Sony was 'dancing in the aisles and high-fiving' when Microsoft announced Xbox One's $499 price

When Microsoft and Sony went head-to-head promoting their new consoles at last year's E3 gaming conference, there was rampant speculation as to how much Xbox One and PlayStation 4 would cost. Microsoft ended up pricing its console at $499, while Sony came in at $399 – a fact the latter company's executives were extremely excited about.

In a new article, ArsTechnica reveals that Sony executives were celebrating the price difference at last year's E3 when preparing for their own press conference. Microsoft, which held its press conference before Sony's, had announced its $499 price at the end of its show, much to the delight of the PlayStation company's executives. At this year's E3, Scott Rohde, software product development head at Sony Worldwide Studios America, told ArsTechnica just how excited his company was for Microsoft's announcement, saying he remembers "exactly where I was."

"We had a feeling they were going to come in at $499, but we weren't sure," he said. "So yeah, we were dancing in the aisles and high-fiving. It was great. Anyone that came in on an interview, it didn't matter what the question was, I could always just answer it with $399. It was the answer to every question."

The price difference paid off for Sony, as the PlayStation 4 has taken a significant lead over the Xbox One in both U.S. and worldwide sales despite similar review scores for the two consoles.

Microsoft's recent difficulties competing against the PlayStation 4 may change soon, however, as the company just began selling a version of the Xbox One for $399 without the previously bundled Kinect sensor. Its decision to bundle Kinect led to complaints that the sensor wasn't worth the addition cost, especially since Microsoft failed to release any first-party games that made significant use of it at the console's launch.

Regarding Microsoft's decision to sell the new bundle without Kinect, Rohde told ArsTechnica that Sony figured it was only a matter of time before that happened.

"I think that, to be truthful, we always assumed that eventually they'd have to release a SKU without a camera," he said. "So we were waiting for it to a degree, and we were ready for it."

Source: ArsTechnica | Images via Microsoft and Sony

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

This is how Microsoft made its Surface Pro 3 commercial in one shot

Next Story

Skimo TV will allow you to watch an hour-long TV show in six minutes

89 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I just hope Phil S is still the head when Xbox 4 is being made. He understands the biggest problem with the X1 in the eyes of consumers is that it is underpowered.

What I find amusing is that nearly every xbox one owner I speak to doesn't use the extra functionality!!!!

Even those on neowin. Their xbox does not pass through their cable box, nor do they use the kinect gesture and voice commands. Have to admit when I owned the xbox one, I never use it either.

The question has to be, why? considering the xbox was £100 more expensive due to these feature, if nobody is using them, why pay the extra £100. If all you want is a games machine, the ps4 has the better hardware.

I use voice commands a lot, makes it so I have to recharge/keep my controllers handy a bit less, the gestures don't seem to work that well for me though so I don't use those a ton.

I didn't have a real cablebox when I first got my one, so I haven't played with that much, really wish more then cableboxes would work with the hdmi in better though.

I couldn't care less about cost, what I do care about is games and Playstation just has more exclusives and better exclusives that cannot be played on PC...I want to play Uncharted, Infamous, Killzone, Gran Turismo etc...Thus, as a gamer, I need a Playstation. Most Xbox games are playable on PC and are better on PC so buying an Xbox just is not worth it.

Also who posted "Microsoft does not understand gamers", that is precisely accurate. I would even go a step further and say they do not understand consumers. They may have at some point but that was long ago. Why do I want a console? Games! I don't care about home theatre integration, cameras and whatever other crap, I can do all that better with other devices, I buy a console so I can sit back on my couch and simply play a game.

Its liek 05/06 all over again but in reverse.

Back then Sony was still high off the success of PS2 thought thye could do whatever the hell they want and got compalcent and let X360 become a true competitor.

Now MS high off the success of X360 thought thye could do whatever and let Sony back into the game.

Competition is a wonderful thing, not sure why fanbots always want one company to dominate.

Having said that, MS has been on a real self destructive run over the last few years and the constant back peddling is what makes it more annoying, because many people could see these problems from a mile away, yet the executives on thier million dollar salaries chose to ignore customers and ram thigns down our throat regardless...

Sony should be dancing in the ailes every day their company doesn't go bankrupt. Sony is completely toast in 3-5 years.

The PS2 shipped with firewire and it got pulled, the PS3 shipped with card readers and full hardware PS2 SOC, which got pulled.. Both consoles were really pricy for their time. This round the PS4 shipped with minimal connections that have a use, and came in with a nicer pricepoint for more powerful hardware.

Now history has shown the ones required addon isn't actually needed for much of anything, and a cheaper entry point is more valuable. Now MS just has to reverse their reversed decision on the always online and cloud computing. I want to see the one with cloud computing really show it off. I'm not holding my breath

Don't worry. Valve will do it exactly the same way Microsoft was going to do it and they'll be heralded as heroes, and the internet will once again burst with its undying affection for GabeN.

They were high fiving and running down the aisles? Kids today. They get excited about a console that uses tech from 3 years ago. It's already outdated by today's standards. It can barely do 60 fps at 1080p and it hasn't even been available for a year.

