Why are people buying their consoles? Nielsen survey results

[XorpiZ]

The Playstation 4 is just an upgraded PS3.

 

Now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing (the sales numbers also show that), but calling it a risk, that Sony went for 8GB instead of 4GB? Seriously?

 

Microsoft took a huge risk with the online-only part. It failed, but they tried.

 

Also, Microsoft isn't developing VR (to my knowledge at least). It's AR, which is something entirely different.

 

Resolution being a fad is the same chat people were peddling about DVDs vs Blu Ray. If someone can buy something for a similar price yet one of the options offers an advantage, even if it is cosmetic, enough people will care to not choose upon brand loyalty but superiority. Hence why you have gamers who's multiplatform choice is based upon tech specs and not the colour of a logo.

 

Such a poor comparison. There's a gigantic difference in resolution between DVD (if memory serves me, it's 480p) and Blu-Ray (mostly 1080p).

 

If DVD's were 900p, your comparison would make sense.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

The Playstation 4 is just an upgraded PS3.

Now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing (the sales numbers also show that), but calling it a risk, that Sony went for 8GB instead of 4GB? Seriously?

Microsoft took a huge risk with the online-only part. It failed, but they tried.

Also, Microsoft isn't developing VR (to my knowledge at least). It's AR, which is something entirely different.

Such a poor comparison. There's a gigantic difference in resolution between DVD (if memory serves me, it's 480p) and Blu-Ray (mostly 1080p).

If DVD's were 900p, your comparison would make sense.

I'm talking about history, not making a comparison myself. Even this forum was rife with remarks about how Blu Ray wouldn't take off. Heck there's a hilarious topic in the MS section about how Blu Ray might not be in the XB1, but MS would bring back HD-DVD from the dead or some other optical format.

And who cares about failed risks? The only risks that end up meaningful for the consumer are those that succeed. But they tried something ludicrously risky (DRM)! That means something! No it doesn't, it failed horrendously and damaged the image of the XB1 out of the gates, hence sales in comparison to the PS4, the 'less risky' console, or 'upgraded PS3'...

[compl3x]

I don't consider choice of RAM to be an industry risk on the same level as things like the list of features given in the X1 (that have since been removed due to the removal of the Always Online stuff). Or the idea of X1 being integrated with Windows 10. Or allowing you to use your console as a cable-box, HDMI input, Kinect (not a success, but a real risk). Microsoft tried far more to push things forward than Sony did. If you want to consider choosing some RAM and game streaming to be 'risks', then I suppose I'll give that to you.

 

Announcing earlier with little to nothing being really announced wasn't a big risk, either. 

 

It's all fine to take risks but you don't get rewarded ot applauded for the risks that fail. Arguably, many of MS' risks failed, and gave Sony an edge.

 

I'm talking about history, not making a comparison myself. Even this forum was rife with remarks about how Blu Ray wouldn't take off. Heck there's a hilarious topic in the MS section about how Blu Ray might not be in the XB1, but MS would bring back HD-DVD from the dead or some other optical format.

And who cares about failed risks? The only risks that end up meaningful for the consumer are those that succeed.

 

 

I actually started that topic about the next Xbox having a blu-ray player and there were some people, usually without coherent explanation, who were convinced that the Xbox One (the name we didn't know at the time) would absoilutely not have a Blu-Ray player.

 

If you want to take a trip down memory lane and see just how absolutely clueless some members on here are:

 

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1083637-likelyhood-of-the-next-xbox-inculding-a-blu-ray-drive/

[Skiver Veteran]

<snip>

I'm actually surprised the number of Xbox One owners that had a PS3 is as high as 43%. I suspect a large portion of those PS3 owners ALSO had an Xbox 360. I don't think a lot of people chose the PS3 over the 360 and then got an Xbox One instead of PS4.

 

Including myself, I know a lot of people who had the 360 and a PS3 last time around. Most of them (again including myself) bought a 360 and a few years down the line bought the PS3 and again, most of them always counted their 360 as the go to console for multi plat games. I can't speak for them but I know I just preferred the UI and XBL experience over the PS3. So this doesn't surprise me too much.

 

No one has mentioned yet that only the WiiU was chosen for the 'Fun Factor' The X1 snuck that in at number 5 and its not even on the ps4 list.

This would seem to indicate that the people buying the ps4 or xb1 and participated in this survey don't associate their consoles with a 'Fun Factor'

Otherwise, I think this list is just more fodder to make jokes about honestly. Its not very useful unless your wanting to read a lot into the responses.

I think the number one factor for choosing a console is going to be games, followed closely by what your friends are playing, and then followed by misc features that appeal to you. Price is there too, but I don't think its as big of a factor with the pricing being as it is now.

