Support NeoGAF

[gofreak]

Microsoft can afford to a hit for couple of years in order to remain price competitive should Sony sell a weaker, cheaper console. We've also seen that they're putting something like 300 million to fund core development. They definitely seem like they're in the stronger position moving into next gen.

Sony, undoubtedly, has to be more careful with its money than Microsoft.

But I don't think either will make any big bets on hardware. I think we'll see similar power at similar prices. Certainly not the $200 gap of the gen we're leaving.

On a more general note about money...as above, Microsoft is obviously in a much stronger position than Sony financially.

However I think we might be looking at a situation of a big fish in a smaller pond vs a small fish in a bigger pond. Gaming is a really big deal for Sony. I don't think gaming is as big a deal for Microsoft. I don't think it is still the big strategic key they viewed it as before. I think that's reflected in how MGS has been operated over the course of this gen, which saw them lean down for profitability and sustainability. Microsoft is willing to make HUGE bets on things of strategic importance. And while gaming is one important front for them, I think they've realised it's not the front they should have really been paying attention to, and it has to more or less pay its way.

$300m - depending on the term of that budget - isn't something to get overawed by IMO. SCE's annual r&d budget would be 9 figures easily, and it's very consistent. I think an interesting thing to watch is whether Microsoft's development interest this coming gen will be more consistent than it was last gen. Microsoft's overall R&D budget is (only?) twice Sony's overall r&d budget, but Sony is now concentrating theirs on 3 areas, games among them. Microsoft is concentrating heavily on cloud and mobile. Sony is still making big bets on games - just not on the areas they once did. For example, cloud gaming is already a bigger investment than Cell ever was for them ($400m over a number of years). They've spent the same amount just on an 'in' to that arena. They'll likely spend hundreds of millions more on continuing development there in the next few years. I dare say, this is not an investment that would have been greenlit under Howard Stringer, and so speaks to games' priority under Hirai. And I dare say, it's a size of acquisition that Microsoft would be wary of from its games division today (their experiences with large acquisitions previously not helping).

So, yeah, there's undoubtedly a huge underlying difference in financial security between the two. But a resulting net investment difference in gaming may not follow, at all. In fact it may flow in the opposite direction. However on both sides I do not expect major bet-making on hardware subsidisation. I expect the bets will be on services and other peripheral hardware perhaps.

 

[AdventureRacing]

Sony, undoubtedly, has to be more careful with its money than Microsoft.

But I don't think either will make any big bets on hardware. I think we'll see similar power at similar prices. Certainly not the $200 gap of the gen we're leaving.

On a more general note about money...as above, Microsoft is obviously in a much stronger position than Sony financially.

However I think we might be looking at a situation of a big fish in a smaller pond vs a small fish in a bigger pond. Gaming is a really big deal for Sony. I don't think gaming is as big a deal for Microsoft. I don't think it is still the big strategic key they viewed it as before. I think that's reflected in how MGS has been operated over the course of this gen, which saw them lean down for profitability and sustainability. Microsoft is willing to make HUGE bets on things of strategic importance. And while gaming is one important front for them, I think they've realised it's not the front they should have really been paying attention to, and it has to more or less pay its way.

$300m - depending on the term of that budget - isn't something to get overawed by IMO. SCE's annual r&d budget would be 9 figures easily, and it's very consistent. I think an interesting thing to watch is whether Microsoft's development interest this coming gen will be more consistent than it was last gen. Microsoft's overall R&D budget is (only?) twice Sony's overall r&d budget, but Sony is now concentrating theirs on 3 areas, games among them. Microsoft is concentrating heavily on cloud and mobile. Sony is still making big bets on games - just not on the areas they once did. For example, cloud gaming is already a bigger investment than Cell ever was for them ($400m over a number of years). They've spent the same amount just on an 'in' to that arena. They'll likely spend hundreds of millions more on continuing development there in the next few years. I dare say, this is not an investment that would have been greenlit under Howard Stringer, and so speaks to games' priority under Hirai. And I dare say, it's a size of acquisition that Microsoft would be wary of from its games division today (their experiences with large acquisitions previously not helping).

