Ps4 for core gamers Xbox one for casual. What does that mean for me?

[Cicero]

I would consider myself a core gamer (although I don't really know the tech specs or anything like that, I do play video games a lot and I value a good graphic game) and they're saying ps4 is targeting people like me. But what does tht mean for me? Does it mean if I buy the ps4 it'll have better graphics than the Xbox one? Does it mean there will be better games available for ps4? They're saying the gpu is 50% more powerful in ps4, so what does that mean? Xbox is targeting casual gamers, does that mean they want the Xbox to do more than games, like they're focusing on games, tv shows, movies, etc. equally whereas ps4 is mainly focusing on games (although they will have movies, tv shows, etc.)?

No matter what ill be getting the ps4. I'm just wondering about all this.

[ImCoolBeans]

I could be wrong, but I think you're right. I think the PS4 is more intended for serious gamers who don't need the frills that the Xbox One will focus on such as TV streaming, connecting with friends, social network/media. While the PS4 will still have those capabilities (maybe not all of them?), it's not why it's going to be a hot ticket item.

[Magenta]

The fact of the matter is, Microsoft is digging their own grave by looking to nickel and dime you at every corner. They're in it for the money they can get from the all-in-one home entertainment system they think they can provide using the Xbox One (which is the dumbest name for that thing). But given the reception they've got so far (from what I've seen), they may find ways to improve, I dunno.

Playstation is focusing primarily on gaming. Their consoles are built "more like computers", as I've heard a lot of people say, in terms of power and specs (and in some senses they're not nearly as user friendly in my experience but they're obviously not impossible) and they do seem to be targeted at more hardcore gamers. Personally, I'm not into the consoles with all the frills. I want a TV? I'll hook up a satellite receiver. I want movies? I already pay for Netflix (which is on my PS3 and that's enough for me). I'm already a rather loyal Playstation gamer so, while I'm reluctant to upgrade at all because my six-year-old PS3 is still in perfect condition, I'll go to the PS4 for sure. Playstation will have a wider variety as well via the Playstation store because there will be a selection of older games that have been remastered as well as games from indie developers that Microsoft have essentially just cut off or roped into contracts.

Playstation has been known for higher graphics (e.g. games like Heavy Rain and their developers using different animation technology which was exclusive to the PS3) but not necessarily in the TV consoles (because really the PS3 and Xbox 360 in my opinion were basically on par with one another with a few exceptions) but certainly in portable consoles like the PSP and now the PS Vita. If the GPU is 50% more powerful, the graphics will be better.

Your best bet when it comes to graphics and (if you're like me) audio will always be a properly built gaming PC but some of us just don't have the money for it. A PS4 is looking like your best bet. I'm not too pleased with Microsoft so far as they've not even spoken about what games will be released for the Xbox One (they said they'd do so at E3, I believe) whereas PS4 already has a confirmed line up for a decent number of games. But right now, things are really still fairly vague and Microsoft certainly hasn't given off a very good first impression.

All of their recent releases in technology (not just the Xbox) have been very much focused on social media, keeping connected, and being able to have everything at your fingertips. It's just not what all gamers want. More casual gamers may like this but eh. I think they're sacrificing what more hardcore gamers expect from a console in order to attract a wider audience which isn't necessarily a bad idea if they weren't getting you to pay out of your arse for all the new bells and whistles.

(*coughs* Oops, I rambled. I've just been doing my research lately but, of course, all of this does seem to be in its beginning stages and you'll know more as it gets later into the year.)

[Horatio Nelson]

The fact of the matter is, Microsoft is digging their own grave by looking to nickel and dime you at every corner. They're in it for the money they can get from the all-in-one home entertainment system they think they can provide using the Xbox One (which is the dumbest name for that thing). But given the reception they've got so far (from what I've seen), they may find ways to improve, I dunno.

Playstation is focusing on gaming. Their consoles are built like computers (and in some senses they're not nearly as user friendly at times in my experience) but they do seem to be targeted at more hardcore gamers. Frankly, they're targeted at gamers. I'm not into the consoles with all the frills. I want a TV? I'll hook up a satellite receiver. I want movies? I already pay for Netflix. I'm already a rather loyal Playstation gamer so, while I'm reluctant to upgrade at all because my six-year-old PS3 is still in perfect condition, I'll go to the PS4 for sure. Playstation will have a wider variety as well via the Playstation store because there will be a selection of older games that have been remastered as well as games from indie developers that Microsoft have essentially just cut off or roped into contracts.

Playstation has been known for higher graphics (e.g. games like Heavy Rain and their developers using different animation technology which was exclusive to the PS3) but not necessarily in the TV consoles (because really the PS3 and Xbox 360 in my opinion were basically on par with one another with a few exceptions) but certainly in portable consoles like the PSP and now the PS Vita. If the GPU is 50% more powerful, the graphics will be better.