What you guys are forgetting is that the ps3 is more powerful than the xbox 360. And who won the last generation? Yeah microsoft did mess up the launch. No one is debating that. I bought a One because I like microsoft, i like their products. I had both the ps3 and xbox, and my ps3 was a dust collector. The controllers are just not for me, I don't like the way the thumb sticks are placed. That is really one of the big factors in my decision. Besides the game selection.

point being. people will buy stuff for the features they like.

Edited by watsxn, Jun 23 2014, 11:08pm :

watsxn said,
What you guys are forgetting is that the ps3 is more powerful than the xbox 360. And who won the last generation? Yeah microsoft did mess up the launch. No one is debating that. I bought a One because I like microsoft, i like their products. I had both the ps3 and xbox, and my ps3 was a dust collector. The controllers are just not for me, I don't like the way the thumb sticks are placed. That is really one of the big factors in my decision. Besides the game selection.

point being. people will buy stuff for the features they like.

PS3 was a dust collector for 90% of its shelf life even if you liked Sony.

It began as a good bluray player and ended as the console that got Ni no Kuni.

Dust collector? Strange, last night on Fifa13 or on BO2 I had no problem finding players. over 120k on BO2 to be exact. The game is how old now?

Joshie said,

PS3 was a dust collector for 90% of its shelf life even if you liked Sony.

It began as a good bluray player and ended as the console that got Ni no Kuni.


Weird, cause in my surroundings, the first few years the 360 seemed to be winning the generation. But in the last few years, PS3 was kicking ass. Almost everyone has one, the 360 is a niche. Few people here in NL seem to have one, or well, use it. While everyone and their dog has been/is playing games on the PS3.

Shadowzz said,

Weird, cause in my surroundings, the first few years the 360 seemed to be winning the generation. But in the last few years, PS3 was kicking ass. Almost everyone has one, the 360 is a niche. Few people here in NL seem to have one, or well, use it. While everyone and their dog has been/is playing games on the PS3.

I think xbox vs PS is definitely a regional thing. I know in my area a lot of people bought the PS3 initially because it was the same price as a good bluray player, after that they never really used it for anything else, but I am in the US, it makes sense for MS to be strong here.

alwaysonacoffebreak said,
Dust collector? Strange, last night on Fifa13 or on BO2 I had no problem finding players. over 120k on BO2 to be exact. The game is how old now?

So what you're saying is, cross-platform games are what everyone is playing on their PS3.

I can't remember the last time a console was hyped for its edition of Yet Another Call of Duty game or Yet Another annual bro-tastic sports game.

Microsoft shot themselves in the foot at the launch of the XBox One, and they have been in damage repair ever since. Don Mattrick's solution for those with no internet, or always on XBox one was basically, "Too bad. XBox 360 for you" This clearly showed Microsoft was way out of touch with what the users wanted.

I understand the argument for DRM, but I would rather own and play games without them, and so would a lot of other people.

Consumers would rather buy used games which makes as much money for developers as pirated games. There's about 5 publishers left in the business. The business is unhealthy. The move to games getting only digital releases like Killer Instinct and Dance Central means you're getting the DRM future one way or the other. And if PlayStation Now streaming takes off as a platform then you'll really have no control over your media.

they were high fiving each other because if microsoft went to $299 instead, sony would have had to file for bankruptcy. thats the kind of control microsoft has, and thats ultimately why they were at $499 to begin with. microsoft can play around with the business model,and take different risks, because they are loaded with money. one wrong move for sony,and they're dead.

I don't understand your reasoning. What does MS' wallet have to do with yours? Why do you care? So you're saying they went to $499 because they can afford to lose and that's ok because what exactly? Do you even own an xbox one. I doubt it. Post pic for proof.

S7R1K3R said,
I don't understand your reasoning. What does MS' wallet have to do with yours? Why do you care? So you're saying they went to $499 because they can afford to lose and that's ok because what exactly? Do you even own an xbox one. I doubt it. Post pic for proof.

I do own a one, doubt I will buy a PS4. For me the companies financial stability matters as I am not confident that Sony will last another 5 years, especially compared to MS.

Not that the above was a major factor in why I chose the xbone, personally I chose it because I like the kinect and the media/integration they are doing, but the companies themselves did play a role, and personally I just don't like Sony that much any longer.

Corey C said,
I do own a one, doubt I will buy a PS4. For me the companies financial stability matters as I am not confident that Sony will last another 5 years, especially compared to MS.

Not that the above was a major factor in why I chose the xbone, personally I chose it because I like the kinect and the media/integration they are doing, but the companies themselves did play a role, and personally I just don't like Sony that much any longer.


