Xbox One Vs PS4 - Next Gen gaming

[SinXAzgard21]

I've been hearing a lot of terrible, terrible things about the Xbox One and as a huge supporter of the Xbox I am truly disappointed. I feel really let down by Microsoft, especially since I was the main kid in the lunchroom standing up for the Xbox when I was greatly outnumbered by PS3 owners.

Luckily, I own both a PSX and PS2 so i have no ill will towards sony in any way. I wish they did better with their controller, but companies always remodel there stuff at least 3-6 months after release.

So far, I'm very pro PS4, and I believe that right now, all they have to do is NOT FUCK UP, and they'll surely outmatch the Xbox.

With that said, I want to know more about the PS4. The forums and internet rants have been so clogged with fear and hatred of the impending doom XBOne will surely bring, I haven't heard much about the PS4 besides, "I'm getting that instead".

So what do you guys think about the PS4? I know from what I've seen that Sony's doing its best to just let Microsoft commit ritual suicide, but with nobody really digging through Sony's closet, they could be setting up to be just as bad as their competitor.

So yeah, what exactly should I expect from the PS4, or or should I just be happy that I'll be saving $400-$600 dollars just Christmas?

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/gaming/consoles/ps4-release-date-news-and-features-937822

That is all known information that I can tell.

[Valeran]

No one gets to bitch about game prices unless they lived in australia when games were routinely about $120 for a new game for a good couple of years. Please do not start the '$60 dollars is too much' complaints again, im sick of it. And its the same higher prices for a lot of people in the UK as well. 60 dollars isnt that bad. Even now here name games are still about $90 and our dollar is equal with the US dollar right now.

I get minimum wage, I get paid 7.78 an hour US dollars. That may seem like enough to buy a 60 dollar game, until you add in bills, food and other obligations before a game.

As for on topic. You know I am sick and tired of the companies belief that we;re just borrowing the games from them. Take a look at anything Used, from Used Books, and Used Cars. Should people who buy Used Books at a Used Bookstore pay an extra fee to read the book? Should people who buy a Used Car pay an extra fee to drive them beside the price they paid to ya know pay for the car?

When I buy a video game, I own that game. The moment I take money and buy a game or any source of property I have the right to ownership of that material. If I sell it and someone buys it second hand, it was my right to my property to sell it as I pleased. I am not borrowing the game. The moment I buy that game it no longer belongs to Microsoft or whatever publisher. The idea, the story, may belong to them. But that property, that material is mine.

And not only that, but I am tired of hearing about how Used Game sales hurt the companies. Because it's all bullshit. First off, if you're going to continue making CDs who is going to carry the CDs for you? The stores like Gamestop.

Much like in the Movie Theatres, when someone buys a ticket. The ticket sales do not go to the theatre, they go to whoever produce the film. The Movie Theaters only make sales on their Concession Stands Sales. It's why it is so high and so expensive in price.

Same thing with Music CD stores, Same thing with Video Game Stores, Movie Stores, etc.

A Used game is in a short example, like if a Mother bought her child a video game for Christmas. The mother bought the game, and paid the company. But the child didn't.

Also just another thing, it isn't that 60 dollars is to expensive. It's to expensive for some half finished game. 3hrs for 60 dollars isn't quality of time. I gladly spent 60 dollars on FNV Limited Edition. Because that was quality of content for a game worth 60 dollars.

The Xbox One is no more than a glorified Cable Box.

[Chris Brady]

And not only that, but I am tired of hearing about how Used Game sales hurt the companies. Because it's all bullshit. First off, if you're going to continue making CDs who is going to carry the CDs for you? The stores like Gamestop.

This is tricky.  See, one one hand, you have a company making money off another company's hard work (which isn't unusual, but this is rather blatant about it.)

Let's say, you, personally bought Dishonored, and thought it was so much crap, that you returned it within a week.

Now here's the thing.  When GS first buys the games for resale, they get about $10-15 (or so I'm told) profit per unit.  Now let's say, they pay you $20 (and I'm being generous here, it's often less than that) for your copy.  Suddenly, they sell the same game for $55 as opposed to $60 for being 'used' (which by the way is complete BS.)  And the wonderful thing for them is that they now make $35 profit on every copy someone returns.  And some people don't hate the game, they're just finished and want a new one.  So imagine this happening at about the hundreds of thousands per game.

That close to 3.5 MILLION for just ONE game.  And that's if one out of ten people return the game.

And Arkane Studios, Bethesda, do you know how much money they get out of that?  Zilch.  Nada.  Zip.  Don't you think they have a right to a tiny bit of that money?  No?  OK, GameStop.

