Like I said before, my interest in console gaming has been on the decline. Microsoft has been winning my support essentially by default. Sony's war on innovation has resulted in my vow not to return to the PlayStation brand until they start contributing to the industry. Nintendo contributes, but they are far too reliant on their overrated first-party titles.
Showing posts with label Video Games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Video Games. Show all posts
Monday, December 24, 2018
Saturday, December 15, 2018
Will I continue console gaming?
Different people have different preferences when it comes to games. Some people prefer playing on computers. Others prefer game consoles. With the exception of games that clearly work better with mouse and keyboard, such as business sims, I have usually sided with the console experience.
Friday, October 23, 2015
Rory McIlroy PGA Tour
I have played Chambers Bay in Rory McIlroy PGA Tour a few times, and I thought that I should give my impressions. Just be warned that I'm far more familiar with the surrounding park than the golf course.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
My current gaming plans
I recently decided to purchase an Xbox One. My previous plans were to buy a Steam Machine instead. I explained the reasoning behind why I changed my mind, and I mentioned some changes in how I plan on handling the Steam Machine. Now, I feel like providing a better explanation regarding my video game plans.
Thursday, June 25, 2015
Reconsidering my next game console
It all started with a joke. If Rory McIlroy PGA Tour shipped with Chambers Bay, I might have to buy an Xbox One. As soon as I started saying that, I realized that things have changed since I decided that I would prioritize a Steam Machine. I have listed these changes below.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Xbox 1 or PlayStation 4 V
While the primary debate over the new generation of game consoles revolves around the PlayStation 4 versus the Xbox One, there are other options.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Xbox 1 or PlayStation 4 IV
Talk about anti-climactic. In my last video game post, I explained that I vowed never to buy another PlayStation console until Sony changed their ways. They are still arrogant and reliant on marketing and brand recognition to compensate for their inability to contribute to the industry. Obviously, I will not be buying a PlayStation 4.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Xbox 1 or PlayStation 4 III
If you have been paying attention to my blog posts, you could probably guess that my bias in the so-called console wars is more favorable to Microsoft than Sony. There are reasons for this. Let me go back to the announcement of the PlayStation 2.
When Sony announced the PlayStation 2, I had already shown an interest in the Dreamcast. Sony showed off improved specs over the original PlayStation, but nothing else. It became clear what Sony was trying to do. With the success of the original PlayStation, Sony was trying to keep the industry where it was. They had effectively declared war on innovation. I didn’t want to reinvest in games that I had already purchased for the first PlayStation, so I found no reason to buy their new console.
Let me go even further back. The original PlayStation had some huge evolutionary leaps. This was primarily due to the polygon-based graphics and the disc-based media. This was hardly revolutionary in the sense that we had already actually seen these things in the previous generation, but it was really the first generation that these features were built into a system from the very beginning. There was a lot of novelty and new experiences, but I don’t feel that the console survived the test of time. I never have the urge to go back to my PlayStation and pop in a game like I do with other consoles.
To me, Final Fantasy 7 is a terrific example of why I started turning against Sony. After hearing Nintendo fans criticize my choice of the Genesis over the Super Nintendo, I had the opportunity to finally play the series that they were bragging about. It seemed good at first, but I was buying too much into the hype. I beat the game then tried to play through a second time. Reality sunk in when I reached the flashback sequence. I simply couldn’t handle it. I think FF7 was the first JRPG that I ever failed to beat multiple times.
One of the problems I had was with the plot. In short: it was bland. In addition to the general plot, the character development and their big plot twist were lazy. What was character development? The main character acted like the same brat that I couldn’t identify with, but his memory had been restored. The other characters told us that they had changed, which was the only indication in the entire game that they saw any character development. The plot twist wasn’t that things weren’t what they seemed. The plot twist was that what we were told happened was a lie.
Also, the general story line in no way fit the gameplay. It was a high tech world with an incredible laser. The main character was relying on a sword. It was like the people in charge of gameplay weren’t communicating with the people writing the story.
Level designs were handed to artists that made beautiful level that made you feel like you were merely pushing your character on rails. It was the most linear level design that I had ever encountered. I had never played a game that made me feel so much like I was merely watching.
While the mini-games had at least some value, they always felt out of place. The pre-rendered cut scenes were impressive at the time, but they didn’t do anything to improve the gameplay or storyline. With neither the mini-games or cinematics fitting with the core gameplay, there was this sense of exiting the game, entering the sequence, exiting the sequence, then reentering the game. It really dragged down the flow.
In summary: Final Fantasy 7 was a silent movie with a weak plot that cost me $50. It is easily the most overrated video game ever released, and completely destroyed JRPGs (developers followed Square’s lead due to the game’s success). In all fairness to Sony, Square does not represent them. However, Final Fantasy 7 seems to big a terrific fit for the approach that Sony has embraced. They promote the technical side of video games at the expense of gameplay.
Another issue I have with Sony is that they are the least trustworthy console manufacturer by a wide margin. Sometimes they will try to spin reality (.4% failure rate of the PS4). Sometimes they will tell some whoppers. I’m going to bring up some of the lies coming from Sony that come to mind. I might not always remember the details right, and I’m sure that I’m forgetting a lot.
