Poll: Which Next Gen Console will you buy?

[WingZero30]

The Wii was the Nintendo effort for the seventh generation of home consoles, the Wii-U is their eighth gen console, just as the Xbox One and Playstation 4 are for their respective manufacturers, not sure where the confusion is.

This

 

[KiiYzOo]

The next generation of consoles would just refer to each manufacturer's generation of consoles for me, it does not refer to power, more the games that come out for the systems, so the Wii U is "next gen" as it plays the new games that are coming out for each console, they may not be able to easily run as well as on the other systems, but they will run.

I personally am a PC gamer, so the way that I am looking at this is weird for me, as I don't need to change anything in my system to play "next gen" "current gen" or even "previous gen" games on my PC that will run well

Also, since this is pretty much a thread discussing "next gen" consoles, talking about the Wii U is technically on topic IMO

 

[GTO656]

Im considering PS4 and only the PS4.

 

[Simon]

Not fussed by either. Have enough Xbox games still to play through when I get chance. I've retired myself from late night COD now

 

[Monkey Puzzle]

PS4;

1) It has a significantly better GPU. I think MS have made a serious error putting such an under-powered GPU in the Xbox One, and I think the differences between games on the 2 consoles are going to be clear from the get-go (possibly why XB1 games at E3 appear to have been running on high-end PC rather than XB1 dev kits?).

2)I buy used games and I don't trust that the MS model will result in steam-sale priced games, what with MS taking their cut, and going by their exorbitant proposed second-hand fees (was it £20 or £30?). I accept the steam model of not being able to sell games on because I can pick up games for a tenner on steam, and still buy second-hand physical copies elsewhere - I'm not forced to use steam. The DRM on XB1 seems to be designed purely to disadvantage the customer and make buying games substantially more expensive.

3) I don't foresee the internet checking oN X1 being a real problem as phone tethering would make it usable even if my ISP went down or I was moving house, however I don't see why there's a need for it. If MS are trying to copy Steam then why not have an offline mode? The media stuff for the xbox one doesn't interest me - it still requires a PVR and I can't see myself wanting to use a controller or voice commands to use the internet split screen with a game or tv. I already have a smartphone and a laptop for that.

4) I don't need or want kinect filming me! I don't undrstand the need for it to be plugged in - it seems pretty creepy. Fine, if they want to have gesture and voice controls that could work. But why does the customer not get a choice of whether to use that or not?

5) The DS4 looks to be a substantially larger with better trigger buttons. I much preferred the 360 controller to the PS3s, but Sony look to have actually taken feedback onboard this generation and adapted the controller for the western market.

I'm happy MS seem to be making the choice of which console to get so easy, as most of my friends currently game on 360 and are now also going to get PS4s. I'm not a fanboy - I've had both xbox and ps3, I just want my friends to have the same console as me. Although I don't want MS to leave the market, I'm glad it seems clear which console is the better choice.

 

[Marky]

Is there ever a winner? I mean no one thinks the Wii is better than the 360 or PS3 but it sold more. The winners are the gamers I guess..

I suppose you're right really - I saw the annual profits of each; Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft recently, I couldn't believe how much more profit Nintendo take in than both others combined!

 

[jamesy505]

I suppose you're right really - I saw the annual profits of each; Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft recently, I couldn't believe how much more profit Nintendo take in than both others combined!

Were the figures for each companies games/console division, or companies as a whole?

 

[Glaucus]

PS4;



2)I buy used games and I don't trust that the MS model will result in steam-sale priced games, what with MS taking their cut, and going by their exorbitant proposed second-hand fees (was it £20 or £30?). I accept the steam model of not being able to sell games on because I can pick up games for a tenner on steam, and still buy second-hand physical copies elsewhere - I'm not forced to use steam. The DRM on XB1 seems to be designed purely to disadvantage the customer and make buying games substantially more expensive.

.

It's down to the publish, MS takes no money and there is no set price of £20 or £30 it's down to publisher.

Actually the new details coming out the drm is actually good for the consumer if it holds up to be true. With two players being able to play SP at same time and upto 10people sharing the same game.

They want to push Kinect and if you look at some of Ms research videos its clear why. But for developers to develop for Kinect they need to ensure a market base. So to have to plug it in, you can still disable it if you want.

Not that I blame anyone for the confusion or conclusions its still not even 100% clear, MS has been rubbish at releasing details and for several years, they can't do a press conference to save their lives. We know how good it is for controlling media already, having to turn the controller on to press pause is annoying comaored to saying a few words, Some possibilities

This was windows, but you can see how it could translate to xb1 especially with the explosion of apps on consoles

Hopefully now it's compulsory developers will get on board.