To be honest I would read "fun factor" as fun games like Mario Kart etc, games that don't really take themselves too serious, its just a fun game to play.

 

I enjoy playing Forza and Destiny etc and I have fun playing them, but I wouldn't count them as "fun factor" games.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

It's all fine to take risks but you don't get rewarded ot applauded for the risks that fail. Arguably, many of MS' risks failed, and gave Sony an edge.

I actually started that topic about the next Xbox having a blu-ray player and there were some people, usually without coherent explanation, who were convinced that the Xbox One (the name we didn't know at the time) would absoilutely not have a Blu-Ray player.

If you want to take a trip down memory lane and see just how absolutely clueless some members on here are:

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1083637-likelyhood-of-the-next-xbox-inculding-a-blu-ray-drive/

Yikes... Re-reading some of those posts. I don't know if I'd rather believe some are that clueless, or it's just a pure hatred for the format/companies associated with it. I don't know what's the better thing to believe about some of those posters.

That's not the only topic in the section either with wildly crazy remarks about the optical drive of choice (or even lack of). Pachter, analysts (more reputable than Pachter), surveys and polls and journalists are often given a really hard time for their predictions on NW. Some of the armchair analysts doing the criticising really should apply the same methods of critique to some of their own predictions.

Not surprising to see some of the faces who graced that topic in here

[compl3x]

Yikes... Re-reading some of those posts. I don't know if I'd rather believe some are that clueless, or it's just a pure hatred for the format/companies associated with it. I don't know what's the better thing to believe about some of those posters.

 

 

Hey, who says it has to be one or the other? Consider it clueless hatred!

 

 

Not surprising to see some of the faces who graced that topic in here

 

I honestly don't know if people are just trolling or if they believe some of the stuff they advocate. You think "they can't possible think this is plausible" but there they are, offering nonsensical reasoning for their idea.

 

To be clear, I don't think I am always right. In fact, I accept that I might be wrong more often than right because a lot of wishful thinking exists when I discuss gaming. Wishful thinking is one thing... Entirely infeasible, competition ending decisions some people think companies will make is another.

[XorpiZ]

I'm talking about history, not making a comparison myself. Even this forum was rife with remarks about how Blu Ray wouldn't take off. Heck there's a hilarious topic in the MS section about how Blu Ray might not be in the XB1, but MS would bring back HD-DVD from the dead or some other optical format.

And who cares about failed risks? The only risks that end up meaningful for the consumer are those that succeed. But they tried something ludicrously risky (DRM)! That means something! No it doesn't, it failed horrendously and damaged the image of the XB1 out of the gates, hence sales in comparison to the PS4, the 'less risky' console, or 'upgraded PS3'...

 

You absolutely made a comparison. "Resolution being a fad is the same chat people were peddling about DVDs vs Blu Ray.". Which is, of course, non sense, considering the huge amount of difference in resolutions.

 

You asked which risks MS has taken. You got an answer. And apparantly that answer displeased you, since you get defensive about the PS.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

You absolutely made a comparison. "Resolution being a fad is the same chat people were peddling about DVDs vs Blu Ray.". Which is, of course, non sense, considering the huge amount of difference in resolutions.

You asked which risks MS has taken. You got an answer. And apparantly that answer displeased you, since you get defensive about the PS.

The only point I intended to make is the last part of that statement glossed over. Those with no brand or colour loyalty for the same price are going to pick the multiplatform title that performs at 1080p over 900p as it is a boost in graphical fidelity whether you want to argue a difference is only noticed going from 480p to 1080p or not. People were buying multiplatform titles last generation over differences of 600p to 640p to 720p. A difference is a difference.

The risks that they took are out for the masses to decide upon, who cares if they please or displease one individual like myself. The jury on whether a risk has failed or not is the mass market.

[XorpiZ]

The only point I intended to make is the last part of that statement glossed over. Those with no brand or colour loyalty for the same price are going to pick the multiplatform title that performs at 1080p over 900p as it is a boost in graphical fidelity whether you want to argue a difference is only noticed going from 480p to 1080p or not. People were buying multiplatform titles last generation over differences of 600p to 640p to 720p. A difference is a difference.

The risks that they took are out for the masses to decide upon, who cares if they please or displease one individual like myself. The jury on whether a risk has failed or not is the mass market.

 

You can't generalize and make up your own truthts like that.

 

Lets for arguments sake say, that you have a generic 20-year old boy. He has never owned an Xbox or a PS before.

 

Do you really think he will spend large amounts of time researching which games has the better resolution on which platform - if he even knows what this is? Remember: The average consumer buys cheap laptops, as long as they have 8 GB RAM.

