Why is the PS4 outselling the Xbox One? Microsoft weighs in


Recommended Posts

I bought an Xbox one with Battlefield and Fifa on launch day in the UK. 

 

I haven't played it since January. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there's a single RPG out for it at the moment? Wtf is that about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple problem with hyper-v and the two other OS is that hyper-v is controlling the hardware and that additional interrupt is noticeable in some areas like watching Hulu during Titanfall, or TV in general. I've setup Hyper-V in a server environment before and it's a very good free type-1 hypervisor. But in the same way I wouldn't recommend under many scenarios putting SQL server on Hyper-V I don't think putting the Xbox OS on it is ideal. Not yet at least. Hypervisors have come a long way over the past few years. In the short term it's a con not a pro. Just a for instance, Xbox OS only gets 5GB of the memory. This see,s incredibly conservative. A slimmed down versions of Windows that only performs one app at a time doesn't need 3GB. It definitely doesn't need that much just to play Netflix. But that's the way it's configured.

I know the improvements are coming. The decisions that were made were just plain bad.

 

its not anything like running hyper-v on a server.

 

?This is why it?s not a Hyper-V virtual machine anymore and we call it a shared partition instead. These things would have run any operating system in the world that was X86 or X64 compatible. They don?t anymore. They run the shared OS and they run the exclusive OS and they don?t run anything else. They?re hand-tuned and they?re hand-coded and they run as fast as is humanly possible.

 

?To give you some kind of idea, when we first spun up the exclusive partition when we first started doing it, we had a bunch of games tests we would run. Some were between 5 and 10 frames per second, most of it spent sending commands back and forth to the CPU. Over the period running up to launch, we were able to get that so tight and so small that those games run over 200 or 300 frames per second today. The CPU utilisation is so small that it can run very, very quickly through those channels and do exactly what it needs to do.

 

http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2014/04/why-the-xbox-one-doesnt-use-hyper-v/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its not anything like running hyper-v on a server.

http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2014/04/why-the-xbox-one-doesnt-use-hyper-v/

Lol, it's actually very very similar to running Hyper-V on a server. It's a customized version but everything they mention in there are things that are built on hyper-v. It's more optimized for gaming workloads but it's still Hyper-V. Just like the Windows side isn't the exact same bits as Windows 8 but everything that makes Windows Windows to a developer is there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, it's actually very very similar to running Hyper-V on a server. It's a customized version but everything they mention in there are things that are built on hyper-v. It's more optimized for gaming workloads but it's still Hyper-V. Just like the Windows side isn't the exact same bits as Windows 8 but everything that makes Windows Windows to a developer is there.

I meant that it doesn't have the same overhead as running hyper-v on your server, so you cant really use it as a valid comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the 'three OS' choice in software design, I don't really think it was a bad idea. Performance can be improved over time, but the advantages to having a slimmed down Xbox OS partition to handle gaming functions and a Windows OS partition for handling over functions could turn into a boon once they get passed the launch issues. The flexibility to bring in new features is so much higher than it was for the 360 and now with the advent of universal apps, the future for apps (which includes games by the way), is very bright for the X1. That means the capabilities of the console can grow much more than it ever did for the 360.

Its interesting that in the end, both consoles dedicated the same amount of resources to their non-gaming parts of the system at launch. Of course both are now optimizing and freeing up everything they can, but it seems like Sony and MS had the same idea going into this. Sony may not have created as flexible an OS as windows, but even they were thinking of the possibilities for feature growth over time with a better OS to handle such things. The simple act of true multitasking is a huge change for consoles. For the first time, you can literally jump in and out of apps/games/dashboards with relative ease. I know many people around here give no value to such things, but to me, that is a single for what we can look forward to as this generation goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the 'three OS' choice in software design, I don't really think it was a bad idea. Performance can be improved over time, but the advantages to having a slimmed down Xbox OS partition to handle gaming functions and a Windows OS partition for handling over functions could turn into a boon once they get passed the launch issues. The flexibility to bring in new features is so much higher than it was for the 360 and now with the advent of universal apps, the future for apps (which includes games by the way), is very bright for the X1. That means the capabilities of the console can grow much more than it ever did for the 360.

