabytes of RAM...
AMD is far better than Nvidia on the flop per dollar basis, but Nvidia trounces AMD in GPU sales. Why? Because power matters.
Correlation =/= Causation
Not really. Intel has all those advantages that you listed for Nvidia, and AMD was in the same position with them. Performance per $ AMD CPUs were far better value than Intel, but AMD lagged behind big time. They close the power gap and what do you know, AMD wins back the customer. It just is what it is.
And how do you know definitively that it is because of power not due to other factors?
This is a false dichotomy and a non sequitur on top of that.
It's true, though. Power only matters when determining the choice of a base console, and really it's not as essential as things like first party exclusives.
Good points. However, you can use the same argument about target audience and demographics for the PS4 and XB1, as well. Obviously, the difference in demographics between the PS4 and XB1 are not has drastic as that between the Switch and XB1. However, look at how much Sony emphasized first player games from their 1st party developers compared to Microsoft.
So yes, more power sells.
When people see PS5 games from 1st party, they won't care about who has more Teraflops, just like how it is now with the X1X being more powerful
Ad nauseam proof by assertion fallacy. You haven't definitively proven that the better market performance is due to power alone or because of better perceived value vs. AMD's competitors. You've only proven that there is a correlation, but correlation does not mean there is a causation. Maybe find a poll on what Zen buyers were looking for because that would provide more solid evidence.
Didn't side step it at all. You proved my point. If they increase the performance of the GPUs to where is as good or better than Nvidia they will sell more units.
Let's review what I actually said, shall we?
It's easy to sell more units when you haven't released a high-end GPU in the market. Unless you want to argue that the Radeon VII counted as a high-end GPU, that was sold in extremely limited quantities and was EOL'ed not even a year into its lifespan.
Bullshit. At the start of a new gen, itll matter. Hard disagree here