But the more I hear about xb1 the more I think I will get one. Which wasn't what I was thinking several days ago. im in no rush and wouldn't pre-order anyway, so I'll wait till all the info is out. Even if that's after launch.

 

[K1LLSW1TCH]

Actually the new details coming out the drm is actually good for the consumer if it holds up to be true.

Where can we find the details? Major Nelson said in that impromptu interview with Angry Joe that you have to think of it as a library, one person has the game, someone in their family list can check that game out and play it, but only one at a time.

 

[ps3ud0]

Part 2 of that interview Kill - clarity that you cant simultaneously share MP games with your 'family' but 2 members can simultaneously play SP games. One sec Ill link it...

Pretty sure theres no swearing but only watched it until the audio recording in the car and got bored...

ps3ud0

 

[Glaucus]

Which as I siad in one of the threads, is there any MP game you can have two players playing at same time on the current consoles? Most(all?) require an account and/or disc, so in that regard nothing's changed.


http://www.gametrailers.com/side-mi...y-sharing-feature-allows-up-to-any-ten-people
The MS statement

Give your family access to your entire games library anytime, anywhere: Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend’s house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time.

"This is a big change, consumers don't always love change, and there's a lot of education we have to provide to make sure that people understand."

This is the extremely diplomatic way Microsoft Xbox Chief Marketing and Strategy Officer Yusuf Mehdi spun his reaction to the PR challenges surrounding the Xbox One of late. And it's true, consumers around the world (and around the Internet) loudly expressed how much they dislike the changes Microsoft announced to its game licensing terms (and online requirements) for the Xbox One last Thursday, giving Sony the ammunition it needed to win E3 by basically doing nothing.

The reaction wasn't a surprise to Mehdi, though. In fact, he said a lot of the way people have responded to Microsoft's moves was "kind of as we expected." But the implication of his statements in an in-depth interview with Ars Technica was that this temporary confusion and discomfort among the audience would be worth it as gamers and consumers adjust to a console world without game discs.

"We're trying to do something pretty big in terms of moving the industry forward for console gaming into the digital world. We believe the digital world is the future, and we believe digital is better."

Mehdi made a comparison to the world of home movie viewing, where inconvenient trips to Blockbuster Video have been replaced with Netflix streaming on practically every TV-connected device. On Xbox One, having all games exist as cloud-connected downloads enables new features like the ability to access your entire library at a friend's house with a single login or loaning games to up to ten "family members" digitally and remotely.

Those digital "benefits" will be available at launch, but Mehdi hinted that the digital rights management transition might unlock some more interesting game access and distribution methods later on. "In the future, you can imagine the capability to have different licensing models, different ways that people have to access games. This all gets unlocked because of digital." He wouldn't get drawn into details, but when I suggested ideas like an "all-you-can-play" Netflix for games or purely digital game rentals, he didn't shoot me down. "Sure. It could be a variety of ways."

Mehdi also suggested that the transition to a world of strictly downloadable and online-connected games would help allow for "a diversity of business models" for publishers to take advantage of, from free-to-play titles to $60 AAA games to Xbox Live Arcade games somewhere in between. "As you go into a digital world, what's happening is publishers are choosing to have different business models, and consumers are saying 'Hey, if I can't resell the title, provide me a different way to get value to get into your game.' And we think the market will be efficient in finding good models that work for consumers." In essence, Mehdi said, consumer demand for good value from games will drive prices down, even if a publisher decides to fully cut off the market release valve of used game resale.

Publishers, of course, have been the most forceful proponents of cutting off the used game market, with some suggesting that used games are comparable to piracy for their bottom line. But Mehdi said that Microsoft wasn't simply "giving in" to publisher demands with its new game licensing terms. Instead, it was trying to balance the needs of its four main "constituents," including the consumer (who comes "first and foremost" he said), game publishers, retailers, and Microsoft itself as a company.

"Within that, we've tried to optimize, and I think we've found a great balance across all of those dimensions," Mehdi said. "But there are tradeoffs. We do want to support everyone in that system, beginning with the consumer. But we want publishers to get paid for the great IP they work on. We want retailers to be able to drive and sell our products and make a profit. So we are trying to balance across all those."

Mehdi noted that purely digital game marketplaces like the iOS App Store have thrived despite having absolutely no physical media. Implementing that kind of disc-free system on the Xbox One "may not [have been] the best thing for consumers, and it may not [have been] the thing they [would have] wanted," Mehdi said, which is part of why Microsoft decided to keep discs as an option. Still, he did concede that, without discs, the licensing norms for the system "would be easier to understand."

The way Mehdi talked about Microsoft's licensing decisions reinforced the idea that he saw the limited abilities to share and transfer Xbox One games as a step up from other, purely digital marketplaces, even if some others see it as a step down from current disc-based distribution systems. On the Xbox One, Mehdi said the company has "tried to… bridge the two in a way that no one has done—to give you the power of digital and then give you all this power in physical. … We know we're providing a lot more value to consumers, but in that comes a lot of need to clarify 'how come disc, how come digital, how's that work?'"

