Poll: Xbox One or PS4

[slicktop]

Originally Posted by cfusionpm

People are pretending that they actually care about the internet connection, so they gotta slam them left and right. All the while, I'm guessing all of them have had solid reliable internet for at least the past decade. I know I have. This is 2013. If you don't have an internet connection, then a $500 gaming console is the least of your concerns.

It doesn't help that Sony as a company is jumping on the troll wagon and just pissing all over Microsoft. Makes them look desperate and petty. Probably because, despite being an inferior machine, 360 crushed PS3 for most of the last generation. And still crushes it in North America by almost 2:1 today.

Just would like to point out that internet connectivity does matter. Because you live in a heavily populated metropolis, doesn't mean everyone else does. I have been without high speed internet for the entirety of 2013 so far. While I have been able to have a connection, it is nowhere near the 1.5mbps required by XBone.

As far as the past decade having internet access. I'm able to confidently say that I have had "internet" about 75% of the time. And about 75% of that has been high speed.

[denkigrve]

Originally Posted by cfusionpm

The failure rate should be a testament to the experience people had with 360. In spite of a 30% failure rate, people kept buying it and kept playing it. I'm on my third 360 and would have gotten a fourth if needed. Luckily mine were all replaced for free and without hassle, and my current jasper chip model has been running strong for the last 5 years. .

To each their own. I walked away from 360 when mine died. Haven't regretted it since.

[SnapOv3st3r]

From Gizmodo. Do any articles regarding the PS3 and the Playstation Plus have this same tone? Xbox Live sounds like another pocket book extractor for MS.

Originally Posted by Gizmodo

Xbox Live Gold Is Still One of the Biggest Ripoffs in Tech
A lot of mud has been slung Microsoft's way this week, much of it deserved. Used game restrictions, mandatory internet check-ins; these new impositions don't sit well. But they also distract from the single worst thing about the Xbox One, which was also the single worst thing about Xbox 360: The tyranny of Xbox Live Gold subscriptions.

There's zero question left how Microsoft views the Xbox One: It's your home media hub, a set-top box that also happens to have Gears of War. The company's own promotional site doesn't mention games until very last, as an afterthought, like a creepy uncle you'd reluctantly introduce to your fiance. Master Chief has taken a back seat to Skype.

And as a set-top box, it's actually pretty great! Hulu Plus, Netflix, MLB.tv, Amazon Instant Video, Last.fm, Crackle, ESPN, NBA League Pass. You can hook it up to your (approved partner) cable box to watch live TV. The dashboard interface is clean; Kinect 2 is the most futuristic way to channel surf. You can even, finally, watch your Blu-ray collection.

In fact, if you want a single, connected, do-everything box in your living room instead of stacks of plastic and Gordian cords, the Xbox One is impossible to beat. It's even worth the markup over a Roku or Apple TV given the sheer breadth of what it can do. Or it would be, if it weren't for the albatross of redundancy that is your annual $60 Xbox Live Gold subscription.

What is it, exactly, that you're getting with Xbox Live Gold? The right to access services that you already pay for. That's $96 each for Netflix and Hulu Plus, $125 for MLB, $79 for Amazon Prime, and on and on down the line. It's like booking a hotel room and being charged separately to sleep on the bed. It's a cover for a club you already paid dues for. And Microsoft is literally the only company that does it.

It's true that your Xbox Live Gold account also includes gaming, as it should. Microsoft's online gaming community—and, importantly, support staff—are without parallel. It's a unique offering, it's added value, and it's certainly worth paying for. It also explains why the all-encompassing Xbox Live Gold account exists in the first place; just a few years ago, Xbox Live constituted online gaming with a few apps thrown in on the side.

That's not the Xbox One experience, though. At least not by Microsoft's own reckoning. Content is king, games are secondary. So why not evolve the fee structure along with the platform? Go ahead and charge a monthly fee for online gaming; most of your existing customers will probably go along with it. Especially since Live Gold now comes with two free games a month, much like PlayStation+. But it's not the gaming value that's at issue; just leave the services we're already paying for—that, again, literally everyone else in this business offers for free—out of it. Especially when your direct competition is doing just that.

