What Does PS4 Have Compared to the Xbox One?

[Ventus]

So, if you want a console, go buy a Wii U or PS4.

Oh, yes this definitely. The PS4 is going to get a Halo-like venture entitled Destiny anyway, and it's also obtaining Kingdom Hearts III, Metal Gear Solid V, Final Fantasy XV, Call of Duty Ghosts, Battlefield 4, and many other awaited titles. For $100 less and for a lot fewer restrictions (though PS4 is adopting the ridiculous pay to play online model), I'd say the PS4 is a vastly better purchase than the Xbox One.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

By the way, Imposer: your claim that Sony hasn't announced their specifications is garbage. Heck, Sony announced theirs before Microsoft.

Source

 

[DeletedUser9]

Everytime I argue with my friends between the PS4 and X1, all they ever bring up is what they don't like about the X1, they never have anything to say about their console other than price, looks (its just the X1 slanted) and power.

So? Saying that criticisms of something are invalid simply because you can't defend the alternative in a notably better way is an argument that would suggest that the Soviets should not have helped fight the Nazis during World War II; the Soviet Union had a ton of moral issues of its own so if they aren't allowed to go against something because they can't defend themselves, they should side with it instead of fighting it?

Bottom line is people talk about the problems with the Xbox One because they are serious problems, and that alone is a solid argument. The fact of the matter is that looking at the things the Xbox One does -- no sharing games, requiring you to be always online, etc. -- all infringe on basic freedoms we've enjoyed as gamers, and rather sharply so. Even if you have good internet, that doesn't change the moral implications of it (and most are worried about the Xbox One being a success, as that could indicate this will be a trend that will grow rather than die with this console), and beyond that you will still have issues, because no matter how good your internet is, you will still experience outages for various reasons, and during those you will not be able to play your game. The same applies to situations where you are staying at someone else's house, for example, if they do not have a good connection. Being online for online games makes sense; having to be online for solo experiences doesn't, and the only reason it would ever be implemented is to exercise control.

If the moral implications of it do not bother you, then you're free of the entire reason that Xbox One is regarded as bad, but I would venture to say that if you do support it and it does become a success and even a leader in the things it's doing, the gaming industry will be an ugly place 10 years from now. And that's for you included; just because these specific issues don't immediately inconvenience you does not mean they, or further measures, will not in the future.

Now I don't really care about power, if I really did then I don't think I'd be a Nintendo fan. The way things look to me is that X1 has all the new stuff while the PS4 is just a souped up PS3. By the way the PS4 page on the Sony website is no help, it's one thing and all it does is vaguely describe its gaming capabilities mean while the X1 has pages. What does it actually have that makes it better than the X1? Certainly not games :chief: .

What new stuff does the Xbox One offer? The entertainment center aspect applies to both consoles, and is nothing new to begin with since the entire previous generation -- barring Nintendo -- was hellbent on it.

And the only games I'm even interested in on the Xbox One is Killer Instinct and Halo, and the former looks meh while the latter will be available on PC later. I don't see what my motivation for buying an Xbox One should be when the game offering looks more interesting on the PS4.

The X1 is basically a game and entertainment enchanced PC with exclusive titles. When was the last time you bought a hard copy of a game for PC? The Xbox One's system is going to be like steams. Really how good is a computer if you don't have internet? And unless you have a desktop you automatically get a webcam, you probably have one even if you do, and you had to pay for that to.

I really don't grasp how you can compare the Xbox One to a PC. Especially the notion of it being an "enhanced" one, when in fact it offers less of basically everything; every service it has is available on the PC -- and originated there, as you even pointed out with Steam -- and in a more advanced and modern form. If you think they're so identical, why not just get a PC? It's more powerful and will serve you in better ways. Furthermore it won't require you to be online unless you're actually playing online and you can do as you please with anything you buy.

In regards to the question about the last time I bought a PC game on a disk, the answer is pretty recently.

You guys aren't really giving me a reason to get a PS4 rather than an X1.

Guess PC's did everything wrong too then.

