Mostly likely, my plan is to get a PS4 at launch and an Xbox One at tax time... but I may just wait on both until tax time, not sure. My gaming time is going to be absorbed on Nintendo games (Both WiiU and 3DS) and Final Fantasy XIV this fall... oh, and GTA5!
Xbox One.
I already got a Wii U, PS3, and 3DS. I don't really need any more stuff for a while, except software for my Nintendo gadgets. My PS3 is basically a dust magnet now.
I guess I could play Dust EVE 504 or whatever for free, but... meh.
Qwest
3DS Friend Code: 4253-3737-8064 | Nintendo Network ID: Children
Personally, I'm probably just going to buy new PC for the missing third-party support for Nintendo (If Nintendo got Fallout and Battlefront 3 I probably wouldn't buy any). If I had to choose between the two I'd probably go with Xbox One though: More friends will have it, like the controller, like the exclusives more, Sony fanboys seem to hate me (online and IRL).
The PS4 obviously i have one on pre order, the Xbox One is a no go for me. When it comes to multiplatform games the Wii U is new PS3 this gen sadly. Also there are quite a few games i still want for the PS3, Dark Souls 2, Dragons Crown, Puppeteer etc, as you can see these pesky shooters on the PS3 cannot get enough of them, lol.
Having been a PS fanboy since PS1... neither. I'm not paying $600 for a machine + peripherals that offer no innovation besides marginally improved graphics, TV-integration (people still watch TV on an actual TV?), and silly social features. I guess I'll have to miss out on the next 20 installments of FIFA and Call of Duty. Oh noes.
Lengthened development cycles, less focus on single-player experience, replacing gameplay with QTEs and cutscenes, and short runtimes/low replayability made this decision quite easy. 8 years of development on Final Fantasy XV and all SE has to show for it is some pretty cutscenes. What happened to that company?
After watching E3 this year, I made an investment into gaming, alright. I took the money I was planning on spending on a PS4 and fleshed out my PS2/PS3 collection instead. Unless Sony and Sony's 3rd party support start developing actual video games again instead of interactive TV shows, I'm probably not going to buy another one of their consoles.
Just the Wii U for me. Atlus and Monolith are doing a fine job of filling the JRPG void that Square-Enix left behind anyway.
So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.
I'm not going to get one right away, but I've already decided I want a PS4. Sony have an excellent development portfolio and support their systems very well. I look forward to seeing what their studios can produce, from the big Naughty Dog games to the quirkier titles from Japan Studio. I'm also very impressed by the focus on indie developers.
Neither. It simply doesn't make sense.
I have a lot of unplayed Wii Games. I have the Wii U and the 3DS.
The huge waste of money on the PS4/Xbox1 is actually the huge waste of time.
I'm too obsessed researching about Nintendo games. If I had to actually invest time and money into buying games for another console.. I played some PS3 titles and that also very time consuming....
It simply doesn't make sense then, and I think that's how most people will view it. The core of the casuals will buy Wii U with the price cut. Some of them already bought the Wii U. They will not buy another console. Dedicated gamers if they're fanboys they'll buy just one system, if they're crazy gamers with a lot of time on their hands they'll buy multiple consoles, but it's a very small minority at the end of the day.
I'm dubious of buying a PS4 at launch since there's really not many exclusives out for it.
I'm content with waiting on the Xbone until the price is sub-£200 and I know which games are exclusives/timed exclusives.
Gosh some people are harsh on the next-gen before seeing much of it... So naturally the debater in me is going to address some comments.
@Waveboy: Third party support for the PS4 should overall be much better in terms of how games look and play. The console architecture of the PS4 and Xbox One are much more similar than that of the Xbox 360 vs. PS3. In addition to that I know that some third party developers are looking at developing on PS4 and then porting over to Xbox One, which means we could see some developers games look worse on Xbox One potentially. It's just a matter of which developers design their games on which system and how much time they spend on the subsequent port to the other system, which shouldn't have to be as much given the similarities between the systems.
As for Move support... No, just no. Unlike a lot of Nintendo people I don't look at motion controllers as a wonderful control option for shooters that comes only second to mouse and keyboard. Precision, sure if you can adapt to it, but that's the problem the frustration of getting there. Just turn your sensitivity up to high and you can do more or less the same with a controller. Then again that's just my opinion, but I just felt like responding to your comment.
@CaviarMeths: No innovation besides marginally better graphics? Just out of curiosity what were you expecting? When has Sony ever been particularly innovative in terms of one gen to the next? Certainly the graphics are much more apparent when comparing PS1 to PS2 and PS2 to PS3, but there is just as much of a leap here as there is elsewhere. It's just more subtle than in the past because games look good on current generation HD consoles. You're going to just go further and further into details which you have to pay more attention to because of the fact that you can make all the big stuff excellent at the moment. As much as I hate to say it look at Quantic Dream's The Dark Sorcerer tech demo and see how much they put into that little what 5 minute clip. It's apparent that the leap is still quite prevalent there, plus newer technology makes it easier to make games look more detailed and use more advance engines for gameplay. Graphics wise there is still a jump is my point and then, like I was saying I would argue Sony has never been particularly innovative in terms of console design. There games have been frequently innovative, but I don't think Sony has ever been innovative all that much hardware wise.
