Their competitiveness was a lot lower before xbox 360 launched too though, while sony came from the ps2. There's too many variablesThe Xbox brand in 2019 is far less competitive than it was in 2013. Sony's dominance may have started with power but their first party software and exclusive games won countless nominations and GOTY awards.
Also - people have invested heavily into their digital libraries. You'd need something far more than teraflops to convince users to abandon everything.
And this is all assuming Cerny is drunk at the wheel and decided to throw together a Newegg list for PS5.
It will be and that's due to Playstation. When people see PS5 they'll know it's a new gen. Also BC means literally nothing for most people seeing as
1. It hasn't actually done anything for the Xbox One (see every NPD monthly)
2. It didn't do anything to keep those 150m PS2 fans in the PS ecosystem despite the PS3 having full native BC with all previous consoles (price/perf matters more than BC - see how well remasters sell too)
Next gen will be a new start and the masses will know if it. Microsoft will make sure they do anyway. Sony by branding alone will cause people to know next gen has started.
https://youtu.be/m1l2OLHse1M
At the 17 minute mark of Brad Sams latest video he gives a decent explanation of why MS can be confident of a better performing box. Maybe as part of the contract, AMD had do guarantee the a better performing chip without having to say anything about PS5's performance goal?
I agree the Xbox brand was more competitive the first four months of 2013. The reveral of the x1 was a catastrophe and destroyed the x1 brand. It was a literal marketing nightmare.
From 2013 to today, MS has done a wonderful job at rebuilding their brand. BC and x1x enhanced games were a huge win, game pass is a fantastic value, play anywhere is great, the x1x itself being the most powerful console, the upcoming xcloud service, Phil's dedication to the Xbox team having a gaming first mentality, working with Nintendo and devs on the PC side of things to turn on cross play, and whatever else I am forgetting have all positioned the Xbox brand to be in a much better place than it was in 2013.
All you talked about were first party exclusives which Phil and the Xbox team have shown to realize are a major thing gamers want. All of the studios being purchased are solely to boost their first party output.
For the most part, what you said was true, but the Xbox brand is miles ahead today than where it was at in 2013.
XB will never have the marketing advantage it had at end of 360 era again .
The really fuck up with that .
Yes there brand image is better now but end of the 360 era they had so much going for them in many ways .
Also what you said goes for Sony also .
The extent to which they've helped rebuild the brand is entirely debatable. I don't think anyone could argue that Game Pass isn't great value, and that BC isn't a great thing, but how much have these things really actually helped?
Sales wise the console is still in a slump and far behind both competitors. Step outside on the Era enthusiast bubble, and the system is still often the butt of jokes all over social media because of a lack of quality exclusives. Meme videos, posts etc about the lack of quality games versus the competition are overwhelmingly numerous and have garnered countless views. Prominent Xbox centric YouTubers have moved away from the Xbox after decades of support, ragging on the systems poor first party showing versus the competition as the key reason why.
Confidence in the platform among many is at an all time low. What was the last Xbox exclusive that actually had a real shot at being a GOTY candidate, or even being up there with wins? BC, GP etc, these are great additives, but in real world terms they're just that, side dishes, whilst quality tentpole games and exclusives remain the meat and potatoes, hence sales are the way they are.
Just compare the Xbox One's 'brand rebuild' to the PS3's. The PS3's comeback (bolstered by strong first party releases) actually had tangible and real world sales ramifications, to the point where the console started a genuine sales claw back and ended up going on to sell 90m consoles, unlike the Xbox One that might be lucky to end on 55m and shows no real world sign of any major growth or sales claw back.
I think if Gears 5 and Halo Infinite end up being critical darlings and highly successful, the narrative might change, but right now it almost seems like Microsoft are being compelled to push things like GP and BC because of a lack of a prominent first party line up or releases, not in spite of them.
To be fair he's not talking about sales as if that's the only thing that matters. He's saying he's struggling to see what evidence there is of an improved brand, and sales is a part of that.
A voice of reason! I'm an Xbox guy. I like their services better. And honestly, it doesn't matter to me if it's more powerful than a Playstation or not. I'm just glad we can all game on the platform of our choice and have a good time. :)Competition is always healthy! Personally though, it doesn't matter to me what console is stronger, I've always gotten the playstation console and will do the same next gen, just have always enjoyed sony's games more and i have no doubt the games on ps5 will be great. Im sure xbox owners wont be disappointed tho!
