XBox One AND PS4 Discussion

[GameSeven]

Hate to break this to you, but they only have to pass the savings on to the customers if the market demands it. If I were a shareholder I'd have just the slightest problem with EA (for instance) saying, "Well jeepers, we think we could get $60/download, but that wouldn't be fair since we don't have any packaging costs and our distribution is a fraction of what it was. Let's just charge $x and give those consumers a break!" I'd be sure to get to the next shareholder meeting after that particular pricing choice. lol

Which, *again*, brings us back to the original X1 plan... Broader market prices, all digital benefits....

[Aristo]

For those considering going solely digitally on the X1....available HD space is really only around 362GB.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/report ... 0-6416654/

All games are installed, so you'll be using the same amount of HD space with discs. I suppose if you played a lot of games at the same time redownload speed versus disc reinstall speed would be an issue. With some games coming in at 40GB already (and add DLC) instant access could be limited to a dozen or so "retail" games.

All the more reason to get the PS4. Easily replaceable/upgradeable hard drives. Throw in a 2TB drive for 100 bucks and voila...quadruple the space. Yes, you can replace the XB1 drive, but not without voiding your warranty. It's strange that Microsoft designed their system initially for only digital games and crippled it with a 500gb drive. Storage is cheap.

There will be support for external hard drives. It's not nearly the big deal the click baiters make it out to be.

That said, Microsoft should have enabled the ability to see your storage. And both Sony and Microsoft should have shipped with much larger hard drives.

So right now I have BF4, NBA 2K14, Forza 5, and Peggle 2 installed, along with demos for FIFA, Kinect Rivals, and Zoo Tycoon. So I have another 200 GB or so if I feel the need to keep my installs of all games, which I won't do.

The really bad part is that just like last gen, a Blu Ray drive really has no business driving a gaming console. It's too freaking slow, which forces installs of all games. Who thought this was a good idea?

[Murph]

I'm assuming the digital download price is the same so they don't p*ss off the brick and mortar retailers. If I could spend $40 on a DD, why would I ever need to walk into GameStop or Best Buy to purchase the same game at $60?

[dbdynsty25]

I'm assuming the digital download price is the same so they don't p*ss off the brick and mortar retailers. If I could spend $40 on a DD, why would I ever need to walk into GameStop or Best Buy to purchase a game?

Pretty sure B&Ms don't make crap on games. They make their money on used games and peripherals from my understanding. So that profit point is probably minimal at best.

[Aristo]

I'm assuming the digital download price is the same so they don't p*ss off the brick and mortar retailers. If I could spend $40 on a DD, why would I ever need to walk into GameStop or Best Buy to purchase a game?

Pretty sure B&Ms don't make crap on games. They make their money on used games and peripherals from my understanding. So that profit point is probably minimal at best.

And how do they make money on used games if we buy digital? I still believe if we had let Microsoft's plan come to pass, digital prices would have come down. While they don't have to give customers a break on price just because their costs dropped, they will if it drives more sales. It works for Steam, and it would work, for console makers.

And yes, Microsoft's plan would have kneecapped Gamestop. And the video game world would have mourned for about 23 seconds, about the time it takes for one of their cashiers to hassle me about reserving a f***in video game.

[Danimal]

I don't understand the fuss. If you buy a digital download isn't it registered to your account? So if you delete the install, can't you reinstall it? If you need instant access to every game in your collection then I guess I can see the problem but typically no one has that now do they?

I think I own close to 300 games on Steam and maybe 10% of those are installed.

My biggest beef right now is with NBA2K, now I own the PS4 version but I imagine it is the same on both system. If my online is down or 2K servers are down I can't play the game. I thought we didn't need to be always connected. Plus the VC s*** is ridiculous, but I guess that is in current gen as well but it will make me think twice before purchasing the game in the future.

[Aristo]

I don't understand the fuss. If you buy a digital download isn't it registered to your account? So if you delete the install, can't you reinstall it? If you need instant access to every game in your collection then I guess I can see the problem but typically no one has that now do they?

I think I own close to 300 games on Steam and maybe 10% of those are installed.

My biggest beef right now is with NBA2K, now I own the PS4 version but I imagine it is the same on both system. If my online is down or 2K servers are down I can't play the game. I thought we didn't need to be always connected. Plus the VC s*** is ridiculous, but I guess that is in current gen as well but it will make me think twice before purchasing the game in the future.

I may pull the plug to see if it will run on XB1. I can't believe they are really requiring internet to play. I understand not getting updated NBA Today stuff, but that is nuts.

As for hard drive size, I agree. I just don't need instant access to that many games. If you do, Microsoft has a console for that...

[dbdynsty25]

As for hard drive size, I agree. I just don't need instant access to that many games. If you do, Microsoft has a console for that...

They do? Last I check that option isn't available yet.

