MattyJ wrote:

I don't understand why this means people immediately get a ps5 over Xbox

I think, with no disrespect intended to anyone, this is all a bit of a case of nerds on a forum getting over excited and picky. I'm not sure it means the same to average Joe on the street.
MS announce their first party games will support the existing hardware for a year or two. This has been taking as "OMG all Series X games will be nerfed, there's no point upgrading, only PS5 will provide a true next gen experience".
(obviously I've exaggerated for effect, not putting words in any particular persons mouth).

The more I think on it, the more I think it's a brave move and good for consumers...it softens the cliff edge for the life of the current machines.
Barring some weird hardware anomaly, 3rd party games at launch will be basically identical.
The way I see it, the only way you'll get a game with a noticable 'new gen difference' between the xboxseriesxwhatever or PS5 related to this announcement, is if a Sony 1st party/exclusive is made with some sort of revolutionary ai/cpu usage that maxes the hardware and redefines the genre (and at launch no less), at the same time that MS 1st party releases a similar game in a same genre where they could have used the same system but chose not to in order to make it easier to keep it compatible with older hardware....a scenario i reckon is pretty unlikely.

People should buy whichever console they want of course. But basing that choice on guessing which first party games at launch you think will be using the higher % of the max theoretical performance of the machine, rather than how the actual games play or something, seems a bit odd.

then again, i wouldn't be upgrading at launch either way, so i'm quite happy with the idea that if some of you do upgrade xbox, i can potentially still play with you for a while.

RedDave2 wrote:

(the best thing Ms can do, imo, is bundle 3 to 6 months of Gamepass gold with every series x. That's an incredible starter bundle pack for anyone who wants to give xbox a try)

I think that’s a given. Maybe even a year’s membership.

Sony have a stronger brand and have sold a lot more consoles this gen and the last gen. But the market is slowly pivoting around to Microsoft’s way of doing things – online first, ongoing compatibility, and games as a service. The question is whether consumers move over because of MS doing that well, or whether they stick with Sony as Sony rush to catch up on the business models.

In truth, it probably doesn’t matter. The market is big enough for both to be successful. Only geeks care which one ‘wins’.

Agreed.

i do think for me that gamepass is a much bigger selling point than any theoretical performance difference. i wonder if Sony will announce something similar to go with PS5, a PS++ sort of thing that includes all their games etc.

The Steam library model Vs the game pass subscription model is also very interesting. I guess MS is experimenting with it to see whether they can wrestle away gamers from Steam and having them migrate to Xbox. Long term strategy but it will be interesting to see how that pans out.

As for 'next gen', I strongly suspect 3rd party devs will focus on the 2 latest released consoles. A bit like this gen I suppose. Lighter/older titles might support all 3 hw configs. I really can't see devs supporting more than the latest 3hw configs. With a new model being released every 3 years a console can last you up to 9 years or so? The last 3 years you'll probably be forced to low settings and half assed support. Not to mention missing out on 'true' next gen titles and shinies. Most people (true gamers!) will upgrade at the 6 year mark so not much change there.

For sure.. same as everything else these days.. don't own it have unlimited access to it!

Not really.
Just a rather generous introductory offer if you know how to manipulate it.

Once that introductory period is over there arent any deals on it other than the odd CDkeys deal that you get on all gaming subs.

I may have missed the point. I thought everything on Gamepass was first-party titles? Studios owned by Microsoft?

Okay, ignore that point from me then.

Except for VR. I’ll admit they’ve dropped the ball on that, so far.

I reckon that’s a deliberate choice though, after being burned on Kinect.

Much as I'd like them to, looking at Sony only managing to shift 5m PSVR's in 3 years, it's not worth their investment.

Edit: Snapdragon!

Smart Boner owners will see the Quest as their second console.

Is VR not profitable for Sony then? Those units aren't cheap, nor are the controllers, and 5 million seems like a healthy enough number for a peripheral that will have its own attach rate for software.

Moot_Geeza wrote:

Is VR not profitable for Sony then? Those units aren't cheap, nor are the controllers, and 5 million seems like a healthy enough number for a peripheral that will have its own attach rate for software.

Only Sony can answer that and I doubt they will tell.
R&D, marketing etc eats into those figures a fair bit.

It isn't so much about making some profit but the risk/reward of that profit. I don't think they will be making money hand over fist and it isn't really a console seller either.

I'm not suggesting PSVR is a flop, far from it, but it isn't doing the numbers to make it worthwhile making a competitor for.

Move controllers were designed to work with a future VR headset, so its certainly been a long term ambition, and the sales of Move will have paid for some VR R&D costs.