Sony's PlayStation 4 pwns Xbox in the United States Sony has claimed an early victory in the next generation console wars after saying it had sold twice as many consoles in the US during January than its arch-rival Microsoft. However, Redmond hit back with the claim that it managed to shift more games than Sony over the same period. This just in: PS4 the #1 selling game …
The markets not really arguing. Many people don't want to pay be forced to pay $100 more for a device that makes them wave their arms around like they are pitching a fit when they just want to game. People can argue how one company is more evil than the other or about that or this exclusive but that's just mental masturbation.
"Many people don't want to pay be forced to pay $100 more for a device that makes them wave their arms around like they are pitching a fit when they just want to game"
Even if you don't want Kinect, I think it's worth the extra just for the TV integration. I have both consoles and for the games like Ghosts that apparently have a higher native resolution on the PS4 - it's not discernable 3 metres from a 65" plasma...I have to say that I find that the XBO is the better overall product. Xbox Live especially is noticeably better than PS Network...
(The only thing I would have really faulted the Xbox One on - the long game install time - seems to have massively improved with the recent update.)
Not sure if you are being deliberately annoying or its just something that comes naturally to you, the DRM and always on Kinect were never features at launch and as for the 13 year olds calling you gay, there is a mute option for users although I have to say most of the obnoxious language I hear through my headset seems to come from the more senior gamers these days...maybe you just need to get a bit better?
But your missing out on all that wonderful DRM
Kidding, right? The PC is amongst the worst for DRM. As far as I'm concerned, and I've said it many times, the entire AAA videogames industry can die in a fire. Really. Jump off a cliff. Die. Now.
I'll buy games (a) if they are good, and (b) if they don't demand usage of Steamshite, Origin, or any other kind of "you must connect to the Internet and prove you are not a criminal" bullshit.
There is very, very little of that on any platform, PC included. Games like Kerbal Space Program are the exception, not the norm.
Or whenever you install a game from a disk. Or whenever "offline mode" decides it isn't. The only reason they may, perhaps, possibly allow you to sell your own stuff second hand is because they might well end up being forced to in the EU.
Valve pioneered this online-DRM shit with Steam, and I won't forgive them for it. GOG.com is also a digital download service, and yet, no shitty Steamworks DRM.
Don't confuse downloading a game, with needing to be online to play or "activate" it. The two are not equivalent.
You're the one confusing the issue. You don't need to be online to play anything on Steam (apart from the online multiplayer parts obviously). You need to be online to activate a game but that happens as you download it so the two are equivalent.
Installing some games from disc does require going online to activate with Steam and you do have a valid complaint there. That's hardly Valve's fault though. There's no reason the developers couldn't provide a non-Steam install option on the disc as well. The only reason they don't is because you're in a minority and they don't want the expense of developing a version of the game with different DRM just for you. Valve isn't stopping them, they just don't want to spend the money.
It's worth mentioning that a lot of games on Steam don't actually have any DRM enabled. Steam just acts as a downloader and launcher. You could copy the game files out of the Steam folder if you were so inclined, even put them on a different computer and the game would still run. I also have quite a few games bought on Steam that can be alternatively downloaded direct from the developer's website. I can burn them to disc and install them any time, internet connection or no.
So... downloading an archive from a CDN somewhere is the same as activating it via Steamshite? No. No it is not the same. Did you not even read what I said about GoG?
"Usage of this game requires activation and acceptance of the Steam Subscriber Agreement (SSA)."
A quote from the back of the box on nearly every fucking game in the shop these days. I'm not confusing anything. Valve are rapidly becoming the Microsoft of PC games.
No thankyou. Like I said, Valve pioneered this shit. I won't forgive them, nor give them the benefit of my money. Same with EA, same with Ubisoft, same with anybody else who wants to infect my computer with crap or demands I make an account with Gabe's Great DRM Distribution Service, just to play with toys.
There are better toys out there.
I also have quite a few games bought on Steam that can be alternatively downloaded direct from the developer's website.