Imagine writing a book, putting it up on the net to share, then someone copies most of it, changing a few things and LEGALLY puts it out for less money.  Wouldn't you be annoyed?  Oh wait, someone already did.  (Hello, Paizo!)

But that's not the only side to this.  And it's where things get sticky.  See, whenever someone returns a game, at GameStop, there was a number floating around at about 90% (if I remember correctly) of all that trade-in credit goes to a NEW game.  Which means, the customer is spending money, on a NEW game.  Which is what all the Publishers want.  This is how THEY make their initial cash.

So GameStop is both necessary, but ultimately 'hurts' them (not in the way, they want to believe, but it does hurt the publishers and developers.)

However, there's a bigger looming problem that no one wants to actually look at:  Escalating costs of game development.  This whole trade-in/reselling of used games wouldn't be so big if it weren't for the fact that a lot of games are well over the 20 MILLION dollar mark to make (that includes things like marketing and the like, not just programming.)  Long past is the era of pumping out a title for couple million to sell 70-80 bucks a pop (Ah, the Playstation 1 days...)

[Skynet]

Angry Joe's got some more thoughts on the Xbox One.  Warning, foul language:

Xbox One: Angry Rant Pt. 2

[Chris Brady]

There are some confirmation and clarication of what the XBone's (yeah, I shouldn't use that, but...) privacy complaints.  It doesn't look so bad, but still, let you guys decide:

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/privacy

[Inkidu]

This is tricky.  See, one one hand, you have a company making money off another company's hard work (which isn't unusual, but this is rather blatant about it.)

Let's say, you, personally bought Dishonored, and thought it was so much crap, that you returned it within a week.

Now here's the thing.  When GS first buys the games for resale, they get about $10-15 (or so I'm told) profit per unit.  Now let's say, they pay you $20 (and I'm being generous here, it's often less than that) for your copy.  Suddenly, they sell the same game for $55 as opposed to $60 for being 'used' (which by the way is complete BS.)  And the wonderful thing for them is that they now make $35 profit on every copy someone returns.  And some people don't hate the game, they're just finished and want a new one.  So imagine this happening at about the hundreds of thousands per game.

That close to 3.5 MILLION for just ONE game.  And that's if one out of ten people return the game.

And Arkane Studios, Bethesda, do you know how much money they get out of that?  Zilch.  Nada.  Zip.  Don't you think they have a right to a tiny bit of that money?  No?  OK, GameStop.

Imagine writing a book, putting it up on the net to share, then someone copies most of it, changing a few things and LEGALLY puts it out for less money.  Wouldn't you be annoyed?  Oh wait, someone already did.  (Hello, Paizo!)

Er... I've said it before, but none of that, absolutely none of that is wrong. Game companies and especially publishers want you to think it's wrong, but they have already made there money, and they have no more right to proceeds of the second sale than an author does for someone selling their book for ten cents at a garage sale. The amount of money and who makes the most profit is utterly irrelevant. It's hands off pas their right for the first sell. At least, that's the law in the United States. They are more than welcome to set up a service that's akin to GameStop, and some are... though they seem a lot more bullshit than GameStop by my reckoning.

However, one used sale does no, and should not, be construed as one lost sale. Because it's not. The company has already sold a unit. It's not a crime to not be making as much money as you think you could be making. I wish I could make a million dollars an hour doing crossword puzzles. The only time a company does not make money are when the game is pirated because someone is stealing. Saying used games hurt developers because they're not making money, well then if that's the case then no one should be able to sell his or her personal property over eBay, or Craigslist, or what have you.

Your analogy is a bit skewed too. A used game sale does not fundamentally change the intellectual property. You're selling something you won to someone else. Your example has someone changing an element of the game (story, mechanics, graphics) and trying to sell it as their own, which is copyright infringement, not a secondhand sale.

I agree with you on the rising cost of development, but attack a completely legitimate way of doing business is not helping anyone.

[Chris Brady]

Er... I've said it before, but none of that, absolutely none of that is wrong.

Just because the law makes it legal doesn't mean it's right.

So here's the thing.  When someone sells a car back to a used car lot, do they just knock off a couple thousand dollars and say, "There done."?  No, they actually usually chop about 1/4 of the price, not to mention going through the pain of checking the car out to make sure it works.  But with GameStop, they knock off less than 10% and expect you to buy it.  And sadly, there's no law against them doing that.  But that also doesn't make it 'right'.

I agree with you on the rising cost of development, but attack a completely legitimate way of doing business is not helping anyone.