Let’s start with the PlayStation 2. At the time, the key stat that people pointed to in regard to performance was polygons per second with effects turned on. I think Sony’s figure was 20 million. The graphics processor might have been able to handle the claim if there weren’t so many bottlenecks. While Sony kept bragging, numerous developers came forward. I don’t know if they ever found proper workarounds for the bottlenecks, but most sources outside of Sony were questioning whether or not the console could push 10 million.
The PlayStation 2 was a long time ago. Perhaps the PlayStation 3 is better for pointing out deception. If I remember right, they insisted that anyone who wanted to go online with the Xbox 360 had to buy the hard disk drive. This was flat out wrong. Same could be said for Sony’s claim that the 1080p update for the Xbox 360 only upscaled. We eventually found out that update allowed a 1080p native resolution.
Sony’s controller was another issue. They showed off their new controller, which looked like it would be uncomfortable to hold (although I can’t confirm that since I never held it). Around the same time, Nintendo showed off their controller, the Wii remote, that contained motion sensing features. The next time we saw Sony’s controller, it looked just like the Dual Shock (controller Sony developed during the original PlayStation’s life cycle). They also showed off new motion sensing features and renamed it the SIXAXIS. We know that the controller had been redesigned since their previous showing, and we know that development tools for the motion sensing features were developed after Nintendo showed off their controller. Sony actually thought that gamers would be stupid enough to believe them when they claimed that Nintendo had nothing to do with their decision.
Another thing we saw was the elimination of the rumble feature seen in the Dual Shock. Force feedback had been the focus of a series of lawsuits. Microsoft had already settled and was including it in their controllers. Sony was still fighting, and they decided against inclusion. Sony claimed that the decision was based on the rumbling interfering with the motion sensing. Never mind that most games weren’t going to use motion sensing, and they always could have asked developers to pick one or the other if they were truly concerned with the two features interfering with each other. When the lawsuit was finally settled, Sony quickly announced that they had miraculously found a way to get force feedback to work with a motion-sensing controller. I don’t think this sequence of events would have bothered me if Sony would have admitted what we all know, but they were clearly lying to us.
Another doozie related to their controller came from the claim that the SIXAXIS could do everything possible with Nintendo’s Wii remote without the sensor bar that Nintendo required. Before this announcement, numerous people had gotten their hands on Nintendo’s sensor bar and established its purpose. The bar features infrared LED lights that can be picked up by a camera at the end of the Wii remote. The location of the lights is then processed to determine where the remote is pointing, at what angle, and how far away it is. In other words, it’s for pointing functions that are impossible with the SIXAXIS.
Sony eventually created a one-handed controller, PlayStation Move, similar to the Wii remote. There were a few differences between the two approaches. The most noteworthy was that the camera and lights were swapped (lights on the controllers tracked by a camera on top of the TV instead of lights on top of the TV tracked by cameras in the controllers). They also made the bizarre decision to not include any kind of directional control on the main controller. I should point out a couple similarities, the shape and the addition of a navigational controller. The Wii remote was clearly an inspiration. Once again, Sony acted as though Nintendo had nothing to do with their decision.
Sony hasn’t been as bad for this new generation, but I’m still finding a few issues. When Microsoft announced a digital scheme that included DRM and 24-hour check-ins, they received a lot of criticism. The policies were reversed. Sony pounced on Microsoft by saying that Sony’s decision to use the same approach as last generation was because they listened to the consumer from the beginning. For now, I’m going to overlook Sony’s history of manipulating gamers so that instead of offering them what they want, they can convince gamers to want what they offer. There is no way to know how the consumer would respond to such a change until the concept is public, especially as digital distribution is becoming more popular. I don’t care much for Sony bragging that they listened to the consumer before the consumer spoke.
Sony also made announcements to specifically state that they were not going to require check-ins and they weren’t going to rely so much on DRM. Without the backlash against Microsoft, there would have been absolutely no reason for Sony to announce these things. It was clear that Sony was trying to capitalize on the negative press that Microsoft had been receiving. Even so, Sony insisted that the announcement of not implementing Microsoft’s policies had nothing to do with Microsoft.
Now for the numbers game. Like I said, Sony was deceptive of the capabilities of the PlayStation 2. Let’s move to the PlayStation 3. Sony was involved in the development of a new type of processor known as the cell. The cell processor was designed for a specific type of calculation. Because of this, the PlayStation 3 had one huge advantage on paper over the Xbox 360. It was also established that the Xbox 360 was significantly faster with general processing and had a more advanced GPU. I’m not saying that the Xbox 360 was more powerful, but Sony convinced people to fixate on one number. This gave a lot of people that a console was twice as powerful as a console of similar performance levels.
The numbers game is about what’s on paper. If people look at the back of a box, they might go for the product with better numbers. In reality, there are a lot of components to system performance, and not everything can be properly represented on the box. For example, Sony taking a checklist of items from Microsoft’s Kinect and putting them on the back of the box for the PlayStation Camera does not mean that the product was designed as well for facial recognition or speech recognition.
Wow. This is getting long. That doesn’t mean that I can ignore Sony’s arrogance. When Sony announced the PlayStation 2, I saw exactly what Sony was trying to do. They were pushing brand loyalty and marketing. They didn’t even try to make the PlayStation 2 a worthwhile purchase. They just felt like people would buy the product because it had the Sony name attached. When Sony’s direction became clear, I regretted buying the original PlayStation.