Your best bet when it comes to graphics and (if you're like me) audio will always be a properly built gaming PC but some of us just don't have the money for it. A PS4 is looking like your best bet. I'm not too pleased with Microsoft so far as they've not even spoken about what games will be released for the Xbox One (they said they'd do so at E3, I believe) whereas PS4 already has a confirmed line up for a decent number of games. But right now, things are really still fairly vague and Microsoft certainly hasn't given off a very good first impression.

All of their recent releases in technology (not just the Xbox) have been very much focused on social media, keeping connected, and being able to have everything at your fingertips. It's just not what all gamers want. More casual gamers may like this but eh. I think they're sacrificing what more hardcore gamers want in order to attract a wider audience which isn't necessarily a bad idea if they weren't getting you to pay out of your arse for all the bells and whistles.

(*coughs* Oops, I rambled. I've just been doing my research lately but, of course, all of this does seem to be in its beginning stages and you'll know more as it gets later into the year.)


My thoughts exactly. I am a huge Xbox man, but I'm disappointed in the Xbox One. The PS4 looks to match my wants more.

But I'd do PC over console any day. ;)

[Magenta]

My thoughts exactly. I am a huge Xbox man, but I'm disappointed in the Xbox One. The PS4 looks to match my wants more.

But I'd do PC over console any day. ;)

That's the thing, PC will always top because they're highly customisable and you can build your own to get exactly what you want. That's what my brother did and damn, that thing is impressive. Obviously consoles have their limitations. I run a Mac so I'm not getting a whole ton of gaming done on it (but I use my laptop and favour Apple in this case for different purposes). And it's obviously expensive.

But you could build a PC to do all those things with social media AND gaming and whatever the hell you want if you have the money for it. I feel like you could build a better PC with all the bells and whistles as a home entertainment system for basically the same price you'll end up paying for all this new Xbox One stuff (I don't mean just the console, I mean the console, Live, their streaming service, games, whatever else they start charging for, etc) in the long run and you'd still have more control and freedom with your own set up and not be charged money just for breathing on it.

Whereas if you're looking for a console that's primarily gaming and a few things here and there like a decent browser for the occasional search and maybe Netflix, you're probably going to be more inclined to go for Playstation. I mean, hell, I was considering getting an Xbox because I have a ton of friends on the 360 and I can't play online with them but I'll prolly just pick up one second-hand now and a couple of games and that's it. I flat out can't afford the Xbox One from what it's sounding like.

I dunno about anyone else but if your primary audience are gamers between the ages of... let's say 12-28 (for a decent age range), not many can afford constant fees for things as well as purchasing the console and any additional hardware. It just doesn't make sense to me. I guess some parents might pay for it but I know mine wouldn't. And I'm gonna be a broke college students soon so... ha. Not happening. I find just buying new games expensive (when they just come out and are like $60 a game).

But, to the OP, if you're serious about specs and whatnot, wait until E3 when I'm pretty sure more concrete information will come out. You'll be able to get a better idea then of what you're looking at and seeing which appeals more to you.

[Cicero]

That's the thing, PC will always top because they're highly customisable and you can build your own to get exactly what you want. That's what my brother did and damn, that thing is impressive. Obviously consoles have their limitations. I run a Mac so I'm not getting a whole ton of gaming done on it (but I use my laptop and favour Apple in this case for different purposes). And it's obviously expensive.

But you could build a PC to do all those things with social media AND gaming and whatever the hell you want if you have the money for it. I feel like you could build a better PC with all the bells and whistles as a home entertainment system for basically the same price you'll end up paying for all this new Xbox One stuff (I don't mean just the console, I mean the console, Live, their streaming service, games, whatever else they start charging for, etc) in the long run and you'd still have more control and freedom with your own set up and not be charged money just for breathing on it.

Whereas if you're looking for a console that's primarily gaming and a few things here and there like a decent browser for the occasional search and maybe Netflix, you're probably going to be more inclined to go for Playstation. I mean, hell, I was considering getting an Xbox because I have a ton of friends on the 360 and I can't play online with them but I'll prolly just pick up one second-hand now and a couple of games and that's it. I flat out can't afford the Xbox One from what it's sounding like.

I dunno about anyone else but if your primary audience are gamers between the ages of... let's say 12-28 (for a decent age range), not many can afford constant fees for things as well as purchasing the console and any additional hardware. It just doesn't make sense to me. I guess some parents might pay for it but I know mine wouldn't. And I'm gonna be a broke college students soon so... ha. Not happening. I find just buying new games expensive (when they just come out and are like $60 a game).

