I agree partially. The cost is the main issue here but your comparison with graphics cards is not correct. Consoles are not just graphics cards anymore and have not been for a while now.

The bottom line for MS is that they need to show that the extra $100 is for something relevant and not to just core gamers. For the core gamers they need to provide games which they seem to be doing at this point. Where they have not succeeded thus far is in showing the other stuff that will sell the console. It is only 3 months in so there is lots of time yet but they need to get a move on.

Pushing out a good streaming capability (i.e. Twitch) would be a good start. It will make the Kinect more valid in the eyes of the gamers.

That is just a start however. They need more games that use the Kinect in unique ways which I honestly think will come from the indie community and not the big developers.

They also need to be pushing the social media aspect harder if they want a broader acceptance of the console. Thus far I have seen few new apps that will utilize the console or Kinect. I am assuming that this is going to come with project Threshold and the merging of the app store for all windows devices.

They also need to push their One Guide beyond the US borders. I know that it must be a monumental nightmare dealing with different content providers and the government regulations associated with each country but if they are going to advertise that as an advantage then they better make it work.

Hopefully with Phil focusing on getting us great IP and an eventual opening of the platform to not just indie game developers but other app developers we will see great things in the coming years.

@Megaton

"These guys are a joke. Flying the flag of anti-DRM for years on PC and then appearing on stage under Microsoft's boot with the most DRM-riddled console of all time."

I hate to burst your bubble but all the developers and publishers were as much behind the Online DRM as MS was. Sony was right there too. They just happened to have the good fortune of MS being the first out of the gate with their announcement giving them the option to drop Online DRM and allow the wrath to focus on MS.

Both consoles and games still support DRM. Go out, rip, and burn a PS4 or Xbox One game and try to play it and you will find out.

consoles are more about the exclusives and the experience. i get that people want to go for the better gfx. but theyre still not going to have things the other console dont have. no matter what you getting, you re getting what the companys want you to have, its a closed system. if each was $500, same tech inside, and couldnt even render games at 1080p, people would still buy them and accept it. i see alot of people state like its 1080p or nothing. i seriously want to know if they launched a system like this what would you do? most of what im hearing hate pc gaming and hate options. so if these new systems launch with tech that not much of a big leap would downplay it and skip this gen like yall seem to downplay wii and wiiu, or do like always and just bow and except it.

like people said on this site say dont try to compare it to pc. they go where performance is, but having the best hardware is not everything them. i can lower settings in game. options is right on pc. big budget to indies succeed on the platform. pc gamers support their games way longer then a few months after launch, even if it a low budget game with subpar gfx. people even accept paying for mp on consoles. so paying more for less seems kinda weird on consoles when everything seems to point to preference.

consoles maker make exclusive and buy exclusives for their platform. so thats what would make me buy a console over another. theyre going to have their differences, but its all about preference. not sure i get a console this gen tho. have a thing for not paying for mp, my internet bill is almost $200, so pay that is a smack in the face, plus the nickle and diming is ridiculous, i see more of this coming. maybe towards the end of the gen, soo i guess 3-4yrs

Well, XBO technically isn't more expensive hardware. We all know the console itself is cheaper than ps4. Kinect is $100-$150 so the combined package is more expensive.

I love how everyone is forgetting that ps3 launched with a blu ray drive, making it cutting edge. For awhile you could get a ps3 cheaper than a stand alone blu ray player. But no...360 definitely had the better hardware...I mean just look at games like The Last of Us and Uncharted, really showed off the 360s true potential....oh wait thats right, wrong system.

It's the same thing as last generation when the PS3 cost $599 and the 360 cost $399, yet the PS3 versions of multiplatform games looked and/or performed worse.

Actually there is one important difference: Sony CLAIMED the PS3 was more powerful and it's no wonder that people were like "WTF?" when they found out that the console they paid more money for and were led to believe was more powerful actually had worse graphics on multiplats.

It makes sense why that got some attention.

Anyway, here is a quote from the interview:

"It’s a different story when a game looks bad or plays choppy but, based on my observations, it’s frequently the case of simply feeling better/worse because my hardware is better/worse than your hardware, and not how it really affects gameplay."
http://www.igameresponsibly...

Well, I feel that graphical fidelity does have an important impact on one's experience of a game, but I'm consistent about it. Graphical fidelity always matters to me and I buy all of my multiplatform games on the PC.

But I completely agree with him that when fanboys are arguing about resolution it's usually just a stupid epeen contest and a way to put down other people and their choices.

@nicksetzer1

The PS3 was more powerful, had Bluray, built in wifi, and HDMI at launch. Plus free online.

You had to buy another Xbox for most of this with services still behind a paywall. Plus at launch the HD DVD player and wireless adapter costed more than the PS3. The Xbox was cheap to buy as just a box and an entire year early.