While the Internet is decidedly up in arms about the way the Xbox One handles game ownership and online check-ins, Mehdi said it was "hard to say" what the larger reaction from the less attentive mainstream consumers would be. "I think it's fair to say there's a segment of consumers at this show in particular who really pay attention, who are very passionate about all aspects of gaming, and that we listen to closely. In a broader set of community, people don't pay attention to a lot of the details. We've seen it in the research, we've seen it in a lot of the data points."

One data point in particular Mehdi pointed to was the success of the initial pre-orders for the Xbox One, which started as soon as Microsoft's press conference concluded Monday. "Amazon basically says they are on path to sell out… Amazon is saying it's one of their best-selling consumer products. We're seeing the same thing from other retailers." To be fair, PlayStation 4 pre-orders were also a quick sell-out on Amazon after the company's press conference on Monday. Still, "it's very clear there are a wide variety of other consumers that love to game that are excited about what we have to offer with Xbox One," Mehdi said.

While the Xbox One will sell for $100 more than the PlayStation 4, Mehdi suggested that the extra money spent would be worthwhile to consumers looking for the "best value" in their next gaming system. Besides exclusive titles and gaming content, Mehdi said players would see value in the system being "backed by 300,000 servers backed by Microsoft that enable incredible game experiences." Also, Mehdi said, the Kinect in each box provides for better gameplay and "ease of use for the entire system." Things like live TV support and exclusive NFL and Skype partnerships will also help show consumers the Xbox One's "tremendous value."

"We want to have our offering be differentiated relative to all others," he said. "It has value that is in so many areas that is not in competing systems… That is a thing that each consumer will choose… and ultimately consumers will decide which is better. It's a big market."

 

[Marky]

Were the figures for each companies games/console division, or companies as a whole?

Just the console divisions of each respective company

 

[drunkenmaster]

How are publishers happy about cutting out the 30% of resales, but allowing 10 people anywhere in the world to share a game? How does preventing a fairly small resale market, which encourages more people to buy consoles and still encourages buying full RRP games bad for the publisher?

What about the fact that they've introduced a model where person A who lives somewhere, where he is the only gamer and so buys $60 games he doesn't share with anyone else, can't buy cheaper games, and can't resell games, has no other options when person B can buy a game, have 10 people in his family, or friends, who all game, and share one sale with 10 people and is effectively pay $6 per title?

If anything, aside from the awful explanations(and I've yet to see any confirmation of two people playing SP at the same time... would that still work with co-op?, doubtful) they should have gone with a system where you buy games at a reduced price, without resale, and then have an extra system where you can purchase extra licences. So its $30-40 a game, but up to 5 people or something can "share" a game buy all putting in another $5-10 a go to make a game multi licence. Considering MS have done this for their software for donkeys years, it seems odd they completely overlooked it. That way a guy isn't punished(as much) for not living with or near other gamers, and people that can share with others get a benefit but still pay more.

They could reduce price of games by half and do no sharing, most people would be happy, thats $300 for 10 games, or same price, and sharing, only 30% of sales are pre-owned, so 10 people would actually be 7x$60 sales and 3 where the publisher gets nothing, thats $420, MS's new publisher friendly system, 10 person licence $60.... win for the publisher? lol. There is NO way publishers think this is a great idea or pushed for it, which is why no publisher said they wanted it, said they pushed for it, or said a single negative thing about the PS4.

How many people buy consoles because there are cheap second hand games available, and how many of those buy the odd first hand title anyway? What do they lose if they just choose not to get the console? Even more stupid is, why do they think people sell games? So they have money to buy MORE games. You buy a game for £40, sell a game, buy a new game for full price, this is what loads of people do. With preowned games, the guy who sells it, goes out and buys another game, there is no difference, there is no lost sales(to MS and because most publishers have multiple titles, what goes around comes around, it evens out to more sales anyway). The example above where 7 people buy a game at $60, then 3 resell it and the publisher makes $420, the three that resell it have say $120 to buy new games with, and you get 2-3 more sales anyway... the money people use to buy preowned games still gets used buying new games anyway, just from a different person.

There are SO many smart ways to do this, MS came up with a terrible one, that makes the customer feel they are losing out, and putting some window dressing up with this "share with 10 people" crap.... almost no one will do that, if those 10 people are friends and all play COD, they buy 10 copies to play anyway, get bored of the game..... so what can't resell it.

So worst case scenario is publishers are getting 1/10th of what they get now, best case, its no better.... utterly stupid in every possible way.