Have fun with your PS4 I'm still not gonna get one because I have perfectly fine internet.

Off topic I guess but I was just going to comment that this seems like an unusual tone to adopt when you're blatantly asking others for input regarding what you want to buy. Perhaps I'm misreading that tone, though.

 

[Ventus]

I really hate to downplay a death or to evade it for something so petty as a video game, but check this out Storms State-by-State: One Child Dead, Widespread Damage - weather.com

Severe storms...left more than 170,000 homes and businesses without power.

without power. This means no Internet. As someone who has been in several storms including multiday snow storms, I can say that the Xbox One is not the kind of system to have. Yes, no power means no playing any kind of system. But what if it was just the Internet stations that lost power, and not the powerlines? Then you could potentially play a game...but not the Xbox One, of course. What if you forget to pay bills, or something comes up where you have to deactivate your service for a few days? You can play a game...but not on the Xbox One.

And no, these situations are NOT obscene or ridiculous. They're almost everyday occurrences. Do you see where the problems are in the XONE? I do.

 

[Hanyou]

You guys aren't really giving me a reason to get a PS4 rather than an X1. The X1 is basically a game and entertainment enchanced PC with exclusive titles. When was the last time you bought a hard copy of a game for PC? The Xbox One's system is going to be like steams. Really how good is a computer if you don't have internet? And unless you have a desktop you automatically get a webcam, you probably have one even if you do, and you had to pay for that to.

Almost every game I've bought on Steam has been really, really cheap. Cheap enough that if I lost access to all of the games on my account, I wouldn't be down by too much money. That said, I sympathize with people angry about having to register their hard copy of Skyrim through Steam--where possible, there should always be alternatives.

On the other hand, I buy games on gog.com whenever I can. It's not about having physical discs, it's about owning what I spend money on. I can freely copy those files whenever I want, and if I take the proper precautions, I'll never lose access to them. In many ways, those gog files offer me more freedom than the cartridges or discs I own for consoles.

Also, in spite of being a lifelong SimCity fan (I loved 2000 and 3000 in particular), I boycotted the newest game for reasons not dissimilar to those people have for boycotting the Xbox One. EA's incompetence helped assure me that I made the right decision.

Really, broad, sweeping claims about what PC games "require" you to do are impotent and vague at best and ignorant at worst. PC gamers have lots of options, and Steam isn't the only one out there.

 

[JuicieJ]

I was initially going to respond to rip this comment apart in detail, but upon reading further posts, I'm jumping on board with DarkestLink and labeling this guy as a troll. Not even the biggest Micro$oft fanboy could actually agree with Don Mattrick and crew that this system is good for gaming.

(Spoiler tag just in case the phrasing of this next sentence is a bit too vulgar. Nothing along the lines of insulting Imposer, just talking about how terrible the XBONE is for gamers.)

Spoiler

It ****s consumers up the *** without lube multiple times and then proceeds to make us pay up for it, all while expecting us to think it was consensual.

Nooooooooo, no no no no no. No! NO! Only the most greedy of corporate mother****ers could like this thing. It's an abomination to all things gaming and has once and for all sealed Micro$oft's fate as an anti-gaming company on the EA level of the evil scale.

Microsoft, you dun goofed.

 

[Ventus]

Not even the biggest Micro$oft fanboy could actually agree with Don Mattrick and crew that this system is good for gaming.

See this is where you are wrong. Microsoft operates under the assumption that everyone is a richass mofo. It's precisely why Don Mattrick effectively said "if you are an offline player [meaning poor moneywise], stick with Xbox 360". Now, hypothetically if everyone were rich, the Xbox One would thrive.

...but that's hypothetically. Realistically, few people are rich or I daresay dumb enough to spend money on the XONE. And that's where it tanks. But, tanking is NOT a bad thing for gaming. There's nothing wrong with Microsoft tanking; the console wars need to be whittled down anyway but removing a giant like Microsoft with one bad horrid mistake is good for gaming.