Its interesting that in the end, both consoles dedicated the same amount of resources to their non-gaming parts of the system at launch. Of course both are now optimizing and freeing up everything they can, but it seems like Sony and MS had the same idea going into this. Sony may not have created as flexible an OS as windows, but even they were thinking of the possibilities for feature growth over time with a better OS to handle such things. The simple act of true multitasking is a huge change for consoles. For the first time, you can literally jump in and out of apps/games/dashboards with relative ease. I know many people around here give no value to such things, but to me, that is a single for what we can look forward to as this generation goes on.

I agree, but I don't necessarily think having Windows is as big of a boon as it was originally thought.

The subset of The Windows framework it's running is WinRT and it hasn't really had much adoption. I don't know if there's any explicit value in having in there at all at this point considering that.

When the three OS model works well it truly shines. When it doesn't (and it's often) it tragically belly flops into the pavement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having windows in there will start to make a difference once the app store comes and universal apps between Windows, Phone and Xbox One start to show up.  We're not there yet but it's coming, probably next year since this year seems like it'll be monthly updates till they work out what's missing and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, but I don't necessarily think having Windows is as big of a boon as it was originally thought.

The subset of The Windows framework it's running is WinRT and it hasn't really had much adoption. I don't know if there's any explicit value in having in there at all at this point considering that.

When the three OS model works well it truly shines. When it doesn't (and it's often) it tragically belly flops into the pavement.

The adoption rate of WinRT has no barring on the value of having a more flexible OS in the X1. WinRT is still far more advanced than the 360 OS and it is therefore capable of doing so much more. Think of it as a long term bet. As time goes on, the system will grow beyond what the 360 could do as far as feature go. It already offers some nice advantages in the form of multitasking.

Also, its not really 3 operating systems either. It's really just two partitions being managed by a single layer. The fact that it does in fact work well at all is evidence that the system has advantages. Those advantages are worth pushing for across the board. The areas where it may struggle are not impossible to improve.

Again, I believe MS made a long term play with their choices. I'm sure they were aware that because of time constraints, the first version of this new system would lack features from the previous system and not be very well optimized. Why else claim from the begging that the sdk would be improved rapidly to expose more resources? The pay off is not day 1, the pay off is month 6, year 2, year 5, etc. The rapid pace of X1 updates also shows that they are moving forward with all cylinders to improve the platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The adoption rate of WinRT has no barring on the value of having a more flexible OS in the X1. WinRT is still far more advanced than the 360 OS and it is therefore capable of doing so much more. Think of it as a long term bet. As time goes on, the system will grow beyond what the 360 could do as far as feature go. It already offers some nice advantages in the form of multitasking.

Also, its not really 3 operating systems either. It's really just two partitions being managed by a single layer. The fact that it does in fact work well at all is evidence that the system has advantages. Those advantages are worth pushing for across the board. The areas where it may struggle are not impossible to improve.

Again, I believe MS made a long term play with their choices. I'm sure they were aware that because of time constraints, the first version of this new system would lack features from the previous system and not be very well optimized. Why else claim from the begging that the sdk would be improved rapidly to expose more resources? The pay off is not day 1, the pay off is month 6, year 2, year 5, etc. The rapid pace of X1 updates also shows that they are moving forward with all cylinders to improve the platform.

I can't help but feel like you haven't dealt with any of these things in any form. The hyper-v has a "parent partition" that manages resources for the VM like what is being done in Xbox OS. The other partition has absolute barring on the system as it takes up resources and serves as the framework for further development.

I'd highly encourage you to spend time actually learning about things like Hyper-V especially since it's so easy to get ahold of since you seem some how qualifies to explaining the Hyper-V model exactly how it works then saying it's not the same.

Hyper-V's reliance is the biggest hindrance to Hyper-V and in my experience is the prime reason why for many shops doesn't go to production and stays as a testing virtualization environment. hyper-v creates a services bus across vms for high speed access to services arent directly accessible. hyper-V got widespread adoption for virtualization because it's parent partition model allows them to have any third party drivers running on a layer above the hypervisor but below the virtual machines that can assist the hypervisor in giving out resources. Sound familiar? It should because it's the model explained at Build 2014 for how things work with Windows and Xbox OS.