 

[wnb]

being watching loads of game previews for both consoles. Today I preordered a PS4.

 

[beachBOYken]

still got a my order in for ps4 , but I will get a xbone most likely a year or so later.

Is it true that all games must be installed on the hdd of the xbone or do you get a choice?

 

[Nitefly]

Really who cares how much profit any of them make. The most important factor is how much you enjoy playing games on their consoles. That is what defines 'best'.

 

[Davey_Pitch]

4) I don't need or want kinect filming me! I don't undrstand the need for it to be plugged in - it seems pretty creepy. Fine, if they want to have gesture and voice controls that could work. But why does the customer not get a choice of whether to use that or not?

If what I've read is true, during set up of the Xbox One you'll specifically go through a part dedicated to Kinect, which gives you the ability to turn it off. I know it's not the same as not having it plugged in, but considering MS are strongly trying to push Kinect as a tool for developers, I understand (if not agree with) their desire to make sure everyone has it plugged in.

 

[Moothead2]

Really who cares how much profit any of them make. The most important factor is how much you enjoy playing games on their consoles. That is what defines 'best'.

There's no such thing as a 'best' console, only opinions .

 

[Davey_Pitch]

How are publishers happy about cutting out the 30% of resales, but allowing 10 people anywhere in the world to share a game? How does preventing a fairly small resale market, which encourages more people to buy consoles and still encourages buying full RRP games bad for the publisher?

Erm, because publishers get absolutely zero revenue from the 2nd hand market? You really don't like stores like Game and Cex hand over part of their 2nd hand profits to the game companies do you?

If anything, aside from the awful explanations(and I've yet to see any confirmation of two people playing SP at the same time... would that still work with co-op?, doubtful)

I've seen several explanations that says that yes, 2 people can play the SP campaigns at the same time - the original owner gets full complete access no matter what, while 1 family member can play the SP part of the game. There will be no access to the MP from what I'm hearing, which is exactly what I'd expect to happen.

How many people buy consoles because there are cheap second hand games available, and how many of those buy the odd first hand title anyway? What do they lose if they just choose not to get the console? Even more stupid is, why do they think people sell games?

Microsoft have already confirmed you can sell your games (at participating retailers), though I want to see more confirmation about how it will work.

So worst case scenario is publishers are getting 1/10th of what they get now, best case, its no better.... utterly stupid in every possible way.

That's incredibly short sighted. The worst case scenario is yes, they lose some sales on games that people might otherwise have bought. The best case scenario is that people buy a wider variety of games in slightly smaller numbers, rather than a limited number of games in large numbers. If I have £40 for a game and my friend already has the one I was going to buy, I'll just go and buy something else instead. I think a lot of gamers would do the same thing. In many cases the feature could end up almost being like a free trial as well. I play a game in a friend's library that I really like, but I don't always have access to it, so I go and buy it myself. I might not have done so if I didn't have the ability to try it first.

 

[ps3ud0]

That's incredibly short sighted. The worst case scenario is yes, they lose some sales on games that people might otherwise have bought. The best case scenario is that people buy a wider variety of games in slightly smaller numbers, rather than a limited number of games in large numbers. If I have £40 for a game and my friend already has the one I was going to buy, I'll just go and buy something else instead. I think a lot of gamers would do the same thing. In many cases the feature could end up almost being like a free trial as well. I play a game in a friend's library that I really like, but I don't always have access to it, so I go and buy it myself. I might not have done so if I didn't have the ability to try it first.

Hmm the problem with that best case scenerio is that even if the same publisher makes money over a wider catalogue, because they arent making the same sales per title wouldnt that potentially lead them to invest less in each game if the profit by game are going to be reduced, which leads to a lower quality game (by quality Ive obviously mean many different factors like scope or features)

Seems MSs family policy has some great benefits to the gamer, just seems to completely conflict with everything else they are doing. Its hard to be optimistic about how one feature will work while you are pessimistic about other 'features'.

And while Im here and its related to this family policy, Ill reply to your XO comment if thats ok, about it being integrated into the system so therefore publishers have to use it.

If it's a feature built into the Xbox then they don't have a choice in the matter. However, I do agree that we could do with some concrete confirmation on how it will work. Ideally I'd like to see some footage of it in action, that would do me fine.

Why dont they have choice in the matter? Ive not heard anything that says they cant restrict what can and cant be in the family policy. Obviously its still more details to derive as we wait endlessly for MS to actually stop being scared and be transparent with everything.

Its seems naive to think they are such bumbling idiots, so something must be amiss. Im grateful at least this version of policies are less strict than they were originally wanting but it does feel like they are avoiding the real bombshells. You dont cancel pretty much all your E3 interviews with journalists unless you are going back to the drawing board or want to avoid being asked the difficult questions.

ps3ud0