So, the Xbox One is great for gaming assuming all goes well and XONE tanks. :yes:

 

[ILU]

PS4 doesn't have much more right out of the box than the XO. The major thing here is the offline problem, which I bet Microsoft will fix. I'm sure many things will be changed for both systems. If they were complete at this point, they'd be going on sale a lot sooner.

As far as price goes, they will be about the same. What Sony didn't mention is that the lower price point is for the standalone system and not everything else. XO's price range has everything included. So, there isn't anything extra from Sony there.

The XO seems like it will be more media-focused. I've seen a lot of people complain about that, but the same complaints were made when systems first began to play things other than games. People will get over it and eventually embrace it, I'm sure. I think that XO *IS* good for gaming, but for the social gamer moreso than those who prefer to play single-player games. Still, I can see Live Streaming and Let's Plays becoming a lot more social through XO.

The biggest seller at this point is just the amount of games coming out around launch for PS4. There's the free online pay thing as well, but there is no way to tell if the servers are an improvement over last gen's. Free isn't always good.... at least not for everyone. Even if they're bad though, they probably wouldn't be as bad as Nintendo's...

I really recommend checking out what Adam Sessler had to say about both systems. He can words things in a much more eloquent and entertaining way that I can. IMO, in the end, it'll probably come down to which exclusives you prefer if you can only afford just one of the systems.

 

[The Jade Fist]

You guys aren't really giving me a reason to get a PS4 rather than an X1. The X1 is basically a game and entertainment enchanced PC with exclusive titles. When was the last time you bought a hard copy of a game for PC? The Xbox One's system is going to be like steams. Really how good is a computer if you don't have internet? And unless you have a desktop you automatically get a webcam, you probably have one even if you do, and you had to pay for that to.

The computer doesn't tell you you can't use it for any function if the webcam isn't enabled and online.

edit:

I also want to chime in cause axle mentioned the fact the X1 as an entertainment system
But again there a huge rarely discussed downside here against with the arrogance of Microsoft. The X1 as shown already, has HDMI and only HDMI, thats both in and out.

So you want to use it as a cable box the the thing they were so proudly announcing for like an hour a few weeks back, well you better hope your cable provider provided you with a box that has HDMI out. And well whats the point of X1 as a cable box if you already have to have one hooked up, and the X1 can't record anything, infact all it can do is really switch over to the input, and look up a tv guide online, BUT >.>>>>> IF YOU ALREADY HAVE A CABLE BOX WITH HDMI AND INTERNET>>> YOU ALREADY HAVE ALL THOSE FEATURES WITH OUT THE XBOX ONE.

OH AND IF DON'T HAPPEN to own a fairly modern TV/ higher end TV, you probably don't have an HDMI port on it, so you'll have to find a way to convert that HDMI into HD AUX or AUX.

So, not only if you don't have great internet every single day of the year, if you don't own a good enough TV the Xbox one is also not for you.

I mean, what part of the machine and its philosophies actually makes sense?

Want to play games, too bad.
Want to watch TV, ok, wait why do you need the xbox one to watch TV, what ever you can do it in HD, but if you couldn't before you still can't.

Yay?

 

[DarkestLink]

I disagree with you, Ventus. Without MS, Sony has no competition and hold a monopoly. There's a reason everyone ignores Nintendo...they're going after a completely different audience. Thankfully Nintendo isn't too greedy or we'd be in trouble...but both Sony and MS have had their greedy money grubbing moments...and the main reason these are toned down is because we, the consumer, are allowed to have standards. This generation is going to be a reminder of that.

Now let's reverse it...imagine if Sony was gone and MS was still doing this. Well what are you going to do? You have nowhere else to go. Nintendo's an entirely different market. It's a casual market. You would either have to take MS's crap or just abandon hardcore gaming entirely for this generation. And likewise if MS leaves, Sony can get away with a lot more crap. Suddenly Sony could implement everything MS is doing. Or how about those ads they patented? They could get away with that because they're the only ones in their market. There's also price and without another source for multiplatform titles, you're stuck with Sony or nothing when it comes to those games, so are you ready to cough up the $600+ price tag?

