The more competition argument

Competition can be a good thing in the industry. However, I'm starting to see a lot of people make it seem like both Sony and MS HAVE to be neck and neck for this gen to be good. 6th gen being better than 7th gen should tell you that's a load of crap. The PS2 dominated and is considered the best console ever.

Sony outsold everyone 4 to 1 with PS2 and never got lazy. 360 tied PS3 or lost and that was enough for them to get complacent. PS3 and 360 were close in sales all gen and it didn't make the generation better. If PS4 completely dominated X1, I'm sure we'll be in for a good generation regardless because Sony doesn't get complacent like MS does.

It is true that MS made Sony better and more focused to correct past mistakes. With Sony better, what role does MS play now that Sony learned they're not invincible? Time will tell.

Do you guys think this gen will be better if Sony dominates? or if they're neck and neck with xbox one?

Hmm, too much to read I presume?

lets say xbox live never came along. I really wound where psn would be at right now....

Free

free- garbage

The only home system we'll see in the 8th generation will be the Playstation 5, and in the later years to come, the price drop will be minimum due to the lack of a competitor pressuring them to drop the price.

Yeah, this old chestnut. I see this argument a lot. You could indeed have got on just fine with only a PS2 back then. The 3DS has no dedicated handheld competition (What's a Vita?) and people love that.

It has its perks. Those being improved PSN, Games With Gold to counter PS+, the very existance of the original Xbox. Or we could blame competition for daft shit like timed exclusive DLC wars and online paywalls on consoles becoming standard.

PS4 needs to be massively successful, ie- PS2 2, because of the stench of doom surrounding Sony. If that means dominating MS/Nintendo again, w/e.

If cablebox 720p succeeds it's a message that putting out non gaming, overpriced nsa sportsbox 720p hardware with DRM up the ass is good business move. It needs to fail so they make a better console next time.

How does the PS2 being considered the best console of it's time mean that it was a better gen. There is never going to be a 'best console ever'. If you'd rather play 6th gen games than last gen games, then that's fine for you, but most games don't stand the test of time.

There might have been less between the PS3 and Xbox 360, but the games were bigger with better audio, physics, graphics and ai. Imo the last gen spanked the PS2/Xbox/GC gen. Nearly all the games I played surpassed those of the 6th gen accept for a few areas.

And for the first time with last gen, it has been about western games for western gamers instead of being forced fed mostly Japanese games. Nothing against them, but they don't really make them with our tastes in mind, and that's fine for them, I can't blame them.

Or it just proves that fanboys talk nonsense and we shouldn't listen to them. You have no idea if the Xbox One will turn out to be a good console or not. Anyone who says that right now is just prejudice,

And what DRM? Why is it ok for steam to have DRM then, everyone is like 'GOOOO Steam Machine'.

First of all, your statement that the 6th gen was better than the 7th gen is just an opinion and one that I disagree with. I enjoyed the 7th gen more than the 6th gen. In fact, the 6th generation was probably my least favorite generation since I started gaming with the NES.

Secondly, the problems that came from Sony being dominant with the PS2 did not fully show themselves until it was time for Sony to release their next console, the PS3.

The PS2's dominance made Sony arrogant enough to believe that gamers would pay $600 for their new console. They even became arrogant enough to say that people would buy the PS3 even if it did not have any games and that people should get a second job to be able to afford a PS3.

And your statement that Sony does not get complacent is not true at all. Sony was definitely complacent for the first 2 years of the PS3's life while they still thought that they were invincible after their PS2 dominance. The PS3 had hardly any games worth buying at that time, they brought no new innovations, and their online service was complete crap. It wasn't until they saw how much market share they had lost to Microsoft that they got humbled and started working hard to turn things around and make the PS3 worth owning.

Sony has been working so hard to make the PS4 appealing to gamers because they got their ass kicked last gen and want to regain their lost market share. Compare this to the launch of the PS3 when they thought that they were invincible after their PS2 dominance. If Sony is dominant with the PS4, we are going to see the return of arrogant Sony when it's time for the PS5 to launch.

Competition can include other forms of entertainment. Gaming competes with more than just other consoles...so yes...it's in the best interest of any manufacturer to provide good product whether another competitor is nipping at their heals or not.

Competition can include other forms of entertainment. Gaming competes with more than just other consoles...so yes...it's in the best interest of any manufacturer to provide good product whether another competitor is nipping at their heals or not.

Arrogant? Just out of curiosity do you have production costs? Because the PS3 had both a blu ray and bc originally which comes at a cost.

The effects of a close race in a competition may not be apparent right away. Like you said, time will tell.