But, to the OP, if you're serious about specs and whatnot, wait until E3 when I'm pretty sure more concrete information will come out. You'll be able to get a better idea then of what you're looking at and seeing which appeals more to you.

Thanks for all the help

I've always been a play station type of guy so I'm gonna stick with play station, I especially hate how Xbox makes you pay $5 for online, and ps3 has better online.

[Axw_JD]

Thats BS, they are both targeting the same kind of people. Both are marketed as gaming powerhouses with media capabilities.of

Microsoft hasn't shown any of their big guns gaming-related. They announced way before the reveal that they wouldn't be showing games until E3.

PSN is nowhere near as good as Xbox LIVE, you certainly do get what you pay for.

PC will always be more expensive, no matter how you look at it. Sure, in about 6 years you will be able to build a PC thats just as if not more powerful for the same money that you buy the console at launch for, but by then the new generation will be coming up.

Right now, you can only wait. Neither console will be available until later this year, and all the launch games will be revealed by then. On the other hand, the Wii U is already available, and is the only one that is completely focused on games and the only one that allows used games to work the same way they always have.

[DerBear]

PSN is nowhere near as good as Xbox LIVE, you certainly do get what you pay for.


Prove it? This is typical response for some who's jacked up on Microsoft products. How much on Xbox One do you think is going to be free? You aren't going to get free TV off of it. The movies will costs probably about £5 each and other features will be considered premium.

The fact that there is zero paid features on the PS3 unless you count PS+ but that's optional. The fact the PS3 has more processing power than the Xbox 360 and the fact that you've got better graphics and more visually demanding exclusives for the PS3 tells me everything that the statement you made above is based on "fanboyism" alone.

The Wii U was an epic fail, they've lost so much support from third party developers and those are where the money maker is.

Xbox One is all about getting the company money. Simple as this, you'll pay for the movies, the TV and probably even some of the other features and including online.

Also the Xbox One reveal was an epic fail as they showed nothing about the boxes gaming or even related it to gaming. Like when that guy was showing a movie and then googled the movie, he could done a short gameplay clip and then googled a page/walkthrough of the game.

The entire reveal was a joke and even more so because the applause was revealed by media to be canned.

[Axw_JD]

Prove it? This is typical response for some who's jacked up on Microsoft products. How much on Xbox One do you think is going to be free? You aren't going to get free TV off of it. The movies will costs probably about £5 each and other features will be considered premium.

The fact that there is zero paid features on the PS3 unless you count PS+ but that's optional. The fact the PS3 has more processing power than the Xbox 360 and the fact that you've got better graphics and more visually demanding exclusives for the PS3 tells me everything that the statement you made above is based on "fanboyism" alone.

The Wii U was an epic fail, they've lost so much support from third party developers and those are where the money maker is.

Xbox One is all about getting the company money. Simple as this, you'll pay for the movies, the TV and probably even some of the other features and including online.

Also the Xbox One reveal was an epic fail as they showed nothing about the boxes gaming or even related it to gaming. Like when that guy was showing a movie and then googled the movie, he could done a short gameplay clip and then googled a page/walkthrough of the game.

The entire reveal was a joke and even more so because the applause was revealed by media to be canned.

I could post screenshots from my router showing download speeds and network usage of both consoles. PS3 struggles to complete almost any download, while Xbox 360 has no problems using the available bandwidth to download what it needs, thats without counting the fact that the PS3 needs an additional, lengthy installation process on top of the download, and lets not talk about lag since I have yet to experience a lag-free session on PSN.

PS3 has more processing power? It really depends on what you call "processing power" and what you are trying to do. It does have a stronger CPU, but also has a much weaker GPU and a shitty and incredibly slow drive that the CPU has to make up for (plus overall less RAM available because of the way it is segmented). Visually demanding exclusives, like GT5 with its models and textures taken straight from the PS2 games? After looking at Forza 4 and GT5 side by side, that doesn't really hold true at all. Besides, they are exclusives, so it is really hard to judge the machine's power by it anyways since they are optimized for each machine. I'm sorry to tell you I'm not the fanboy in here.