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

I disagree with you, Ventus. Without MS, Sony has no competition and hold a monopoly. There's a reason everyone ignores Nintendo...they're going after a completely different audience. Thankfully Nintendo isn't too greedy or we'd be in trouble...but both Sony and MS have had their greedy money grubbing moments...and the main reason these are toned down is because we, the consumer, are allowed to have standards. This generation is going to be a reminder of that.

Now let's reverse it...imagine if Sony was gone and MS was still doing this. Well what are you going to do? You have nowhere else to go. Nintendo's an entirely different market. It's a casual market. You would either have to take MS's crap or just abandon hardcore gaming entirely for this generation. And likewise if MS leaves, Sony can get away with a lot more crap. Suddenly Sony could implement everything MS is doing. Or how about those ads they patented? They could get away with that because they're the only ones in their market. There's also price and without another source for multiplatform titles, you're stuck with Sony or nothing when it comes to those games, so are you ready to cough up the $600+ price tag?

PC.

 

[The Jade Fist]

I disagree with you, Ventus. Without MS, Sony has no competition and hold a monopoly. There's a reason everyone ignores Nintendo...they're going after a completely different audience. Thankfully Nintendo isn't too greedy or we'd be in trouble...but both Sony and MS have had their greedy money grubbing moments...and the main reason these are toned down is because we, the consumer, are allowed to have standards. This generation is going to be a reminder of that.

Now let's reverse it...imagine if Sony was gone and MS was still doing this. Well what are you going to do? You have nowhere else to go. Nintendo's an entirely different market. It's a casual market. You would either have to take MS's crap or just abandon hardcore gaming entirely for this generation. And likewise if MS leaves, Sony can get away with a lot more crap. Suddenly Sony could implement everything MS is doing. Or how about those ads they patented? They could get away with that because they're the only ones in their market. There's also price and without another source for multiplatform titles, you're stuck with Sony or nothing when it comes to those games, so are you ready to cough up the $600+ price tag?

They weren't always a casual market only, and they really shouldn't be or forced to be.

If Microsoft were gone, Nintendo would try to compete more head on, like they've done in the past, they wanted to side step the competition last generation, and it worked but that market is no longer obtainable to them.

Zelda and Mario although family friendly aren't explicitly casual games. Casual games are like Wii Sports and Pilot wings. Those games that have no substance but provide a bit of distraction, perhaps some fun with friends/family, but ultimately games you simply can't get engrossed in.

Zelda isn't a casual game, just because its kid friendly, it has that substance (well most titles). Only zelda title that you can directly call casual is Four Swords Adventure.

 

[DarkestLink]

They weren't always a casual market only, and they really shouldn't be or forced to be.

...I disagree. Nintendo always has, is, and always will be the casual company. Note: Please don't use 2D games for any potential rebuttal. They were hard because they were 2D. Almost all 2D games were hard, but even for 2D standards, Nintendo was on the easy side.

If Microsoft were gone, Nintendo would try to compete more head on, like they've done in the past, they wanted to side step the competition last generation, and it worked but that market is no longer obtainable to them.

It's the same casual market they've been appealing to since day one. Only difference is they were even more enticing with the Wii.

Zelda and Mario although family friendly are explicitly casual games. Casual games are like Wii Sports and Pilot wings.

I think you made a typo in there.

Those games that have no substance but provide a bit of distraction, perhaps some fun with friends/family, but ultimately games you simply can't get engrossed in.

That's not what casual is. Casual isn't just "inferior games". Casual games are easy family friendly titles. And if I'm honest with you, Wii Sports Resort is actually a lot harder to 100% than any Mario or Zelda game since the N64.

Zelda isn't a casual game, just because its kid friendly, it has that substance (well most titles). Only zelda title that you can directly call casual is Four Swords Adventure.