 

You really overestimate how much people know about hardware. And I believe you really overestimate how much they care if the resolution is 900p or 1080p. Sure, the gamers care. But most gamers are entrenched in either the Xbox or the PS-trenches anyways.

 

The people who are most critical of the Xbox are PS-fanboys and vice versa. Average people just doesn't care. They buy whatever is cheapest or whatever their friends have.

 

 

The risks that they took are out for the masses to decide upon, who cares if they please or displease one individual like myself. The jury on whether a risk has failed or not is the mass market.

 

You asked for risks. You got them. You took that as a sign to get defensive, for some reason. There's no need for that. It wasn't an attack on neither you nor the PS4.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

You can't generalize and make up your own truthts like that.

 

Lets for arguments sake say, that you have a generic 20-year old boy. He has never owned an Xbox or a PS before.

 

Do you really think he will spend large amounts of time researching which games has the better resolution on which platform - if he even knows what this is? Remember: The average consumer buys cheap laptops, as long as they have 8 GB RAM.

 

You really overestimate how much people know about hardware. And I believe you really overestimate how much they care if the resolution is 900p or 1080p. Sure, the gamers care. But most gamers are entrenched in either the Xbox or the PS-trenches anyways.

 

The people who are most critical of the Xbox are PS-fanboys and vice versa. Average people just doesn't care. They buy whatever is cheapest or whatever their friends have.

 

 

You asked for risks. You got them. You took that as a sign to get defensive, for some reason. There's no need for that. It wasn't an attack on neither you nor the PS4.

 

You tell me I can't generalize and then go onto say look at this generalization of mine for arguments sake?

 

I'm at least making my generalizations based on the results of the topics poll, the reason the topic was started, and also the current sales figures which put the PS4 quite far ahead of the XB1. I'm not making generalizations based solely upon my own personal feelings, but based upon evidence and reasoning as to why the generation has gone the way it has so far.

 

Sure there's people out there who for whatever reason buy blindly without doing any research at all, but in the modern day of the internet, smartphone and Google it's vastly easier than it was 5-10 years ago to do some quick research. Google ps4 vs xbox one, a simple search someone might do. Article 1 has tech spec mentions.

[XorpiZ]

You tell me I can't generalize and then go onto say look at this generalization of mine for arguments sake?

 

I'm at least making my generalizations based on the results of the topics poll, the reason the topic was started, and also the current sales figures which put the PS4 quite far ahead of the XB1. I'm not making generalizations based solely upon my own personal feelings, but based upon evidence and reasoning as to why the generation has gone the way it has so far.

 

There's no evidence that the small resolution-disparity plays a factor in the sales difference. More than likely it's due to the price difference and the entire E3-debacle, coupled with miscommunication from Microsoft.

 

I didn't make a generalization. I asked you. Do you think a generic 20-year old boy with no hardware-knowledge and no previous console-ownership cares about resolution?

 

If that was the case, 15,6" laptops with 1366x768 resolution shouldn't be selling. They are, though. It's all about the price.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

There's no evidence that the small resolution-disparity plays a factor in the sales difference. More than likely it's due to the price difference and the entire E3-debacle, coupled with miscommunication from Microsoft.

 

I didn't make a generalization. I asked you. Do you think a generic 20-year old boy with no hardware-knowledge and no previous console-ownership cares about resolution?

 

If that was the case, 15,6" laptops with 1366x768 resolution shouldn't be selling. They are, though. It's all about the price.

 

To some people yes, but not all people. Price doesn't always mean trade-offs either, look at the mobile market with the OnePlus and Google Nexus range prior to the Nexus 6. The XB1 and PS4 are priced similarly hence why tech spec comparisons come into the equation. People aren't spending 2x the cost of an Xbox One for a PS4 that manages on average to do 1080p more than the Xbox One. They're paying the same price if not only slightly more.

 

If there's no evidence, what is this poll then?

[XorpiZ]

To some people yes, but not all people. Price doesn't always mean trade-offs either, look at the mobile market with the OnePlus and Google Nexus range prior to the Nexus 6. The XB1 and PS4 are priced similarly hence why tech spec comparisons come into the equation. People aren't spending 2x the cost of an Xbox One for a PS4 that manages on average to do 1080p more than the Xbox One. They're paying the same price if not only slightly more.

 

If there's no evidence, what is this poll then?

 

They have only recently reached the same price point. At launch XB1 was ~100$ more expensive than the PS4.

 

You can ask Sony how well it works out having a more expensive console at launch.