Wii U is the only one that truly focuses on games, since they don't have any additional media center functionality like the PS4 and XBOX ONE do. If you hate on the XBOX ONE reveal, but then hate on the Wii U as well thats just stupidly funny. Also, you sure third party support is where the money comes from? The Wii sold almost 3x as many systems as any of the previous generation consoles, and still had an attachment rate higher than the PS3 with very little third party support and an amazing first party lineup of games. When you have 10+ exclusive, world-class IPs under your belt with a history of quality, fun games under your belt like Nintendo does, third party support is not the be all end all. Remember, the Wii U is still doing better than the PS3 did at launch, and to this day is doing better than the Vita overall :P

Every single product out there is about making the company money, not just the XBOX ONE. I don't know if you have ever used an Xbox 360, but you pay a single fee for access to everything the console has to offer, including online. Whether additional apps have their own subscriptions or not is unrelated to Microsoft (they don't own or control Netflix, Hulu, etc.). Also, Xbox Music and Xbox Video don't require an Xbox LIVE Gold subscriptioen to be used, and they have similar or lower prices than both PSN Video Store and iTunes so there's no real difference there, except perhaps the seamless sync of anything you buy there with all your Windows 8, Windows RT and Windows Phone devices.

The XBOX ONE reveal was exactly what they promised. Anyone that expected anything different is just being stupid and delusional. They were very clear when they said they were keeping all the game reveals for E3 so it was no surprise that they only showed their exclusive EA Sports games and that anyone who really likes CoD should keep playing on Xbox...

[Cygnus]

Hardcore gamers play on PC/Mac, its that easy.

[DerBear]

I could post screenshots from my router showing download speeds and network usage of both consoles. PS3 struggles to complete almost any download, while Xbox 360 has no problems using the available bandwidth to download what it needs, thats without counting the fact that the PS3 needs an additional, lengthy installation process on top of the download, and lets not talk about lag since I have yet to experience a lag-free session on PSN.


I have owned both consoles and this argument is invalid and only based on personal experience. My PS3 will download anything at the same speed as my laptop which my laptop will do amazingly so I don't really have any download problem. When I had a 360 it downloaded at the same speed so your argument is invalid because its based entirely on personal experience and interent.

PS3 has more processing power? It really depends on what you call "processing power" and what you are trying to do. It does have a stronger CPU, but also has a much weaker GPU and a shitty and incredibly slow drive that the CPU has to make up for (plus overall less RAM available because of the way it is segmented). Visually demanding exclusives, like GT5 with its models and textures taken straight from the PS2 games? After looking at Forza 4 and GT5 side by side, that doesn't really hold true at all. Besides, they are exclusives, so it is really hard to judge the machine's power by it anyways since they are optimized for each machine. I'm sorry to tell you I'm not the fanboy in here.

You can't compare two completely different games. Especially when one is an Xbox 360 exclusive if you're trying to make a valid argument on processing power. The PS3 does have more raw processing power than the zbox 360 this is a true fact. Its not based on my personal opinion.

Wii U is the only one that truly focuses on games, since they don't have any additional media center functionality like the PS4 and XBOX ONE do. If you hate on the XBOX ONE reveal, but then hate on the Wii U as well thats just stupidly funny. Also, you sure third party support is where the money comes from? The Wii sold almost 3x as many systems as any of the previous generation consoles, and still had an attachment rate higher than the PS3 with very little third party support and an amazing first party lineup of games. When you have 10+ exclusive, world-class IPs under your belt with a history of quality, fun games under your belt like Nintendo does, third party support is not the be all end all. Remember, the Wii U is still doing better than the PS3 did at launch, and to this day is doing better than the Vita overal

The Wii U doesn't give you the experience of a handheld controller, it does to an extent but anyone serious about gaming won't buy a Wii U because it doesn't have the same appeal game wise. I'd buy the Wii U for party games and other things like that but I wouldn't buy it for FPS games. In term of launch sales, the Wii U hasn't gone above what the PS3 or 360 did. So that's invalid.

It probably has outsold the vita but the vita is a hand held console, you can't compare the two

Every single product out there is about making the company money, not just the XBOX ONE. I don't know if you have ever used an Xbox 360, but you pay a single fee for access to everything the console has to offer, including online. Whether additional apps have their own subscriptions or not is unrelated to Microsoft (they don't own or control Netflix, Hulu, etc.). Also, Xbox Music and Xbox Video don't require an Xbox LIVE Gold subscriptioen to be used, and they have similar or lower prices than both PSN Video Store and iTunes so there's no real difference there, except perhaps the seamless sync of anything you buy there with all your Windows 8, Windows RT and Windows Phone devices.


You don't pay a single fee, you have to re-buy your gold subscription each year. I think it costs something in the UK around 30-50 a year. Also I'm not delusional I know every single console is out to make money but chances are considering all these TV and Movie features you'll probably have to pay significant money to get access to these. When you're probably shelling out around 300 for the console.

So you're paying for your system then to actually use most things in it you'd have to pay subscription fees.

It didn't have to reveal any games, I wasn't expecting that but they didn't even talk about the gaming experience at all. Even plenty of Xbox fans would have liked to have seen the power of the console while gaming. They didn't have to reveal a game to do that.