So, yeah, there's undoubtedly a huge underlying difference in financial security between the two. But a resulting net investment difference in gaming may not follow, at all. In fact it may flow in the opposite direction. However on both sides I do not expect major bet-making on hardware subsidisation. I expect the bets will be on services and other peripheral hardware perhaps.

Except it has become incredibly obvious that there is a lot more at stake in this market than just games and both sony and MS are chasing this.

 

[mrklaw]

What would you choose if say, the ps4 was slated for 6 months after 720? or (god forbid) 12 months after?

My balls would explode trying to hold back my tech lust and I'd have to buy the Xbox.

I did the same last gen, bought both and then sold the 360 about a year in (bought one just recently to catch up on a few things). If MS are going to invest in first party again, then it might be worth having both at some point in the generation

Except one company makes tens of billions a year from their OS/Office factory line. The other company has serious financial issues. MS can afford to undercut the price a whole lot more than Sony can.

Doesn't matter. The Xbox line needs to make a profit. MS won't sink billions into that product line indefinitely. Three generations in it needs to stand on its own two feet.

 

[gofreak]

Except it has become incredibly obvious that there is a lot more at stake in this market than just games and both sony and MS are chasing this.

I don't think that's an 'except' to anything I've said really. The living room games box is absolutely important, but I think for Microsoft, they've realised they had their eye way more on that ball than on certain other balls they should have paid more attention to, and their focus has shifted commensurately. If you want proof of this, look at what MS is spending their R&D budget on the last couple of years. It has shifted to things that will get mixed into the games box, but the games box is one vector among many now, whereas when Xbox started out, Microsoft was almost treating it as THE vector. For Sony, the living room is what they do, but the games box also exists for its own sake. As it does now for Microsoft, but that games business for its own sake is less important to MS, I think, than Sony.

In terms of their relative interest in hardware subsidy...I'd stand by my prediction. You'll see it subsidised with alternative models, perhaps, but not with massive, competition-undercutting, loss leading. The flow of rumours suggests similar power at 'reasonable' prices on both fronts. It doesn't sound like one is going way overboard and eating the difference, but we'll see.

 

[ZombieFred]

Microsoft can easily afford to take a a loss on their hardware when they can regain that profit from their live and software revenue. If I was them I would do this option because the incentive of better hardware and functionality will attract the audience/early adopters that sinks in on buying DLC and other areas of their popular games and them getting a more slice of the higher margin with it. That's the way I see it for them in the long term. Live has already proven to be a giant success for them, and they do want to have the whole "multimedia" home hub device and will take an agressive stance doing this, they want to win the battle of the living room.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Your wiiu hate burns bright and stroooong.

What hate?

 

[AdventureRacing]

In terms of their relative interest in hardware subsidy...I'd stand by my prediction. You'll see it subsidised with alternative models, perhaps, but not with massive, competition-undercutting, loss leading. The flow of rumours suggests similar power at 'reasonable' prices on both fronts. It doesn't sound like one is going way overboard and eating the difference, but we'll see.

I agree but not because either company has less interest in the market but simply because that's a really stupid way to run your business. Sony and MS should have both learned their lessons from recent history to know that.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

However I think we might be looking at a situation of a big fish in a smaller pond vs a small fish in a bigger pond. Gaming is a really big deal for Sony. I don't think gaming is as big a deal for Microsoft. I don't think it is still the big strategic key they viewed it as before. I think that's reflected in how MGS has been operated over the course of this gen, which saw them lean down for profitability and sustainability. Microsoft is willing to make HUGE bets on things of strategic importance. And while gaming is one important front for them, I think they've realised it's not the front they should have really been paying attention to, and it has to more or less pay its way.

While achieving profitability was certainly important for them with Xbox 360, it was in many ways an opportunity that presented itself due to numerous mistakes Sony has made at the start of the generation. If you recall, Microsoft was extremely aggressive from 2005 to 2008, they only relatively mellowed out when it became obvious Sony wouldn't be an enormous threat, and Nintendo's Wii wouldn't be something they could successfully counter in the short term. "Leaning down" is not how I would put it, it was restructuring after the changes at the top. Their investment in Kinect was huge, and the number of studios they've opened and acquired over the past few years eclipses the number of studios they've shut down or let go. In fact, have they ever had as many studios as they do now? And many of them are hiring.