I'm not sure if this gen will be better if Sony "dominates," but I'd rather it be close. In my eyes healthy competition makes each competitor sharp and wanting to one-up the other.

Yes, bluray did come at a cost, but bluray was not necessary for gaming last gen especially when it made the console $200 more expensive. The 360 did just fine without bluray often having the superior version of multiplats and it has only been very recently that a handful of games started needing to span 2 discs and even for those few games, being able to install to the hard drive made that not even matter. The PS3's bluray player was actually even somewhat of a hindrance because of it's slow speed compared to the 360 DVD drive.

And are you really trying to deny that Sony was arrogant when the PS3 launched? Here are just a few of the many arrogant quotes Sony made back then:

"The next generation doesn't start until we say it does"

"Rumble I think was a last generation feature"

"You should want to work a second job to be able to afford a PS3"

"The environment where PlayStation wins is best for this industry"

"We don't provide the easy to program for console that developers want, because easy to program for means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is what do you do for the rest of the years?"

"We're not going to equip the PS3 with a HDD by default, because no matter how much we put in it, it won't be enough."

"People are going to buy a PS3 even if it did not have games"

"I don't think the battle would be any different with or without Grand Theft Auto. I don't think it hurts us."

"The Dual Shock controller is the de-facto industry standard for video games"

"The PS3 is not a game machine"

"I have no concerns about the competition"

No blu ray wasn't necessary but Sony had developed the format and wanted it to be successful. MS was backing HD which didn't take off.

But if you want to use marketing slogans then every company ever is arrogant.

I don't agree, most games stand the test of time just fine as long as they're not 'me too' games, ex. if they're unique and fun to play and/or if they're designed well without featuring hindering elements back then.

And it doesn't matter whether a game is technically superior if the subject matter/genre doesn't interest you, if the level/track design sucks ass, if the music/sound design sucks ass and most AI scripting is still inferior to that seen in the original FEAR and Halo:CE. JRPGs from the 6th gen spank the ever living shit out of the 7th gen, same goes for arcade racers (with examples such as Burnout 3: Takedown and F-Zero GX).

As for graphics, as long as you can appreciate a game based on the time and system it released, then graphics are never a problem. Minecraft and quite a lot of excellent DS/3DS games aren't pushing graphics as other games, but most wouldn't blame them due to obvious reasons and because they're designed so well.

Point is that if a game strives for perfectly designed interactivity, then it will forever be entertaining, regardless of how technically outdated it may be.

M$'s greatest innovation, pay to play online. That's the only thing competition has done for us.

Games are more than just technically superior. Halo 3 is better than CE in every way. 1st person shooters don't always age well for the most part.

3D games don't stand the test of time in most cases. 2D games are timeless.

I didn't mention JRPGs for that reason, in contrast western RPGs were better in the 7th gen.

Considering the only thing I do online on Consoles is play online it would of been fine for me,

@Gue1: MS is the reason your gritty little ps4 doesn't have DRM. It's also the reason it have required PS+ for online as well.

No and yes in that order.

@WitIsWisdom: yes, and yes actually. Before the MS outrage on DRM, Sony had their own plans to counter used games.

http://ps4daily.com/2013/06/sony-changed-playstation-4-drm-policy-after-xbox-one-outrage/

That's idiotic. Shut up.

Actually Microsofts greatest innovation is AA batteries. It hasn't caught on yet though with other companies and is way ahead of its time.

Well, I know how much cows like all their western-focused games this gen, and I also know how much they love the PS4 which is really just the Xbox 360 v2.0

As much as cows think competition is bad, they seem to be enjoying what they get out of it more than ever.

@treedoor:

Actually the playstation has had western games before Xbox was even in existence meaning your post makes absoutely no sense.

I like competition even though MilkingSoft wants to nickel and dime it's user base. It's good, because if it was just Sony, I'm sure Sony wouldn't play very nice.

While I prefer the PS4, if it wasn't for Microsoft, Sony would most likely have enforced it's DRM policies as planned, and vice versa.

I might be harsh on the Xflop, but it's good to have competition. Nintendont is a joke, I haven't enjoyed a Nintendont system since the SNES.

Nope...

Nice link though... lmao. The 10th highest poster has 161 posts...

called ps4daily.com and it has Xbox 1 and WiiU forums, then clicking on different sections redirects to different equally lame websites... that are mostly empty... crap site. Try harder.

I could make something that looks 10 times more legit in about 10 minutes.