The XBOX ONE reveal was exactly what they promised. Anyone that expected anything different is just being stupid and delusional. They were very clear when they said they were keeping all the game reveals for E3 so it was no surprise that they only showed their exclusive EA Sports games and that anyone who really likes CoD should keep playing on Xbox...


Well we all know how Microsoft love to buy every fucking gaming company to get DLC a month early, not going to make me go buy their console. Plus the PS3 is said to have exclusives as well and considering its EA chances are they are all sports games.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

If you want to play good games like Infamous, Watch Dogs and Drive club, and not Kinect-mandatory gimmicks like Fable the Journey, then you should get a PS4. Microsoft's trying to appeal to people other than core gamers, but it's also ditching us entirely in the process.

The PS4 is superior to the Xbox One in every way. They've already won the console war, as far as I'm concerned.

Hardcore gamers play on PC/Mac, its that easy.

Also, this. :P

[Axw_JD]

I

I have owned both consoles and this argument is invalid and only based on personal experience. My PS3 will download anything at the same speed as my laptop which my laptop will do amazingly so I don't really have any download problem. When I had a 360 it downloaded at the same speed so your argument is invalid because its based entirely on personal experience and interent.



You can't compare two completely different games. Especially when one is an Xbox 360 exclusive if you're trying to make a valid argument on processing power. The PS3 does have more raw processing power than the zbox 360 this is a true fact. Its not based on my personal opinion.



The Wii U doesn't give you the experience of a handheld controller, it does to an extent but anyone serious about gaming won't buy a Wii U because it doesn't have the same appeal game wise. I'd buy the Wii U for party games and other things like that but I wouldn't buy it for FPS games. In term of launch sales, the Wii U hasn't gone above what the PS3 or 360 did. So that's invalid.

It probably has outsold the vita but the vita is a hand held console, you can't compare the two



You don't pay a single fee, you have to re-buy your gold subscription each year. I think it costs something in the UK around 30-50 a year. Also I'm not delusional I know every single console is out to make money but chances are considering all these TV and Movie features you'll probably have to pay significant money to get access to these. When you're probably shelling out around 300 for the console.

So you're paying for your system then to actually use most things in it you'd have to pay subscription fees.

It didn't have to reveal any games, I wasn't expecting that but they didn't even talk about the gaming experience at all. Even plenty of Xbox fans would have liked to have seen the power of the console while gaming. They didn't have to reveal a game to do that.



Well we all know how Microsoft love to buy every fucking gaming company to get DLC a month early, not going to make me go buy their console. Plus the PS3 is said to have exclusives as well and considering its EA chances are they are all sports games.

Funny how you ignored the fact the PS3 has the mandatory install overhead while the 360 can run the game as soon as it is done downloading...

Of course you can't compare two different games. That was my point. You were talking about PS3 exclusives proving how powerful the console is, so I compared the two best looking exclusive racing games on both consoles and the Xbox 360 came out on top. By your own logic that proves the 360 is better even though they are both exclusives. The truth is that multiplat games were more often than not eiither the same or better looking on Xbox 360.

Anyone serious about gaming would at least consider a Wii U. What experience are you talking about? The GamePad has all the same buttons as a PS3 or Xbox 360 controller, but with a touch screen in the middle. If you don't like that, there's the Pro Controller (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16878190311) which every single FPS so far supports, and most other games support too (Ninja Gaiden, Sonic & All-Stars Racing, etc.), so your point is completely invalid. And it is doing far better than the failure of the PS3 did during the same period of its life, it has already sold over 5 million units, and most importantly its software is selling pretty well, specially on the Wii U eShop.

Oh and the Wii U outselling the Vita is very important. The Vita is a handheld, meaning it has a bigger, wider potential market: one per person instead of one per household. It has been in the market for a year longer and has more games, yet the Wii U has already sold more.

I haven't paid more than US$30 for a year of Xbox LIVE, it takes ~5 minutes of shopping around to find a subscription code for that price, and its well worth it for the superior gaming service. I seldom play on my 360 online at all, but the additional features makes it worth it, specially the additional discounts on games (that are on par of better than the PS+ prices. And yes, I do have PS+ too but thats honestly barely worth it most of the time).

Um yeah they would have. That's exactly how you show the gaming experience: with a game. They had already said they would be showing that during their E3 conference, so anyone with some basic reading capabilities knew what was coming and wouldn't have been too disappointed.

The same way sony loves to buy every fucking game company to get DLC early too whenever they can. The difference is that since Microsoft has been outselling sony the entire generation they are more convincing than sony when it comes down to that.