Sony practically told us that the Xbox was better than the PlayStation 2, but it didn’t matter. When Sony realized that people would throw money at them purely for the brand, they decided to exploit their loyal fan base to sell a new media format. Although Sony kept trying to spin things, there is no question that the decision to include Blu-Ray with the PlayStation 3 was to help out the Blu-Ray format. This was a big part of the reason that the console was so expensive at launch. It is also a big part of the reason that the more consumer-friendly HD-DVD is no longer in production. I honestly believe that if that format war would have been based on the actual merits of the formats, HD-DVD would have come out on top.
Recently, Sony stuck to their arrogance. They claimed that they “define gaming.” Maybe I should cut them some slack on this point. Ever since they got into the industry, games have been aimed at the mainstream. Instead of trying to please those who play games for entertainment, games are now being designed for marketability. This is a philosophy that Sony has clearly embraced. Modern day gaming consists primarily of cinematic pieces of garbage.
My issues with Sony reached the point that I have vowed never to buy another Sony console until they change their ways. They have to regain my trust. Personally, I feel that we deserve an apology. More importantly, they need to give me functionality that I can’t get elsewhere. They need to actually make contributions to the industry. Until then, I have no problems buying from their competition.
Previous: Xbox 1 or PlayStation 4 II
Next: Xbox 1 or PlayStation 4 III
When Sony announced the PlayStation 2, I had already shown an interest in the Dreamcast. Sony showed off improved specs over the original PlayStation, but nothing else. It became clear what Sony was trying to do. With the success of the original PlayStation, Sony was trying to keep the industry where it was. They had effectively declared war on innovation. I didn’t want to reinvest in games that I had already purchased for the first PlayStation, so I found no reason to buy their new console.
Let me go even further back. The original PlayStation had some huge evolutionary leaps. This was primarily due to the polygon-based graphics and the disc-based media. This was hardly revolutionary in the sense that we had already actually seen these things in the previous generation, but it was really the first generation that these features were built into a system from the very beginning. There was a lot of novelty and new experiences, but I don’t feel that the console survived the test of time. I never have the urge to go back to my PlayStation and pop in a game like I do with other consoles.
To me, Final Fantasy 7 is a terrific example of why I started turning against Sony. After hearing Nintendo fans criticize my choice of the Genesis over the Super Nintendo, I had the opportunity to finally play the series that they were bragging about. It seemed good at first, but I was buying too much into the hype. I beat the game then tried to play through a second time. Reality sunk in when I reached the flashback sequence. I simply couldn’t handle it. I think FF7 was the first JRPG that I ever failed to beat multiple times.
One of the problems I had was with the plot. In short: it was bland. In addition to the general plot, the character development and their big plot twist were lazy. What was character development? The main character acted like the same brat that I couldn’t identify with, but his memory had been restored. The other characters told us that they had changed, which was the only indication in the entire game that they saw any character development. The plot twist wasn’t that things weren’t what they seemed. The plot twist was that what we were told happened was a lie.
Also, the general story line in no way fit the gameplay. It was a high tech world with an incredible laser. The main character was relying on a sword. It was like the people in charge of gameplay weren’t communicating with the people writing the story.
Level designs were handed to artists that made beautiful level that made you feel like you were merely pushing your character on rails. It was the most linear level design that I had ever encountered. I had never played a game that made me feel so much like I was merely watching.
While the mini-games had at least some value, they always felt out of place. The pre-rendered cut scenes were impressive at the time, but they didn’t do anything to improve the gameplay or storyline. With neither the mini-games or cinematics fitting with the core gameplay, there was this sense of exiting the game, entering the sequence, exiting the sequence, then reentering the game. It really dragged down the flow.
In summary: Final Fantasy 7 was a silent movie with a weak plot that cost me $50. It is easily the most overrated video game ever released, and completely destroyed JRPGs (developers followed Square’s lead due to the game’s success). In all fairness to Sony, Square does not represent them. However, Final Fantasy 7 seems to big a terrific fit for the approach that Sony has embraced. They promote the technical side of video games at the expense of gameplay.
Another issue I have with Sony is that they are the least trustworthy console manufacturer by a wide margin. Sometimes they will try to spin reality (.4% failure rate of the PS4). Sometimes they will tell some whoppers. I’m going to bring up some of the lies coming from Sony that come to mind. I might not always remember the details right, and I’m sure that I’m forgetting a lot.
Let’s start with the PlayStation 2. At the time, the key stat that people pointed to in regard to performance was polygons per second with effects turned on. I think Sony’s figure was 20 million. The graphics processor might have been able to handle the claim if there weren’t so many bottlenecks. While Sony kept bragging, numerous developers came forward. I don’t know if they ever found proper workarounds for the bottlenecks, but most sources outside of Sony were questioning whether or not the console could push 10 million.
The PlayStation 2 was a long time ago. Perhaps the PlayStation 3 is better for pointing out deception. If I remember right, they insisted that anyone who wanted to go online with the Xbox 360 had to buy the hard disk drive. This was flat out wrong. Same could be said for Sony’s claim that the 1080p update for the Xbox 360 only upscaled. We eventually found out that update allowed a 1080p native resolution.
Sony’s controller was another issue. They showed off their new controller, which looked like it would be uncomfortable to hold (although I can’t confirm that since I never held it). Around the same time, Nintendo showed off their controller, the Wii remote, that contained motion sensing features. The next time we saw Sony’s controller, it looked just like the Dual Shock (controller Sony developed during the original PlayStation’s life cycle). They also showed off new motion sensing features and renamed it the SIXAXIS. We know that the controller had been redesigned since their previous showing, and we know that development tools for the motion sensing features were developed after Nintendo showed off their controller. Sony actually thought that gamers would be stupid enough to believe them when they claimed that Nintendo had nothing to do with their decision.