To be honest, it's the big elephant in the room that used games sales is being used to cover up.  Kinda like the Napster witch hunt, during which time the record companies were being investigated as to why CD prices hadn't gone down in about...  10?  Or 15 years by that time?

[Inkidu]

Chris, cars and CDs are not the same things. I'm sure you know that the concept of depreciation, well cars lose over 1/4th of their value just from being driven off the lot. The second you take that sucker home you're out 1/4th your money basically. That's why new-car replacement is such a big thing with auto-insurance companies.

Game disks usually depreciate 1/10th their current value because it's assumed that it'll get some scratches on it no matter how little it's moved. Basically with modern processes unless you can navigate the London underground on the shiny side of a CD it's probably still going to play. GameStop actually used to have a money-back deal with new games if you didn't like them and brought them back within a week, but they would put them back on the shelf at the new price (which in theory they could be considered new because of their age), however, people didn't think that was right, they thought they should get the used price (even if it was ten bucks). So GameStop stopped doing that. :\

It's more about what the market will bear, not really a moral justification for it. Honestly, I think it's a bit... naive to think that developers are going to get bigger cuts from these used-sales measures publishers are intent on taking. Honestly, you might think it's immoral, but it's really just Microsoft excising the middleman to get a monopoly on what people can do with their rightfully purchased product. :|

Microsoft has become GameStop basically. I doubt developers are going to get much. Probably a token sum.

[Slywyn]

Once you buy something it's your property, regardless of what it is.

I can buy a new car and then sell it a year later if I don't like it anymore, or want to upgrade to a new model or new type of car.

I buy a new game and then sell it a year later if I don't like it anymore, or want to upgrade to the next game or a different game.

There is absolutely no difference between them.

I bought a good, I sold a good, no one should be able to tell me that I cannot sell a good that I legally bought.

[Inkidu]

Once you buy something it's your property, regardless of what it is.

I can buy a new car and then sell it a year later if I don't like it anymore, or want to upgrade to a new model or new type of car.

I buy a new game and then sell it a year later if I don't like it anymore, or want to upgrade to the next game or a different game.

There is absolutely no difference between them.

I bought a good, I sold a good, no one should be able to tell me that I cannot sell a good that I legally bought.

That's pretty much true unless you're talking PC games in the US. You're technically paying to lease the software, you don't own it in the US. That's one reason I haven't gone back to PC. The draconian measures, which consoles seem to be adopting. I might as well have the plat form that can do more than just play games. :\

[Slywyn]

That's pretty much true unless you're talking PC games in the US. You're technically paying to lease the software, you don't own it in the US. That's one reason I haven't gone back to PC. The draconian measures, which consoles seem to be adopting. I might as well have the plat form that can do more than just play games. :\

The fact that you could do that has long been a draw for consoles over PCs.

If Consoles start doing what PC is doing, there isn't going to be a point to owning a console.

Might as well have a PC.

[Inkidu]

The fact that you could do that has long been a draw for consoles over PCs.

If Consoles start doing what PC is doing, there isn't going to be a point to owning a console.

Might as well have a PC.

That combined with the fact that the days of constant PC upgrades are pretty much done. We've probably got one more graphical generation before it totally plateaus. :\

[Slywyn]

Actually I seriously doubt we see a graphical plateau any time soon. The reason graphics have been held back for so long(Or so I've heard) was that Intel was limiting the amount of power that their processors could use, which meant that graphics could only advance so far before the computer itself couldn't keep up.

From what I've been hearing they're starting to actually advance the processors(Or whatever component was limiting the graphics capability, I could be remembering wrong), so graphics will be able to advance more and more.

Not to mention as games get larger we'll need more RAM(Or cloud, which... eeeeeeeeeeeeeeh. I cannot stand 'always on internet' requirements) to be able to handle the games themselves.

There will always be room for computer improvements, even if not graphical.

[SinXAzgard21]

That's pretty much true unless you're talking PC games in the US. You're technically paying to lease the software, you don't own it in the US. That's one reason I haven't gone back to PC. The draconian measures, which consoles seem to be adopting. I might as well have the plat form that can do more than just play games. :\

I own games on PC.  I own hard copies of most the games I have and none of them have DRM.

[Jude]

I'm not against prohibiting used games sales, but the pricing and delivery structure of said games needs to change before it'll be palatable for the console market to bear such heavy-handed restrictions. In my opinion, good DRM meets the player half way in the form of a social platform that provides additional utility and services.

