caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,978
I sent this as a private message to Hobbsyoyo and he said I should make a thread out of it, so here it is. Copied and pasted from that PM to him to this OP:
Why the PS4 will decisively outsell the Xbox one, perhaps even putting it in the seem rank as the Wii U
(or worse)
1) Graphics matter, as the Wii U have taught us.
The number one major criticism of the Wii U that I've come across (besides lack of games the traditional gamer wants to play) is the graphics. Everybody's saying they don't want to buy a Wii U because they know the Xbox One and PS4 will have better graphics, and as much as it pains me to admit, they're right. That said, with the PS4 costing roughly the same as the Xbox One (ok, PS4 is cheaper but doesn't include the camera which they've basically said you pretty much need and when you add the price of the PS4 camera it's about the same), the graphics are far from similar. You will see here that the PS4 in terms of hardware leaves the Xbox One significantly in the dust in every single category minus storage space in which they're identical (500 GB).
All of the Wii U hater's I've encountered (yourself included) have bashed it because you know its rivals will have a more powerful machine. So between the two rivals (Xbox One and PS4) why wouldn't you choose the more powerful of them supposing they cost the same and all other factors are roughly equal?
Besides this, the PS4's controller is better (I'm counting this as part of 'hardware'). Seriously, you will find from that link that the Xbox One's controllers are barely even better (if better at all, rather than just minute differences just so it seems 'updated'), where as the PS4's controllers are a hell of a lot better than PS3's.
The PS4 controller actually has a screen on it. They've even managed to get the one single advantage of the Wii U in terms of hardware (at least to a limited extent) onto their own system. I can say as a Wii U owner that having a screen on the controller is really nice, but having a screen on 4 controllers (offline multiplayer) is nicer. No more screen hacking! Playing an offline RTS multiplayer is actually possible! In this way, the PS4 does the one thing the Wii U did that was actually revolutionary, but they made it better.
2) PSN is way better than Xbox live.
With the sole exception being when the self-righteous hacker group hacked into the PSN and then claimed to 'not have any responsibility to whatever happened to the gamers' when PSN got shut down for a few months (you've got to love how these idiots try to have their cake and eat it to ), PSN has been superior (at least in my experience) to XBL in pretty much every category. First of all, FREE. This is something that cannot be understated. Remember, the PS4 and Xbox One cost the same as we've established, but the PS4 has an edge: comfortably better graphics. But now they have another one, tilting it in their favor even more: free to play online (not including DLC of course) versus paying for on the Xbox one.
Besides playing online for free, the PSN has ANOTHER advantage.
Based on my XBL experiences (I used to play on it for years on both the original Xbox and 360), the majority of players are males in their teens or 20's that don't have a job, car, or girlfriend. In other words, they are socially awkward nerds with no social skills whatsoever and insult everyone for whatever reason. Also, they think losing a game of online matchmaking at Halo will effect their REAL life in any meaningful way. To make up for their lack of real life accomplishments, they are overly serious about 'leveling up' in Call of duty and they will trashtalk their teammates because they 'caused them to lose'.
Players on the PSN (whether that's PS3, or less likely, Vita), are ALSO mostly males in their teens and 20's, and they even like roughly the same type of games as their Xbox-counterparts. But their's a critical difference: They are far more laid back and casual about it. No this doesn't mean they don't try their best to win and such, but they don't feel the need to insult other players as a default mode of choice because they're total nerds that are probably fat.
The only real way that XBL for the Xbox One could actually be better than their PSN counterpart is that Microsoft is apparently putting more money/resources into XBL for the Xbox one allowing for less lag and such, but as long as the PSN servers for the PS4 will be decent enough (I'm betting it will be), having marginally better servers does not outweigh the benefits of a) playing online for free instead of paying 50 bucks a year and 2) playing with people that are (mostly) non-s instead of the other way around. But then again, that's what it all comes down to, doesn't it? The only way even a *little* bit of lag would be a deal-breaker for you is if you're a 'competitive' gamer that is obsessed with winning at all costs, and if that's the kind of person you are then the more normal, nice people don't want to play with you anyway. I've played Playstation All-Stars Battle Royal on my Vita online plenty of times, and lag has never really been a problem. Even if there was a bit of lag from time to time, I'm willing to put up with that considering the atmosphere is more laid back than it is on XBL to the point of almost no comparison.