Bottom line? You really think SONY had time to change an entire speech, presentation, and structuring in a couple hours? No... just no.... Bottom line? Even if SONY had 2 ready made approaches depending on the way Microsoft went... then why in the hell would they have chose no DRM and all that other crap if MS did? That doesn't make any sense at all, THAT would have been their ticket to what you claim they wanted... SO they changed last minute because MS announced they WERE? lmao.. So are you saying they would have enacted the policies if MS went first and said they were NOT trying to force that crap?

I repeat... NO and YES in that order.

@WitIsWisdom: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/DRM-Xbox-One-PlayStation-4-Shuhei-Yoshida-Hiroshi-Kawano,23292.html

"SCE Worldwide Studios president Shuhei Yoshida admitted to Famistu magazine this week that Sony changed its stance on DRM after hearing all the negative feedback stemming from the Xbox One."

You're quite ignorant to facts, huh? Well here's another link.

http://www.edge-online.com/news/e3-2013-drm-free-ps4-is-a-pr-play-expect-similar-policies-across-both-consoles-say-sources/

"Our contacts described Sony’s conference announcements as a PR play, and revealed that its decision to go DRM-free was made at the very last minute."

lol sorry your precious Sony isn't getting the credit you think they deserve.

LOL he doesn't say that. Click on your first link to see that it goes to Polygon, then read and this is what he says: "There were lots of people who gave their opinions on that issue to my Twitter account before E3," SCE Worldwide Studios president Shuhei Yoshida told Famitsumagazine this week. "It's not that our hardware policies are decided strictly based on user reaction like this, but when we were thinking about what we had to bring across and how to bring it across, it was a very useful source"

"As of now, I feel like we're getting a very positive response," added SCE Japan Asia president Hiroshi Kawano. "For this system, we made a list of what people expected from us, debating over each point, with user feedback forming the main basis for the list. The software makers are also telling us that they feel like they really make some fun stuff with it. A new platform always provides the basis for new forms of play, so I'd like to see it connect to a revitalization of the marketplace."

Why do you guys take things so literally? You can also think that he is most concerned with user feedback, AKA for gamers by gamers lol

To be fair, in a lot of ways, it is. People talk about the PS2 era like the other 3 consoles didn't exist, but they did. The PS2 didn't win that era because no one was able to compete with them; they won because they had a better system.

Microsoft and Nintendo had to work harder as a result, and they did. The Gamecube features some of the best Nintendo titles ever released. Metroid Prime 1 and 2, Twilight Princess, Melee, Pikmin, and Paper Mario: The 1000 Year Door, among others. It also had some of the best third party games of all time, like Resident Evil 4. Nintendo focused on games, games, games, and make third party partnerships with publishers like Capcom because that's what they had to do to sell systems.

Microsoft did the same thing. They courted Japanese developers, and got exclusive titles like Ninja Gaiden. They courted studios like EPIC, and made it easy and affordable to bring studios that traditionally developed PC games (BioWare, Bethesda, Obsidian, etc) to consoles. They made huge strides on online gaming with Xbox Live. They made Halo.

They were trying to draw people to their systems. They produced better shit because they were trying to compete.

Sony didn't have to worry about it, and in their arrogance, they assumed that people would buy the PS3 because it had the word Playstation slapped on the box. They only reason that they were able to turn around the disaster that was the PS3's launch was because they were trying to outdo Microsoft. And look at all of the cool stuff that has gotten us.

So yeah, competition is essential. It makes the losers try harder and it keeps the winners from being complacent, especially when the winners had to work for it. Can you imagine what last gen would have been like if Microsoft had thrown in the towel after the original Xbox, and weren't there to provide an alternative to Sony's 2 year bout of incompetence? Can you imagine this gen without Sony as a counter to Microsoft's always online DRM, no exclusives, timed DLC bullshit? Because I can. And it isn't pretty.

@neo418, @WitlsWisdom

Do you really think Sony filed a DMR patent for the hell of it? I know companies do it all the time but what possible advantage could Sony get from filing a DRM patent?They had plans for using it but they decided against it and I'm sure it had everything to do with the backlash MS received.

On topic - Competition is absolutely needed. Do we want MS running this industry? Nope. Do we want Sony? Nope, they've proved what would happen if they did. Competition is needed and we all better hope there is some, even if it's from companies other than MS and Sony.

Competition is good for many reasons but I can see PS4 dominate this gen easily, dunno guess time will tell.

And without competition look where they landed with their next system the PS3, they were out of touch having utterly obliterated the market previously, If Sony didn't have a massive backlog of trust with users they would have dreamcasted the PS3. It took a massive coorperate restructuring to get back in touch with the consumers.

So if you consider that dominated the previous generation and then falling flat on your face when someone dares to challenge your reign a "Good thing" then yeah competition sucks yo.

