Is it really that bad that the new Xbox is weaker?

[Ubiquitous Duck]

I have no brand affiliation to go on and no specific exclusives that I am invested in, so I need something to go on.

Importantly for me the PS4 is cheaper, but if on top of this it is more powerful - I am only seeing reasons to get it over the Xbox.

We need to find ways to differentiate between the two and I am only seeing ones that point to me getting a PS4.

For me, the £70 difference on sale price is enough though and the fact isn't the overall deciding factor. So no, I wouldn't say it matters 'that' much in the grand scheme of things, at least for myself, but you need reasons to state why you are 1-upping your competition and surely marketing a more powerful machine, is a plus.

 

[idarkphoenixi]

It's not just weaker but it costs a lot more, is viewed as more intrusive and is a lot less customer friendly than it's competition.

 

[Naeras]

Historically, the most powerful console in a console generation has never been the most popular one, if I'm not mistaken. PS1 was weaker than N64, yet beat it by leaps and bounds. PS2 completely crushed both the Xbox and the GameCube, even though both were more powerful. The DS was less powerful than the PSP. Don't get me started on the Wii.
Not sure about the generations that came before that, but I believe both the NES and the SNES won those, and had more powerful competitors. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

So, no, I don't think it matters at all. Price, support and game library are all more important things.

 

[Yopaz]

It's not a problem on its own, the Wii also sold well despite being a lot weaker than the other two.

The problem is that the Xbox One is weaker and it costs more. Microsoft is charging more for less power and that's the opposite of how it should be in a logical world. I don't think it will be a massive issue though.

In fact I have been thinking that a weaker console might be an advantage at times. I have experienced drops in framerate on both the Xbox 360 and the PS3 a good number of times. It's not just because these consoles are weak (though they are), but rather that the developers may get overambitious and try to squeeze the max out of it. The Wii is a weak console. Everyone knows that, the devs know it, the customers know it, ask a 5 year old kid, he knows that the Wii is weak. I think this might lead to developers taking more care not to overexert it, at least I have experienced the fewest framerate drops on the Wii out of the last gen consoles. So less power might be a strength. That said the PS4 and Xbox One are close to equal so there won't be much of a difference because of the different hardware.

 

[suitepee7]

no, but it definitely does work in sony's favour by being able to say "ours is superior, and cheaper!"

the combination of those two is pretty important, and definitely more so than 'more powerful' by itself

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

Nah, not bad. The reason for not switching to pc or owning consoles too besides a pc is still the easy handling and the exclusives. If big M manages to pump out enough good exclusives they`ll be fine. Otherwise my money is still on Sony - cheaper console and in my opinion better exclusives. With their loyal US customer base and their financial background i still don`t see them failing like Nintendo anytime soon.

 

[Nimzabaat]

Historically, the most powerful console in a console generation has never been the most popular one, if I'm not mistaken. PS1 was weaker than N64, yet beat it by leaps and bounds. PS2 completely crushed both the Xbox and the GameCube, even though both were more powerful. The DS was less powerful than the PSP. Don't get me started on the Wii.
Not sure about the generations that came before that, but I believe both the NES and the SNES won those, and had more powerful competitors. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

So, no, I don't think it matters at all. Price, support and game library are all more important things.

This. Sony has always had a better console than Microsoft. Microsoft has always had a better game library. Though for this gen that remains to be seen. I still haven't seen a killer app for either of the new consoles though.

 

[masticina]

Yes and No

No as in you are right the PS2 wasn't the best hardware around but hey sold like crazy. Had allot of games for it and it was a pretty big hit.

Also No as in due to the hardware being so close together the extra power of the PS4 actually gets used. Both using the same CPU means that making a game run on both doesn't requires much adjustments. Unlike with the PS3 in what the PS3 might irk out a little bit more power. But few could actually code well enough to use it.

So indeed another No on the list.

Yes as in, its a shame to see it happen again. Then again without differences and choice how else can things be pushed forward. A Console Monopoly [what if there was only one console and that was it] would be horrible. Even with slightly weaker hardware the Xbox One is a great addition on the Next/Current Gen market. Because it offers choice.
Hell even the WiiU is great to have around, because it does offers things certain people seek and that are less common at the Sony or Microsoft side.

So take it as you see it really. It is good to have more consoles out on the market. It is good to see both the PS4 and the Xbox 360 use the same basic hardware though but do have differences in certain parts of hardware. It will be interesting to see where it leads.

 

[Something Amyss]

The reason I'm asking is because the PlayStation 2 was weaker than the original Xbox, but it still sold the most and no one made such a big deal out of it (or was there a big deal that I was too young to keep track of at the time?).

I don't recall the PS2 promising to allow full HD at 60 FPS, though. They promoted the unit on games and even as a DVD player, not on power or framerate. Microsoft promoted the Bone on TEH GRAFFIX! TEH FRAEM R8! TEH FOOTBALL! TEH POWER!

...Oh yeah, and there were a coupel games for it.