So your comparison doesn't stand. PS4 is cheaper and more powerful.

EVERYONE BUY THIS GAME ON GOG.COM BECAUSE ALL THE MONEY GOES DIRECTLY TO CD PROJECT AND THEY DONT HAVE TO SHARE THEIR HARD WORK WITH STEAM OR ANYONE ELSE. PLUS YOU GET A DRM FREE VERSION OF THE GAME.

"I was not happy with many of the PS3 ports for multiplatform games especially not only because the console cost more compared to the 360"

I am not tossing this at you Orange, but since cost is one of the factors in the current debate and X1 supporters keep attempting (quite in vain) to draw parallels with the PS3 and the X1, let's break that down.

A 360 at launch for $399 and a PS3 for $599. Now let's include the cost of 7 years of Live and 7 years of PSN. Not PS+ because we are strictly examining the cost of being able to play the other half of the game for which you paid full price and by that other half I mean Multiplayer.

Of course we could go further and look at the cost of an HDD upgrade for the PS3 versus that outrageous HDD for the 360. The fact that the launch 360s did not come with HDMI out. We could look at MS sticking it's buyers with that doorstop HD DVD versus Sony packing the de facto next gen disc standard. We could also examine the launch 360s which did not ship with built in WiFi. Sony used an industry standard USB cable for the play and charge where as MS asked you to purchase a separate proprietary cable on launch 360s. But we will not stare down the barrel at those additives.

When you total the costs, even for basic operation the PS3 was less expensive over the generation. It is deceptive to some. Many people have the "buy it now because it looks cheaper" attitude. Sleight of hand takes them in completely. I would love to see the investment strategies and portfolios of some of these individuals. These are the same people that buy from these rent to own furniture stores because the upfront price hooks them in like a barker at a sideshow.

There are some people that will attempt the absurd remark of, "Well you did not need to buy Xbox Live" Yes you did. Otherwise, so many games are completely devalued for you. You paid the same full price for the game as people that had Live now you are only able to play SP. There was not a price break for you because you only had half a game. In many cases you had less than half as what truly made the game possess any replayability or longevity was the multiplayer.

This poor invalid attempt X1 supporters have made on cost comparison has no basis in fact. Period.

With the PS3 / 360 debate, the big games I remember being used to make the "multiplats are better on 360" argument were GTA4, Red Dead Redemption, Bioshock, Call of Duty, Fallout 3, Orange Box, Bayonetta, and Resident Evil 5.

All of the COD games ran at the same resolution on both consoles except for Black Ops, which was 1040x608 (360) vs 960x544 (PS3): 21% higher resolution on 360.

The Orange Box, Fallout 3, RE5, Bayonetta, (and most other games used in the argument) were 720p native on both systems, and it was just some framerate/performance differences between the two versions, but not native resolution, that was used to make the argument.

GTAIV & RDR were 1280x720 (360) vs 1152x640 (PS3): 25% higher resolution on 360.

Bioshock ran in 680p for the PS3 and 720p for the 360, and that is just a difference of about 12% higher resolution for the 360 version.

And it wasn't universal in the favor of the 360. It was largely just a question of which was the lead platform. Final Fantasy XIII ran at a higher resolution on PS3.

For the most part, games ran at the same resolution on both systems, and in the case where it was different, games ran within 25% of the same resolution in all examples I can think of except for FFXIII & Ghostbusters, which ran at the same exact resolution discrepencies across the two systems as one another (720p vs 1024x576, only FFXIII favored PS3 while Ghostbusters favored 360 with those resolutions). That's a 56% higher resolution, and that's the highest discrepancy I can find.

A big deal was made about games that were usually the same resolution, or within about 10-25% of the same resolution...

This generation, we're getting games that run at 125% higher resolution (1080p vs 720p) at the high end and others running at 56% higher (900p vs 720p) or 44% higher (1080p vs 900p).

And we're being told now that it doesn't matter? It's ridiculous how performance difference were harped on all last generation to say the 360 does multiplats better, while those difference were a lot smaller than the differences this time, when people are saying it doesn't matter and we should ignore the differences.

@"OrangePowerz + 20h ago | Well said

Obviously gameplay is more important then the resolution, but we wouldn't have those discussion if the more expensive hardware would have the higher resolution and framerate.

If nVidia or ATI would release a graphics card that is more expensive compared yo another card but offers less performance it wouldn't fare very well in hardware reviews."
_____________________________ ________________________

Gameplay is more important THAN the resolution, but proper grammar is more important THAN both. 8) I do agree with your post though.... Now and THEN I like to point these things out. Grammar Police out!

i think truthfully they just dont care. the mainly pc devs so none of the consoles is really impressing them. its more of been there done that. they only care about the games.