Again, lack of substance doesn't make a game casual...it just makes it crap. Zelda is easy and family friendly because it's not appealing to hardcore gamers...it's appealing to casuals--people who don't make gaming a huge focus on their life. People who need easy games to beat because they aren't experienced or serious enough to play hard games. Zelda is as casual as you can get.

 

[Imposer]

And our servicemen thank you for taking away their ability to play the next generation of gaming while deployed.



And Steam, which Imposer cites as something similar to the Xbox One system, allows us to play our games offline indefinitely.

They can play on the PS4. If you look on the pages MC has for its Xbox One (Which are far more impressive than the PS4's page) then you can see that they are really trying to sell it as something for the living room of your average american household. PS4 is just described as a more powerful gaming system. So if you just want to play games ge the PS4 but if I can get great games and a great living room entertainment experince then I'm going to get it. Here's a good article explaining some things, there is some language. If you read it the 24 hour checks are so that it can see if you've traded or sold a game so that you can't play it offline indefinitely. The engineer agrees it's bad and hopes they can get rid of it but right now it's really not that bad. http://www.neowin.net/news/anonymous-xbox-engineer-explains-drm-and-microsofts-xbox-one-intentions

 

[Ventus]

So if you just want to play games ge the PS4 but if I can get great games and a great living room entertainment experince then I'm going to get it.

Ehm what "great games" are you talking about? XONE does not contain any substantial game that PS4 doesn't bar Halo, but even then we're getting Destiny with exclusive content which E3ers have already described as being incredibly Halo-like.

That's not what casual is. Casual isn't just "inferior games". Casual games are easy family friendly titles.

...nope...

A casual game is a video game targeted at or used by a mass audience of casual gamers. Casual games can have any type of gameplay, and fit in any genre. They are typically distinguished by their simple rules and lack of commitment required in contrast to more complex hardcore games.[1] They require no long-term time commitment or special skills to play, and there are comparatively low production and distribution costs for the producer. —Wikipedia

Zelda and Mario are core titles. Stuff like Wii Sports Resort is casual. Just due to the nature of the game. :I

---

Alrighty, @Imposer, I read your link and I have to say that is still an absolutely horrible model for gaming. You know why Steam thrives with PC players? Because a lot of them are richass poor-decision makers. They can afford to buy some ****** game that costs only* $20, and if it's **** then who cares? But console players are not cut from the same bread. Obviously there are a lot of exceptions, but console players typically don't have money to waste upgrading their "rig" and all that madness. It's not cost-effective for them - they're poor people.

Now, that pastebin stuff was talking about how they want to curb used games. You know how you can curb used games without all of these pointless restrictions? Easy: make games that people actually want to keep. I'm pretty sure Miyamoto said this a couple E3s ago rather than just this past one, but I quote the man again:

We’re more worried about piracy and we think used games are a whole other story. In fact, from our perspective you want to create a game that people will want to keep and keep playing for a long time. That’s the approach that we always take and that’s the best way to avoid used games.

You see that? There's a reason why Nintendo games especially become hard to find after a generation is up. There's a reason why Nintendo games have such ardent fanbases - even annoying ones. It's because Nintendo makes goodass games. They don't make dumb shiz like Call of Duty (Craptivision) or Generic FPS 4 (EA). They don't make **** that leave players saying "Goddammit I'm selling this" after two hours of nothing but pure frustration. Again, they make GOOD GAMES.

EA and your other crappy *** publishers/developers complaining about used games are mad because their games freaking suck. Putting all these restrictions and trying to adopt a Steam-like model won't work for consoles. If it were the secret to keeping used games under control, don't you think we would've migrated to PC a long time ago?

BTW Source for Miyamoto's comment: Miyamoto: E3 banter on long development cycles, used games | VG247

NO WAIT. Check it on used games especially regarding XONE/PC: why the hell does someone think they can continue making money off a product no longer in their hands?

LEL I sold you a glass urn for $10! Everyone you happen to sell that glass urn to shall also be awarding me money! Umm...how about hell no? That urn is in my customer's hands now; it's THEIR URN. They do whatever the hell they want with it. :IIIII