And KSP is one of them. From what I recall, the devs only added it to the Steaming Shite store as an option, because so many turkeys have been voting for Christmas and will for some insane reason, only get a game if it's locked into Steam. Whatever. Like I said, there are better toys.
As for the "extra expense" of making a "diffenet DRM", no. How about "no DRM"? Even less expensive. Yeah, sure I'm in the minority, but I really couldn't give two hoots. Like I said, there are far, far better toys, and none of them involve infecting my computer with shit.
So, the AAA videogames industry really can die. I'll dance a little jig on its grave.
"So... downloading an archive from a CDN somewhere is the same as activating it via Steamshite? No. No it is not the same. Did you not even read what I said about GoG?"
Yes it is.
You activate game on GoG by paying for it with a credit card and then download it. You activate game on Steam by paying for it with a credit card and then download it. You can back up your games to disc with both services and you can reinstall your games offline from those backups with both services (though it needs to be on the same account with Steam).
"A quote from the back of the box on nearly every fucking game in the shop these days. I'm not confusing anything. Valve are rapidly becoming the Microsoft of PC games."
This is such a stupid argument. You're getting mad at an online distribution company for requiring you to go online to verify your purchase. Instead you should be getting mad at games developers for requiring you to use an online distribution service to verify the purchase of a physical disc. As I said earlier though, you're not going to get far with that since it's a lot more cost effective for developers to only use one kind of DRM (especially one maintained by a third party and offered to them as free to use).
"How about "no DRM"? Even less expensive."
How about, this is the real world and if you're going to get mad about games developers trying to protect their shit, then you're going to be perpetually mad. When it comes down to it you're complaining about one of the most permissive forms of DRM available. This isn't some EA style crap that requires you to maintain a constant internet connection to play and which refuses to store your game saves locally, it's connect once on initial install and you're done. It's also far better then the bad old days when every company had their own protection system that'd install as a constantly running, resource hungry, background process. You could literally end up with a dozen of these things going at the same time. Or when companies put so much protection on their discs you couldn't even backup your purchases.
"So, the AAA videogames industry really can die. I'll dance a little jig on its grave."
They're bigger than the film and music industries combined. I wouldn't hold your breath.
You activate game on GoG by paying for it with a credit card and then download it. You activate game on Steam by paying for it with a credit card and then download it. You can back up your games to disc with both services and you can reinstall your games offline from those backups with both services (though it needs to be on the same account with Steam).
Don't be deliberately obtuse. GoG specifically does not use DRM. Steam is all about Steamworks. Steam would not exist without it.
How about, this is the real world and if you're going to get mad about games developers trying to protect their shit...
Hardly. Shitty DRM-encrusted toys are not worth getting worked up over. Like I said, there are far better toys out there. Toys that don't demand activation, online connectivity, whatever. The question is, when time after time you see surveys and reports showing how DRM makes absolutely no difference, and if anything increases the amount of piracy of a given game title, why publishers (note, not necessarily developers) continue to peddle their bullshit?
As for Steamworks being somehow "better" than Origin, no. If it requires a connection to play at all, then I'm just not interested. Sorry.
They're bigger than the film and music industries combined. I wouldn't hold your breath.
I just don't care. They can die, I am not concerned. Valve and EA could go into liquidation Tomorrow. It doesn't affect me, because I haven't locked myself into their shitty DRM.
I'd still dance a little jig on their grave though.
"Don't be deliberately obtuse. GoG specifically does not use DRM. Steam is all about Steamworks. Steam would not exist without it."
I'm not being obtuse. When there's no effective difference in functionality for the end user between DRM and a non-DRM game, why should the user give a damn?
"The question is, when time after time you see surveys and reports showing how DRM makes absolutely no difference, and if anything increases the amount of piracy of a given game title"
Citation required.
"I just don't care. They can die, I am not concerned. Valve and EA could go into liquidation Tomorrow. It doesn't affect me, because I haven't locked myself into their shitty DRM."