Another thing we saw was the elimination of the rumble feature seen in the Dual Shock. Force feedback had been the focus of a series of lawsuits. Microsoft had already settled and was including it in their controllers. Sony was still fighting, and they decided against inclusion. Sony claimed that the decision was based on the rumbling interfering with the motion sensing. Never mind that most games weren’t going to use motion sensing, and they always could have asked developers to pick one or the other if they were truly concerned with the two features interfering with each other. When the lawsuit was finally settled, Sony quickly announced that they had miraculously found a way to get force feedback to work with a motion-sensing controller. I don’t think this sequence of events would have bothered me if Sony would have admitted what we all know, but they were clearly lying to us.
Another doozie related to their controller came from the claim that the SIXAXIS could do everything possible with Nintendo’s Wii remote without the sensor bar that Nintendo required. Before this announcement, numerous people had gotten their hands on Nintendo’s sensor bar and established its purpose. The bar features infrared LED lights that can be picked up by a camera at the end of the Wii remote. The location of the lights is then processed to determine where the remote is pointing, at what angle, and how far away it is. In other words, it’s for pointing functions that are impossible with the SIXAXIS.
Sony eventually created a one-handed controller, PlayStation Move, similar to the Wii remote. There were a few differences between the two approaches. The most noteworthy was that the camera and lights were swapped (lights on the controllers tracked by a camera on top of the TV instead of lights on top of the TV tracked by cameras in the controllers). They also made the bizarre decision to not include any kind of directional control on the main controller. I should point out a couple similarities, the shape and the addition of a navigational controller. The Wii remote was clearly an inspiration. Once again, Sony acted as though Nintendo had nothing to do with their decision.
Sony hasn’t been as bad for this new generation, but I’m still finding a few issues. When Microsoft announced a digital scheme that included DRM and 24-hour check-ins, they received a lot of criticism. The policies were reversed. Sony pounced on Microsoft by saying that Sony’s decision to use the same approach as last generation was because they listened to the consumer from the beginning. For now, I’m going to overlook Sony’s history of manipulating gamers so that instead of offering them what they want, they can convince gamers to want what they offer. There is no way to know how the consumer would respond to such a change until the concept is public, especially as digital distribution is becoming more popular. I don’t care much for Sony bragging that they listened to the consumer before the consumer spoke.
Sony also made announcements to specifically state that they were not going to require check-ins and they weren’t going to rely so much on DRM. Without the backlash against Microsoft, there would have been absolutely no reason for Sony to announce these things. It was clear that Sony was trying to capitalize on the negative press that Microsoft had been receiving. Even so, Sony insisted that the announcement of not implementing Microsoft’s policies had nothing to do with Microsoft.
Now for the numbers game. Like I said, Sony was deceptive of the capabilities of the PlayStation 2. Let’s move to the PlayStation 3. Sony was involved in the development of a new type of processor known as the cell. The cell processor was designed for a specific type of calculation. Because of this, the PlayStation 3 had one huge advantage on paper over the Xbox 360. It was also established that the Xbox 360 was significantly faster with general processing and had a more advanced GPU. I’m not saying that the Xbox 360 was more powerful, but Sony convinced people to fixate on one number. This gave a lot of people that a console was twice as powerful as a console of similar performance levels.
The numbers game is about what’s on paper. If people look at the back of a box, they might go for the product with better numbers. In reality, there are a lot of components to system performance, and not everything can be properly represented on the box. For example, Sony taking a checklist of items from Microsoft’s Kinect and putting them on the back of the box for the PlayStation Camera does not mean that the product was designed as well for facial recognition or speech recognition.
Wow. This is getting long. That doesn’t mean that I can ignore Sony’s arrogance. When Sony announced the PlayStation 2, I saw exactly what Sony was trying to do. They were pushing brand loyalty and marketing. They didn’t even try to make the PlayStation 2 a worthwhile purchase. They just felt like people would buy the product because it had the Sony name attached. When Sony’s direction became clear, I regretted buying the original PlayStation.
Sony practically told us that the Xbox was better than the PlayStation 2, but it didn’t matter. When Sony realized that people would throw money at them purely for the brand, they decided to exploit their loyal fan base to sell a new media format. Although Sony kept trying to spin things, there is no question that the decision to include Blu-Ray with the PlayStation 3 was to help out the Blu-Ray format. This was a big part of the reason that the console was so expensive at launch. It is also a big part of the reason that the more consumer-friendly HD-DVD is no longer in production. I honestly believe that if that format war would have been based on the actual merits of the formats, HD-DVD would have come out on top.
Recently, Sony stuck to their arrogance. They claimed that they “define gaming.” Maybe I should cut them some slack on this point. Ever since they got into the industry, games have been aimed at the mainstream. Instead of trying to please those who play games for entertainment, games are now being designed for marketability. This is a philosophy that Sony has clearly embraced. Modern day gaming consists primarily of cinematic pieces of garbage.
My issues with Sony reached the point that I have vowed never to buy another Sony console until they change their ways. They have to regain my trust. Personally, I feel that we deserve an apology. More importantly, they need to give me functionality that I can’t get elsewhere. They need to actually make contributions to the industry. Until then, I have no problems buying from their competition.
