Sales and unit sales can be two separate measurements.
Dollar Sales = dollar amount total , revenue
Sales - depends on the context.
Unit sales = number of consoles sold
So
Dollar Sales = Xbone's
Sales = Xbone's , context is dollar sales in this case
Unit Sales = PS4's
You have said it yourself. Xbone is expensive than PS'4. Unit sales belong to the PS'4. What are u trying to get at, cos as far as things are, the ps4 is more popular. Sure the Xbox has great hardware but its the least favorite of the top 3 platforms as most games on it are available on the pc (ultra settings, real 4k and all). Any wise gamer would first buy Either a PS4 then a PC or vice versa before considering to buy an Xbone as it is the one that's slacking in good exclusive games right now, with the exception of halo off-course.
What were u trying to get at? If the Ps4 sold more units, Sony will eventually make more because of its partners and the exclusives, when people start buying the games. Xbone is the console that doesn't know it's already dead cos MS is lazy and expensive for nothing more than hardware that isn't even utilized on anything significant. Hell, some PS4 titles look better on the weaker hardware than anything on Xbox One. Let's face it, Xbox is a lazy show off that doesn't deserve the support it gets and i bet Xbox fans are some real frustrated gamers these days :D
Mario. who the heck still plays Mario and genuinely has fun? All the games i see here are mostly relics i wouldn't pay anything above $10 for but i definitely wouldn't buy any Mario game for anything above $2
I do sidequests more frequently to get enough buffs for the main quest and get the chance to meet that interesting NPC. Side quests can sometimes get repetitive in most games but they are usually fun and always prolonging my gaming experience, the reason why i love games that give a player freedom to switch between side quest and main quest.
A Realistic game and a beautiful game can easily be swapped depending on how you view Art. Battlefield 1 is too neat and looks better as a game because the Frostbite 4 engine is pretty and the game emphasized on destructible environments, neat clean environments, shiny polished guns, grenades and darker/brighter tones and color variations making it look more beautiful at the end of the day. i have to admit, bf1 is the pretty game here but pretty is not what comes in anyone's mind when we think of World War 1. On the other hand Call of duty, ww2 is impressive graphically because it is not afraid to look dirty and grim like the timeline it represents to turn ww2 vibe into an accurate and graphically immersive masterpiece and that is why i think the guy is correct. Yes battlefield looks more polished and cool as a game making some feel it is superior but cod ww2 looks like a game that realistically captures the theme of the time in history that its based on. the dirt, the ugly mud, the dirty soldiers, the old not so neat buildings, the dirty rusty guns, the not so bright/not so dark realistic shadows and colours all scream realistic to me. So the real competition here is what your preference in graphics is, between realism or beauty
Log in to comment