Well it does affect you since you've deliberately barred yourself from playing a large swathe of games. It has been repeatedly stated that if Valve were to go bust then Steam would be issued with a patch that no longer required it to log in to Valve's servers.
:I'm not being obtuse. When there's no effective difference in functionality for the end user between DRM and a non-DRM game, why should the user give a damn?
You are being deliberately obtuse. Annoyingly irritating or slow to understand.
The end user will give a damn when they try to install a game without the Internet being involved. Or those remote DRM servers.
Citation required.
Well it does affect you since you've deliberately barred yourself from playing a large swathe of games.
Games that don't interest me, in the same way that shit that requires I install the Ask toolbar doesn't interest me.
It has been repeatedly stated that if Valve were to go bust then Steam would be issued with a patch that no longer required it to phone home.
If Valve were to go bust, then Valve would no longer be in control of their own business. The creditors would.
I believe their promises as far as I'd believe the promises of any other corp: I don't.
I already have a large swathe of games new and old, that work very well without shitty online DRM thank you very much. The ones that want some kind of other copy protection like Starforce et al, get dealt with courtesy of Slysoft's Game Jackal. Yes, I am aware of the irony of buying a lifetime-updates subscription of a proprietary product in order to not have to worry about the shit that game publishers (again, not necessarily developers) pull. It should also show that I am perfectly willing to pay for software.
I just won't give money to bullshit merchants who demand that the toys I buy be locked up under the equivalent of a nuclear fucking PAL code that has no effect on unauthorised copying, and has the only real purpose of attempting to prevent me from selling on my own damned stuff. They are toys, not bombs.
"You are being deliberately obtuse. Annoyingly irritating or slow to understand.
The end user will give a damn when they try to install a game without the Internet being involved. Or those remote DRM servers."
You're the one that's being slow. You need to be online to buy things from GoG, you need to be online to buy things from Steam. After that no further internet connection is required for either.
"okay.
If you like."
Congrats, you've found an opinion piece with no hard data and a Google search which brings up a bunch of articles stating that removing DRM did not reduce piracy rates.
"If Valve were to go bust, then Valve would no longer be in control of their own business. The creditors would."
If Valve wind down, they'll issue the patch. If Valve or their creditors sell Steam then the service will still be operational.
After that no further internet connection is required for either.
Really? Try copying that game out of your Steamapps folder and running it without Steam. Any game that uses Steamworks, which is the vast majority of them, will fail.
Try keeping an archive of that game on a USB stick or something. Try installing it without the Internet. If it uses Steamworks, well, good luck. You'll fail.
You are trying to equate downloading a game with requiring the Internet in order to "activate" or play a game. The two are not, and never will be equivalent, regardless of how much you believe it to be so.
Congrats, you've found an opinion piece with no hard data and a Google search which brings up a bunch of articles stating that removing DRM did not reduce piracy rates.
An opinion piece from a game developer. And a Google search that turns up some quite hard data, if you actually look.
If Valve wind down, they'll issue the patch. If Valve or their creditors sell Steam then the service will still be operational.
Your blind faith is admirable, but naïve.
I will never give money to Valve, and I will enjoy their death if it happens. Steamworks, Origin and all the others are what is wrong with the AAA videogames industry. It deserves to die.
Really, what stake do you have in continued DRM-encrustation of toys? Why are you so in favour of it?
The PS4 is just slightly less disappointing than the XBone. Both had weak hardware the day they were released. Both also have a projected ten year lifespan. Imagine how cutting edge they'll be by then.
In the best of worlds the Steamboxes would crush them both. It remains to be seen if >30 fps, support for 4K resolution and 3D headsets will trump the brand loyalty of xboxers and playstationeers.
It certainly can produce 1080p @ 60fps, Forza is a prime example of this, you are obviously mis-informed on what this console can actually do.
4K video is also supported on the XB One, something which Sony have ruled out from day one as their 4K range of TV's upscale, and they do quite a good job at upscaling to 4K.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_One
Its states under Hardware, 4th paragraph down;
"Xbox One supports 4K resolution (3840×2160) (2160p) video output and 7.1 surround sound. Yusuf Mehdi, corporate vice president of marketing and strategy for Microsoft, has stated that there is no hardware restriction that would prevent games from running at 4K resolution."