No, I don't think gaming's lost any of its importance for Microsoft, especially now that it's actually making them money.

 

[Bleepey]

See, I'm fine with that argument, if you ignore any and all features that it also entails.


Once you look at the feature set though, it's hard to argue you can get a similar feature set at the same cost anywhere else. In fact, it's impossible to argue you get the same feature set for a single cost anywhere else.

For example....say me and 3 friends bought the cheapest 360 @ $149, a copy of BLOPS II $60, and a $35 12 month Gold Card a few weeks ago. We all just spent $244.

Now, our goal is to have 4 player cross chat in any game...and if anyone wants to drop out..to continue talking in that same cross chat while the other guy plays something else, or watches netflix, or surfs the web. To do so we don't spend another dime or have to make any effort to connect/keep our group together. It's convenient, easy, and takes no effort or extra spending.

You show me any other system that can do that....that cheaply, exactly as I typed it....and that's including free internet.

Again, complaining about it is stupid.




Note: 90% of my gaming is PC based. I'd fall in the enthusiast....just below fanatic category.



Read the above. You'd have to pay more on other setups to achieve the above INCLUDING paying for Gold Live. In the PS3's case it can't even do a number of things during online games that a 360 can on LIVE..let alone a PC.

If your only interest is Neflix and Hulu...of course it's a stupid investment.

What about if I have 3 kids. Who want their own online account, assuming its $35 (which we know ain't the case but fuck it), by that's $140 a year, multiply by 5 that's $700 a gen then if next gen is long like this one.... That's over $1000 just for online or to use netflix. Meanwhile one PS+ account with discounts, vouchers, free months, better sales.......

 

[Iacobellis]

I don't care if the next Xbox is ~$100 cheaper than the Orbis, I'm not getting it because spending $60 a year for LIVE will automatically make the Orbis cheaper after two years. This isn't 2008 anymore, PSN is getting close to what LIVE offers. If Sony takes everything they added with the Vita and build upon that, it will be a no brainer.

 

[grendelrt]

I don't care if the next Xbox is ~$100 cheaper than the Orbis, I'm not getting it because spending $60 a year for LIVE will automatically make the Orbis cheaper after two years. This isn't 2008 anymore, PSN is getting close to what LIVE offers. If Song takes everything they added with the Vita and build upon that, it will be a no brainer.

Last 360 game I bought was Red Dead, cancelled Live after that and haven't looked back. Tired of paying to play multiplayer games when my PC, PS3, Vita, and even Wii/Wii U allow me to for free. I have owned every console since the PSX gen and this is the first time I contemplating skipping one next gen with Durango, mainly because of Live.

 

[Derrick01]

I don't care if the next Xbox is ~$100 cheaper than the Orbis, I'm not getting it because spending $60 a year for LIVE will automatically make the Orbis cheaper after two years. This isn't 2008 anymore, PSN is getting close to what LIVE offers. If Song takes everything they added with the Vita and build upon that, it will be a no brainer.

The anti-gamer approach MS has taken since they started focusing on Kinect really turns me off of their next system, not to mention the online thing. I guess they could easily turn it around next gen and act like they did for the first few years of this gen but I'll have to see it first before I blindly jump in.

But yeah even if they do the $60 a year for basic online features and access to apps in the year 2013 is a massive turn off. I'm almost kind of hoping they stick to their current game philosophy so I'm not put in an uncomfortable position to make a choice.

 

[grendelrt]

The anti-gamer approach MS has taken since they started focusing on Kinect really turns me off of their next system, not to mention the online thing. I guess they could easily turn it around next gen and act like they did for the first few years of this gen but I'll have to see it first before I blindly jump in.