Previous: Xbox 1 or PlayStation 4 II
Next: Xbox 1 or PlayStation 4 III
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Xbox 1 or PlayStation 4 II
Well it seems like the media has made it clear that the choice for the upcoming generation has to be the PlayStation 4. After all, you can always trust the media. Can’t you? Maybe you can, but I can’t.
I don’t think anyone can debate that the media is providing skewed information. It’s nothing new. The video game media clearly prefers the PlayStation brand. It was obvious with the PlayStation 2. It was obvious with the PlayStation 3. It was expected with the PlayStation 4. When comparing these consoles, I will have to minimize media influence.
How am I so sure that the media is in love with Sony? You shouldn’t have to ask. In case you are completely oblivious to the antics of the media, I’m going to share some of the things I’ve noticed.
Let me start by talking about the Dreamcast. Personally, I thought that Sega did a great job on that console. The PlayStation 2 had more raw power, but the Dreamcast was designed more efficiently. It was also established that Sega had better development tools. When Sony finally started to show in-engine footage, it was a huge step back from what I had already seen on the Dreamcast. I remember Sony’s advertising relying heavily on pre-rendered graphics. They would throw in about a tenth of a second of actual in-engine that looked awful (anti-aliasing & VRAM were big factors).
During this time, it was revealed that Sega underestimated performance while Sony overestimated. With effects turned on, the Dreamcast had been reporting a possibility of 3 million polygons per second (the key spec people were referring to at the time). Reports were coming in that they were already pushing 4 million when they increased their estimate to 6 million. Sony was claiming 20 million polygons per second with effects turned on when developers started insisting that bottlenecks would keep them from 10 million. After all of this, I read an article on a website (I no longer visit the website in question due to their over-the-top bias) that insisted that Sony had a 20 million to 3 million advantage. The website wasn’t even getting the facts right.
Eventually, the media hype drowned the Dreamcast. Sure the Dreamcast actually had hardware advantages, more innovation, a lower price tag, and better games, but those things weren’t covered by the media as much as raw performance. While I’m at it, let me bring up Sega’s huge reliability advantage. At the time, the PlayStation 2 was notoriously unreliable. Apparently, reliability isn’t newsworthy.
Like I said, Sony was being heavily praised for the performance advantage of the PlayStation 2 over the Dreamcast. Sega had a huge lead in software, but nobody was talking about software. Then Microsoft announced the Xbox, which absolutely blew away the performance of the PlayStation 2. The same media sources who were previously downplaying software in favor of hardware insisted that Microsoft’s advanced hardware proved that they didn’t know that the industry was all about software. It was a complete 180 by the media within the generation.
Another criticism of the Xbox was the large physical size. I never heard that gamers were worried about console size before, but they insisted that the large size of the console was more proof that Microsoft didn’t understand what gamers wanted.
The media changed their mind again on the value of hardware performance with the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. Even though the performance was much closer (performance was roughly even overall with tradeoffs between the two), Sony had one key advantage that the media was drooling over. Performance became a huge selling point.
Another advantage the PlayStation 3 had was reliability. I’m not writing to be a fanboy defending what turned out to be a big mistake from Microsoft, but this was another huge change for the video game media. After downplaying reliability issues of the PlayStation 2, they put a heavy emphasis on reliability. They acted as though everyone should have known that Sony would make a more reliable console even though the only previous generation that offered a comparison had the Xbox proving more reliable than the PlayStation 2.
Judging from the media of the previous generation, the PlayStation 3 being larger than the original Xbox was a huge disadvantage. It actually wasn’t. This generation, I have struggled to find actual dimensions. I found one person who used the size of standardized components (USB) to make a guess for the Xbox One. Overall, it seems that the Xbox One is a little smaller than the PlayStation 3. Since it’s larger than the PlayStation 4, the media is emphasizing product sizes again. What were the odds that the largest of the consoles of the last three generations didn’t get as much criticism for its size as a couple other large (but still smaller) consoles?
During that generation, the console manufacturers occasionally drew from each other. Nintendo introduced avatars called Miis with the Wii. Sony decided to make their own version. Nobody criticized them for copying Nintendo. Microsoft created their own avatars. They were criticized of copying Nintendo and Sony.
Bias is also showing for the upcoming generation. On one video game website, polls were revealed regarding readers feelings of the PlayStation 4 and Xbox 1. The numbers shared didn’t appear to be that different (although I don’t think they gave us the raw numbers from their poll, allowing them to pick to better serve their purposes). They posted two articles. One was about why gamers were planning on buying the PlayStation 4. The other article was why gamers were passing on the Xbox One.
There’s one article that I read from a non-gaming website that was explaining how you could use HDMI to connect your Xbox 360 to your Xbox One. The article made sure to emphasize that this was the only way to play your old games on the Xbox One because the new console lacked backwards compatibility. I’m fine with them pointing out the lack of backwards compatibility. What bothered me is that the writer insisted that the lack of backwards compatibility was one of the reasons for gamers to go with the PlayStation 4 instead, and he conveniently forgot to mention that the PlayStation 4 also lacks backwards compatibility.
One announcement that Microsoft made that had the media tearing them apart was that the Xbox One would require gamers to go online every 24 hours in order to keep games active. The criticism seemed overblown since digital distribution is clearly expanding. Music is now primarily digital, and movies are turning more to digital distribution. Thanks to Valve’s Steam service, we have seen that a lot gamers are willing to accept this approach with games.