 

It's a poll. Not evidence. Besides, quite a few people have argued in this thread that the "Better resolution" is vs. the PS3, not vs. the Xbox One.

[Skiver Veteran]

There's no evidence that the small resolution-disparity plays a factor in the sales difference. More than likely it's due to the price difference and the entire E3-debacle, coupled with miscommunication from Microsoft.

 

I didn't make a generalization. I asked you. Do you think a generic 20-year old boy with no hardware-knowledge and no previous console-ownership cares about resolution?

 

If that was the case, 15,6" laptops with 1366x768 resolution shouldn't be selling. They are, though. It's all about the price.

 

I have to say, I would expect the generic 20 yo to care more about resolution than the person who does actually know.

 

IMO you supported that with your laptops with 8GB ram. They don't know why they need 8GB, but someone told them its "better" and therefore they decided that means they need it. Just like the 20 yo looking at consoles gets told the PS4 is better because it has the "better graphics".

 

These people are more likely to buy something based on those snippets of information without even stopping to think of whether it makes a difference. 

[XorpiZ]

I have to say, I would expect the generic 20 yo to care more about resolution than the person who does actually know.

 

IMO you supported that with your laptops with 8GB ram. They don't know why they need 8GB, but someone told them its "better" and therefore they decided that means they need it. Just like the 20 yo looking at consoles gets told the PS4 is better because it has the "better graphics".

 

These people are more likely to buy something based on those snippets of information without even stopping to think of whether it makes a difference. 

 

I disagree. The generic 20yo would buy what his friends have. If they are rolling Xbox Ones, he's not going to go out and buy a PS4, because the multiplats might or might not look better on that.

 

It's my experience, that the only one who really cares about resolutions is the fans of the console that is winning (and PC gamers). Last gen it was the Xbox-owners and this gen it's the PS-owners.

[Skiver Veteran]

I disagree. The generic 20yo would buy what his friends have. If they are rolling Xbox Ones, he's not going to go out and buy a PS4, because the multiplats might or might not look better on that.

 

It's my experience, that the only one who really cares about resolutions is the fans of the console that is winning (and PC gamers). Last gen it was the Xbox-owners and this gen it's the PS-owners.

 

Agreed on the friends part, but without a form of peer pressure, PS4 will sell well just by stating it has "better graphics" over the XB1 that can boast about its many media features, IMO. If I was out there looking for a console, never having owned one... I would probably be more attracted to the PS4 than the XB1 right now.

 

I care about Resolution, not massively but I care. I really hope that we start seeing games hitting that 1080/60fps that this generation seems to be aiming for on the XB1 more often then it is now. I care that for whatever reason, the PS4 is hitting it more often or at least getting close and hitting one of the numbers.

 

I just don't care enough to make me want it.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I disagree. The generic 20yo would buy what his friends have. If they are rolling Xbox Ones, he's not going to go out and buy a PS4, because the multiplats might or might not look better on that.

 

It's my experience, that the only one who really cares about resolutions is the fans of the console that is winning (and PC gamers). Last gen it was the Xbox-owners and this gen it's the PS-owners.

 

I do agree largely with this, among social circles where lots of your friends are gamers you all want to play together. What I would say though is for a lot of gamers these days friends can be fragmented (due to the size of circles), OR friends are multiplatform owners to get the best of both worlds. SP games do still exist as well

[XorpiZ]

Agreed on the friends part, but without a form of peer pressure, PS4 will sell well just by stating it has "better graphics" over the XB1 that can boast about its many media features, IMO. If I was out there looking for a console, never having owned one... I would probably be more attracted to the PS4 than the XB1 right now.

 

I care about Resolution, not massively but I care. I really hope that we start seeing games hitting that 1080/60fps that this generation seems to be aiming for on the XB1 more often then it is now. I care that for whatever reason, the PS4 is hitting it more often or at least getting close and hitting one of the numbers.

 

I just don't care enough to make me want it.

 

The main seller for the PS4, in my opinion is the price.

 

If I was in the market for a console, without peer pressure and with no knowledge, I'd check which consoles had FIFA15, NHL15, Madden15 (or whichever game rocks my boat) and then pick the cheapest.

[Emn1ty]

And who cares about failed risks? The only risks that end up meaningful for the consumer are those that succeed. But they tried something ludicrously risky (DRM)! That means something! No it doesn't, it failed horrendously and damaged the image of the XB1 out of the gates, hence sales in comparison to the PS4, the 'less risky' console, or 'upgraded PS3'...

 

Many sony fans kept talking about the awesomeness of the PS3's hardware till the day the PS4 was announced and how it was superior to the 360 on paper despite it being horribly unfriendly to developers (aka a failed risk).