3) The PS4 will have more exclusives.
You will see from the site I linked above that the PS4 also has far more exclusives. They are including titles coming to both the PS4 AND Vita as 'exclusive', but considering I'm literally the only person I know that even owns a Vita, I'd say that's irrelevant. The only two 'must haves' for me personally on the entire Xbox one list (that the PS4 won't have) is the Rome game and Halo. Halo I can live without since as I said before, like most Xbox live games in general (but especially Halo), the players are not only s, but s without a job (hence how they have time to play 5 hours a day to perfect their skills and get a really high level).
4) Sony learned from their huge mistake of the PS3.
Sony made two unforgivable mistakes with the PS3, and they learned from it. What were they? First of all, the PS3's release date was dead last (as opposed to Wii and PS3) by a good margin. Technically the PS4 is still 'dead last' but with the vast majority of the people that could possibly be interested in the PS4 in the first place not giving a damn about the Wii U, and only literally half a month between the PS4 and the Xbox One, such a period of time is pretty much irrelevant. By the time the PS3 had already hit the shelves consumers had the choice between 1) an Xbox 360 which since it's been out longer, has a much better selection to choose from or 2) the PS3 with not only less games, but a MUCH higher price tag.
The PS3 cost 600 bucks at launch. I got one of those (ok, I got it used for like 540. But yeah). Boy was that a mistake. (ok, I paid half the price and my mom paid the other half for good grades during that school year)
The PS4 is MUCH better than the PS3 as well as the price of inflation meaning $400 today is a hell of a lot less than $600 when the PS3 was released. From this point of view, the PS4's price launch price tag vs. PS4's launch price tag is more reasonable to the point of almost no comparison.
Why the PS4 will decisively outsell the Xbox one, perhaps even putting it in the seem rank as the Wii U
(or worse)
1) Graphics matter, as the Wii U have taught us.
The number one major criticism of the Wii U that I've come across (besides lack of games the traditional gamer wants to play) is the graphics. Everybody's saying they don't want to buy a Wii U because they know the Xbox One and PS4 will have better graphics, and as much as it pains me to admit, they're right. That said, with the PS4 costing roughly the same as the Xbox One (ok, PS4 is cheaper but doesn't include the camera which they've basically said you pretty much need and when you add the price of the PS4 camera it's about the same), the graphics are far from similar. You will see here that the PS4 in terms of hardware leaves the Xbox One significantly in the dust in every single category minus storage space in which they're identical (500 GB).
All of the Wii U hater's I've encountered (yourself included) have bashed it because you know its rivals will have a more powerful machine. So between the two rivals (Xbox One and PS4) why wouldn't you choose the more powerful of them supposing they cost the same and all other factors are roughly equal?
Besides this, the PS4's controller is better (I'm counting this as part of 'hardware'). Seriously, you will find from that link that the Xbox One's controllers are barely even better (if better at all, rather than just minute differences just so it seems 'updated'), where as the PS4's controllers are a hell of a lot better than PS3's.
The PS4 controller actually has a screen on it. They've even managed to get the one single advantage of the Wii U in terms of hardware (at least to a limited extent) onto their own system. I can say as a Wii U owner that having a screen on the controller is really nice, but having a screen on 4 controllers (offline multiplayer) is nicer. No more screen hacking! Playing an offline RTS multiplayer is actually possible! In this way, the PS4 does the one thing the Wii U did that was actually revolutionary, but they made it better.
2) PSN is way better than Xbox live.
