This is not an advantage for either console. I bet the average gamer who only buys COD and Madden doesn't know this. Power will imo always be irrelevant advantage if the differences are not hugely discernible i.e. Wii vs 360/PS3 where it was HD vs. SD.
This doesn't even make sense. An advantage IS an advantage - there's no way to dispute it. It's indisputable that Sony's added PS4 power is an advantage, and that having better quality multiplatforms is an advantage (same as having a first party that can take advantage of that much added power). Literally by definition it's an advantage. You're trying to argue that the advantage is
market-limited, but your argument for this seems to be rather poor. Such things have ALREADY helped systems in the past - it helped the 360. It was a common thing people mentioned over the PS3 in the early years. Remember,
it is word-of-mouth that helps sell systems more than anything else, every study done on the subject always confirms this. Word-of-mouth in THIS industry is almost always started by hardcore gamers. Word-of-mouth has been decisively in favor of the PS4 for months now. Many people already intuitively understand this because of what friends and family have mentioned, and those who don't either haven't tuned in yet or simply don't care about games. But, the point is it's an advantage any way you slice it. An argument that the advantage is "small" is one thing, but trying to say it's
not an advantage whatsoever is just absurd.
Also, power has always mattered to people. Since
our very own Y2Kev put it the most eloquently and succinctly, I like to quote his post for the argument:
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.
Power matters. PS4's power and its guaranteed multiplatform superiority is also an advantage. The only argument that can be made is about whether that advantage is big or small. Your argument would obviously be that it is small.
In my college I work as a resident assistant and this gives me a chance to come in contact with average gamers and when I can ask about why they chose their console of choice, it comes down to stuff like free online (PS3), cheaper price (Xbox), that's what my friends have etc. To me this generation will battled on price and user experience whoever finds the right balance between those two things wins. Brand loyalty does mean shit because this gen is unlike any other as it is coming off the back of the first online generation where users have become even more tied to the ecosystems they game on, things like achievements and trophies factor in.
Hah, of course. UNIQUELY, this will be the
first ever gen brand loyalty matters! Why, because online ecosystem! Obviously, since this is the only way to argue there is some inherent strength for the XB1, it's the way Xbox fans keep trying to defend it. But to me, it only has hints of truth. If we are going by ecosystem, the PS4 actually supports the last-gen ecosystem the best - things like most controllers and peripherals being supported by the PS4 out of the box. Gaikai being set up for PS2 and PS1 and PS3 legacy streaming. Since there are actually more PS3 owners worldwide than 360 owners, it's not exactly a statistical crowning for Xbox 360 either. Similarly, 30 million Xbox 360 users never even went online at all. Similar numbers for PS3. So you're looking at, what, 45 million gamers left who would have such an investment toward their gamertag and achievements (and slightly less for PS3)? And you think even a majority of them will be so attached as to skew the results? Well, I can tell you one thing... even if they get a lot of them, many people have already given up XBL for good after the fiasco. So no matter what, they will not be reaching the levels 360 has. Price + Heavier and Tighter competition + loss of all advantages had last gen = marketshare reduction all but guaranteed.
Brand loyalty only matters until the second consumers find something else that either performs better or performs equally but for a cheaper price. Consumers are neither as dumb as many think they are or as smart as some might try to argue, but these are simplistic strengths and weaknesses. They're being worn on their sleeve. Anybody is going to easily be able to distinguish what is going on. Microsoft has had nearly a full year of negative press over XBO versus PS4's nearly year straight of positive press. Only now, finally, after the 180s did things finally start occasionally turning positive for the XB1, and even that is tempered by the fact Microsoft keeps delaying or changing promises or fudging PR or exaggerating versus the PS4 to try to make themselves look better than they are.
Also if you think online matters to this degree where brand loyalty is magically going to make a comeback, then surely you have to factor in the online presence in general. Surely these people can go online at any time and stumble upon the endless negative articles or the endless positive responses toward PS4? The non-stop polls that showed a massive skew toward the PS4? Unscientific, yes, but certainly an indication of which side has the enthusiasm. The insanely slanted social media presence. Why also would gamers not be just as dedicated to their PSN trophies and gamertag and friends?
In other words, even if we want to say this will be a major consideration, it's just as likely to be advantageous for PS4 when you look at the complete picture. An even if I gave you the bulk of the argument, the pool of "dedicated" XBL people is too small to change the results enough to overcome a price difference as colossal as this. I was dedicated XBL last gen, almost all my online friends and family were on 360. Most of us have abandoned ship for PS4. Haven't been able to convince a few, but obviously loyalty only goes so far. Few people are obsessive enough over gamescore or trophies to give a shit about a move; it's not like moving a house or some shit. The friends or family being one place or the other would be a more important consideration, but again every gen simply is a reason for a fresh start. There's no reason why families wouldn't choose the cheaper and more powerful console for obvious reasons.
I'm surprised you're still making broad predictions like that given how wrong you were with your PS3 predictions, that alone is proof that companies can turn around and gain advantage on their competitors. Who knows what games will be released, what services, peripherals etc. that will be released over the course of this gen to swing the advantage to either side? No one does.
One, your first sentence here doesn't constitute proof of anything. Two, the heart of my PS3 prediction was right - it remained a destroyed business pillar that wiped out Sony's profits from PS1, PS2 and PSP. They only barely scraped out a second place win where before they insanely dominated in first place. How else do we determine success or failure other than marketshare and profit in terms of a business? People keep trying to bring this up because they hated the hyperbole, and I am not going to relitigate the comment for yet another topic, but the ultimate fact remains: PS3 was a failed business venture in every way that a business would track it (it drastically reduced their marketshare, destroyed their profits and in more than one way diminished Sony's reputation, with issues like the hacking scandal. That they turned it around into a good little system for gamers finally with astonishing PS+ values and a great library in the second half of its life does not change this core fact).
Now, what IS a more salient point is that no one knows what games will be released that will be a hit (INCLUDING indies, by the way), and no one knows if XBO or PS4 will have a game that may not even be announced yet that sets the world on fire.
But even with these undisclosed variables, it's not going to change the overall trajectory as far as I can see. That would have to be a pretty insanely huge game.
Barzul said:
Your point on which provides the most value Xbox Live or PSN+ is flawed because it just isn't easily measurable, someone can see free games on PS+ vs. Xbox Fitness, NFL stuff and dedicated servers and that is what they would consider as more valuable.
Most of that stuff isn't value-added because you have to PAY EVEN MORE for these features. Xbox Fitness? Free until Nov 2014 and then you have to pay a subscription. To get the most out of pretty much all aspects of the NFL stuff, you need to pay for yet more subscriptions.
About the only thing that is genuinely value-added, meaning you pay for a subscription and you just get it with it, is the dedicated servers, and even that is not for all games as far as we know. Microsoft just is offering them for cheaper than is typical because of their investment in cloud servers and their ability to have this space for developers. It's great, and I would totally agree THAT is an example of value-added. But is that alone enough to surpass the unprecedented values of PS+? I don't see any possible way that could be argued, but then again I don't understand what you see in a lot of your arguments.