[pk500]

Hate to break this to you, but they only have to pass the savings on to the customers if the market demands it. If I were a shareholder I'd have just the slightest problem with EA (for instance) saying, "Well jeepers, we think we could get $60/download, but that wouldn't be fair since we don't have any packaging costs and our distribution is a fraction of what it was. Let's just charge $x and give those consumers a break!" I'd be sure to get to the next shareholder meeting after that particular pricing choice. lol

I get that. But aren't PC games sold through Steam usually cheaper than their retail counterparts? Most e-books at Amazon and Barnes & Noble are cheaper than their paper brethren, too.

[Danimal]

Hate to break this to you, but they only have to pass the savings on to the customers if the market demands it. If I were a shareholder I'd have just the slightest problem with EA (for instance) saying, "Well jeepers, we think we could get $60/download, but that wouldn't be fair since we don't have any packaging costs and our distribution is a fraction of what it was. Let's just charge $x and give those consumers a break!" I'd be sure to get to the next shareholder meeting after that particular pricing choice. lol

I get that. But aren't PC games sold through Steam usually cheaper than their retail counterparts? Most e-books at Amazon and Barnes & Noble are cheaper than their paper brethren, too.

No new games are typically not sold cheaper although many have a pre-order bonus of 10-15%. The cost savings are during the sales and it typically depends on the company and the product. Sometimes you can wait a month and get a $59.99 game for 50% off, other times the company won't discount it for over a year.

Steam has succeeded because it allows companies to move product in their back catalogues that would not of gotten retail space. For example Crusader Kings 2, a great game that is on sale a lot. You could probably get the game and all its expansion for what it cost on release.

Occasionally a game will see for $10 cheaper than the console version but that trend has started to disappear. The one thing that I can say about PC Gamers is they can wait a month for a game to save some money.

[Zeppo]

Amazon used it's massive leverage to force publishers to allow them to charge less for kindle editions. The publishers weren't happy about it and fear amazon, because already amazon was the lagest seller of print books anyway. B&M bookstores pretty much don't exist anymore, and I doubt he publishers are too happy about that. Apple tried to make a deal with multiple major publishers that priced e-books higher than amazon's prices, but eventually that got challenged by Amazon in court and apple and the publishers were found in violation of the anti trust act.

The console video game market is in no way analogous to the book market. Remember when the game publishers tried to stop best buy and target and walmart from selling used games? Didn't turnout so well for the publishers.

Also my understanding is that the PC market is small potatoes when compared to the console market, which in large part accounts for the puslishers' willingness to see early and deep price drops for digital distribution. I could be wrong, though.

[Aristo]

As for hard drive size, I agree. I just don't need instant access to that many games. If you do, Microsoft has a console for that...

They do? Last I check that option isn't available yet.

The 360 does not require installs. Just pop your disc in and play.

[Danimal]

Also my understanding is that the PC market is small potatoes when compared to the console market, which in large part accounts for the puslishers' willingness to see early and deep price drops for digital distribution. I could be wrong, though.

I don't want to rehash this argument again but according to Steam as of October they had 65 million users. That is more than MS has. The first reported price of a Steam box by iBuyPower is at $400. I'm very interested to see what Valve does in 2014. Steam has a catalog of over 3000 games and is the leading Indy platform in some peoples opinions.

Now if you could get a steam box for the price of an XB1 that had access to that size of a library, wouldn't you give it a shot?

[LAking]

Also my understanding is that the PC market is small potatoes when compared to the console market, which in large part accounts for the puslishers' willingness to see early and deep price drops for digital distribution. I could be wrong, though.

I don't want to rehash this argument again but according to Steam as of October they had 65 million users. That is more than MS has. The first reported price of a Steam box by iBuyPower is at $400. I'm very interested to see what Valve does in 2014. Steam has a catalog of over 3000 games and is the leading Indy platform in some peoples opinions.

Now if you could get a steam box for the price of an XB1 that had access to that size of a library, wouldn't you give it a shot?

Unfortunately Steam boxes will run the linux based SteamOS which will only be able to play a fraction of those games. Hopefully we'll see more games developed for it in the future.

[Leebo33]

My biggest beef right now is with NBA2K, now I own the PS4 version but I imagine it is the same on both system. If my online is down or 2K servers are down I can't play the game. I thought we didn't need to be always connected. Plus the VC s*** is ridiculous, but I guess that is in current gen as well but it will make me think twice before purchasing the game in the future.

Yeah, this is BS. You can play some modes offline, like quick game, but it won't let you start a GM mode game without being connected and it will stop your game if you lose a connection in that mode.

[Zeppo]

Also my understanding is that the PC market is small potatoes when compared to the console market, which in large part accounts for the puslishers' willingness to see early and deep price drops for digital distribution. I could be wrong, though.