But yeah even if they do the $60 a year for basic online features and access to apps in the year 2013 is a massive turn off. I'm almost kind of hoping they stick to their current game philosophy so I'm not put in an uncomfortable position to make a choice.

Basically exactly how I feel, especially when the majority of 360 exclusives I wanted to play at the time were on PC as well as console ports where 360 had the edge over PS3. Right now unless MS changes their current strategy, I will go PC (foremost, just like this gen), PS4 and Wii U.

 

[i-Lo]

Bringing it back to performance, do you guys reckon we'll see fidelity like this in games with scale as large this, on either one or both next gen hardwares?

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

Bringing it back to performance, do you guys reckon we'll see fidelity like this in games with scale as large this, on either one or both next gen hardwares?

Of course, much more than that.

 

[AstroNut325]

Bringing it back to performance, do you guys reckon we'll see fidelity like this in games with scale as large this, on either one or both next gen hardwares?

You have to be trolling! I mean... Really? Almost all signs are pointing towards MS and Sony having powerhouse systems. They are not following Nintendo with 2008/2009 hardware.

 

[glaurung]

Kotaku + rumors = utter bullshit

Hmm. Actually:

Kotaku + anything = utter bullshit

 

[iceatcs]

Bringing it back to performance, do you guys reckon we'll see fidelity like this in games with scale as large this, on either one or both next gen hardwares?

Yeah should be. Console is far more much better optimal performance than PC because specified hardware.
At least PC will getting upper standard gaming too when next gen come.

 

[bud23]

Kotaku + rumors = utter bullshit

Hmm. Actually:

Kotaku + anything = utter bullshit

Of course, wise words.

 

[i-Lo]

You have to be trolling! I mean... Really? Almost all signs are pointing towards MS and Sony having powerhouse systems. They are not following Nintendo with 2008/2009 hardware.

How is it trolling? The game came out in 2007 and the GPU it's finally running steadily on with everything on "max" settings (AA, AF, texture detail, LoD etc) at "1080p" at least two years later on sub $350 (iirc) card. Crysis is still used as a benchmark in GPU tests. Even today, the game looks fantastic especially given the size of its levels (sandbox).

My level of expectation is that of Crysis 1 or Warhead running on very high if not max at 1080p on next gen consoles. This generation, we've seeing great detail, shading and texture work but pop-in, clipping, weird and harsh shadows, IQ (AA and AF) are still major issues.

 

[Maxrunner]

I just managed to swap a stock 7970 heatsink for an artic xtreme 7970 one. Its almost as big as a freaking ps3 slim lol....now that's power

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

How is it trolling? The game came out in 2007 and the GPU it's finally running steadily on with everything on "max" settings (AA, AF, texture detail, LoD etc) at "1080p" at least two years later on sub $350 (iirc) card. Crysis is still used as a benchmark in GPU tests. Even today, the game looks fantastic especially given the size of its levels (sandbox).

My level of expectation is that of Crysis 1 or Warhead running on very high if not max at 1080p on next gen consoles. This generation, we've seeing great detail, shading and texture work but pop-in, clipping, weird and harsh shadows, IQ (AA and AF) are still major issues.

I expect Crysis to be current gen's Half-Life 2 or Doom 3. Both those games were among the best looking PC games at the time, both had reasonably good approximations released on the original Xbox, and then full blown ports on current gen hardware. There are far better looking games on those same consoles nowadays.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

I remember a year ago people giving me crap for saying the next gen systems would at least have a video card equivalent of what I had. People scoffed at me saying it wouldn't be financially doable. I have a 6950. This place is really pessimistic sometimes.

 

[heyf00L]

I don't care if the next Xbox is ~$100 cheaper than the Orbis, I'm not getting it because spending $60 a year for LIVE will automatically make the Orbis cheaper after two years. This isn't 2008 anymore, PSN is getting close to what LIVE offers. If Song takes everything they added with the Vita and build upon that, it will be a no brainer.

Same. The Live service charge has been ridiculous for a long time (most notably for things like Netflix), but it's becoming more and more apparent. Sony needs to put more focus on this issue. This is several hundred dollars saved over a console's lifetime.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

Of course, wise words.