I don't intend to come off as rude and I apologize if I did.

We are talking similar things but the hardware repercussions are the same. The idea of a hypervisor being at the core is truly unique and innovative but it is something that was clearly rushed out the door with very very little thought to short term ramifications. I done believe Microsoft will long term resolve those items but the trade offs they made early in for this couldnend up haunting them long after its resolved

Here's to a competitive console generation :-) Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microsoft isn't going to beat Sony in sales in any country. The country that leans the most towards Microsoft is the US, and they even failed to beat Sony there.

 

The PS3 also outsold the 360 even though it was released later and more expensive. Especially outside the US the PS3 was much bigger than the 360.

 

For some reason, Sony hasn't had as much brand devaluation in the rest of the world compared to what has happened in the US. In the US when it comes to general electronics their reputation has gone down. In Europe and most of Asia, on the other hand, Sony is still known as a quality brand making excellent TVs, cameras, phones, ... Microsoft is going to have to accept that their console will be the less important one this generation, and that the gap is only going to get bigger.

 

And the demand is still high for the PS4. In Belgium (where the One isn't even available yet) the PS4 is still consistently sold out everywhere. I think that tells you something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microsoft isn't going to beat Sony in sales in any country. The country that leans the most towards Microsoft is the US, and they even failed to beat Sony there.

The PS3 also outsold the 360 even though it was released later and more expensive. Especially outside the US the PS3 was much bigger than the 360.

For some reason, Sony hasn't had as much brand devaluation in the rest of the world compared to what has happened in the US. In the US when it comes to general electronics their reputation has gone down. In Europe and most of Asia, on the other hand, Sony is still known as a quality brand making excellent TVs, cameras, phones, ... Microsoft is going to have to accept that their console will be the less important one this generation, and that the gap is only going to get bigger.

And the demand is still high for the PS4. In Belgium (where the One isn't even available yet) the PS4 is still consistently sold out everywhere. I think that tells you something.

I'd tend to agree with you generally. Microsoft is a very US centric brand, but what is holding them back right now has been past arrogance and pricing mistakes. The gap between them is wide right now, but a good library and the kinectless models could help close the gap.

To most people Xbox and Ps isn't the kind of lifestyle brand that other brands are. They are an appliance. If the price point is stable, and they are able to deliver good content it could still be in anyone's court.

But this is very very much a narrowing window that Microsoft has to act in. They are stopping this whole Kinect non-sense and soon will correct other mistakes. Having owned both a ps4 and an xb1 I can say that for strictly gaming the xb1 isn't as pretty to play but does have the superior gaming experience. If they can maintain that and communicate that there is hope.

I wish Microsoft acted with this much execution to their decisions in other areas outside of Xbox :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microsoft isn't going to beat Sony in sales in any country. The country that leans the most towards Microsoft is the US, and they even failed to beat Sony there.

The PS3 also outsold the 360 even though it was released later and more expensive. Especially outside the US the PS3 was much bigger than the 360.

For some reason, Sony hasn't had as much brand devaluation in the rest of the world compared to what has happened in the US. In the US when it comes to general electronics their reputation has gone down. In Europe and most of Asia, on the other hand, Sony is still known as a quality brand making excellent TVs, cameras, phones, ... Microsoft is going to have to accept that their console will be the less important one this generation, and that the gap is only going to get bigger.

And the demand is still high for the PS4. In Belgium (where the One isn't even available yet) the PS4 is still consistently sold out everywhere. I think that tells you something.

They will start to outsell Sony each month in the US again at some point soon, what was needed was $399. Once Halo and some other big Xbox brands hit it'll turn the tides with the new price.

The interesting country to watch IMO will be the UK. Pro-PS2, then Pro-360 and currently slightly more Pro-PS4. While brand loyalty exists everywhere the UK seems to have enough neutrals to tip the balance in favour of whatever has the better PR and headstart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They will start to outsell Sony each month in the US again at some point soon, what was needed was $399. Once Halo and some other big Xbox brands hit it'll turn the tides with the new price.

