@shiva1 I respect that, lol.
@Charal I never said it was the only selling point. If PlayStation wasn't superior to all competition in a number of other ways, I wouldn't even be interested. The point is that it matters significantly. I bought PS3 at launch, and although it was technically more powerful, it was so complicated for devs that PS3 versions of multiplats were worse for several years (Burnout Paradise being the first notable title I remember being superior ...
Lol I'm getting downvoted, but you can't just build the less powerful console with a far less complete backwards compatibility solution (which to be fair is being misrepresented, they never said only 100 games, they said most games and had tested the 100 most popular as a benchmark) and expect to charge the same amount of money as the competition. I mean, yes, Sony will always have the best new games and a superior controller, but the price has to be right based on the machine itself....
Ugh. As someone who has bought every piece of PlayStation hardware, PS5 really needs to be at least $100 cheaper than XSX to make any sense at all. Which, to be fair, may end up being the case, because rumors suggest that XSX is basically going to be the "pro" version of the Xbox and there is going to be another cheaper version (which inevitably will be the primary version of the console if it exists). If there's a $400-$450 version of the Xbox, they can probably get away with $...
This will be fine as long as Sony prices the PS5 appropriately.
Imagine making your experience worse (or saying you are going to do so), just to win credibility points online.
False. It outsold the original Xbox. People have crazy expectations for MS based on the 360, which was only able to sell so well because Sony repeatedly shot itself in the foot by delaying PS3 a year and then launching at $600, mistakes it never completely recovered from in the U.S. Without Sony actively sabotaging themselves, 50m for Xbox is quite respectable, especially since they don't have the global reach Sony does.
I'm glad the arguments against digital on here have gotten so stupid that people are taking my comment seriously.
Hey, I'd much rather buy a physical copy for 20 so I can get 10 out of it later. This digital copy will be worthless.
It's insane to think that Sony was just clueless as to what they had with Socom. If they had been more forward-thinking with cultivating a first party brand (like they ultimately did later in the PS3 era), Socom could still be one of the major multiplayer titles today.
If you could play Warhawk with bots like the PS2-era Battlefront games (as in full multiplayer style matches, not a dumbed down mode), I don't think I ever would have stopped playing.
MAG wasn't able to compete with those games (in sales) because Sony had no clue how to market first-party exclusives during much of the PS3 era (indeed, they still haven't figured out how to market a multiplayer FPS). Much of what should have been the target audience have probably still never heard of it.
I do agree with the quality over quantity sentiment, in the sense that just because the casual COD/Madden/GTA crowd never knew about it and doesn't look back o...
I can't believe people play RuneScape.
Guys you know I'm a hardcore gamer because I played Morrowind and it's definitely better than anything else in existence.
Remember that Xbox fans have been telling us that games can be scaled to any system without holding the more powerful systems back, so obviously I'm sure they don't hold a totally inconsistent view about the Switch.
If Sony doesn't buy into the "ending generations" nonsense by then.
I can't tell if this is serious or a joke about the Series X not having exclusives.
It's insane that people are trying to ignore this very obvious truth. Glad you found a good example to point it out; it will be interesting to see if the usual suspects try to spin against this or just ignore your post. Ten points each time they say "scalable" or "scalability."
Why not still make all games for 360? Tons of people have them, and since it wouldn't hold the new consoles back, why not? Just repeat the magic phrase "scalable" a few times, and there will be no issue.
It's insane to me that there isn't a "it's $600 and you'll get extra jobs to pay for it" or a "always online, no used games" level of blowback to this (I cite these two examples to note that at a certain point each fanbase is willing to turn on its favorite manufacturer). I guess this shows that the Xbox One X strategy worked; that is, that people are now willing to shell out for a system even when no games are being specifically designed to take advantage ...
PS4 download speeds are already absurdly slow compared to Steam.