After the media made the 24-hour check-ins out to be a huge blow to gamers, Sony talked about their long-term plans. They want to evolve into a streaming platform. This would require an always-on internet connection. The media didn’t seem nearly as critical of requiring a constant connection as they were of Microsoft’s 24-hour check-ins.
Microsoft addressed the media criticisms. They changed their policies to what influential sources insisted they needed to be. How did the media respond? By criticizing Microsoft. They insisted that listening proved that Microsoft was spineless.
Things got even more bizarre with how the media viewed Microsoft’s handling of Kinect. Initially, Kinect had to be connected at all times for the Xbox One to function. While the system was sleeping, Kinect was supposed to be active in order to wake up the console. It also has a camera. People started jumping to the conclusion that Microsoft designed the system to spy on gamers while the console was off. I hate to break it to the Sony fans, but Microsoft did not design the system to stream video at all times. They wouldn’t waste the bandwidth, they have no reason to store that kind of video, and they aren’t going to invest in looking through millions of hours of video everyday.
Once again, reliability is a story. Even before either console had been released, reliability was one of the selling points that the media was praising Sony for. Keep in mind that in head-to-head comparisons, Microsoft and Sony are tied in creating the more reliable console. Sony has never made a reliable console. They have never seen any backlash. There is no motivation for Sony to concern themselves with reliability. Microsoft got slammed last generation. There’s a lot more on the line for them. I see absolutely no reason to assume that the PlayStation 4 would be more reliable. Everything coming from the media prior to launch was baseless speculation.
We are now seeing the actual reliability problems for both. The PlayStation 4 launched with serious problems. Sony reported the following to IGN prior to launch:
"A handful of people have reported issues with their PlayStation 4 systems. This is within our expectations for a new product introduction, and the vast majority of PS4 feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. We are closely monitoring for additional reports, but we think these are isolated incidents and are on track for a great launch.
There have been several problems reported, which leads us to believe there isn’t a singular problem that could impact a broader percentage of systems. The number of affected systems represents less than .4% of shipped units to date, which is within our expectations for a new product introduction."
I always expected most people to fixate on the “.4%,” but I thought that someone out there would have actually read what Sony was saying. They were talking about pre-launch hardware failures as a percentage of all consoles shipped less than a day before launch. In other words, if 1% of all units shipped were available pre-launch, they would have to record a 40% failure rate in the pre-launch batch. Taken in context, .4% is not impressive.
The problem with this is that nobody in the media paid attention. Everyone reporting on these comments from Sony has actually reported it as an expectation that only .4% of all consoles would turn out faulty after launch. Sony has since revised their spin to less than a 1% failure rate that only hardcore Sony fans find plausible.
Microsoft has had more problems than I expected, but there are no signs that they are any worse than Sony. My best guess is that the Xbox One has a failure rate somewhere between 1% and “1%.” Could you imagine if Microsoft claimed a 1% failure rate? It’s kind of weird that we are comparing the number of reports against one company to a percentage from a source that isn’t exactly neutral (and it seems more people have been reporting problems with the PS4).
All of these things make comparisons difficult. I have to find information for the basis of my decisions, but the source of the information is unreliable. Since every form of media I have encountered has an insane amount of bias, I have developed a tendency to read between the lines. I will try to extract the facts from the opinion pieces. Hopefully, I can be at least somewhat objective when I’m told that I should maintain a blind loyalty to Sony.
Previous: Xbox 1 or PlayStation 4
Next: Xbox 1 or PlayStation 4 III
I don’t think anyone can debate that the media is providing skewed information. It’s nothing new. The video game media clearly prefers the PlayStation brand. It was obvious with the PlayStation 2. It was obvious with the PlayStation 3. It was expected with the PlayStation 4. When comparing these consoles, I will have to minimize media influence.
How am I so sure that the media is in love with Sony? You shouldn’t have to ask. In case you are completely oblivious to the antics of the media, I’m going to share some of the things I’ve noticed.
Let me start by talking about the Dreamcast. Personally, I thought that Sega did a great job on that console. The PlayStation 2 had more raw power, but the Dreamcast was designed more efficiently. It was also established that Sega had better development tools. When Sony finally started to show in-engine footage, it was a huge step back from what I had already seen on the Dreamcast. I remember Sony’s advertising relying heavily on pre-rendered graphics. They would throw in about a tenth of a second of actual in-engine that looked awful (anti-aliasing & VRAM were big factors).
During this time, it was revealed that Sega underestimated performance while Sony overestimated. With effects turned on, the Dreamcast had been reporting a possibility of 3 million polygons per second (the key spec people were referring to at the time). Reports were coming in that they were already pushing 4 million when they increased their estimate to 6 million. Sony was claiming 20 million polygons per second with effects turned on when developers started insisting that bottlenecks would keep them from 10 million. After all of this, I read an article on a website (I no longer visit the website in question due to their over-the-top bias) that insisted that Sony had a 20 million to 3 million advantage. The website wasn’t even getting the facts right.
Eventually, the media hype drowned the Dreamcast. Sure the Dreamcast actually had hardware advantages, more innovation, a lower price tag, and better games, but those things weren’t covered by the media as much as raw performance. While I’m at it, let me bring up Sega’s huge reliability advantage. At the time, the PlayStation 2 was notoriously unreliable. Apparently, reliability isn’t newsworthy.