 

I like companies that take risks in the interest of pushing things forward and advancing the industry. Failed or not, at least trying to innovate does say something about the company. Sony didn't try at all this gen.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

I don't think Sony have taken many risks with the core PS4 hardware, and that is exactly what they needed to do. Another console like PS3 and it would not be selling like it currently is. It would mean taking a risk which could do more damage than losing the console war.

 

However, the surrounding services and accessories planned are risks and ground breaking for consoles. Those are the areas which will matter and reap rewards in years to come PS Now is not just a bullet point on the PS4's feature list. It will be a life time investment for all future generations to take advantage of and expand on.

[Showan]

I don't think Sony have taken many risks with the core PS4 hardware, and that is exactly what they needed to do. Another console like PS3 and it would not be selling like it currently is. It would mean taking a risk which could do more damage than losing the console war.

 

However, the surrounding services and accessories planned are risks and ground breaking for consoles. Those are the areas which will matter and reap rewards in years to come PS Now is not just a bullet point on the PS4's feature list. It will be a life time investment for all future generations to take advantage of and expand on.

Have to agree with you 1-million% on this one.

Sony pretty much has risked a huge chunk of what $$$ on p&the PLAYSTATION ecosystem. Grabbing Gaikai (which everyone thought they were nuts) to incorporate in their infrastructure, Morpheus... The PS4 is simple in what we see, but there were a lot of calculated risk on the back end, to have this simple unified environment...

[+Asmodai MVC]

Many sony fans kept talking about the awesomeness of the PS3's hardware till the day the PS4 was announced and how it was superior to the 360 on paper despite it being horribly unfriendly to developers (aka a failed risk).

So you're saying you agree with this logic then?

I like companies that take risks in the interest of pushing things forward and advancing the industry. Failed or not, at least trying to innovate does say something about the company. Sony didn't try at all this gen.

In hardware I'd agree. That's a direct result of them taking risks last generation and getting hammered for it. They made an innovative new CPU unlike anything before it and because it was different from anything before devs complained about how hard it was to develop for. They included a bleeding edge physical media in Blu-Ray that drove their console prices through the roof and they had to start stripping things out and take larger than expected losses to sell them at first. So yeah, now BOTH Sony and MS give us low end x86 CPUs and mid-range gfx cards because neither really wants to take any great hardware risks. If anyone is to blame there though it's Nintendo because the Wii sold like hotcakes and it was just rehash of a gamecube with a novel new controller system. So why waste all that R&D money just to get beat by a basic CPU process shrink? It's not like MS has some amazing hardware either, it just tried it's luck with a novel new control system too in Kinect and it failed. Morpheus is Sony's Kinect, they just didn't REQUIRE you to buy it with the console and reserve resources for it even on non-Morpheus games. Maybe it will succeed, maybe it will crash and burn like Kinect, that remains to be seen.

As far as services PS Now isn't going anywhere and MS has nothing like it atm.

MS tried their game share but it depended on an "phone home" capability that the public doesn't like. Sony has SharePlay that hasn't been outright rejected by the public but you're crazy if you think they weren't working on that before they heard about MS's system. Also Sony made it so only one person on the box has to have PS+ and everyone gets to play multiplayer instead of everyone having to have it. That allows you to "share" games locally in your house. My gf doesn't own a single game nor does she have PS+ yet she plays all my games (including multiplayer) and that wasn't possible on a 360. So they found a way to share locally and remotely that the public wouldn't outright reject.

MS wants to control your cable box with the HDMI pass-through. Sony wants to REPLACE your cable box and allow you to cut your cord completely via PlayStation Vue. Sony's solution is far more innovative and forward thinking but as it's still in it's infancy it's too early to tell if it will work or crash and burn. Sony's already tried the whole DVR/cable box thing with the PSX way back in the PS2 era (Japan only) and with PlayTV in the PS3 era (Europe) but because there are so many incompatible cable companies in the U.S. it's a hard nut to crack. Internet TV is their latest attempt at a solution to that. Probably based off the fact that for a while the PS3 was the #1 device to watch Netflix on. Again there is no way this came about as a response to MS, they've been working on this stuff for a while.

Now most of Sony's stuff it still in it's infancy and maybe it will all fail but they are certainly trying things and they seem to be working better then the stuff MS tried so far. MS tried some things, they failed horribly, and now doesn't seem to be doing anything.

[Emn1ty]

So you're saying you agree with this logic then?