Whoa, nice call there. Like almost a year in advance...

 

[Biggzy]

Of course, wise words.

To be fair to Kotaku they were pretty much spot on.

 

[Mesoian]

I don't care if the next Xbox is ~$100 cheaper than the Orbis, I'm not getting it because spending $60 a year for LIVE will automatically make the Orbis cheaper after two years. This isn't 2008 anymore, PSN is getting close to what LIVE offers. If Song takes everything they added with the Vita and build upon that, it will be a no brainer.

I think everyone is going to be very surprised by the pricing of the Durango.

 

[kuroshiki]

I think everyone is going to be very surprised by the pricing of the Durango.

Really? pleasantly or utterly HOLY SHIT NO WAY FY MS.

 

[kodt]

I don't care if the next Xbox is ~$100 cheaper than the Orbis, I'm not getting it because spending $60 a year for LIVE will automatically make the Orbis cheaper after two years. This isn't 2008 anymore, PSN is getting close to what LIVE offers. If Song takes everything they added with the Vita and build upon that, it will be a no brainer.

What good is free online if you have no one to play with?

90% of my friends are on Xbox live so paying for online is much more rewarding than PS3 where I have a couple friends and then random internet people I don't know. Of course this is different for everyone, but price/features are not the only factor. If most of your friends love Xbox, it might be the best buy even if you think PS4 is better.

 

[BlockheadBrown]

I think everyone is going to be very surprised by the pricing of the Durango.

What are you basing this on?

 

[Übermatik]

PC/Wii U combo for me I think... unless the Durango/Dudongo/Django and Orbis/Orbit/5gum have something unique in their controller/design, I can't see myself splashing the cash on a machine that's almost as good as a PC today, but isn't. I may as well upgrade my gaming rig and get a Wii U for the Gamepad/exclusives.

 

[Biggzy]

What good is free online if you have no one to play with?

90% of my friends are on Xbox live so paying for online is much more rewarding than PS3 where I have a couple friends and then random internet people I don't know. Of course this is different for everyone, but price/features are not the only factor. If most of your friends love Xbox, it might be the best buy even if you think PS4 is better.

The same situation I am in as well.

 

[i-Lo]

I expect Crysis to be current gen's Half-Life 2 or Doom 3. Both those games were among the best looking PC games at the time, both had reasonably good approximations released on the original Xbox, and then full blown ports on current gen hardware. There are far better looking games on those same consoles nowadays.

Except that we're now looking at graphics (Crysis) that doesn't look anywhere as dated as Half Life 2 or Doom 3 even long after their time. Even when I was watching SW1313 or Watch Dogs, I didn't see a massive shift save the individual details, IQ and perhaps the draw distance (scale). I don't think it's fair for anyone to assume we'll seeing a shift as big as the last gen to current gen primarily because we're already in the realm of HD. The only thing that can now bring it to the next level are IQ, lack of pop-in, clipping, screen tearing and above all else, lighting.

 

[CitizenCope]

Like every thread in OT turns into anti-U.S.A. over here we have them all turn into Xbox Live bitching.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

What good is free online if you have no one to play with?

90% of my friends are on Xbox live so paying for online is much more rewarding than PS3 where I have a couple friends and then random internet people I don't know. Of course this is different for everyone, but price/features are not the only factor. If most of your friends love Xbox, it might be the best buy even if you think PS4 is better.

And, of course, if you have very specific exclusives you want to play, you have no choice. There will always be dissenting views on that issue, but as long as either approach successfully generates profit and growth, it's obviously valid. Many people, myself included, don't mind paying a little extra for a superior experience or product. From there it's only a matter of which service better suits your personal tastes.

Except that we're now looking at graphics (Crysis) that doesn't look anywhere as dated as Half Life 2 or Doom 3 even long after their time.

Unmodded Crysis? I wouldn't know about that. It's sure impressive on the technical level, but just looking at it, I'm not that impressed anymore.