It kind of is a big deal when this is what the industry pushed for and one of the big pushers can't deliver.

Myself? I'll still play 8 bt games. I don't need shiny graphics or power or that stuff. But if you're going to market it, you'd damn well back it up.

PS2 got blasted for its DRE, one of the causes was frequent use as a DVD player. They got called on that.

 

[jklinders]

the battle between Sega and Nintendo in the 90s should make it pretty clear that hardware specs are not going to determine who has the advantage in a console war. Sega consistently had better hardware and was consistently trounced by Nintendo. As always other factors will be more important.

Game lineup, exclusives, public perception, availability and god only knows what else. Sony vs Microsoft strikes me as being kind of similar to the cheesy tagline from the movie Aliens vs Predator. Whoever wins we lose. I think they are both pretty shitty companies that have a track record of treating their customers like crap. But in the end people are going to buy what they think they will get the best value from.

Right now that looks a bit like Sony. They seem to be a bit less shitty at the moment and have always had a great exclusive line up of games. Microsoft has a lot of lost good will to make back before they recover their lost lead in my opinion.

 

[kasperbbs]

If i were to choose a console i would definitely pick the cheaper and more powerful one so theres that. Truth be told the fact that xbone costs more because of some shitty camera that i have no interest in whatsoever pisses me off the most.

 

[Seracen]

Yes, but not yet...

Historically speaking, being weaker had little effect on popularity. PS2 was by far the weaker of the XBOX/Gamecube generation. Heck, Dreamcast had better looking games, yet PS2 outsold all of them.

However, I feel there is a problem that XBONE will have to contend with. Framerate and other technical elements could actually diminish gameplay, which will be a cause for concern. Furthermore, in the "HD Era," towards the end of the cycle, when we have ridiculous TV's, it WILL be a disadvantage.

I recall how the N64 sold "expansion cartridges" so that it could play Perfect Dark. Barring this, developers might not mind dumbing down a product to work on XBONE; but will fans be okay with such a product?

Moreover, the major issue here is that the technically superior system is ALSO CHEAPER. For people who "don't buy graphics," this is still an undeniable and salient point. Frankly, both are decent gaming PC's, but sheer economics favors PS4, though fanboyism has rendered a closer stalemate.

Unless Sony goes bankrupt (not outside the realm of possibility, their other areas are struggling), I don't see the potential dominance stopping.

So yes, it is a problem, but not until at least halfway into the lifecycle. By then, barring some paradigm shift, the market will likely be TV (via streaming) or PC (sheer power) dominated. It's inevitable, but it saddens me. I don't want games to be "a service," but a physical product that I can add to a library on the shelf.

 

[Seracen]

double post, my bad, BBLAARGGGHHH!!!!

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

Nintendo is not failing,they just had a bad console launch which has happened to both Sony and Microsoft.

I wish Nintendo the best but i don`t see them getting ground anytime soon. Why should someone buy Wee U with loosing third publisher support and games i could play on a second hand Wee. I lost interest in playing the next Mario, Zelda titles ages ago.

 

[Comocat]

As both a console and a PC gamer, I dont really care about the specs on a console. I assume newer = better and leave it at that. I would wager that the overwhelming majority of console owners could not tell you what chipset or how many teraflops their console is operating at. Arguments like that are nice on forums, but dont really hold much water in business.

I'm staying out of the market at the moment mainly because I got burned with my last Xbox purchase (2 RROD), the high cost, and my concern about the future direction of DRM with the systems. I also dont see any need to upgrade my console at the moment, because 360 games are still coming out.

 

[Callate]

To my mind, part of the problem is that the underlying architecture is all but identical. That being the case, the PS4 is more powerful and cheaper; what differentiates the XBox One is the Kinect (which has very few titles that make significant use of it at this point) and the whole "entertainment center hub" thing, which almost no one actually seems to have been asking for, borrows resources that could be powering games instead, complicates the lives of people who already have various media "hub" devices they're perfectly happy with, and gives Microsoft further access to reams of free consumer information as a bonus.

Oh, and the exclusive games. Given the similarities between the architecture, holding out games from the other system is more transparently an artificial and unnecessary marketing gimmick than ever. And XBox One has further sullied its name with a number of premium-priced games that also had the gall to want purchasers to pay for content.

Consumers may or may not be aware of all of this; it's also quite entirely possible (and not entirely unreasonable) that some people continue to harbor resentments over Microsoft's earlier behavior. But all else being equal, why would anyone pay $100 more for the weaker system?

 

[BakedSardine]

Weaker, more expensive, and slightly more difficult to develop for due to needing to use the ESRAM to maximize performance (as I understand it as a layman).

I can think of 3 reasons to get an Xbox One over a PS4, if that is your choice:

1. You can't live without their exclusives (Titanfall, etc.)
2. All of your friends already chose Xbox One and you need to game with them
3. You love the multimedia features

I wouldn't begrudge anyone that buys one, but I really love what PS4 is doing and the upcoming lineup looks stellar.