Like I said, Sony was being heavily praised for the performance advantage of the PlayStation 2 over the Dreamcast. Sega had a huge lead in software, but nobody was talking about software. Then Microsoft announced the Xbox, which absolutely blew away the performance of the PlayStation 2. The same media sources who were previously downplaying software in favor of hardware insisted that Microsoft’s advanced hardware proved that they didn’t know that the industry was all about software. It was a complete 180 by the media within the generation.
Another criticism of the Xbox was the large physical size. I never heard that gamers were worried about console size before, but they insisted that the large size of the console was more proof that Microsoft didn’t understand what gamers wanted.
The media changed their mind again on the value of hardware performance with the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. Even though the performance was much closer (performance was roughly even overall with tradeoffs between the two), Sony had one key advantage that the media was drooling over. Performance became a huge selling point.
Another advantage the PlayStation 3 had was reliability. I’m not writing to be a fanboy defending what turned out to be a big mistake from Microsoft, but this was another huge change for the video game media. After downplaying reliability issues of the PlayStation 2, they put a heavy emphasis on reliability. They acted as though everyone should have known that Sony would make a more reliable console even though the only previous generation that offered a comparison had the Xbox proving more reliable than the PlayStation 2.
Judging from the media of the previous generation, the PlayStation 3 being larger than the original Xbox was a huge disadvantage. It actually wasn’t. This generation, I have struggled to find actual dimensions. I found one person who used the size of standardized components (USB) to make a guess for the Xbox One. Overall, it seems that the Xbox One is a little smaller than the PlayStation 3. Since it’s larger than the PlayStation 4, the media is emphasizing product sizes again. What were the odds that the largest of the consoles of the last three generations didn’t get as much criticism for its size as a couple other large (but still smaller) consoles?
During that generation, the console manufacturers occasionally drew from each other. Nintendo introduced avatars called Miis with the Wii. Sony decided to make their own version. Nobody criticized them for copying Nintendo. Microsoft created their own avatars. They were criticized of copying Nintendo and Sony.
Bias is also showing for the upcoming generation. On one video game website, polls were revealed regarding readers feelings of the PlayStation 4 and Xbox 1. The numbers shared didn’t appear to be that different (although I don’t think they gave us the raw numbers from their poll, allowing them to pick to better serve their purposes). They posted two articles. One was about why gamers were planning on buying the PlayStation 4. The other article was why gamers were passing on the Xbox One.
There’s one article that I read from a non-gaming website that was explaining how you could use HDMI to connect your Xbox 360 to your Xbox One. The article made sure to emphasize that this was the only way to play your old games on the Xbox One because the new console lacked backwards compatibility. I’m fine with them pointing out the lack of backwards compatibility. What bothered me is that the writer insisted that the lack of backwards compatibility was one of the reasons for gamers to go with the PlayStation 4 instead, and he conveniently forgot to mention that the PlayStation 4 also lacks backwards compatibility.
One announcement that Microsoft made that had the media tearing them apart was that the Xbox One would require gamers to go online every 24 hours in order to keep games active. The criticism seemed overblown since digital distribution is clearly expanding. Music is now primarily digital, and movies are turning more to digital distribution. Thanks to Valve’s Steam service, we have seen that a lot gamers are willing to accept this approach with games.
After the media made the 24-hour check-ins out to be a huge blow to gamers, Sony talked about their long-term plans. They want to evolve into a streaming platform. This would require an always-on internet connection. The media didn’t seem nearly as critical of requiring a constant connection as they were of Microsoft’s 24-hour check-ins.
Microsoft addressed the media criticisms. They changed their policies to what influential sources insisted they needed to be. How did the media respond? By criticizing Microsoft. They insisted that listening proved that Microsoft was spineless.
Things got even more bizarre with how the media viewed Microsoft’s handling of Kinect. Initially, Kinect had to be connected at all times for the Xbox One to function. While the system was sleeping, Kinect was supposed to be active in order to wake up the console. It also has a camera. People started jumping to the conclusion that Microsoft designed the system to spy on gamers while the console was off. I hate to break it to the Sony fans, but Microsoft did not design the system to stream video at all times. They wouldn’t waste the bandwidth, they have no reason to store that kind of video, and they aren’t going to invest in looking through millions of hours of video everyday.
Once again, reliability is a story. Even before either console had been released, reliability was one of the selling points that the media was praising Sony for. Keep in mind that in head-to-head comparisons, Microsoft and Sony are tied in creating the more reliable console. Sony has never made a reliable console. They have never seen any backlash. There is no motivation for Sony to concern themselves with reliability. Microsoft got slammed last generation. There’s a lot more on the line for them. I see absolutely no reason to assume that the PlayStation 4 would be more reliable. Everything coming from the media prior to launch was baseless speculation.
We are now seeing the actual reliability problems for both. The PlayStation 4 launched with serious problems. Sony reported the following to IGN prior to launch:
"A handful of people have reported issues with their PlayStation 4 systems. This is within our expectations for a new product introduction, and the vast majority of PS4 feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. We are closely monitoring for additional reports, but we think these are isolated incidents and are on track for a great launch.
There have been several problems reported, which leads us to believe there isn’t a singular problem that could impact a broader percentage of systems. The number of affected systems represents less than .4% of shipped units to date, which is within our expectations for a new product introduction."