Steam does it right. Releases tend to be $50 instead of $60, there's a lot of added value in the services, the sales are significant, no multiplayer subscription fee, and the platform itself is constantly evolving in a better direction.

Microsoft is going in the exactly wrong direction, and has been heading that way slowly for awhile.

[Inkidu]

Actually I seriously doubt we see a graphical plateau any time soon. The reason graphics have been held back for so long(Or so I've heard) was that Intel was limiting the amount of power that their processors could use, which meant that graphics could only advance so far before the computer itself couldn't keep up.

From what I've been hearing they're starting to actually advance the processors(Or whatever component was limiting the graphics capability, I could be remembering wrong), so graphics will be able to advance more and more.

Not to mention as games get larger we'll need more RAM(Or cloud, which... eeeeeeeeeeeeeeh. I cannot stand 'always on internet' requirements) to be able to handle the games themselves.

There will always be room for computer improvements, even if not graphical.

Go look in this thread, there's a picture detailing polygon counts. Graphics are definitely plateauing. I agree that they're seeking other ways of boosting what exists, but sheer graphical quality is hitting its peak. :\

I own games on PC.  I own hard copies of most the games I have and none of them have DRM.

Not what I'm talking about. You ever read the End User License Agreement of any of those games you buy? If you live in the U.S. then it basically is telling you in effect that you are leasing the rights to use the software for personal use. It's not yours to own because it's a lease. 

[Slywyn]

Go look in this thread, there's a picture detailing polygon counts. Graphics are definitely plateauing. I agree that they're seeking other ways of boosting what exists, but sheer graphical quality is hitting its peak. :\
Not what I'm talking about. You ever read the End User License Agreement of any of those games you buy? If you live in the U.S. then it basically is telling you in effect that you are leasing the rights to use the software for personal use. It's not yours to own because it's a lease.

Graphics have been held back by things outside of their control for years.

They were only plateauing because they were forced to.

Now that the restriction has apparently been limited, we'll see advances.

[Inkidu]

Graphics have been held back by things outside of their control for years.

They were only plateauing because they were forced to.

Now that the restriction has apparently been limited, we'll see advances.

I think you're going to see clever tricks, but raw graphical jumps? Probably not.

I mean, no matter what your processor can handle you can only shove so many polygons into a space. Now, a processor will allow you to show more groups of polygons are on screen at a time, but each "package" would still have the same graphical fidelity that they always had.

Think Total War games. I don't think the individual unit model is going to get much better, but with better processors means you'll be able to put more high-quality models on the same screen at any level of zoom.

[Slywyn]

I'm pretty sure computers and programming will advance as long as people continue to put work into them.

All it takes is one person with a new idea or new technique.

Maybe next we'll see 'Polygons' replaced with something else. I mean, you just don't know until it happens.

[Inkidu]

I'm pretty sure computers and programming will advance as long as people continue to put work into them.

All it takes is one person with a new idea or new technique.

Maybe next we'll see 'Polygons' replaced with something else. I mean, you just don't know unWetil it happens.

Yeah, there's always techno-wizardry. :D

I'm just saying at the current course there's a graphical-power to cost ratio that will cause the tech to plateau at the current tech level. Obviously there are computers capable of creating Optimus Prime on the big screen, it's about making that financially sound for your average console buyer.

[Slywyn]

Things come out, they get cheaper as they're produced more.

Whatever the next step is in tech, it'll be commonplace in homes in about ten years.

[Chris Brady]

That's pretty much true unless you're talking PC games in the US. You're technically paying to lease the software, you don't own it in the US. That's one reason I haven't gone back to PC. The draconian measures, which consoles seem to be adopting. I might as well have the plat form that can do more than just play games. :\

Actually as of 2007 or so, it's been the same for consoles.  No one has owned a video game since then, we've all been renting them.

[Inkidu]

Actually as of 2007 or so, it's been the same for consoles.  No one has owned a video game since then, we've all been renting them.

I don't know about that. I've traded in console games to GameStop long after 07. :\

[Oreo]

:-\ I buy a lot of my games used from GameStop, too. Xbox and PS3 both.

[Chris Brady]

:-\ I buy a lot of my games used from GameStop, too. Xbox and PS3 both.

I prefer to buy them new, despite being poor, as it's MY way to show I want the devs to get the money for making more games.

Also, you know you have an image issue when the INTERNET makes joke ads for your competitor.

THESE ARE NOT REAL PS4 ADS.  Sony did NOT put them out, some Internet posters did this.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Mean, but funny.  It also points out the huge image issue that Microsoft is going to have to deal with.