In hardware I'd agree. That's a direct result of them taking risks last generation and getting hammered for it. They made an innovative new CPU unlike anything before it and because it was different from anything before devs complained about how hard it was to develop for. They included a bleeding edge physical media in Blu-Ray that drove their console prices through the roof and they had to start stripping things out and take larger than expected losses to sell them at first. So yeah, now BOTH Sony and MS give us low end x86 CPUs and mid-range gfx cards because neither really wants to take any great hardware risks. If anyone is to blame there though it's Nintendo because the Wii sold like hotcakes and it was just rehash of a gamecube with a novel new controller system. So why waste all that R&D money just to get beat by a basic CPU process shrink? It's not like MS has some amazing hardware either, it just tried it's luck with a novel new control system too in Kinect and it failed. Morpheus is Sony's Kinect, they just didn't REQUIRE you to buy it with the console and reserve resources for it even on non-Morpheus games. Maybe it will succeed, maybe it will crash and burn like Kinect, that remains to be seen.

As far as services PS Now isn't going anywhere and MS has nothing like it atm.

MS tried their game share but it depended on an "phone home" capability that the public doesn't like. Sony has SharePlay that hasn't been outright rejected by the public but you're crazy if you think they weren't working on that before they heard about MS's system. Also Sony made it so only one person on the box has to have PS+ and everyone gets to play multiplayer instead of everyone having to have it. That allows you to "share" games locally in your house. My gf doesn't own a single game nor does she have PS+ yet she plays all my games (including multiplayer) and that wasn't possible on a 360. So they found a way to share locally and remotely that the public wouldn't outright reject.

MS wants to control your cable box with the HDMI pass-through. Sony wants to REPLACE your cable box and allow you to cut your cord completely via PlayStation Vue. Sony's solution is far more innovative and forward thinking but as it's still in it's infancy it's too early to tell if it will work or crash and burn. Sony's already tried the whole DVR/cable box thing with the PSX way back in the PS2 era (Japan only) and with PlayTV in the PS3 era (Europe) but because there are so many incompatible cable companies in the U.S. it's a hard nut to crack. Internet TV is their latest attempt at a solution to that. Probably based off the fact that for a while the PS3 was the #1 device to watch Netflix on. Again there is no way this came about as a response to MS, they've been working on this stuff for a while.

Now most of Sony's stuff it still in it's infancy and maybe it will all fail but they are certainly trying things and they seem to be working better then the stuff MS tried so far. MS tried some things, they failed horribly, and now doesn't seem to be doing anything.

 

Shareplay and the X1 game sharing aren't really comparable. In fact they aren't even remotely close to the same thing. One is a service that allows 'streaming' of games to friends with the ability to play it as a streamed game over the net. X1's sharing would allow you to 'borrow' games out of a friend's library and play them locally as well as buy games for your friends/gift them to your friends as the full license. I'd argue Microsoft had the edge on their planned features while PS4's Shareplay is just a multiplayer Gaikai.

 

Also, X1 allows ALL ACCOUNTS on your console to have Gold if only one user has it. That was something they were planning on doing from the very start, and they even announced that when they upped the XBL sub cost, stating it as the justification. As I recall Microsoft even before that had family Gold plans that allowed multiple accounts on the same sub for 360.

 

Microsoft's system for cable is... free. Playstation Vue is going to be another separate subscription (from what I'm reading). I don't really think that's much better, honestly. Microsoft's I'd argue is even more flexible, since you can use your existing cable box with it or (assuming you have a PS4) you can use Playstation Vue as well .

 

The thing is... Microsoft is not just 'planning' on doing these things, they've done all of them already, and continue to demonstrate they can deliver these features in a timely fashion. Sony is playing catchup with almost all of their services.

[+Asmodai MVC]

Shareplay and the X1 game sharing aren't really comparable.

You're right. Shareplay exists today and X1 game sharing doesn't. I know they're not implemented the same way but if the overall goal is to allow your friends to play your games then Shareplay is part of the PS equation that lets people do that. You can stream your game remotely to a friend. You can allow your friend to play your game locally on your console when you aren't even around (say you're roommate or something) or you can allow your friend to play your game locally on their console when you're they're. Sure it doesn't have as many options as the X1 method but the X1 method required of regular "phone home" that the public isn't willing to accept. So it's likely as good as we're going to get anytime soon and it's certainly better than what X1 has to offer RIGHT NOW. Maybe MS will come up with an innovative way to bring game sharing back that is more palatable but for now it's just not there.

Also, X1 allows ALL ACCOUNTS on your console to have Gold if only one user has it.