The interesting country to watch IMO will be the UK. Pro-PS2, then Pro-360 and currently slightly more Pro-PS4. While brand loyalty exists everywhere the UK seems to have enough neutrals to tip the balance in favour of whatever has the better PR and headstart.

 

The big problem here in the UK was that the PS4 was expensive but the Xbox One was crazy expensive. Also with the Xbox One not playing nice with UK TV services so making pretty much all of the "entertainment" features on the Xbox One completely useless to most in the UK it really didn't help them. Then people saw that every multi-platform game performed better on the PS4 it really only left the hardcore Xbox fans getting the Xbox One. Also didn't help that Titanfall, which they really advertised as an amazing next-gen game, wasn't all that bad on the 360 still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microsoft isn't going to beat Sony in sales in any country. The country that leans the most towards Microsoft is the US, and they even failed to beat Sony there.

 

The PS3 also outsold the 360 even though it was released later and more expensive. Especially outside the US the PS3 was much bigger than the 360.

 

For some reason, Sony hasn't had as much brand devaluation in the rest of the world compared to what has happened in the US. In the US when it comes to general electronics their reputation has gone down. In Europe and most of Asia, on the other hand, Sony is still known as a quality brand making excellent TVs, cameras, phones, ... Microsoft is going to have to accept that their console will be the less important one this generation, and that the gap is only going to get bigger.

 

And the demand is still high for the PS4. In Belgium (where the One isn't even available yet) the PS4 is still consistently sold out everywhere. I think that tells you something.

 

PS2 steamrolled Xbox and yet Xbox 360's tough competition to PS3 was nothing short of (marketing?, features?) miracle if you consider that Xbox barely sold 20M consoles by the time Xbox 360 came along. If Sony can turn around a weaker console in PS3, why do Microsoft have to accept their console can't be turned around? This generation is pretty much mirror of last time but it was mostly Microsoft's mistakes. Sony didn't do anything much different in terms of hardware/software launch except keeping PS4 cost competitive. PS4 hardware+software isn't exactly groundbreaking innovation and they certainly didn't attempt to change the console model like the way Microsoft tried (whichever side of the debate you may be but at least they tried).

 

Sony is pretty much finished in TVs (just rebranded Samsung panels) and their phones aren't doing exactly great. They don't have a "quality brand" label in PCs because of ###### low quality laptops with crapware bundled on them.

 

I feel the supply has caught up with PS4's demand at least in the region around Boston. It wasn't sold out anywhere the last time I checked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microsoft isn't going to beat Sony in sales in any country. The country that leans the most towards Microsoft is the US, and they even failed to beat Sony there.

 

The PS3 also outsold the 360 even though it was released later and more expensive. Especially outside the US the PS3 was much bigger than the 360.

 

For some reason, Sony hasn't had as much brand devaluation in the rest of the world compared to what has happened in the US. In the US when it comes to general electronics their reputation has gone down. In Europe and most of Asia, on the other hand, Sony is still known as a quality brand making excellent TVs, cameras, phones, ... Microsoft is going to have to accept that their console will be the less important one this generation, and that the gap is only going to get bigger.

 

And the demand is still high for the PS4. In Belgium (where the One isn't even available yet) the PS4 is still consistently sold out everywhere. I think that tells you something.

While your remarks are true.., Sony needed worldwide sales just to beat out Xbox last generation. Microsoft equaled Sony while really only being able to get sales in 3/4 of the world (everyone knows that Xbox wasn't going to sell well in Asia). That resonates more than you think.

And here in the USofA, the PS4 is now a regularly stocked item that anyone can just grab at their convenience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't intend to come off as rude and I apologize if I did.

We are talking similar things but the hardware repercussions are the same. The idea of a hypervisor being at the core is truly unique and innovative but it is something that was clearly rushed out the door with very very little thought to short term ramifications. I done believe Microsoft will long term resolve those items but the trade offs they made early in for this couldnend up haunting them long after its resolved

Here's to a competitive console generation :-) Cheers

I can't help but wonder why you ignored the point about WinRT. You made a point to say its lack of adoption elsewhere was a minus for using it with the X1. I think I made a solid case for why its useful in this case.

