Topic: The everything Xbox thread

Expand

@ThanosReXXX Let's take these points one by one.

Now, sure. But for more than half the generation, Sony maintained a decent advantage in the power department. And, for the first couple of years or so, it also cost about 20% less. As a result, pretty much everything in built to run well on Sony's platform.

Timing is everything. I got an Xbox 360 last gen because it had a better selection of games and was decently cheaper. This generation, I got a PS4 for the exact same reason. Microsoft lost tons of sales puttering around at the start, which is why Sony is leading with... what, over 100 million consoles? Whereas, if it hasn't already happened, Switch is probably going to outsell the Xbone soon. It lost momentum big time and, besides holiday sales where Microsoft practically gives the base model away, it never regained its mojo.

Besides, the vast majority of people own the base consoles.

Sure, Xbox's online is more stable and provides more incentives than PSN. No argument there. Which might be important to people.

You know what else is important?

Install base. If you're playing an online game, you have an unquestionably larger pool of people to play with. Everybody is on PSN.

Library. Sony's first-party titles now rival Nintendo's in terms of how well they sell and how critically acclaimed they are. Sony has put out a LOT of hits this generation. Microsoft, for some reason, has only really put out a small handful of worthwhile exclusive games this gen, and almost all of them aren't even exclusive to the platform at this point. And, putting aside first party efforts, you have massively better third party support from Japanese developers. Now, that's improving a little bit, with Sega finally putting more of its games, like Yakuza Zero and Kiwami, on the Xbox One. But, in general, aside from the big companies like Capcom that almost always go multiplat with their games, it's a crapshoot as to whether some exciting looking Japanese game will even release on Microsoft's system.

Backwards compatibility is cool, but, imo, robust current gen support is far better.

Take this trend and extend it over time, and you have the difference between a system that gets everything and has some of the best first-party games and exclusives in the industry, and a system almost bereft of exclusives with major holes in its library.

Nah. People keep saying this, and I used to believe this logic, but here's the truth. Of the four generations where Sony has been a player in the industry, it has explicitly trampled the competition three out of four times with the PS1, PS2, and PS4. Brutally trampled in terms of sales AND library.

People make a lot of noise about how weak the PS3 was at the start of the last generation, and it was, but here's the thing: Sony still ended up practically winning that gen. It outsold the initially much stronger 360 (something Microsoft came nowhere close to managing with the One, despite it being in something of a similar position as the PS3 was last gen). It ended with a larger number of highly acclaimed exclusive games. Sony clawed their way back from the mouth of hell and managed to become king again.

They had to.

Sony literally wouldn't be a thing right now if it wasn't for Playstation. Their gaming sector is, by far, their most profitable. As such, the Playstation brand HAS to be successful. They have no alternative. So they're always going to make the best consoles with the best software support, because it's life or death for the company as a whole if Playstation goes down.

The Xbox brand is a hobby for Microsoft. They could probably sell zero units of their new Series X console and it wouldn't really matter, because the company's computer business is ubiquitous. There's no incentive for Microsoft to struggle to succeed, because literally nothing rides on their triumph or defeat. So they're free to keep giving their consoles weird names that confuse customers, giving up their exclusives, etc.

Sony is entering the next generation in a position of strength again, with a stable of amazing first-party properties that rival Nintendo's output (and decimate anything Microsoft will likely be putting out in the next few years), with so many PSN customers that just their online store took in more money last year than Nintendo did in its entirety, and with, imo, a more coherent vision for the next-generation. I have no idea what Microsoft will do with its oddly named console going forward, but I do know that, with the PS5, Sony wants to gain the lead early again, is developing some sort of 3D audio technology to work with its games, wants games to load almost instantly, and will continue with VR.

I'd love for Microsoft to knock the Playstation brand "off its pedestal," but I don't see that happening. And history suggests that, even if they screw up, they'll come surging back and pretty much reverse whatever damage was caused to them early on. So, if I had to bet on either company as a safe bet for having the best support going forward, Sony would easily be my choice.