 

[Sid]

PC/Wii U combo for me I think... unless the Durango/Dudongo/Django and Orbis/Orbit/5gum have something unique in their controller/design, I can't see myself splashing the cash on a machine that's almost as good as a PC today, but isn't. I may as well upgrade my gaming rig and get a Wii U for the Gamepad/exclusives.

If you aren't interested in any of the sony or ms exclusives (which is the true differentiating factor) like the overwhelming majority here this should be a very easy decision.

 

[Iacobellis]

What good is free online if you have no one to play with?

90% of my friends are on Xbox live so paying for online is much more rewarding than PS3 where I have a couple friends and then random internet people I don't know. Of course this is different for everyone, but price/features are not the only factor. If most of your friends love Xbox, it might be the best buy even if you think PS4 is better.

This is why I switched from PS3 to Xbox in 2009. I had a lot more fun on Xbox in about a year than I did for about 2 1/2 on PS3, but $60 per year + overpriced HDDs + a $100 headset aren't worth it. If I can get three close friends to pick up an Orbis, then I'll be fine. Whenever they aren't around, I'll have good single player games to fall back on, something the 360 lacks severely.

 

[AgentP]

Microsoft can easily afford to take a a loss on their hardware when they can regain that profit from their live and software revenue.

That's true for any console maker. It is the traditional model.

 

[THE:MILKMAN]

I can't believe the level of secrecy both Sony and Microsoft have managed. We haven't even had a press release.

For the 360 we had the ATI press release in Aug 2003 and for the PS3 we had the NVIDIA press release in Dec 2004.

I can't believe we have had nothing official even though at least one of these consoles will be out in less than a year.

I really hope we hear something within a month or two.

 

[Mesoian]

Really? pleasantly or utterly HOLY SHIT NO WAY FY MS.

Little of column a, little of column b

Personally, I think it's going to be one of those things that people flip out about initially, but eventually accept.

This is why I switched from PS3 to Xbox in 2009. I had a lot more fun on Xbox in about a year than I did for about 2 1/2 on PS3, but $60 per year + overpriced HDDs + a $100 headset aren't worth it.

Why did you buy that 100 dollar headset? Unless it's a nice turtle beach type deal that can work with everything, you got severely ripped off.

Just use the one that comes with the system. It's goofy, but the sound quality over voice chat is so terribad that it doesn't matter.

If I can get three close friends to pick up an Orbis, then I'll be fine. Whenever they aren't around, I'll have good single player games to fall back on, something the 360 lacks severely.

I think you're gonna have a lot of trouble doing that year 1. Probably year 2 as well.

 

[THE:MILKMAN]

Little of column a, little of column b

Personally, I think it's going to be one of those things that people flip out about initially, but eventually accept.



Why did you buy that 100 dollar headset? Unless it's a nice turtle beach type deal that can work with everything, you got severely ripped off.

Just use the one that comes with the system. It's goofy, but the sound quality over voice chat is so terribad that it doesn't matter.

So mobile phone model confirmed?

 

[Iacobellis]

I can't believe the level of secrecy both Sony and Microsoft have managed. We haven't even had a press release.

For the 360 we had the ATI press release in Aug 2003 and for the PS3 we had the NVIDIA press release in Dec 2004.

I can't believe we have had nothing official even though at least one of these consoles will be out in less than a year.

I really hope we hear something within a month or two.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/20/nvidia_source_confirms_ati_xbox/

Microsoft's own chief, Steve Ballmer, has said that the follow-up to the original Xbox will ship in Japan in 2006.

 

[flyinpiranha]

Little of column a, little of column b

Personally, I think it's going to be one of those things that people flip out about initially, but eventually accept.

Probably subscription I would guess. I wonder how the current sub plan is doing with the 360.

I don't personally like paying for Live, but my friends are there, I prefer the controller and 3rd party are usually better and I mainly play 3rd part games this generation.

I'm definitely getting the next Xbox as long as they don't completely fuck over my XBLA games or come at it with an insane pricing structure.

 

[shandy706]

I don't care if the next Xbox is ~$100 cheaper than the Orbis, I'm not getting it because spending $60 a year for LIVE will automatically make the Orbis cheaper after two years. This isn't 2008 anymore, PSN is getting close to what LIVE offers. If Sony takes everything they added with the Vita and build upon that, it will be a no brainer.