You instead chose to focus solely on Hyper-V and sharing the technical details of how it all works. While I'm glad to see someone sticking to the facts of how it all works, your conclusion really didn't differ from mine. You took all of the time just to end up saying the same thing.

There are short term issues that could lead to long term rewards. MS has been aggressively pushing to take care of the short term issues in order to reach that long term reward as quickly as possible. The sooner they do that, the better. We will have to wait and see if they make it. I still believe it was a good choice in the long run. In a perfect world, sure, don't release it until its farther along. Unfortunately, MS wasn't given that perfect world where they could dictate when the next generation of consoles began. Sony was on a rush timeline for release as well and it showed in all the sacrifices feature wise they made to hit their release date.

So the X1 had to come out before MS was probably ready to release it, but it could have been worse and MS is still in the game. With the right choices, they can be quite successful this generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the X1 had to come out before MS was probably ready to release it, but it could have been worse and MS is still in the game. With the right choices, they can be quite successful this generation.

 

I wonder if MS had held off on releasing the X1 until it was ready, say go for a Christmas 2014 release, then could they have avoided all of this crap? They also could have put out a little bit of a more powerful console for the same price and just let Sony take the first year. I am not an analyst so I can't give you a valid answer and I don't many really can but I don't think waiting would have been all that helpful personally. It is a shame that the early adopters who didn't really want a Kinect got stuck with it especially as there have been no real must have next gen games out yet. Oh well that is the price of the early adopter I guess!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if MS had held off on releasing the X1 until it was ready, say go for a Christmas 2014 release, then could they have avoided all of this crap? They also could have put out a little bit of a more powerful console for the same price and just let Sony take the first year. I am not an analyst so I can't give you a valid answer and I don't many really can but I don't think waiting would have been all that helpful personally. It is a shame that the early adopters who didn't really want a Kinect got stuck with it especially as there have been no real must have next gen games out yet. Oh well that is the price of the early adopter I guess!

I don't think it would have worked out. Consoles are cyclical releases, and whoever develops the most momentum early on keeps it with developer loyalty usually until the end of that cycle.

It seems to me like the major issues have more to do with misaligned priorities from the start of the development. If you look back through the leaked information Microsoft had different thoughts on the generation and it shows.

They have done an excellent job of recovering. I think they will be able to recover far quicker then the PS3 did with their huge mess up on pricing.

Kinetic will almost certainly get downplayed for the rest of the year and become more prominent thing going into next year once the price of the attachment build it could possibly sold with the bundle at lower cost. Quality of games need to be there thought to justify it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if MS had held off on releasing the X1 until it was ready, say go for a Christmas 2014 release, then could they have avoided all of this crap? They also could have put out a little bit of a more powerful console for the same price and just let Sony take the first year. I am not an analyst so I can't give you a valid answer and I don't many really can but I don't think waiting would have been all that helpful personally. It is a shame that the early adopters who didn't really want a Kinect got stuck with it especially as there have been no real must have next gen games out yet. Oh well that is the price of the early adopter I guess!

There should only be 1 sku for Xbox One, and that's Xbox One w/Kinect. Rather people wanted Kinect or not, Microsoft should have kept it bundled in. The problem is the $500 entry price. If Microsoft would have went $399, nobody would complain about Kinect (even if they hate it). $500 is a steep price (and countries like South America have even crazier price points) for entry, for most people the world over, Microsoft should have realized that, and had a better price point prepared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sony is pretty much finished in TVs (just rebranded Samsung panels) and their phones aren't doing exactly great. They don't have a "quality brand" label in PCs because of ###### low quality laptops with crapware bundled on them.

 

I feel the supply has caught up with PS4's demand at least in the region around Boston. It wasn't sold out anywhere the last time I checked.

 

Eh, in the US they might not be doing well, but Sony is still regarded as a top quality TV brand over here and in the rest of the world. They don't use Samsung panels anymore, almost all TV's released in 2013 and 2014 use AUO panels, with some from Sharp and some from Toshiba. They're selling extremely well here.