Yep, that's right. While the PS4 doesn't offer nearly as robust a streaming content offering as the Xbox One, its masters did have the common sense to continue offering its video apps for free, even as it introduced an online multiplier monthly fee. You might not feel satisfaction with Sony, but at least you'll feel respect.

Are there more expensive ripoffs in tech? Sure, just ask anyone who's spent more than ten bucks on an HDMI cable. But it's hard to think of one that has affected more people over a longer period of time. It's also not going away any time soon; when we asked Xbox execs about separating video services out from Xbox Live Gold, we were met with deep dismissiveness.

What makes that intractability so frustrating is that Microsoft's vision for a connected living room is actually a beautiful one. I applaud it. I want to live in it. But until it stops charging me for things I already pay for, until it fills in the moat it presumes to build around other people's castles, it's always going to be like most glimpses of the future: tantalizing, but tainted by overreaching. In this case, towards your wallet.

Additional reporting by Casey Chan

[Giccin]

Originally Posted by VADER

Pfft, haha. You sir, know nothing about Xbox. First of all, you don't pay for an account.

That's the reason why I asked. I did explain to you I was relatively in the shadows on Xbox. Don't get why you went out of your way to say I know nothing. lol

And of course you pay for a account a Live account according to what you explained to me.

Originally Posted by n2oinferno

I don't think they're trolling. I think it's legit business competition and they are specifically targeting the things that the majority of consumers wanted addressed, albeit in a humorous way that seems to offend a certain camp. Business rivalry is hardly ever fair, and can tend to get somewhat heated.

I don't think they're "trolling" either. Lol I'm confused and curious to why people are using that term for business purposes. Gamer terms. :P

Originally Posted by SnapOv3st3r

You have to learn somehow don't you? I've never gone into her account either, I've just been around long enough to know.

Multiplayer wasn't something I needed to pay for before. As far as the Plus > Live, it was in reference to the amount of amenities you receive.

Pink was just a clue. I generally don't care if someone finds out I'm
female. I treat every gender equally. :P:happy0180: Anyways lets move on from this.

Also playstation plus is quite a nice feature. Loads of games I wouldn't mind getting for free.

[2forme]

I honestly can't believe how much of a blatant fanboy you are LOL. It's astounding really. So even when the stats are tied, you need to make MS look like it accomplished more by insinuating that MS had this huge amount of adversity? That most certainly isn't the case, but by the looks of things, MS is clearly working towards it with the XB1 and succeeding.

Originally Posted by SnapOv3st3r

From Gizmodo. Do any articles regarding the PS3 and the Playstation Plus have this same tone? Xbox Live sounds like another pocket book extractor for MS.

I don't quite understand Gizmodo... my PS3 already streams MLB, Hulu, Netflix, etc etc... for free. Hell, an 80$ HDMI android dongle can do all that....The only difference is the interface for it's IR transmitter and HDMI passthrough feature to make you "feel" like you're watching TV from the XB1, when you're really watching it through your cable box with a fancy interface stuffed between.

[cfusionpm]

Originally Posted by SnapOv3st3r

So your stuff breaking 3 times over is a good thing? Do you apply this to everything you buy? Do you value Quality Control in the products you buy?

It's not a good thing, never said it was. But in 2006 and 2007, the PS3 was a hugely expensive piece of garbage with no worthwhile exclusive games and an awful online network. It wasn't until they picked up their act several years later that people activity thought you could get a better gaming experience on PS3. And by that point MS sorted out their QC issues and had new chip configurations (and later, an entire console refresh). Maybe everyone else forgot just how bad PS3 was in its early life.