A lot of people are clinging to the past lol.LMAO
Are you still stuck in the past?
Move on, It's 2019, things change and not everything will be the same.
And what prevents Sony from also requesting having the better chip? Aren't they also a huge AMD partner? Again, more delusional talking from this brad dude lmaoQuotes from his video: "I can almost guaraante they knew each other specs", "I bet MS could go to AMD and request for having the better chip...", "MS is a huge AMD partner". Sounds legit.
You can bet that MS and Sony knows exactly what the other one is brewing
And what prevents Sony from also requesting having the better chip? Aren't they also a huge AMD partner? Again, more delusional talking from this brad dude lmao
Either way, people hoping for a repeat of e3 2013 but with roles reversed will be disappointed, lol.
Yea, it sounds like complete fan fiction. AMD is going to pull favors for the customer that they sold 50 million less units to. Real smart business sense.And what prevents Sony from also requesting having the better chip? Aren't they also a huge AMD partner? Again, more delusional talking from this brad dude lmao
MS is a much bigger company than Sony and has potentially more to offer in terms of partnerships. All those Azure server farms could be running on AMD CPUs...Yea, it sounds like complete fan fiction. AMD is going to pull favors for the customer that they sold 50 million less units to. Real smart business sense.
Shower thought: what if the two SKUs are designed with single-household use in mind?
IE: If you have the "big" model, buying the "small" model for separate rooms gives it the same functionality as the "big" model, as long as they're on the same network.
Or is that pretty much a given?
AMD's partnership with Microsoft is huge to the point Lisa Su brought Phil Spencer on stage to talk about how big their partnership was at CES earlier this year. This goes bigger than just consoles. They talked cloud gaming and cloud servers. By saying "50m less units" sounds like you're saying Microsoft doesn't have as much influence or they are small time compared to Sony. That's just arrogance (or fanboyism) on your part.AMD is going to pull favors for the customer that they sold 50 million less units to. Real smart business sense.
This is the framing that people are attracted to, because the simplest and most appealing thought process people can have when prognosticating is to model symmetrical relationships.
If Xbox was the perceived "winner" of this generation of hardware, that would cause everyone to assume that Playstation would hold the advantage for the upcoming one. This simple assumption fits nicely into an easily understood narrative of a "back and forth tug-of-war" battle that could be used to, ineffectively in my view, substitute a proper analysis of the circumstances with an uncomplicated but faulty model for industry predictions.
I think two things are certain, history will not repeat itself in a perfectly opposite but symmetrical way (it almost never does in any aspect of life), and forces that determine the shape of the major changes of the future are currently unknown and will take everyone, including the experts, by surprise. I highly recommend reading The Black Swan, a book that goes into great detail about this phenomenon.
I think some patterns are resilient, though, and will largely hold true in the next variations of Playstation and Xbox. I think the two will largely be the same machine with the same graphical capability, just as they always have. I believe Playstation will have a natural advantage in Japan and Europe, and in North America the market will be much more competitive as per usual. I think the forces that will potentially affect major changes to the status quo are streaming services such as Stadia and whichever platform is able to secure exclusivity or market dominance for those kinds of games that come out of nowhere and surprise everyone, like Minecraft and Fortnite did.
And what prevents Sony from also requesting having the better chip? Aren't they also a huge AMD partner? Again, more delusional talking from this brad dude lmao
I disagree. So instead of giving developers a clean slate next gen jump where they can go ham in game design Microsoft will shackle them to a lower spec machine that has to be able to run all games?MS is planning on both undercutting Sony on the cheap end entry level consumer and also delivering the most powerful system for the hardcore.
Seems really smart strategy imo
I disagree. So instead of giving developers a clean slate next gen jump where they can go ham in game design Microsoft will shackle them to a lower spec machine that has to be able to run all games?
This post doesn't make any sense at all. How will a lower specced console hold them back? It's almost like you are completely unaware of the PC gaming market where hardware specs differ massively per person. That one guy with a GTX 770 isn't holding back the Metro devs from implementing nice tech which can take advantage of an RTX 2080 ti.I disagree. So instead of giving developers a clean slate next gen jump where they can go ham in game design Microsoft will shackle them to a lower spec machine that has to be able to run all games?