I didn't say X1, I said 360. That's a new innovation this generation and yes, both Sony and MS did that but Sony didn't copy MS. PS launched with that feature as well. Both companies did the same innovation there but that's in stark contract to your claim that Sony is doing nothing. Furthermore Sony NEVER planned to have a paywall for the web browser or streaming services like Netflix and MS did, they're dropping of the paywall was absolutely a reaction to Sony. They even dropped it on the 360 though which I give them props for. I'm really not trying to bust on MS here. I'm not trying to claim they aren't innovating, I'm just trying to refute your claim that Sony didn't try at all this gen. I think they BOTH tried and currently more of MS's attempts have failed. That said, again I'd like to say I'm not saying Sony's have succeeded, MOST of Sony's are still WAY too early to call a success and may very well fail as well but again the point is they ARE trying.

Microsoft's system for cable is... free. Playstation Vue is going to be another separate subscription (from what I'm reading). I don't really think that's much better, honestly. Microsoft's I'd argue is even more flexible, since you can use your existing cable box with it or (assuming you have a PS4) you can use Playstation Vue as well .

MS's solution is WAY more conservative and not at all revolutionary. You could have put a TV pass through on pretty much any console for the last few generations if you wanted to control TV. Sure it's free because it's just piggy backing on the existing cable service (which isn't free). Sony is trying to REPLACE the cable service so sure it costs a subscription, just like the cable service it's intended to replace costs a subscription. More and more people are "cutting the cord" can cancelling their cable service in favor of using streaming services like Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, etc. and Sony is tapping into that trend. Those people don't have a cable box to hook to an HDMI in. With PS Vue the PS4 will BE the cable box for them. Again it may very well fail miserably but it's more of an innovative risk than slapping and HDMI in on a console and connecting it to your cable box. MS chose the safer route there, I'm not saying it was necessarily a bad idea the point here again is just to point out that Sony IS taking risks.

The thing is... Microsoft is not just 'planning' on doing these things, they've done all of them already,

What things? What things has MS done that Sony didn't that are working RIGHT NOW? What have the DONE? X1 game sharing never even got off the ground, it was cancelled before the console even launched so they haven't DONE that. They were just 'planning' to and then they changed course. They did do the Kinect but that's a v2 of something, not something entirely new. BOTH Sony and MS did the shared PS+/Xbox Gold on the machine at the same time. The HDMI pass through I'd argue is less innovative then the PSX in Japan in the PS2 era and the PlayTV in the PS3 era so Sony DID do it, and they did it better (actually being a tuner and DVR not just a pass through) a generation or two before MS. Like the Kinect though it didn't really work so now they're trying IP TV but that requires deals with content providers that are hard to do. It's where the industry seems to be going but companies are dragging their feet. HBO Go is supposed to opening up soon so you can subscribe to it without having to have HBO on your cable provider. It's taking a while but it's not Sony dragging their feet, they're trying to be on top of where the industry seems to be headed instead of where it currently is or where it's already been like an HDMI pass through.

and continue to demonstrate they can deliver these features in a timely fashion.

What features?

Sony is playing catchup with almost all of their services.

Sony's not the one who had to change course. Right now there isn't much the Xbox One can do that the PS4 can't. They're very similar. Sony is playing catchup on things like suspend/resume and media playback sure. I'm not arguing Sony is ahead on everything but that they ARE taking risks. Adding DLNA support isn't a risk. Last gen consoles did that. The PS3 plays 3D blu-Rays so adding 3D Blu-Ray support first isn't a risk or innovative (although technically Sony rushed that out first anyway once MS announced it was coming). PS Vue is a risk, Xbox has nothing to compete. PS Now is a risk, Xbox has nothing to compete. Morpheus is a risk, Xbox has nothing to compete. SharePlay is a risk, MS has nothing to compete. Heck putting the touchpad on the controller was a risk, you can't hardly tell a Xbox 360 controller from a Xbox One at a casual glance. Again I'm not arguing MS isn't taking risks though, just that Sony is too. MS making cloud compute free is a risk but it's not something Sony is even trying to copy. Bundling Kinect was a risk but it's not something Sony is even trying to copy. They BOTH took risks, just in different areas.

[Showan]