And no, EA did say during Microsoft's conference that they have an exclusivity deal with Microsoft for all their sports games next year. Maybe sony will try to steal those exclusives away by throwing even more money at EA but I don't think its that worth it. Besides, those exclusives aren't part of the 15 exclusives XBOX ONE is going to have during the first year, and at least one of which is a killer one for anyone older than 10 that is serious about gaming: RARE's old franchise.

[DerBear]

Funny how you ignored the fact the PS3 has the mandatory install overhead while the 360 can run the game as soon as it is done downloading...

We have a download as well and install, the reason for this as it takes pressure from having to read the game disk continually. It has been proven that the most common thing to go on an Xbox, PS3 etc is the laser that reads the disc, that is why we have it, to prevent the laser from being overworked.

The Vita is a hand held console, it has limited market when considering Nintendo offer a wider variety of games for the 3DS. Most people who'd want a vita either don't like Nintendo or want an upgrade from the PSP, you can't compare a Wii U and a Vita because they are two different things and will have a completely different market.

The same way sony loves to buy every fucking game company to get DLC early too whenever they can. The difference is that since Microsoft has been outselling sony the entire generation they are more convincing than sony when it comes down to that.

Okay name top titles where Sony has gotten us the DLC earlier by paying for it and not by simply say a few days because chances are if its a few days between Sony and Microsoft getting DLC earlier then its because of store/market place update times and days. The PS3 since mid 2012 has updated on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Um yeah they would have. That's exactly how you show the gaming experience: with a game. They had already said they would be showing that during their E3 conference, so anyone with some basic reading capabilities knew what was coming and wouldn't have been too disappointed.

Yes, but still you'd expect them to talk about gaming power or anything related to gaming after all I don't think many would be won over by its impressive way to watch TV without changing a channel.

And no, EA did say during Microsoft's conference that they have an exclusivity deal with Microsoft for all their sports games next year. Maybe sony will try to steal those exclusives away by throwing even more money at EA but I don't think its that worth it. Besides, those exclusives aren't part of the 15 exclusives XBOX ONE is going to have during the first year, and at least one of which is a killer one for anyone older than 10 that is serious about gaming: RARE's old franchise.

I have no idea what you're getting at with this.

[ace121ace]

It means ps4>xbox1 ...

[Stronk Serb]

Hardcore gamers do not care about graphics, only gameplay. I play Fallout 2 and Battle of Wesnoth even though they are older then me, and the graphics are pure shit compared to today's. PC is more for hardcore gamers in my opinion, unless Sony and Microsoft start porting games older then me, and add a QWERTY keyboard and a mouse for their products, I am not buying.

[Axw_JD]

We have a download as well and install, the reason for this as it takes pressure from having to read the game disk continually. It has been proven that the most common thing to go on an Xbox, PS3 etc is the laser that reads the disc, that is why we have it, to prevent the laser from being overworked.

The Vita is a hand held console, it has limited market when considering Nintendo offer a wider variety of games for the 3DS. Most people who'd want a vita either don't like Nintendo or want an upgrade from the PSP, you can't compare a Wii U and a Vita because they are two different things and will have a completely different market.



Okay name top titles where Sony has gotten us the DLC earlier by paying for it and not by simply say a few days because chances are if its a few days between Sony and Microsoft getting DLC earlier then its because of store/market place update times and days. The PS3 since mid 2012 has updated on Tuesday and Wednesday.



Yes, but still you'd expect them to talk about gaming power or anything related to gaming after all I don't think many would be won over by its impressive way to watch TV without changing a channel.



I have no idea what you're getting at with this.

I'm still talking about downloads. PS3 requires a lengthy installation process after downloading anything from PSN before you can actually use what you bought, while 360 has it ready to play as soon as it finishes downloading.

But now that you talk about disc installs, the reason why they are mandatory on PS3 is to try to make up for the horribly slow drive the PS3 has, the slow memory and the fact the CPU is busy making up for the poor GPU. A lot of PS3 games install frequently used data from the disc to the HDD to lower load times to more or less the same level as Xbox 360 games, and oftentimes they also have redundant data on the disc to help with the speed issue as well. Again, this is just a matter of the weak hardware the PS3 uses. Notice how neither the Wii nor the 360 have mandatory installs and still have good load times?

They aren't different. They are both consoles, they both target hardcore gamers, they are both underperforming. The Vita is a handheld, although sony has marketed as a full console experience so is only fair to compare.

Sony has been paying Ubisoft for extra content for their games on sony systems for quite a while now. Just yesterday Ubisoft announced exclusive content for the Vita version of Rayman Legends. The Vita, the worst-performing console right now.

Again, not at all. Anyone who actually cared enough to read what was said and pay attention to the beginning of the event knew they weren't going to say much if at all about gaming. They said time and time again that was reserved for E3.