What?They would still be targeting a lower end spec for pc regardless if lockhart existed or not.
There are things that need to be able to run on all machines, that's why you see ever increasing minimum spec requirements even for PC.This post doesn't make any sense at all. How will a lower specced console hold them back? It's almost like you are completely unaware of the PC gaming market where hardware specs differ massively per person. That one guy with a GTX 770 isn't holding back the Metro devs from implementing nice tech which can take advantage of an RTX 2080 ti.
Tbh, I'm not sure why this thread is still open. It solely exists to fuel platform warring, create animosity between forum users, and promote biases that are rooted in incomplete information and preconceived notions.
We have no specs for the machines that can be used as a point of comparison and, a next gen speculation thread already exists for unverified information such as the one seen in this thread. It seems to me that the existence of this thread is juxtaposed to the type of discussion era claims it tries to foster. I mean, just in this thread, we have seen complete madness. We have people making claims based on assumptions they've fabricated out of thin air. Ridiculous statements like "Sony's r&d is at another level" or "Xbox are going to be taking a larger loss on the device" etc are some of the many inflammatory statements not based in reality.
This whole thread and its contents from what I've read, is mostly tales from my ass. Apparently, there were some documents obtained and the user has chosen to interpret the documents in one fashion or another. A vast majority of people haven't seen the document and the document as we understand, provides no specifications that can be used to compare both consoles. Instead it contains company goals which all companies have and nothing more. Now we have a thread full of platform warring and next gen bickering. The more things change, the more they stay the same smh.
.
You're still not making sense. Unless the lower end Xbox is using a completely different architecture and hardware there won't be any problems for these devs. The Xbox One didn't hold back the scope of games like RDR2, it's literally identical to every other version of the game with the only difference being resolution. They didn't cut assets like they did with the PS3 version of the original RDR for example where the PS3 version was completely missing foliage compared to the 360 version.There are things that need to be able to run on all machines, that's why you see ever increasing minimum spec requirements even for PC.
Having a higher baseline is always better for the possibilities in game design.
You're pretty spot on with the first part but a way off on the second.
You're right, these companies sell consoles to sell software and services. Where your reasoning falls apart is you're grouping all gamers together in terms of how they want to game.
So for people that already game on PC, MS just added that install base to their gaming market and it makes sense since the PC is primarily Microsoft's platform. However there are millions of people who don't care to game on PC for a variety of reasons. So for those gamers who wants to play a Xbox exclusive, they have the console as an option.
Also the reason I only mentioned 3rd party games in my previous post is because if you look at the most played games on both the Xbox and PS4, it's largely made up of similar 3rd party titles. So while exclusives most certainly matter, they don't drive the majority of game time for these platforms.
Really the biggest thing is not everyone is a PC gamer. It's really that simple.
AMD could not sign a contract with such stipulation without simultaneously breaking its confidentiality agreement with Sony.https://youtu.be/m1l2OLHse1M
At the 17 minute mark of Brad Sams latest video he gives a decent explanation of why MS can be confident of a better performing box. Maybe as part of the contract, AMD had to guarantee the better performing chip without having to say anything about PS5's performance goal?
I disagree. So instead of giving developers a clean slate next gen jump where they can go ham in game design Microsoft will shackle them to a lower spec machine that has to be able to run all games?
You said you did not understand why people brought up skipping Xbox for PC and why the same narrative is not the same for other consoles. The reason is my last sentence in that post. If you own a good PC and is comfortable playing games on it there is literally no good reason outside if you would need another PC otherwise to play Xbox games on their console.
This is not the same for Nintendo and Sony and why I said what I did. If you got a good PC you still can't play any of Sony or Nintendo's consoles.
Yeah this is ridiculous, giant multinational corporations would never breach someones trust.AMD could not sign a contract with such stipulation without simultaneously breaking its confidentiality agreement with Sony.
Absurd.
MS can have all the specs money can buy, but they won't have TLOU2 and GT7* at launch, plus GoW2, Spider-man 2, PSVR2...
*rumoured.