You're right. Shareplay exists today and X1 game sharing doesn't. I know they're not implemented the same way but if the overall goal is to allow your friends to play your games then Shareplay is part of the PS equation that lets people do that. You can stream your game remotely to a friend. You can allow your friend to play your game locally on your console when you aren't even around (say you're roommate or something) or you can allow your friend to play your game locally on their console when you're they're. Sure it doesn't have as many options as the X1 method but the X1 method required of regular "phone home" that the public isn't willing to accept. So it's likely as good as we're going to get anytime soon and it's certainly better than what X1 has to offer RIGHT NOW. Maybe MS will come up with an innovative way to bring game sharing back that is more palatable but for now it's just not there.I didn't say X1, I said 360. That's a new innovation this generation and yes, both Sony and MS did that but Sony didn't copy MS. PS launched with that feature as well. Both companies did the same innovation there but that's in stark contract to your claim that Sony is doing nothing. Furthermore Sony NEVER planned to have a paywall for the web browser or streaming services like Netflix and MS did, they're dropping of the paywall was absolutely a reaction to Sony. They even dropped it on the 360 though which I give them props for. I'm really not trying to bust on MS here. I'm not trying to claim they aren't innovating, I'm just trying to refute your claim that Sony didn't try at all this gen. I think they BOTH tried and currently more of MS's attempts have failed. That said, again I'd like to say I'm not saying Sony's have succeeded, MOST of Sony's are still WAY too early to call a success and may very well fail as well but again the point is they ARE trying.MS's solution is WAY more conservative and not at all revolutionary. You could have put a TV pass through on pretty much any console for the last few generations if you wanted to control TV. Sure it's free because it's just piggy backing on the existing cable service (which isn't free). Sony is trying to REPLACE the cable service so sure it costs a subscription, just like the cable service it's intended to replace costs a subscription. More and more people are "cutting the cord" can cancelling their cable service in favor of using streaming services like Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, etc. and Sony is tapping into that trend. Those people don't have a cable box to hook to an HDMI in. With PS Vue the PS4 will BE the cable box for them. Again it may very well fail miserably but it's more of an innovative risk than slapping and HDMI in on a console and connecting it to your cable box. MS chose the safer route there, I'm not saying it was necessarily a bad idea the point here again is just to point out that Sony IS taking risks.What things? What things has MS done that Sony didn't that are working RIGHT NOW? What have the DONE? X1 game sharing never even got off the ground, it was cancelled before the console even launched so they haven't DONE that. They were just 'planning' to and then they changed course. They did do the Kinect but that's a v2 of something, not something entirely new. BOTH Sony and MS did the shared PS+/Xbox Gold on the machine at the same time. The HDMI pass through I'd argue is less innovative then the PSX in Japan in the PS2 era and the PlayTV in the PS3 era so Sony DID do it, and they did it better (actually being a tuner and DVR not just a pass through) a generation or two before MS. Like the Kinect though it didn't really work so now they're trying IP TV but that requires deals with content providers that are hard to do. It's where the industry seems to be going but companies are dragging their feet. HBO Go is supposed to opening up soon so you can subscribe to it without having to have HBO on your cable provider. It's taking a while but it's not Sony dragging their feet, they're trying to be on top of where the industry seems to be headed instead of where it currently is or where it's already been like an HDMI pass through.What features?Sony's not the one who had to change course. Right now there isn't much the Xbox One can do that the PS4 can't. They're very similar. Sony is playing catchup on things like suspend/resume and media playback sure. I'm not arguing Sony is ahead on everything but that they ARE taking risks. Adding DLNA support isn't a risk. Last gen consoles did that. The PS3 plays 3D blu-Rays so adding 3D Blu-Ray support first isn't a risk or innovative (although technically Sony rushed that out first anyway once MS announced it was coming). PS Vue is a risk, Xbox has nothing to compete. PS Now is a risk, Xbox has nothing to compete. Morpheus is a risk, Xbox has nothing to compete. SharePlay is a risk, MS has nothing to compete. Heck putting the touchpad on the controller was a risk, you can't hardly tell a Xbox 360 controller from a Xbox One at a casual glance. Again I'm not arguing MS isn't taking risks though, just that Sony is too. MS making cloud compute free is a risk but it's not something Sony is even trying to copy. Bundling Kinect was a risk but it's not something Sony is even trying to copy. They BOTH took risks, just in different areas.

Both have taken risk. Sony's risk taking was much more calculated and "safer". Grabbing "Gaikai" and injecting it with steroids and getting PS-Now, is a risk but not life threatening even to Sony. If PS-Vue doesn't pan out, once again they take a hit, but they could and will survive. Now Morpheus is a huge risk as the $$$ for R&D put into that must be pretty nuts (at least from all the good things people are saying about it)

Family Share, every games (even if they were physical) would stored digitally on Live, which were all fell under the "Phone Home" Umbre was an astronomical risk... And let's not even talk about Kinect v2. Showing that thing at the height of NSA and tin foil hats...risk..

Sony's risk smaller and calculated, they chose infancy, to bring these features in barebones, and grow them.

Microsoft just wanted to give you its features full throttle, and most couldn't grasp what is/was going on.

Microsoft didn't/doesn't know how to speak to the regular, average Guy/Gal. Phil Spencer so far is about the only one. Everyone else is so "robotic" there