[sixguy6]

the ps4 is just better

[DerBear]

I'm still talking about downloads. PS3 requires a lengthy installation process after downloading anything from PSN before you can actually use what you bought, while 360 has it ready to play as soon as it finishes downloading.


It takes 30 seconds for me to install a 15GB game on my system, I wouldn't call that lengthy and again it takes pressure form working in concjunction with the disk therefore protecting the tech that reads the games as like I said, in the PS2 XBOX, XBOX 360 and the PS3, the laser is generally the first thing to go along with the disk tray, but the PS3 doesn't have one as such but it does have laser and I think many are happy to have up to a minute install for the comfort that it does help preserve the tech.

But now that you talk about disc installs, the reason why they are mandatory on PS3 is to try to make up for the horribly slow drive the PS3 has, the slow memory and the fact the CPU is busy making up for the poor GPU. A lot of PS3 games install frequently used data from the disc to the HDD to lower load times to more or less the same level as Xbox 360 games, and oftentimes they also have redundant data on the disc to help with the speed issue as well. Again, this is just a matter of the weak hardware the PS3 uses. Notice how neither the Wii nor the 360 have mandatory installs and still have good load times?


Again the reason we have an install is to take pressure off of the tech that we have within the PS3. I wouldn't say the tech and hardware is bad within the PS3 and the loading times are generally swift as they are on Xbox. For what reason that is we can't define, I haven't owned an Xbox since 2009 and to be honest I must have gotten technical problems loads of times, In fact I got the red ring of death about 3 times in the short amount of time I owned an Xbox and I wasn't impressed.

Again I feel you're trying to insult the PS3 anyway you can. What is mandatory install, we download a patch and it installs, we download a game and it installs, I'm not sure what you're getting at, all it does is prevent having to overuse the hardware and cause a lot of common malfunctions that happen on both machines and previous gen machines.

They aren't different. They are both consoles, they both target hardcore gamers, they are both underperforming. The Vita is a handheld, although sony has marketed as a full console experience so is only fair to compare.


Its true that within sales it hasn't performed as well as full home console even though it can do the same a console but honestly, you can't expect it to compete with console sales, you could probably ask anyone if they'd prefer a Wii U or Vita, I'd probably side with a Wii U simply because I don't own one and would like to see the games marketed towards it because you do get a different set of games for the Wii U than you do with a vita. Its all about the games and most games that come out for the 360, PS3 also come out on the Vita and if you already own one of those consoles you aren't going to buy one unless you play more out of the home.

The main idea of the vita is a "this and next gen" hand held gaming device that will work with the PS4 launch. At the end of the day you can't compare the Wii - U to the Vita because the Wii U has a different audience and different games and a general different purpose. You could compare the Wii U and the current gen consoles e.g. Xbox and PS3 but you can't really compare it to the vita.

Sony has been paying Ubisoft for extra content for their games on sony systems for quite a while now. Just yesterday Ubisoft announced exclusive content for the Vita version of Rayman Legends. The Vita, the worst-performing console right now.

Again you can't compare DLC on the vita simply because the vita has a different coding structure, you'll find exclusive content on vita is frequent compared to ALL consoles because of the different structure and coding. I'd like you to compare Xbox 360 & PS3 because those two you can compare. You'll find that if they release DLC for the 360 and PS3 version that Vita probably won't get it.

Again, not at all. Anyone who actually cared enough to read what was said and pay attention to the beginning of the event knew they weren't going to say much if at all about gaming. They said time and time again that was reserved for E3.

Again I'm not denying that the Xbox One launch didn't specify that there wouldn't be more at E3 but they didn't compare or say anything about how any of the stuff they've implemented is actually going to benefit gaming, they just showed voice commands and hand gestures. Which I personally thought they would have said why these changes will help gaming. And that's different from actually showing gameplay so I thought they'd do that.

[Axw_JD]

It takes 30 seconds for me to install a 15GB game on my system, I wouldn't call that lengthy and again it takes pressure form working in concjunction with the disk therefore protecting the tech that reads the games as like I said, in the PS2 XBOX, XBOX 360 and the PS3, the laser is generally the first thing to go along with the disk tray, but the PS3 doesn't have one as such but it does have laser and I think many are happy to have up to a minute install for the comfort that it does help preserve the tech.



Again the reason we have an install is to take pressure off of the tech that we have within the PS3. I wouldn't say the tech and hardware is bad within the PS3 and the loading times are generally swift as they are on Xbox. For what reason that is we can't define, I haven't owned an Xbox since 2009 and to be honest I must have gotten technical problems loads of times, In fact I got the red ring of death about 3 times in the short amount of time I owned an Xbox and I wasn't impressed.