 

Their phones, again, are selling extremely well in Europe and Asia. Year-on-year growth in sales has been over 20% for the last two years, which is a significant number.

 

Vaio's were also regarded as a quality brand here (again, because they are). The Vaio Z series was discontinued in 2012 but was absolutely amazing engineering-wise. The Vaio Pro 13" was widely reviewed as the single best Windows ultrabook there was. But they couldn't turn a profit so sold off the Vaio branch.

 

The world is much bigger than the US, and Sony is much (much) bigger than TV's, laptops, phones and consoles too. Sony Music is the second-largest record label in the world, and Sony Pictures isn't exactly a small player either (with recently increasingly popular TV series too, like Breaking Bad for example).

 

Sony is probably also the largest image sensor manufacturer there is. Most Samsung phones, all iPhones since the iPhone 4S, many other smartphone cameras, most of Nikon's top-end cameras, ... All Sony sensors. And their own cameras are doing incredibly well too and they're pretty much widely accepted to be the single most innovative camera company there is. The releases they've had the past year have introduced whole new form factors and quality standards never seen before.

 

And then there's the professional market. Sony's cameras are used in tons of movies, a gigantic amount of broadcasters use Sony stuff (from cameras to monitors).

 

Basically, they're not going to go away because their TV's are a bit less popular in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 
"It's hard to really assess the gap in sales," Mehdi said. "[sony is] in many more markets right now than we are. They're in 40+ markets, we're in 13." The PS4 won't have a such a dramatic regional availability advantage for much longer, as the Xbox One will be released in Japan and 25 other regions in September.

 

Mehdi might have had a point if Sony was not also outselling Microsoft in those 13 markets.

 

 

Another reason why the Xbox One has fallen behind the PS4 in terms of sales so far is because, according to Mehdi, Xbox 360 owners enjoy their systems more than PlayStation 3 owners do, so they are less inclined to upgrade.
 
"People have been more satisfied with the Xbox 360 than the PS3, so in that respect people have less of a need to upgrade in the short-term due to regular updates for the Xbox 360," Mehdi said. "We could point to any number of things."

 

This part is just laughable. Whatever helps you sleep at night, Mehdi.

 

target+yeah+right.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, in the US they might not be doing well, but Sony is still regarded as a top quality TV brand over here and in the rest of the world. They don't use Samsung panels anymore, almost all TV's released in 2013 and 2014 use AUO panels, with some from Sharp and some from Toshiba. They're selling extremely well here.

 

Their phones, again, are selling extremely well in Europe and Asia. Year-on-year growth in sales has been over 20% for the last two years, which is a significant number.

 

Vaio's were also regarded as a quality brand here (again, because they are). The Vaio Z series was discontinued in 2012 but was absolutely amazing engineering-wise. The Vaio Pro 13" was widely reviewed as the single best Windows ultrabook there was. But they couldn't turn a profit so sold off the Vaio branch.

 

The world is much bigger than the US, and Sony is much (much) bigger than TV's, laptops, phones and consoles too. Sony Music is the second-largest record label in the world, and Sony Pictures isn't exactly a small player either (with recently increasingly popular TV series too, like Breaking Bad for example).

 

Sony is probably also the largest image sensor manufacturer there is. Most Samsung phones, all iPhones since the iPhone 4S, many other smartphone cameras, most of Nikon's top-end cameras, ... All Sony sensors. And their own cameras are doing incredibly well too and they're pretty much widely accepted to be the single most innovative camera company there is. The releases they've had the past year have introduced whole new form factors and quality standards never seen before.

 

And then there's the professional market. Sony's cameras are used in tons of movies, a gigantic amount of broadcasters use Sony stuff (from cameras to monitors).

 

Basically, they're not going to go away because their TV's are a bit less popular in the US.

 

And yet Sony themselves are demonstrating losses in many markets, TV's and especially computers (seeing as they sold off their PC division). A lot of the reasons behind their failing market is because of exactly what you've stated. They no longer make their own panels and yet still charge premiums for the product, and their computers were so filled with proprietary hardware and software that people got frustrated with them. Sony is hurting, there's no denying that no matter how you try to spin it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet Sony themselves are demonstrating losses in many markets, TV's and especially computers (seeing as they sold off their PC division). A lot of the reasons behind their failing market is because of exactly what you've stated. They no longer make their own panels and yet still charge premiums for the product, and their computers were so filled with proprietary hardware and software that people got frustrated with them. Sony is hurting, there's no denying that no matter how you try to spin it. 

 

I wish I could agree with you.

 

Sony has always been at it's best when it does random weird things. They lost their way for a few years, but they are definitely experimenting all over again.

 

Sony is selling superior hardware then Microsoft. There is no spinning that. There are literal numbers out there that Microsoft is trying to spin to the contrary. But Sony developed superior hardware. Period.

 

Microsoft makes good things. But Microsoft is ver very much far from a consistent company. I'm sorry but it's the truth. Microsoft, like Sony performs best when under very very strong market pressure. They both are right now. Sony has the lead right now. 7 million consoles is 2 million consoles more then 5 million. There isn't much spinning that. Microsoft by their own former CEO's admission losses a cycle in technology and is now putting other mobile platforms ahead of their own. Again, look at what they are doing.

 

Both companies have messed up. Substantially. Period.

 

If you can't look at these things and see that then there isn't much room to consider objectivity.

 

Microsoft put on a really good E3. Do you know why they did? Because they are under deep pressure. On all fronts. Last year they literally mailed it in. So far in fact that they have done almost a complete reversal on most of their initiatives.

 

Period.

 

Microsoft has a lot of room to grow. But they are on the right track right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I could agree with you.

Sony has always been at it's best when it does random weird things. They lost their way for a few years, but they are definitely experimenting all over again.

Sony is selling superior hardware then Microsoft. There is no spinning that. There are literal numbers out there that Microsoft is trying to spin to the contrary. But Sony developed superior hardware. Period.

Microsoft makes good things. But Microsoft is ver very much far from a consistent company. I'm sorry but it's the truth. Microsoft, like Sony performs best when under very very strong market pressure. They both are right now. Sony has the lead right now. 7 million consoles is 2 million consoles more then 5 million. There isn't much spinning that. Microsoft by their own former CEO's admission losses a cycle in technology and is now putting other mobile platforms ahead of their own. Again, look at what they are doing.

Both companies have messed up. Substantially. Period.

If you can't look at these things and see that then there isn't much room to consider objectivity.

Microsoft put on a really good E3. Do you know why they did? Because they are under deep pressure. On all fronts. Last year they literally mailed it in. So far in fact that they have done almost a complete reversal on most of their initiatives.

Period.

Microsoft has a lot of room to grow. But they are on the right track right now.

You completely ignored the fact that Sony themselves are posting losses. Their console may be winning, but that doesn't magically make their dead PC branch and dying television brand better. And it's not surprising don't make better hardware. Microsoft isn't a hardware company. And yet anyone who knows anything about hardware and software will tell you raw numbers mean nothing.

If you think Microsoft is hurting, you should realize just with windows 8 alone they have around 175 million users. I don't know where they are "hurting" as much as Sony is. They are expanding, not shrinking.

I don't know about you, but I'm fairly objective here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You completely ignored the fact that Sony themselves are posting losses. Their console may be winning, but that doesn't magically make their dead PC branch and dying television brand better. And it's not surprising don't make better hardware. Microsoft isn't a hardware company. And yet anyone who knows anything about hardware and software will tell you raw numbers mean nothing.

If you think Microsoft is hurting, you should realize just with windows 8 alone they have around 175 million users. I don't know where they are "hurting" as much as Sony is. They are expanding, not shrinking.

I don't know about you, but I'm fairly objective here.

Wow... Just wow you drank a ton of kool aid.

If Microsoft was doing so well then they wouldn't have had so many reorgs in the past few years including letting go their CEO and the vp in charge of all of the Xbox One decisions that have mostly been reversed.

It's not really worth arguing, since you don't seem to be willing to take on a discussion on actual merits.

But that's fine.

Cheers to competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.