I always expected most people to fixate on the “.4%,” but I thought that someone out there would have actually read what Sony was saying. They were talking about pre-launch hardware failures as a percentage of all consoles shipped less than a day before launch. In other words, if 1% of all units shipped were available pre-launch, they would have to record a 40% failure rate in the pre-launch batch. Taken in context, .4% is not impressive.
The problem with this is that nobody in the media paid attention. Everyone reporting on these comments from Sony has actually reported it as an expectation that only .4% of all consoles would turn out faulty after launch. Sony has since revised their spin to less than a 1% failure rate that only hardcore Sony fans find plausible.
Microsoft has had more problems than I expected, but there are no signs that they are any worse than Sony. My best guess is that the Xbox One has a failure rate somewhere between 1% and “1%.” Could you imagine if Microsoft claimed a 1% failure rate? It’s kind of weird that we are comparing the number of reports against one company to a percentage from a source that isn’t exactly neutral (and it seems more people have been reporting problems with the PS4).
All of these things make comparisons difficult. I have to find information for the basis of my decisions, but the source of the information is unreliable. Since every form of media I have encountered has an insane amount of bias, I have developed a tendency to read between the lines. I will try to extract the facts from the opinion pieces. Hopefully, I can be at least somewhat objective when I’m told that I should maintain a blind loyalty to Sony.
Previous: Xbox 1 or PlayStation 4
Next: Xbox 1 or PlayStation 4 III
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Xbox 1 or PlayStation 4
Before I explain which of these two systems I prefer, I want to explain a little about my gaming preferences. If you are a mainstream gamer playing because your friends are, you aren’t going to get anything from my posts. Instead, I am going to explain how these consoles stack up for the rare individual who still plays games for the entertainment value.
For me, video games are primarily about the gameplay. Storylines can help with some genres, but technical accomplishments are pretty much irrelevant. Yes, technological improvements can add to the gameplay in some instances. For increasing specs, everything that needs to be represented was possible starting with the Dreamcast.
So what kinds of games do I play? That’s kind of tricky. I have enjoyed a few big-budget titles, but those games are becoming stale. I know a lot of people insist that all true gamers have to go after Final Fantasy and Grand Theft Auto, but I would rather buy the games that I enjoy rather than buy the games that please others. After all, I have a mind of my own. Unfortunately, the rise of the big-budget derivatives (If I have a game, why should I spend $60 on something with updated graphics but no real improvements on gameplay) has resulted in a declining interest in the bulk of the games that people actually know about. To make matters worse, so-called AAA titles are so fixated on the technical side of things that they usually neglect gameplay.
Enough about what I don’t like. What I do like is new experiences. I like gameplay first. Indie games have been somewhat mixed. Some try to capitalize on the success of other games and end up too derivative. Others are poorly executed and filled with glitches. That said, most of the entertaining games right now seem to be coming from independent developers. For example, I love Terraria on the PC (I’m not sure how well the game would work with a controller, but I might buy the Xbox 360 version if I could get it cheap).
As far as console design is concerned, I want the hardware to help with those new experiences. Simply updating a console with higher specs will not win my support. I want new features. I want the hardware to allow games that aren’t already possible.
I don’t care about fitting in. I don’t care about what the mainstream is buying. I don’t care about technical accomplishments. I don’t care about bragging rights. I don’t care about proving I’m a gamer. What I really want for my next console is the best entertainment experience I can get.
So which console am I more interested in? If you have been reading my blog, you know that I was going to turn this into a short series. I’m not ready to explain what I’m buying. You’re going to have to come back for that.
Next: Xbox 1 or PlayStation 4 II
For me, video games are primarily about the gameplay. Storylines can help with some genres, but technical accomplishments are pretty much irrelevant. Yes, technological improvements can add to the gameplay in some instances. For increasing specs, everything that needs to be represented was possible starting with the Dreamcast.
So what kinds of games do I play? That’s kind of tricky. I have enjoyed a few big-budget titles, but those games are becoming stale. I know a lot of people insist that all true gamers have to go after Final Fantasy and Grand Theft Auto, but I would rather buy the games that I enjoy rather than buy the games that please others. After all, I have a mind of my own. Unfortunately, the rise of the big-budget derivatives (If I have a game, why should I spend $60 on something with updated graphics but no real improvements on gameplay) has resulted in a declining interest in the bulk of the games that people actually know about. To make matters worse, so-called AAA titles are so fixated on the technical side of things that they usually neglect gameplay.
Enough about what I don’t like. What I do like is new experiences. I like gameplay first. Indie games have been somewhat mixed. Some try to capitalize on the success of other games and end up too derivative. Others are poorly executed and filled with glitches. That said, most of the entertaining games right now seem to be coming from independent developers. For example, I love Terraria on the PC (I’m not sure how well the game would work with a controller, but I might buy the Xbox 360 version if I could get it cheap).
As far as console design is concerned, I want the hardware to help with those new experiences. Simply updating a console with higher specs will not win my support. I want new features. I want the hardware to allow games that aren’t already possible.
I don’t care about fitting in. I don’t care about what the mainstream is buying. I don’t care about technical accomplishments. I don’t care about bragging rights. I don’t care about proving I’m a gamer. What I really want for my next console is the best entertainment experience I can get.
So which console am I more interested in? If you have been reading my blog, you know that I was going to turn this into a short series. I’m not ready to explain what I’m buying. You’re going to have to come back for that.
Next: Xbox 1 or PlayStation 4 II
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)