> It certainly can produce 1080p @ 60fps
Yes, it can, but just barely, and only for a very few games. Graphics-intensive games run at lower res or lower framerate. Or, frequently, both. See for instance this (note that those are not measured framerates, but the framerates stated by the game distributor -- they're likely to be exaggerated to help sales).
> 4K video is also supported on the XB One
Only in marketing speak. See also this.
"See also this."
I assume you refer to "If the Xbox One can't handle intense graphics at 1080p, 4K is pretty much out of the question" - we already know that it can handle 1080p.
So for instance the XBO could likely at a minimum handle games with 4K backgrounds and with 1080p foreground action - or even completely 4K rendering but presumably not at high action rates - both of which the PS4 apparently simply can't do...
Xbone, NSA's wet dream with almost all the features taken away unless you pay for a cloud subscription,
P*S4, Doesn't matter if you own your music, you can't play it here with added cloud subscription features (normally considered "as standard" on anything older)
Steambox, interesting, but I'm far too fond of owning my own games for doing silly little things like lending them to friends or selling them, even buying cheap second hand ones... aah, ownership, how I miss you... at least they have a reassuring cloud.
The industry is now all about getting you to rent your content and somehow they all seem in agreement that the user has had it far too easy.
I will not subscribe for my software.
I have a RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
I do not want the cloud getting in the way of my "for granted" features such as playing a CD or making a back up.
I own the disc I pay for. If I take it around the corner to play it on a mates machine I expect it just to work.
I do not want to pay for little in game extras to continue playing, I paid for the game and expect to be able to play it without being ransomed or advertised to.
Maybe I'm old, but I just want to play games without laying out a small fortune or getting shafted in a myriad of cons.
Who plays music on other than Phone or Media Streaming box (often mis-advertised as "Radios" but they need the Internet if not using your own.)?
Also the Xbone seems designed purely for 60Hz world. Trying to to decent 25i or 50p European video in a Window running at 30i or 60p (MS Xbone) is never going to work properly unless the images are static.
I buy CDs and read them once.
I can even listen to them on the 1980s HiFi via FM stereo using a little £5 CE FM Tx dongle meant for media players & car radio. Works on DTT, SAT or Laptop audio out to 3.5mm jack and powered of USB socket or USB PSU or phone charger Nokia coax plug.
£10 USB Memory stick on the HDTV USB in too.
>>Who plays music on other than Phone or Media Streaming box (often mis-advertised as "Radios" but they need the Internet if not using your own.)?
Um, nearly everyone older than 30 and a large proportion of those under? Storing your MP3s on your PC/whatever and playing them back through a HiFi is hardly unusual.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Also the Xbone seems designed purely for 60Hz world. Trying to to decent 25i or 50p European video in a Window running at 30i or 60p (MS Xbone) is never going to work properly unless the images are static."
Xbox One is perfectly capable of running at 50Hz. It defaults to 60Hz as this is the refresh rate that games and the dashboard apps are optimised for. If on configuring the screen resolution, you tell it that it didn't display properly - it will switch to 50Hz....
>"I have a RIGHT TO PRIVACY."
>Do you? Under which laws?
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/
JDX once again show how many Americans think only their laws apply and their culture matters (Disclosure: am born and bred Merkin). Not every country out there only lets corporations make the laws. The EU has some serious data privacy laws which US companies tend to really hate because they cost money to implement.
I do no such thing. If you read my post you'll see I asked a simple, unbiased question which also failed to even hint at my nationality (hint: not American).
Also, I didn't ask about laws regarding data protection, or internet privacy. I asked about privacy in the wider sense; is privacy a right which can therefore be extended to the internet, or is all this clamour about privacy being a "human right" actually based on a falsehood?
> Do you? Under which laws?
IANAL, but I believe in the US "right to privacy" is derived from the constitutional ban against "unreasonable searches" and implied in other parts of the constitution. The supreme court has ruled that there is right to privacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut.
The main opposition to the concept of "right to privacy" come from opponents of contraceptives and same sex marriages, e.g. Ron Paul arguing that there is no such thing as right to privacy (context: Paul arguing in favor of state bans on gay sex).
Best not buy anything from Sony then. The company that pretty much invented DRM on audio devices. And that root kitted ~ 50 million customers via it's CD DRM. And infected all BluRay players with Cinavia. And that distributed millions of it's customers' personal details and financial info. across the internet...
The PS4 looks better, it performs better and it costs less. Even in the US which is the bastion of the XBox, I'm sure a combination of these factors has substantially swayed sales in this gen over what they were in the last.
Microsoft could turn this around if they could justify the Kinect (or bundle an XB1 without it), or if they swallowed the price differential. But if they plough on the way they are then I suspect the gap will widen.
....... you're all amateurs. While the boy Kerbals on the spare gaming pc, I sit here and wonder will it be Skyrim on the main gaming pc, Forza 5 on the Xbox One, Guitar Hero 3 on the PS2, Zelda on the Wii or N64 or should I get the 3DO and Return Fire out for some destruction fun?
While you guys are having your pissing contest you are missing out on important gaming time :D
I think maybe you've posted this a little prematurely. I'd hope El Reg wouldn't be the place to find console fanboys, heaven forbid.
These days I prefer everything on the PC, although I tend to use a 360 controller with a lot of newer games.
Not just for the graphical quality, but for sheer convenience. PCs will also be "backwards compatible" for a lot longer than any console, so I can have a decent unbroken experience.
I have plenty of consoles myself: Xbox 360, PS2, Dreamcast (x6), GameCube (x2), N64 (x2) SNES, Xbox, of course a DS Lite for good measure. Had a Gameboy Advance SP, but no idea where it went.
PC is still the most versatile, and newer consoles lack the unique charm of the older machines. I know that all my old console games are frozen in time - as long as the hardware and disc works, I can play that game forever, as it is, with the same experience every time. Newer consoles, they may want to update, the virtual stores may die out, you'll get a system update which flips things around and tosses ads in your face.
Perversely, I play the XBox360 games using a mouse and keyboard....just can't get comfortable with the console controller.
Of course this does rather shine a light on the whole argument....what works for one may not be the preferred oiption for someone else. Just a good thing there is some choice around
Important gaming time?
You really need to get out into the real world more often. There are a million things I'd rather do than play shoot'em up games in my basement. That includes a nice bit of 'game-play' in the bedroom with the missus (if you get my drift)
Perhaps your basement will get flooded with all this rain and you will be forced to realize that there is more to life than wasting it playing shoot-em-up (or similar) games.
Last gen, never a week went by without a press release.
Guess they aren't totally immune, consumers have more sense than I gave them credit for. Consumers have spotted a overpriced and underspec console that resembles a 1980s VCR isn't that hot a buy, despite a gazillion pound advertising budget.
but this is the first console generation that's made me upgrade my PC.
Normally I mutter for about PC supremacy, and then cave on the shiny bells&whistles/exclusives and pick up a new console 'as well'
My take-away sentiment on this generation is that they're both bitching over which can actually run what at 1080, whilst users are revolting over the nickel-and-diming micro-transactions.
I already feel somewhat pissed over mobile failing to deliver the games I was promised (If it's good I'll pay up-front, you offer to sell me 'diamonds' and I'm out forever). The very appearance of this on next-gen consoles has just curdled my interest.
It's not now so much that my PC gives me an extra few pixels, it's that it's the last refuge of what I used to love about games. The recent influx of AAA-indie has also helped - but it still feels like I'm clutching my mouse with my back to the wall.
Good post, similar to how I feel but I don't think the market today is prepared to pay the right money for a truly state of the art console. We should be looking at around £600. The big boys no longer want to sell to a niche market either.
