Oh man. So much to discuss. Sucks I'm at work on my phone (computers here block gaming sites). Have a lot of points I'd like to discuss when I get home. Brace yourselves
I was actually talking back to the beginning, before the PSX, N64 days (and including all generations really). I think we were actually arguing two different things. If you were talking last generation, then agree with you more. There were different price points for the online multiplayer and even down to the consoles. But the controllers and hardware accessories were competitively priced. Maybe it's different in your country (since I see you are in Euros). My argument is there has always been competition but in terms of pricing, I just don't see it. Games between consoles has always been about the same (generally speaking, 50 bucks in the mid to late 90s which adjusted for inflation is about what we spend today). Not only that, back in the day, there were more consoles. 2 Generations ago there was the Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox and GameCube (and for a brief while, the Indrema). What they were competing with was exclusives, which is still going on today. Though there were definitely a lot of cross platform as well. Even games that defined PS2 (MGS2, MGS3 for example) went cross platform eventually.Nice, if we always agreed, there'd be no debate
When you talk about the old generation (PS3, X360) I agree with you: we had a quite healthy market and we could choose what was the best for us.
Now instead, even the annual fee for the online features costs the same: PSN+ 59,99€, XboX Live 59,99€. The bundles (console + game) are the same for both brands. The controllers cost the same, 64,99€. There is no commercial battle anymore, nothing. The only stuff that changes, is the color of the carton box. When we really see some differences in prices, is because our local shops decided to dump prices or whatever.
Haha. Yes I remember that. Wasn't AC Unity Ubisoft's biggest flop because they tried to rush it? I think that's why they dropped it to 1080p was for time reasons. They could have done it (honestly probably for both). But to get it out for the deadline, they probably didn't have the time to re-render the textures for 1080p so I don't think we can use that in the argument.About the hardware, I agree with you, but do you remember the story with AC Unity? At the beginning it was planned to make it 1080p for PS4 and 720p for Xbox (the values might be incorrect, I go memory). But something didn't work so we got 720p for PS4 too. The truth is that we have no choice because both brands decided to divide their market in two equal parts. If we are blue like Sony or green like Microsoft it's just an illusion.
This said, I will be gaming untill I can breath anyway :grin
Agreed. But I think I can shed some light on this (and I think I mentioned it in an above post). The reason we aren't seeing so many games out today (as opposed to previous generations) is because there are less studios and games are much more expensive to produce these days. With technological innovation comes a higher cost. It was much cheaper back in the day to make a game because you didn't have to spend so much time making and rendering such intricate details. The technology just wasn't there. You didn't have to render the individual strands of hair or every rock on the ground or every leaf in the tree. Graphics were simpler. Hell, back in the days of Atari and NES, it wasn't uncommon to develop a game in a matter of weeks or a few months as opposed to the couple year cycles we see today. Again, simpler to do the graphics. Today, more time has to be spent doing the artwork and writing the code for the complex game engines, which in turn costs more to pay the guys to do it. Not to mention a lot of smaller studios have been absorbed into larger studios and publishers which would rather spend more money on less games than spread their money thin and put out lower quality projects. Now this I feel is where the Indy game companies come into play; to bridge the gap but that is a whole different discussion.I am saddened not because the PS4 has got so few quality titles, but because the gaming industry as a WHOLE has produced so few quality products in these few years. Even though I have never owned a Nintendo console (save the handheld Gameboy), I can be delighted still when the Wii U gets a great title. I had been an Xbox owner until I bought my first Playstation that is the PS4, so I am happy to see the Xbox finally got out of the disgraceful mess of 2013. I think I never feel too loyal to just one console but gaming as a whole. Just the mere appearance of a superb game on any device can get me excited.
Agreed. As a long time Sony fan, I'm sad to admit this. Though I do have to disagree that there haven't been games that wowed us. I would say Destiny is a game this generation that has set the pace. Not the most ground breaking game but at least they put more on the table than others.Xbox One definitely has a much more impressive line-up right now. However, I think comparison would be missing the point. We are now two years from the announcement of the next-gen machines, and there is yet to be ANY title that really wows us. There has been no characteristic title that belongs to THIS gen only and defines it, only titles that are stretched from existing franchises and very much still rooted in the past.
I recognize that I have a lack of experience about consoles, in that period when I was between 20 and 30 years old more or less (1990 - 2000), because I was playing with girls mostly. LOL!! So... ehm... my point of view and the related comments are limited, I know.On another note, what local shops drop the prices of games and consoles? I would love to see that here in the states....though then again, we don't really have local shops. It's just GameStop and EB Games (depending on the mall and EB is also owned by GameStop). The only other choice is big box electronics stores. And they ain't really dropping prices either, lol. Walmart sells controllers for like a dollar or two less but **** Walmart I used to work for Best Buy and I saw the costs for the consoles, controllers and games. They ain't selling them at a profit, or much of one. If I remember correctly, the PS3 Slim cost them $295 then and they were selling it for $300. Most people don't know that GameStop only makes their big profits from used games. Which is why 2 weeks after you buy a new release and sell it back, they offer you a piece of string and a button then turn around and sell it for 50 bucks.
Aweome map, also the map seems to support my idea below
What is that based off of? Sales? Couldn't read that website. It is in some kind of jibberish language
Kinda surprised by that, especially considering the lead Sony has in sales over Microsoft. Though I'm not surprised Xbox is winning in my state. Xbox tends to attract the 'bro' gamer and there isn't a shortage of bros in my stateYes, it's based on the number of consoles sold.
Be careful believing what you read on the web. This "source" says the actual source is a site called movoto.com. If you pull up movoto.com it's a real estate with nothing related to the statistics of that article. Also, I can't find anything else on the internet related to the actual source of that information.
If anyone can find that real statistics for this I'd love to see it.
From the Forbes siteReal estate site Movoto spent some time collecting social media data via Facebook likes to see which consoles were the most popular in a given state. The result is something that looks a bit like a political map, an apt comparison given how fervently console fans support their platform of choice.
Interesting. That says they are going off of the number of Facebook fans that each console has. Pretty sure this has nothing to do with overall Sales. If you can find where it says this is related to total Sales I'd love to check that out as well.Here is the original information.
LoL like I said be careful believing what you read on the internet. The link takes you to movoto's site, where the original info is contained, and it says that information is based on the number of FB fans. It has nothing to do with the total number of consoles sold.From the Forbes site
Don't have to tell me twice, lol. I've been trolling the internet since 1995. Not gonna lie though, didn't read the article too thoroughly (mostly because I'm flipping between tabs looking at a new stuff for my Jeep ). But now that I've had a minute to actually read and digest it, yeah, Facebook likes mean nothing. Just proves which console has people who are spending more time on Facebook liking crap than actual gaming Either way, Alex posted an interesting link though.LoL like I said be careful believing what you read on the internet. The link takes you to movoto's site, where the original info is contained, and it says that information is based on the number of FB fans. It has nothing to do with the total number of consoles sold.