I don't want to rehash this argument again but according to Steam as of October they had 65 million users. That is more than MS has. The first reported price of a Steam box by iBuyPower is at $400. I'm very interested to see what Valve does in 2014. Steam has a catalog of over 3000 games and is the leading Indy platform in some peoples opinions.

Now if you could get a steam box for the price of an XB1 that had access to that size of a library, wouldn't you give it a shot?

I just googled "xbox 360 install base" and this was right near the top:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2 ... 76-million

76M. And the thing is, that's for the 360, a single type of unit, whereas I would imagine steam users have a huge spectrum of devices, some of which are compatible with the latest, full price games and many of which are not really up to snuff. And then add in exclusive users of PS3 who don't have a 360, for example, and I think you have a much larger base ready to buy new multi platform console games at launch at full price than you have PC based Steam users similarly ready to go for the new games at full price.

I think the fact that Rockstar didn't release GTA V on PC says a lot. They are two different markets, console and PC, and for many publishers the mega-home-run sales possibilities only exist on console, not on PC.

All of which is just to point out that the factors that govern the economies of Steam and the console market are complex and different especially when it comes to digital downloads and prices. Analogies between the two can be made, but they are certainly not comparable one to one

[Danimal]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2 ... 76-million
76M.

I was referencing online users. I only skimmed your link but that was install base not Xbox Live users. Since we were discussing digital distribution I wasn't counting off line users because how would they even come into play with digital distribution?

http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/30/valv ... ion-users/

Funny enough the test Steam boxes were given away today, I didn't get one and ship to users on Friday.

[Danimal]

Unfortunately Steam boxes will run the linux based SteamOS which will only be able to play a fraction of those games. Hopefully we'll see more games developed for it in the future.

True but you're forgetting the streaming feature. While not the same as playing it on the Steam box per say if I end up getting a box it will be to use the Streaming feature from my main PC

[fletcher21]

I'm late to the party here. I wouldn't mind a new console, but I don't care about anything besides the ability to play games. Kinect doesn't mean a thing to me. Neither does the camera on the ps4, or the ability for the XB1 to control your entire tv experience. I just want to play a game here and there, but I don't have the time to play more than an hour or 2 a week. I care more about how the system can run the games than which one has a slightly higher polygon count or resolution. So which system is better for GAMING only? I know that they each have some stellar exclusives, and there is really no franchise I have to play 100%. I've always been an Xbox guy, but it seems like the PS4 is better at playing the actual games.

Hopefully someone can give me the cliffs notes without being a d*****, but I'll take whatever I can get.

[TCrouch]

The whole thread boils down to this--PS4 is $100 cheaper, and if all you want is gaming and don't care about exclusives, there's no reason to go XB1. If you care about Xbox Live, then that obviously tilts it in XB1's favor.

But based on that short description of what you want, I'd recommend PS4. I have always been an XBox guy as well, until this generation. Now I play both, but the majority of my time is on the PS4. Whether it's "better at playing the games" or not is a matter of personal opinion. I think it is, but others may not.

However, nobody in their right mind will say the XB1 is worth $100 more if all you want to do is throw a game disc in the drive and play.

[dbdynsty25]

But based on that short description of what you want, I'd recommend PS4. I have always been an XBox guy as well, until this generation. Now I play both, but the majority of my time is on the PS4. Whether it's "better at playing the games" or not is a matter of personal opinion. I think it is, but others may not.

However, nobody in their right mind will say the XB1 is worth $100 more if all you want to do is throw a game disc in the drive and play.

+1 to all of it.

[Pete1210]

I just want to play a game here and there, but I don't have the time to play more than an hour or 2 a week. I care more about how the system can run the games than which one has a slightly higher polygon count or resolution. So which system is better for GAMING only?... I've always been an Xbox guy, but it seems like the PS4 is better at playing the actual games.

Being an xbox guy, do you have PS3? If not, I'd recommend getting one of those first, unless there are next gen only games that you want to play.

[Aristo]

I think a Wii U sounds like a better console. An hour or two a week means spending $400, let alone $500 on a console is pretty dumb. You can get a base model Wii U for $250.

[dbdynsty25]

I think a Wii U sounds like a better console. An hour or two a week means spending $400, let alone $500 on a console is pretty dumb. You can get a base model Wii U for $250.

And then you have a $250 door stop w/ one good game. Until the next Mario comes out. Then it'll be 2. Better off with the 360 than a U. Assuming he doesn't have a last gen console already.

[fletcher21]

I have both a 360 and a Ps3. Wii is a niche console at best, so that's out. The difference between 400 and 500 is not a deal breaker to me. All I really need with my limited amount of time is maybe a handful of good games to last me all thru 2014. I used to play a game like MGS in a weekend, but now days a 12-15 hour campaign would take me a few months to complete. I think I might look into a PS4. My only knock on the ps3 was the controller, but the new ps4 controller seems like a nice upgrade.