And then addressing the lack of games on a game console from your comments. Longer development cycles is perhaps the thing I take the most issue with from your comment. Yes big games take longer to develop, especially on more advanced consoles. I fail to see how a developer putting time and effort into a game is a problem. Sure you have to wait longer to see games released, but see what happens when you have short development cycles. COD and NSMB (Of which I enjoy both quite a bit, but still I know how little effort goes into the games and there hardly the great games of their generation). I think less focus on Single Player is a valid point, though with this years offerings like Bioshock Infinite and The Last of Us that single player in big triple A titles is still going to play a fairly big role. Replacing gameplay with QTE's and cut scenes depends on if a game uses them as a crutch or uses them merely for effect and good storytelling. I don't have a problem with a game that wants to give me a great story and show me several of the moments for characters, but the key to a good story is in the subtlety of layering it around the game and not throwing it at you. The Last of Us did that brilliantly having cut scenes for certain moments and having the rest of the story occur in game with conversations and the progress you made. Then come up QTE's which I can sometimes deal with if it's for a display of effect in say God of War. I will say that the interactive dramas from Quantic Dream or at least Heavy Rain gets a pass because of how much I enjoyed watching the story and influencing all that happened, but I definitely see a point in not having games rely on quicktime events and cut-scenes. Finally replayability is a subjective thing as some games you enjoy you can play multiple times, while others you don't as much you may play once. Sure content is going to vary, but what an individual takes away from a game is always going to be different from someone else.
So I just felt like responding to a couple of things and giving my own two cents, so sorry if I start something...
@Supermarioman:
Going by the amount of times you said "I fail to see," it looks like you are reluctant to acknowledge an opinion that isn't identical to one you hold.
Yes, the things I mentioned matter to me and I consider them valid concerns. I don't value spectacle over gameplay, which more than justifies my opting out of both PS4 and XBO. I've seen all of Quantic Dreams' tech demos and all they really say to me is "why?" Is that supposed to make the game more fun? Is that worth waiting an additional three years for? I'm just not particularly impressed when a studio shows off how cool it can make cutscenes look. Other people are. That's fine. They're the target audience for the PS4/XBO. I'm not. There's nothing really to fail to see here.
PS1, PS2, and PS3 were all innovative and highly influential for consoles. If you're trying to say that the PS2 was just a PS1 with better graphics, that is quite odd. DVD compatibility, built-in internet connectivity, dual analog sticks, and backwards compatibility were all features that became industry standard.
The Last of Us was 12 hours long and was played with about 4 buttons. The story was fantastic, yes, but it would have made much more sense as an HBO miniseries or something. In terms of actual gameplay... it wasn't much different than a paper and dice tabletop RPG that came out 40 years ago. It seems to me that the focus of an AAA title is to show off how graphically impressive gaming has become and to see who can make the coolest, most morally ambiguous anti-hero for a protagonist.
So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.
To be honest, I didn't even find TLOU that impressive graphically. Glitches, NPC that you can punch through and almost move into them, objects that are not affected by touching them, characters that look off from the surrounding as if were on a different layer etc.
I would rather buy a 2DS then waste precious cash on these boring monstrosities with bland launch lineups... PS4 $550AU XBone $600 AU even if they were the US price, hells no mofo
@CaviarMeths: I said fail to see. Once. About your complaint of development times, nothing else. Everywhere else I acknowledged what I thought about your comments and that it was an opinion of my own. I'm able to see other peoples opinions. Your obviously a person who treasures gameplay above everything else and that is absolutely fine. I too treasure gameplay, but I also treasure the gaming experience as a whole and I love huge stories, so something like Heavy Rain appealed to me. It makes sense that other people don't like it because it's a quicktime fest that goes for quite a bit and you have technically very limited gameplay. If you don't like it I understand. I didn't mean to come off as not understanding of other peoples opinions. Because much of what you mentioned/responded to is subjective. Hell everything is subjective when you think about it. I understand why you are against this new generation, but I was just attempting to offer another viewpoint on everything that was said.
As for PS1 + better graphics essentially being my perception of PS2. Well dual-analogue sticks existed on PS1, they were made a little while after it was released I think. Then built-in internet capabilities was first on Dreamcast, so it's not really an innovation for Sony. Yes Sony was first to have DVD's and then Blu-Ray's playable on home consoles, so I guess in terms of storage space for those mediums you can say Sony was innovative there in helping games become more advanced if you want to. Finally backwards compatibility isn't really all that innovative unless you do something with it ala Pokemon Firered influencing Diamond and Pearl. Plus Sony was nowhere near the first to have it as a feature. Gameboy Color could play all the original Gameboy games. And before that you can see the Atari 7800 could play almost all of the the 2600 games. Sure Sony brought all of these features together for the first time and made a very attractive looking game console with better graphics, but they were hardly the first to have these features, just the most popular one to have the features. So my point is yes you can say PS2 was much more than a PS1 with better graphics, but not particularly innovative in terms of changing the way that we play games. Which is what I consider to be innovative, but isn't necessarily what you were going for with innovative.
Again I can see other opinions, I'm just voicing my own and I'll leave it with this and get back on topic!
Anybody know how long Drive Club will be free with PS Plus and the PS4? because I don't know if I necessarily can get my hands on a PS4 right at launch....
PS1, PS2, and PS3 were all innovative and highly influential for consoles. If you're trying to say that the PS2 was just a PS1 with better graphics, that is quite odd. DVD compatibility, built-in internet connectivity, dual analog sticks, and backwards compatibility were all features that became industry standard.
The DVD compatibility was just basically an upgrade of the PS1 using CD's, internet connectivity on the PS2 was very rudimentary and not a game-changer in the least (And it was being done on the PC a while before), the first dualshock actually came out in 1997 for the PS1, and backwards compatibility had been done numerous times before. It was very much indeed a PS1 with more power and higher-capacity discs.
Forums
Topic: PS4 Vs. Xbox One: Which One Are You Buying?
Posts 21 to 40 of 122
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.