Again I feel you're trying to insult the PS3 anyway you can. What is mandatory install, we download a patch and it installs, we download a game and it installs, I'm not sure what you're getting at, all it does is prevent having to overuse the hardware and cause a lot of common malfunctions that happen on both machines and previous gen machines.



Its true that within sales it hasn't performed as well as full home console even though it can do the same a console but honestly, you can't expect it to compete with console sales, you could probably ask anyone if they'd prefer a Wii U or Vita, I'd probably side with a Wii U simply because I don't own one and would like to see the games marketed towards it because you do get a different set of games for the Wii U than you do with a vita. Its all about the games and most games that come out for the 360, PS3 also come out on the Vita and if you already own one of those consoles you aren't going to buy one unless you play more out of the home.

The main idea of the vita is a "this and next gen" hand held gaming device that will work with the PS4 launch. At the end of the day you can't compare the Wii - U to the Vita because the Wii U has a different audience and different games and a general different purpose. You could compare the Wii U and the current gen consoles e.g. Xbox and PS3 but you can't really compare it to the vita.



Again you can't compare DLC on the vita simply because the vita has a different coding structure, you'll find exclusive content on vita is frequent compared to ALL consoles because of the different structure and coding. I'd like you to compare Xbox 360 & PS3 because those two you can compare. You'll find that if they release DLC for the 360 and PS3 version that Vita probably won't get it.



Again I'm not denying that the Xbox One launch didn't specify that there wouldn't be more at E3 but they didn't compare or say anything about how any of the stuff they've implemented is actually going to benefit gaming, they just showed voice commands and hand gestures. Which I personally thought they would have said why these changes will help gaming. And that's different from actually showing gameplay so I thought they'd do that.

You are a little confused there. The mandatory disc installs the PS3 has are not to protect the hardware, they are so that the game can work on the PS3 at all. The PS3 has a day-one Blu-Ray drive, which is considerably slower than the DVD drive the 360 has, so load times are considerably higher and streaming from the disc sometimes is nigh impossible. To overcome this, some PS3 games need to install part of the content to the hard drive.

On the other hand, the Xbox 360 does have completely optional installs to preserve the hardware. THAT is the kind of install meant for what you are talking about. In the PS3's case, is simply a hardware shortcoming that forces those kinds of installs.

I can tell you really don't know much at all about how consoles and video games in general actually work so I think I am done here. You don't even seem to understand that a different "coding structure" (whatever that is supposed to be) has nothing to do with DLC being exclusive or not. Sony paying for it does though. FYI, every single console has its own SDK, documentation and general coding guidelines, that doesn't stop multiplatform DLC.

I'm not trying to insult your precious PS3, just stating some facts about it.

[Fractured Silhouette]

Both the PS4 and the XbOne will be shit. This generation is killing console gaming.

Console gaming has always supposed to be about accessibility, because they were simpler, and easier to figure out than a PC. In the new generation, it's going to be completely different. To explain I'd probably have to write something like 500 words, so I'm not going to.

Here's what you do:

Don't buy into Microsoft or Sony's new shitboxes. Get a good PC, it's actually going to be cheaper and more accessible than both consoles. If you are really set on spending your money on them, wait at least a year for them to go down in price.

Microsoft and Sony have completely missed the point of consoles in this new generation.

I for one, will wait for Valve to come in and release a console, even if I have to wait forever because they have yet to fuck me over. Peace.

[WickedWeekend]

Fuck the console wars. Each to their own, I say. If you prefer casual gaming and an all in one entertainment system, go with the XBox One. If you like gaming in general and want every other sort of entertainment left to their respective original hardware, go with the PS4. It's that fucking simple.

[Axw_JD]

Both the PS4 and the XbOne will be shit. This generation is killing console gaming.

Console gaming has always supposed to be about accessibility, because they were simpler, and easier to figure out than a PC. In the new generation, it's going to be completely different. To explain I'd probably have to write something like 500 words, so I'm not going to.

Here's what you do:

Don't buy into Microsoft or Sony's new shitboxes. Get a good PC, it's actually going to be cheaper and more accessible than both consoles. If you are really set on spending your money on them, wait at least a year for them to go down in price.

Microsoft and Sony have completely missed the point of consoles in this new generation.

I for one, will wait for Valve to come in and release a console, even if I have to wait forever because they have yet to fuck me over. Peace.

But they are still far simpler, easier to use, and considerably cheaper than PC gaming, so whats your point there?

And valve fucks you over on a daily basis. The new XBOX ONE drm? is just a watered down version of steam since, unlike steam, it still actually allows you to resell your games and play offline 9steam's offline mode also requires you to periodically get online or it stops working)

[xXl0sth0peXx]

OP request :locked: