XBOX Next Gen Rumor and Speculation Thread - Reveal May 21st

[I OU a Beatn]

I think that used to be the case, but I have to think people are beginning to wake up to Microsoft's BS.

It is most certainly true that Xbox Live used to be way better than PS Network, however, those days are quickly going by the wayside. Microsoft still invests more in their arcade games, but the vast majority of the games are on both platforms. Sony has a few of their own gems, so in the arcade games area, it's pretty close to a wash.

A lot of people are really in love with Plus, so that's a huge positive for Sony. You can play online, watch Netflix, and everything else without paying a subscription fee. With Microsoft, you can't play online without Live, nor can you even watch Netflix without a Gold subscription, which is really retarded. The only thing Microsoft has over Sony right now is the party ability and how easy it is to send out invites and set up a party. To me, that isn't worth $60 a year, especially compared to something like Plus that actually gives you games to play at no extra cost.

But I tend to agree, I don't think Microsoft is smart enough to realize that they're going to have to change things up to compete with Sony in the upcoming generation. I fully believe they're going to continue charging $60 for the ability to play online, continue focusing on Kinect and the casual market, and continue going after timed exclusive DLC deals. It worked this generation, but I truly don't believe it will the next.

[oweb26]

I think that used to be the case, but I have to think people are beginning to wake up to Microsoft's BS.

It is most certainly true that Xbox Live used to be way better than PS Network, however, those days are quickly going by the wayside. Microsoft still invests more in their arcade games, but the vast majority of the games are on both platforms. Sony has a few of their own gems, so in the arcade games area, it's pretty close to a wash.

A lot of people are really in love with Plus, so that's a huge positive for Sony. You can play online, watch Netflix, and everything else without paying a subscription fee. With Microsoft, you can't play online without Live, nor can you even watch Netflix without a Gold subscription, which is really retarded. The only thing Microsoft has over Sony right now is the party ability and how easy it is to send out invites and set up a party. To me, that isn't worth $60 a year, especially compared to something like Plus that actually gives you games to play at no extra cost.

But I tend to agree, I don't think Microsoft is smart enough to realize that they're going to have to change things up to compete with Sony in the upcoming generation. I fully believe they're going to continue charging $60 for the ability to play online, continue focusing on Kinect and the casual market, and continue going after timed exclusive DLC deals. It worked this generation, but I truly don't believe it will the next.

I agree with every point you make, I was simply implying that because the charged 60.00 was the reason it was better for a span of what 3-4 years, I agree that is not the case now as PSN has come a very long way.

[bdoughty]

After the anti-used game report for the next XBOX, Gamestop shares dropped 6.8% today.

Good, I only buy new games and Gamestop can bite my shinny metal ass. The online only thing is moronic. Just look at the outrage over the new Sim City and requiring an always on connection.

[JBHuskers]

Well with PS+, Sony really upped the ante by giving you FULL RETAIL games for free. I bet in the past few months alone, over a dozen retail games for PS3 and Vita, including Vita's Uncharted, Gravity Rush, Just Cause 2, etc. for FREE. LittleBigPlanet Karting is a fairly new title, PS+ members were able to snag it for $10 just a week after it was a great deal on Best Buy for $20.

If MS offered the same type of game offering ON TOP of Gold, then maybe they could get an advantage.

[Rudy]

Good, I only buy new games and Gamestop can bite my shinny metal ass. The online only thing is moronic. Just look at the outrage over the new Sim City and requiring an always on connection.

Do you keep all the games you buy? Because you can't sell them when you are done anymore. I trade almost all my games or sell them online when I am done. Kiss that goodbye if this ends up happening. Clearly they see this as a way to push digital distribution and cloud services which I do not like.

[JBHuskers]

I've become too much of a hoarder that takes forever to finish a game so I don't sell back as much as I collect.

Now if they are requiring an activation code (i.e. the current Online Pass) rather than some on-disc encoding, you could still buy used from Gamefly, and their sales will go through the roof because they provide the unused code with the game you buy from them. That's where I get at least half of my new games, if not more is Gamefly used.

[bdoughty]

Do you keep all the games you buy? Because you can't sell them when you are done anymore. I trade almost all my games or sell them online when I am done. Kiss that goodbye if this ends up happening. Clearly they see this as a way to push digital distribution and cloud services which I do not like.

I have been using the On Demand to get a few games lately. I have also bought plenty of XBLA games so it really does not concern me, since you can't sell them either. I usually gave away my games or donated them to the hospital. I generally get my moneys worth in a game so it really is not an issue for me. I understand others concerns as money is tight and a trade in is a way of turning a couple used games into a new game.

Nothing is set in stone until it comes straight from the mouth of MS.

[CLW]

I wonder how Sony responds to this whole must be online/no used games? On one hand the consumers would "reward" them if they said no used games are fine. That could be a BIG selling point for the ps4 over the 720. On the other hand, the game manufacturers certainly want this b/c they feel they are missing out on $ from the used game purchases. Would game manufacturers "punish" Sony if they didn't follow 720's "lead" on this "issue? I doubt it, b/c the consumers would flock there thus they would be passing up a large chunk of game sales.

IMHO, Sony would be best to NOT follow MS on this issue and try to drive the point home to the consumers in the lead up to launch.

[CLW]

IF this is to be believed sounds like Sony has the early "edge" as preference for the manufacturers. Sony's system is "preferable platform to work on" "OS is less oppressive than MS's next gen solution"

[bdoughty]

Would game manufacturers "punish" Sony if they didn't follow 720's "lead" on this "issue?

We are talking about companies like EA and Activision. Companies that love to punish their customers already. Publishers would find a way.

I can just see it now.

Next Gen COD - Exclusive to Xbox: Multiplayer
Next Gen Madden - Exclusive to Xbox: End Zones

[SmoothPancakes]

Eh, makes no difference to me. Whenever I upgrade, I'll still go Xbox. I rarely ever trade in or sell my games, and when I buy a game, I prefer to get it new, so no used games really isn't that big of a deal to me. As for always online, I already sign into Xbox Live first thing when I get on and stay signed in every time I play. And I've needed a regular internet connection for PC games for a while now, so it is not a big deal at all. I really don't get all the bitching seen all over the internet these days.

[CLW]

We are talking about companies like EA and Activision. Companies that love to punish their customers already. Publishers would find a way.

I can just see it now.

Next Gen COD - Exclusive to Xbox: Multiplayer
Next Gen Madden - Exclusive to Xbox: End Zones

It would be interesting although I suspect if EA/Activision were to pull a move that blatantly obvious they'd just sell very few PS4 games and another publisher would/could come in for and make a game on the PS4 similar to Madden/COD. Hell Sony already makes a pretty nice sports game. I suspect if they REALLY wanted to they have the resources to make a really solid football title as well should the need ever arise.

[I OU a Beatn]

Next Gen COD - Exclusive to Xbox: Multiplayer
Next Gen Madden - Exclusive to Xbox: End Zones

That's pretty much where we're heading. There's nothing more lame than exclusive and timed exclusive DLC. I mean, seriously...if you're going to give one system a time advantage, just make your game exclusive to that console. EA and Activision are by far the two worst ones in this practice.

Eh, makes no difference to me. Whenever I upgrade, I'll still go Xbox. I rarely ever trade in or sell my games, and when I buy a game, I prefer to get it new, so no used games really isn't that big of a deal to me. As for always online, I already sign into Xbox Live first thing when I get on and stay signed in every time I play. And I've needed a regular internet connection for PC games for a while now, so it is not a big deal at all. I really don't get all the bitching seen all over the internet these days.

I still don't like it. I'm connected all the time, too, but what happens if my internet goes down? I can't play my single player games. I don't like that at all. If they want to institute some kind of system that has a one time activation per game and you need to be on the internet to do that activation, that's fine...but I shouldn't be required to be connected all the time.

[bdoughty]

It would be interesting although I suspect if EA/Activision were to pull a move that blatantly obvious they'd just sell very few PS4 games and another publisher would/could come in for and make a game on the PS4 similar to Madden/COD. Hell Sony already makes a pretty nice sports game. I suspect if they REALLY wanted to they have the resources to make a really solid football title as well should the need ever arise.

Technically they could just flip the bird at that specific console and just not make one. EA is no stranger to that game, poor little DREAMCAST and based on what little info is available they might be bypassing a WiiU version of Madden 25.

[cdj]

Asahi Shimbun, one of Japan’s biggest newspapers, has run an interesting story – translated by The Verge -- indicating that the PlayStation 4 will cost over 40,000 Yen, or about $430.

The Verge puts this into context: PS3 cost approximately 60,000 Yen (nearly $650) in Japan when it launched in late 2006, and as we all know very well, it ran an outrageous $599 in the United States at that time.

So is this rumored price point good news? Yes, if it’s true. A 40,000 Yen price point in Japan indicates that PlayStation 4 may launch in the west at around $400, or $200 less than PS3 cost in 2006. However, this is all speculation; we hope to have plenty of hard facts following Sony’s event in New York City on February 20, which IGN will attend.

The newspaper report also indicates, according to The Verge, that the PlayStation 4 will launch in Japan and the US in 2013 (no mention of Europe indicates that the console won’t launch there until 2014) and that the DualShock 4 – or whatever it will be called – is “roughly the same shape” as the DualShock 3 currently used with the PlayStation 3.

We’ve reached out to Sony for official comment on Asahi Shimbun’s story, and will update when we hear back.

Link

[jaymo76]

Count me in as a person who will NOT BE buying a new console on day one. The cost is a factor but I still have bad memories of the move to next gen. I will take a wait and see approach this time.

[Rudy]

I won't be buying a console on day one and I waited over a year to get my PS3. I do have a hard time believing a PS4 would only cost $400. There would be some huge losses if sold at that price. They are still charging $250 for the PS3! The math is fuzzy there. Sony and MS lost a boatload of money the first 3-4 years on these consoles. Overall the console business hasn't made them much money this generation. Sony did win the Blu Ray war but I'm not sure the philosophy of losing $100 on a console at launch is a good idea anymore.

[bdoughty]

Did not buy a 360 at launch, in fact I waited about a year to make the plunge. Will have plenty of time to decide on what next gen console to get. Best part is all of the launch/early released games are much cheaper by that time.

[SmoothPancakes]

I still don't like it. I'm connected all the time, too, but what happens if my internet goes down? I can't play my single player games. I don't like that at all. If they want to institute some kind of system that has a one time activation per game and you need to be on the internet to do that activation, that's fine...but I shouldn't be required to be connected all the time.

Understandable. For me, when my internet goes out, the last thing I'm concerned with is playing my game. I'm busy checking the router and cable modem, trying to figure out why the hell the internet went out. But I completely understand your position and opposition to it.

I won't be buying a console on day one and I waited over a year to get my PS3. I do have a hard time believing a PS4 would only cost $400. There would be some huge losses if sold at that price. They are still charging $250 for the PS3! The math is fuzzy there. Sony and MS lost a boatload of money the first 3-4 years on these consoles. Overall the console business hasn't made them much money this generation. Sony did win the Blu Ray war but I'm not sure the philosophy of losing $100 on a console at launch is a good idea anymore.

Yeah, if they charged only $400 at launch, from the details that have been released thus far, it sounds like Sony would be taking a bath from day one on the PS4 just like they were with the PS3. Would they really do that to themselves for a second straight launch? A second straight console?

Count me in as a person who will NOT BE buying a new console on day one. The cost is a factor but I still have bad memories of the move to next gen. I will take a wait and see approach this time.

Did not buy a 360 at launch, in fact I waited about a year to make the plunge. Will have plenty of time to decide on what next gen console to get. Best part is all of the launch/early released games are much cheaper by that time.

Same here. I didn't even buy my 360 until 2009, so it was cheaper, the fuck-ups and problems had largely been fixed, and I was able to get a load of games right away for cheap prices, as bdoughty said, because they had already been sitting on shelves for years and dropping in value.

Even if the 720 comes out this fall, I only just got my new 360 Slim (to replace my old 360 with the constantly dying disc drive) a year ago. I'm gonna get a hell of a lot more of a year or two of use out of it for the price. Even if it comes out later this year, it's not going to be, at a very minimum, winter 2015, probably not even until sometime 2016 before I look at buying the next-gen Xbox.

[morsdraconis]

Yeah, if they charged only $400 at launch, from the details that have been released thus far, it sounds like Sony would be taking a bath from day one on the PS4 just like they were with the PS3. Would they really do that to themselves for a second straight launch? A second straight console?

The reason why it was a loss for Sony for the PS3 was because of the costs to manufacture the Blu-ray players in the console. With the price of Blu-ray players being substantially lower than they were at the time of the PS3 release, Sony can afford to and will make the price point $349.99 and $399.99 just like Microsoft can and will.

If either company goes above the $399.99 price point, they're asking for failure.