[2forme]

Originally Posted by cfusionpm

It's not a good thing, never said it was. But in 2006 and 2007, the PS3 was a hugely expensive piece of garbage with no worthwhile exclusive games and an awful online network. It wasn't until they picked up their act several years later that people activity thought you could get a better gaming experience on PS3. And by that point MS sorted out their QC issues and had new chip configurations (and later, an entire console refresh). Maybe everyone else forgot just how bad PS3 was in its early life.

So, by your own logic.... MS had head start by a year and was completely awesome from day one (minus RROD) while the PS3 sucked for several years with no games and no online... and yet they still ended up equal in sales? How could that POSSIBLY happen? Let's keep in mind the PS3 was released the at the very end of 2006. LOL

Shall we run in more circles?

[cfusionpm]

Originally Posted by 2forme

So, by your own logic.... MS had head start by a year and was completely awesome from day one (minus RROD) while the PS3 sucked for several years with no games and no online... and yet they still ended up equal in sales? How could that POSSIBLY happen? Let's keep in mind the PS3 was released the at the very end of 2006. LOL

Shall we run in more circles?

Because in the past few years Sony has made several leaps and bounds in terms of quality games and expansion of features. Microsoft has more or less sat back and raked in the money. Now, MS is suffering while Sony continues to move up.

[2forme]

Originally Posted by cfusionpm

Because in the past few years Sony has made several leaps and bounds in terms of quality games and expansion of features. Microsoft has more or less sat back and raked in the money. Now, MS is suffering while Sony continues to move up.

Unfortunately, that is false. See PS3's first year growth was actually nearly identical to the 360's. Actually, the PS3 pushed around 1 million more first year units than the 360. This would indicate that the 360 had no substantial advantage over it's counterpart in games or experience. After the first year, the PS3 has outsold the 360 every year, globally.

http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_dat...&ending=Yearly

[cfusionpm]

I guess I keep forgetting how much the rest of the world just loves Playstation. Japan played an integral role (no surprise) since they outsold MS something like 9:1. But here in the largestggaming market on earth, the US, the story goes pretty much ho hum for Sony with big sales bubbles for MS: http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_dat...&ending=Yearly

[2forme]

Oh right, because everyone on the planet other than the US hates MS for no reason. Silly me. What was I thinking?

OH, speaking of bubble... here are the US sales....

http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_dat...&ending=Yearly

The only bubble I see is X360. It's interesting to see the years in which that bubble took place, almost as if it was right after the RROD warranty extensions expired.... What a coincidence.

[mrlewistan]

Originally Posted by cfusionpm

People are pretending that they actually care about the internet connection, so they gotta slam them left and right. All the while, I'm guessing all of them have had solid reliable internet for at least the past decade. I know I have. This is 2013. If you don't have an internet connection, then a $500 gaming console is the least of your concerns.

It doesn't help that Sony as a company is jumping on the troll wagon and just pissing all over Microsoft. Makes them look desperate and petty. Probably because, despite being an inferior machine, 360 crushed PS3 for most of the last generation. And still crushes it in North America by almost 2:1 today.

aww, i think youre being too hard on the ps3. sure there were some issues, like that damn hacking scandal but my 60gig ps3 has always been dependable. I dont think its an inferior machine. I think the ps3 hardware is far better but microsoft has the better online community/function.

[Luis_GT]

Originally Posted by 2forme

Oh right, because everyone on the planet other than the US hates MS for no reason. Silly me. What was I thinking?

OH, speaking of bubble... here are the US sales....

http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_dat...&ending=Yearly

The only bubble I see is X360. It's interesting to see the years in which that bubble took place, almost as if it was right after the RROD warranty extensions expired.... What a coincidence.

Arguing with Xbox fanboys is like arguing with lebron fans... no matter how wrong they are... they're always right...

[2forme]

Originally Posted by Luis_GT

Arguing with Xbox fanboys is like arguing with lebron fans... no matter how wrong they are... they're always right...

I know, but it amuses me to make them look silly with logic and facts. LOL