Oh, that reminds me. Sony is also ahead in VR and game streaming as well. I don't know if those will become big factors next gen, but if they do, Sony will be leading the charge on them.

Expand

@Ralizah It's easy to be ahead in something, if you're the only one doing it...

All joking aside, though: Sony's VR is still in it's infancy. Like all other efforts, it's cool in its specific way, but ultimately, it doesn't even remotely come close to VR on a gaming PC.

Sony's supposed "win" with the PS3 only came after that generation was already fading out, so that's really nothing to brag about. They also recently outsold the Wii, but who the hell is still counting that generation, and the games featured on it? It's a win many years after all the other contestants have already finished and received their gold and silver awards, so it's a bronze medal at best.

And Microsoft, with the Xbox 360, had THE best multi-plat versions of that generation, something no amount of "sold more consoles in total" could ever fix, so there's that as well...

One rather big misconception is that Sony's PS4 was cheaper than the Xbox One: it definitely wasn't. What people either never realized, or simply (or for Sony fanboys: conveniently) forgot, is that Sony actually also wanted to offer a starting package with an online subscription and a camera, but because Microsoft flopped SO hard with that, they pretty much botched the entire launch, which Sony quite heavily capitalized on, by instantly removing their version of the pack-in motion camera, and their mandatory online subscription BEFORE they ever launched the PS4, so it only appeared that they had the better deal, and this is how they ACTUALLY got their head start this generation, NOT because they ACTUALLY had a better deal. Being $100 cheaper if you remove a motion camera and other stuff really isn't that difficult, after all...

So, what it basically was, is just smart and strategic marketing, which is the only real compliment they'll ever get from me, by the way.

Oh, and another VERY big misconception is that Sony would be nowhere without its PlayStation brand. Seriously, go look it up, and you'll find that what's ACTUALLY Sony's biggest revenue, is their insurance brand, but few Western people know this, because it's only active in Asia, so it's not common knowledge over here. So, PlayStation being their end all and be all, is categorically untrue.

And you REALLY shouldn't underestimate the power of a vast library of backwards compatible titles. It may not be something you're personally interested in, but Phil Spencer is DEFINITELY onto something, telling people they can, from now on, continuously keep migrating their ENTIRE game collection, built up until now, to each new console or platform that Microsoft will now release, and it definitely is something that the majority of Xbox owners/users are interested in, as witnessed by the effort that Spencer and his team have put into making it a reality, otherwise they'd just be pumping money into something nobody wants...

Sony has nothing comparable. From what is known right now, only PS4 titles will be natively supported, and anything older will only be offered through streaming services, whereas Microsoft offers the entirety of its Xbox One catalog, almost 70% of its Xbox 360 catalog AND a decent number of original Xbox titles all supported physically and/or digitally installed AND locally, so no streaming necessary, which is a FAR superior service. Then again: any and all of Microsoft's online services are superior, and always will be, because Sony will NEVER be able to equal Microsoft's online network capacity, let alone surpass it.

Instant loading is also a thing on Series X, so that's nothing new from Sony's side either. Both are actually just doing basically the same thing this time around, so it'll come down to the games, the support and the options, not so much down to the hardware.

And finally, I've said this plenty of times before, but in case I've never said it to you, or you forgot: I'm a marketing and sales professional myself, so I simply KNOW how that game works, and the ONLY simple truth is what I said earlier: if you're in the lead, then all you can do is fall down, because there is no more up, so it's only a matter of when, not a matter of if, so they WILL ultimately fail, mark my words. Maybe not entirely, but they will most definitely screw something up, or several things. Being in the lead makes you nervous, makes you look in the rear view mirror etc. etc.

None of which is conducive to actually staying in the lead, and besides that, Phil Spencer has done a LOT of good work these last couple of years, establishing the Xbox brand as THE go to platform for premium gaming with the One X, and he'll probably not be too keen on relinquishing that position to Sony, so that's just not gonna happen.