If you think that a company should be able to release a competative product without throwing their entire staff out of the building and hiring new talent every generation is a "Good idea" then yeah keeping all 3 companies on their toes is a good thing.

It's likely my Nintendo fanboy talking, but even with that library, I wouldn't have survived on just that. PS2 having only two controller ports that required that backwards multitap didn't help. That, and it didn't have anything like the Metroid Prime games and I could never get into Wipeout like I did F-Zero (GX being the first I played in the series).

Nope still wrong. No facts at all... SONY was leaving DRM up to the publishers. Of course they covered all their possible revenue paths... Keep posting your little links though, this is fun.

No...JRPGs and WRPGs being better in the context of your post is nothing but opinion. Unless you have some evidence that in general the JRPGs are broken, have horrible graphics etc. Which wouldn't be true...so yeah...opinion.

Competition is good for the consumer. PSN would be garbage if MS didn't show them how it's done. I'm sure something like that will happen again, either way.

I didn't say JRPGS were better, because it's not my area and others would get riled up over it. Western RPGs seem more dependant on technology though.

TC is just giving the opinion of a cow. Nothing more nothing less. Not really making any point other than moooooooooooo.

The quality of PS2 games is there because there was heavy competition between developers. The world has changed though and consoles are not just boxes to play games anymore, they are more like ecosystems for gaming. And thats where competition comes to play. Thanks to competition and consumer response MS had to stop being cocky about all those always online, block used games, etc. rubbish. Had there been no competition, Xbone would have been a much worse console than it is.

it probably wouldn't exist. sony was never for online gaming.even though the dreamcast sorta started it, sony released the PS2 4 months later with no network ability. and they kept it that way even as the dreamcast died all the way until the xbox had it plus an internal hard drive, where at that point sony sold a 150 dollar add on (maybe it was 200) with a hard drive and dial up modem. even then it took them about 4-5 more years to even launch PSN where XBL was released 4 years prior to that

How dare you forget that the original Xbox incorporated the hard drive? Halo wouldnt have been possible outside of PC otherwise.

How the f*ck does making a vastly inferior system and still getting close to sales of your competitor's superior console equate to healthy competition? That's about as bad as having a monopoly.

Because game systems are more than just the hardware specs today. Library of games made available and unique system features are just a couple of other things that set consoles apart aside from hardware power. If the competition is close the developers may look at one-upping the competition in some of those other areas; if it is a blow-out the one in the lead may possibly become lazy in areas of improvement and the one losing one may just look to wait for the next gen.

I don't know for sure; I'm not a lead on these systems. We've had consoles with much weaker hardware lead in sales multiple generations, so having a "vastly inferior system" close to lead sales I doubt would be as awful as you make it seem.

Yeah, keep spewing bullshit. I bet you're one of those people who like to listen to themselves talk.

Unless you enjoy watching TV so much that you don't have time to game (Why would you even buy a gaming console then? Just use your remote), the PS4 is superior all around.

- Better controller

- Better online network

- MUCH faster install speeds

- MUCH faster download speeds

- Dedicated servers for 1st party games vs. no dedicated servers on XBL

- Naughty Dog, Santa Monica and Media Molecule vs. Microsoft's sub-mediocre 1st party studios

- OS that doesn't lag and isn't a mess

- Exclusive 1080p resolution for most multiplats

- Better framerates on multiplats

- Better graphics on multiplats

- Exclusive LOCKED 30-FPS feature on games vs 20 FPS average on Xbone

- Higher player-count on online games. PS4 has more simultaneous online gamers than the 360.

- Doesn't leak cum on top

- Less expensive

The Xbone is objectively trash.

If Sony closed today, all the studios would then make games for THE ONE. The studios would still be in competition with each other to make a better game. I don't see if one company exits how there would be no competition.

I don't understand why you're appearing to get hostile, attempting to attack me personally. All I did was respond to your original response, so forgive me if I seemed antagonizing in my first response.

Despite the Xbox 360 having a better controller last gen, better online network for most of the gen if not all of it, faster install and download speeds, and a majority of third-party exclusives ran better on the hardware, the PS3 surpassed its lifetime sales. It became close between the two, each attempting to improve the console to best their competition. We saw some terrible things fixed, and some great things (PS+ free games) spawn Xbox Live Games with Gold (which although gave away some dated games was still offering Gold users free games which is great.)

I won't comment on the the Xbox One being trash because I haven't had the opportunity to spend any time with one; the PS4 is a solid console though and is doing a lot of things right. I'm happy with my purchase of the console and currently have no plans to purchase the Xbox One because the PS4 suits my needs.