I imported a SNES and Playstation at considerable cost, paying £50 per game. Well worth it, as these consoles had custom graphics and sound chips not found on PCs at the time, giving unequaled arcade experiences and no distractions.The emphasis was on booting the game and clicking 'Play'.
There wasn't as many tech or gadgets to spend our money on in those days either. Consoles today are cheaper than most Apple products, yet for most are used for more hours of enjoyment. This generation presents an opportunity for a niche hardware that truly blows people away. I dream of a combi unit that also caters for retro cartridges. Something that could only come from Nintendo or Sega. With Nintendo losing the plot, the only chance of the good ol days returning lies with Sega. The company who spawned 3D hardware acceleration with their arcade machines.
I'd say probably not going forward.
The money is in all the media/film and TV subscriptions that 30+ somethings tend to purchase.
In that case the Xbox is better placed which I reckon was MS's plan all along.
Games are just an added bonus. And as mentioned people seem far happier to pay for films and TV than they are for games and add ons.
Plus would you stake your future on companies like EA?
I'm sure the xBox One is amazing, but if Forza 5 is anything to go by they won't be getting a purchase from me anytime soon.
£55 buys you a game with about 60% of the tracks and 20% of the cars available in Forza 4. You can then buy all the stuff they've taken out as DLC. And remember most of this content was already in Forza 4. Strangly I still have my 360 with all that DLC content still on it, not that Mocrosoft has also apparently made the decision to drop all interest in that platform already - another mistake which Sony have not made.
You would have to be some kind of cretin to accept that lot as an upgrade. Microsoft may think the money is in the games, but if nobody buys the things because they are sh*t value MS will not get any money at all.
Once again Microsoft manages to kill it's Golden Goose because of nothing more than pure greed. < GOLF CLAP >
"£55 buys you a game with about 60% of the tracks and 20% of the cars available in Forza "
It's £38 on Amazon. And that content is still more than most humans are likely to get through.
"You can then buy all the stuff they've taken out as DLC"
You can also let your 'driveatar' compete away in the cloud for you and earn you the credits to buy it all...
...or, suffice to say, I was.
Let me see:
1) PS4 way cheaper
2) I don't really play multiplayer games, so Gold subs always rub me up the wrong way
3) Need aforementioned Gold sub to get to things like Netflix. I understand that you don't need a paid sub to get to this on PS4?
My big nostalgia for Halo and Gears has me in a holding pattern. But at the moment, even I can see that the PS4 makes more sense at this point in time.
"fact that many of the decent titles run only 720p or 900p not full 1080p/i"
That's not likely to be the case going forwards - Microsoft already changed a number of things to address that (such as the amount of GPU resouces reserved for background tasks / split screen) - and anyway - it's really not discernable - speaking as an owner of both consoles with a large screen.
The PS4 has a more powerful GPU / faster RAM, but the XBO has a more powerful CPU, a more powerful cache design - and better on CPU hardware offload capabilities for scaling, overlays, and audio + video encoding / decoding - and also significant cloud based compute resouces it can leverage. Overall I doubt there will be a noticeable difference without a freeze frame and a magnifying glass for the vast majority of games...
It is a bogus comparison. Sony saying they shifted more of the new games console than Microsoft's new console is suggesting a different thing to microsoft shifting more games across all consoles. That just tells us overall Microsoft sells more games but that could be largely due to its previous console being more popular and the games for it still outselling everything else. It says nothing of its new consoles ability to sell or for it to sell new games. The fact more new sony playstations are selling suggests that in the future when no games are made for the older consoles, sony will have a brighter future, after all, people don't buy a console to look at it, they buy one to buy games for it.
"The fact more new sony playstations are selling suggests that in the future when no games are made for the older consoles, sony will have a brighter future"
Not really - the money is made mostly off selling games and content - not the consoles. Every PS4 just used as a Bluray player likely costs Sony money!
Microsoft also havnt yet launched the Xbox One in anything like as many territories as the PS4, so future Xbox One sales volume will likely climb.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