With the sole exception being when the self-righteous hacker group hacked into the PSN and then claimed to 'not have any responsibility to whatever happened to the gamers' when PSN got shut down for a few months (you've got to love how these idiots try to have their cake and eat it to ), PSN has been superior (at least in my experience) to XBL in pretty much every category. First of all, FREE. This is something that cannot be understated. Remember, the PS4 and Xbox One cost the same as we've established, but the PS4 has an edge: comfortably better graphics. But now they have another one, tilting it in their favor even more: free to play online (not including DLC of course) versus paying for on the Xbox one.
Besides playing online for free, the PSN has ANOTHER advantage.
Based on my XBL experiences (I used to play on it for years on both the original Xbox and 360), the majority of players are males in their teens or 20's that don't have a job, car, or girlfriend. In other words, they are socially awkward nerds with no social skills whatsoever and insult everyone for whatever reason. Also, they think losing a game of online matchmaking at Halo will effect their REAL life in any meaningful way. To make up for their lack of real life accomplishments, they are overly serious about 'leveling up' in Call of duty and they will trashtalk their teammates because they 'caused them to lose'.
Players on the PSN (whether that's PS3, or less likely, Vita), are ALSO mostly males in their teens and 20's, and they even like roughly the same type of games as their Xbox-counterparts. But their's a critical difference: They are far more laid back and casual about it. No this doesn't mean they don't try their best to win and such, but they don't feel the need to insult other players as a default mode of choice because they're total nerds that are probably fat.
The only real way that XBL for the Xbox One could actually be better than their PSN counterpart is that Microsoft is apparently putting more money/resources into XBL for the Xbox one allowing for less lag and such, but as long as the PSN servers for the PS4 will be decent enough (I'm betting it will be), having marginally better servers does not outweigh the benefits of a) playing online for free instead of paying 50 bucks a year and 2) playing with people that are (mostly) non-s instead of the other way around. But then again, that's what it all comes down to, doesn't it? The only way even a *little* bit of lag would be a deal-breaker for you is if you're a 'competitive' gamer that is obsessed with winning at all costs, and if that's the kind of person you are then the more normal, nice people don't want to play with you anyway. I've played Playstation All-Stars Battle Royal on my Vita online plenty of times, and lag has never really been a problem. Even if there was a bit of lag from time to time, I'm willing to put up with that considering the atmosphere is more laid back than it is on XBL to the point of almost no comparison.
3) The PS4 will have more exclusives.
You will see from the site I linked above that the PS4 also has far more exclusives. They are including titles coming to both the PS4 AND Vita as 'exclusive', but considering I'm literally the only person I know that even owns a Vita, I'd say that's irrelevant. The only two 'must haves' for me personally on the entire Xbox one list (that the PS4 won't have) is the Rome game and Halo. Halo I can live without since as I said before, like most Xbox live games in general (but especially Halo), the players are not only s, but s without a job (hence how they have time to play 5 hours a day to perfect their skills and get a really high level).
4) Sony learned from their huge mistake of the PS3.
Sony made two unforgivable mistakes with the PS3, and they learned from it. What were they? First of all, the PS3's release date was dead last (as opposed to Wii and PS3) by a good margin. Technically the PS4 is still 'dead last' but with the vast majority of the people that could possibly be interested in the PS4 in the first place not giving a damn about the Wii U, and only literally half a month between the PS4 and the Xbox One, such a period of time is pretty much irrelevant. By the time the PS3 had already hit the shelves consumers had the choice between 1) an Xbox 360 which since it's been out longer, has a much better selection to choose from or 2) the PS3 with not only less games, but a MUCH higher price tag.
The PS3 cost 600 bucks at launch. I got one of those (ok, I got it used for like 540. But yeah). Boy was that a mistake. (ok, I paid half the price and my mom paid the other half for good grades during that school year)
The PS4 is MUCH better than the PS3 as well as the price of inflation meaning $400 today is a hell of a lot less than $600 when the PS3 was released. From this point of view, the PS4's price launch price tag vs. PS4's launch price tag is more reasonable to the point of almost no comparison.
missed it.