At the easily bought, constantly available, $35 a year you'll save money on the Xbox at $100 cheaper for nearly 3 years AND have the most complete online community and feature set. Hypothetically speaking of course.

So in your scenario you'd rather pay $100 more for what will most likely be an online experience with less features.....just to save money nearly 3 years later?

That's a bit funny.

I'll also entertain the idea of it being "close to Live". Why spend $500 for the same experience up front, when in your scenario, you could possible spend $435 for the same if not better experience?

I mean....is $70 in savings over nearly 3 years that huge of a deal?

No....no it's not. That's why Microsoft's current console is the best selling one worldwide now.

 

[Iacobellis]

Little of column a, little of column b

Personally, I think it's going to be one of those things that people flip out about initially, but eventually accept.



Why did you buy that 100 dollar headset? Unless it's a nice turtle beach type deal that can work with everything, you got severely ripped off.

Just use the one that comes with the system. It's goofy, but the sound quality over voice chat is so terribad that it doesn't matter.



I think you're gonna have a lot of trouble doing that year 1. Probably year 2 as well.

It was in fact made by Turtle Beach, a good ol' pair of X31's. I've had terrible luck with Microsoft headsets always refusing to work after some time, just $20 after $20 thrown in the toilet.

 

[i-Lo]

At the easily bought, constantly available, $35 a year you'll save money on the Xbox at $100 cheaper for nearly 3 years AND have the most complete online community and feature set. Hypothetically speaking of course.

So in your scenario you'd rather pay $100 more for what will most likely be an online experience with less features.....just to save money nearly 3 years later?

That's a bit funny.

I'll also entertain the idea of it being "close to Live". Why spend $500 for the same experience up front, when in your scenario, you could possible spend $435 for the same if not better experience?

I mean....is $70 in savings over nearly 3 years that huge of a deal?

No....no it's not. That's why Microsoft's current console is the best selling one worldwide now.

And the fanboy wars flame on (without facts). SMH.

 

[Kazuma Kiryu]

Little of column a, little of column b

Personally, I think it's going to be one of those things that people flip out about initially, but eventually accept.

thanks, but no thanks.

 

[quest]

What good is free online if you have no one to play with?

90% of my friends are on Xbox live so paying for online is much more rewarding than PS3 where I have a couple friends and then random internet people I don't know. Of course this is different for everyone, but price/features are not the only factor. If most of your friends love Xbox, it might be the best buy even if you think PS4 is better.

I really noticed that to. After my house was broken into a second time I could only afford to replace 1 game system. Chose the PS3 because of it is a bad ass bluray player and PS+. I have given up for the most part playing online with the PS3. It is like playing a single player game no one has any MICs. I really hope the PS4 has an included MIC. I am sucked into the Sony eco-system so unless the PS4 is a disaster that is what I will buy.

 

[McHuj]

I can't believe the level of secrecy both Sony and Microsoft have managed. We haven't even had a press release.

For the 360 we had the ATI press release in Aug 2003 and for the PS3 we had the NVIDIA press release in Dec 2004.

I can't believe we have had nothing official even though at least one of these consoles will be out in less than a year.

I really hope we hear something within a month or two.

I agree. I really think that there's no way they can keep things under wraps until E3. Had this been last year, sure. But now, E3 is about 6 months away and we expect reveals from not only MS and Sony, but tons of developers as well.

At this point, there must be hundreds of people involved (outside of Sony and MS) from the development of middleware, engines, manufacturing, to actual games games. I think it's only a matter of time before everything leaks.

 

[quest]

I can't believe the level of secrecy both Sony and Microsoft have managed. We haven't even had a press release.

For the 360 we had the ATI press release in Aug 2003 and for the PS3 we had the NVIDIA press release in Dec 2004.

I can't believe we have had nothing official even though at least one of these consoles will be out in less than a year.

I really hope we hear something within a month or two.

There will be nothing till E3 and I can't wait.