I can understand that from a state of measurement. However, the PS division is actually making them money. Should Sony shed all the fat that keeps them from being profitable as a whole, they would still have valuable assets that would keep the PS name in tact. Microsoft on the other hand is very successful in many areas, except for Bing and the Xbox division. This is one of the problem areas for them, where they really need to pick up the pace in order to actually make it worth their investment. Otherwise, continuing the venture is something that just won't make sense. Last thing you want is Microsoft to cut the fat on their company because then you'd just be nipping away the Xbox name, just like Sony had to cut off their PC division.

dead.cell said,

I can understand that from a state of measurement. However, the PS division is actually making them money. Should Sony shed all the fat that keeps them from being profitable as a whole, they would still have valuable assets that would keep the PS name in tact. Microsoft on the other hand is very successful in many areas, except for Bing and the Xbox division. This is one of the problem areas for them, where they really need to pick up the pace in order to actually make it worth their investment. Otherwise, continuing the venture is something that just won't make sense. Last thing you want is Microsoft to cut the fat on their company because then you'd just be nipping away the Xbox name, just like Sony had to cut off their PC division.

Unless they change their business model, bing will likely never be a direct revenue generator, that doesn't mean it isn't worth it for them to keep bing. xbox was making money before the XB1 release I thought, though not sure what the long term actual/trend look like on them to be honest.

In general I agree about Sony, I just haven't seen anything that makes me think they will correct the ship, I hope so though as I like having competitors even if I won't use a sony product again.

Agreed. I just want them to cut the fat and become a lean mean fighting machine. I say that not as a Sony fanboy though, but rather as someone who really enjoys a good comeback story. :)

Nintendo seems to be the one turning things around at least.

I would have rather Microsoft offered a more powerful system with that $100. Heck I'd gladly pay an extra $300 for a system that can knock my socks off and make me say "WOW".

Yes, we had one. I believe it came with a baseball game. It was a Christmas gift from my parents, and us three boys had to share. Christmas quickly turned into Halloween.

Microsoft tried to enter a market with the XBox that had nothing to do with games. That goes to the comment above which states - Microsoft just does not understand gamers.

Even in the recent XBox commercial, I seriously doubt people are snap-viewing sports games while playing Titanfall. The screen is just too damn small, and what kind of gaming experience are you having while watching a game? Really??

I won't knock them for TRYING but still, the cost of that entry should not be loaded to the consumer. XBox should have been out-of-the-gate with no Kinect, and then "sold" us the "premium experience" of Kinect.

Microsoft tried to enter a market with the XBox that had nothing to do with games.

Um no. They tried to make the Xbox more than JUST games.

Even in the recent XBox commercial, I seriously doubt people are snap-viewing sports games while playing Titanfall. The screen is just too damn small, and what kind of gaming experience are you having while watching a game? Really??

I play quite a lot of games on my laptop while watching tv. There are also tons of people who have large screen TVs. It's not entirely uncommon.

I won't knock them for TRYING but still, the cost of that entry should not be loaded to the consumer. XBox should have been out-of-the-gate with no Kinect, and then "sold" us the "premium experience" of Kinect.

Actually what they should have done was absorb the cost of the Kinect and sold the console at a slight loss. MS has tons of money in reserve and they would have easily made that money back from licensing and various other deals.

This way, they get devs to use the kinect because now everyone has one and they don't have a $100 price gap. MS gets to keep their vision of the future, and people are happy because it doesn't cost $100 more.

Right now the kinect will just become another wasted RnD budget because no developer will use it since it isn't available everywhere and if I was in the market for an Xbox, I'd get the $399 over the $499 with a soon to be useless peripheral. They might as well scrap the entire program and pretend like it never existed.

-Razorfold said,

I play quite a lot of games on my laptop while watching tv. There are also tons of people who have large screen TVs. It's not entirely uncommon.

Now I realize we can get awfully clinical about this, but first off...
1. Agree entirely with what you say
2. That wasn't my point

Why buy a 42" TV and then watch TV at 1/10th the ratio is ridiculous, that's kind of my point. A news broadcast, a non-sci-fi drama maybe, something you only have to LISTEN to, maybe ... but a sports show? While you're playing a shooter in XB1? Not bloody likely... on the same screen.

mram said,

Now I realize we can get awfully clinical about this, but first off...
1. Agree entirely with what you say
2. That wasn't my point

Why buy a 42" TV and then watch TV at 1/10th the ratio is ridiculous, that's kind of my point. A news broadcast, a non-sci-fi drama maybe, something you only have to LISTEN to, maybe ... but a sports show? While you're playing a shooter in XB1? Not bloody likely... on the same screen.


Well sure 42" is a bit small for that, but 60" TVs are pretty affordable nowadays. And hey if someone wants to watch a game while playing a game who am I to tell them no?

I've watched Netflix on my laptop while playing Day of Defeat, WoW, Deus Ex etc.

They would have dominated if they sold the XB1 without Kinect for $350 at launch (easily doable) and didn't totally mess up their announcement. DOMINATED. They had a lot of momentum with the 360 and they just completely fell flat on their face.

-Razorfold said,

Um no. They tried to make the Xbox more than JUST games.


I play quite a lot of games on my laptop while watching tv. There are also tons of people who have large screen TVs. It's not entirely uncommon.


Actually what they should have done was absorb the cost of the Kinect and sold the console at a slight loss. MS has tons of money in reserve and they would have easily made that money back from licensing and various other deals.

This way, they get devs to use the kinect because now everyone has one and they don't have a $100 price gap. MS gets to keep their vision of the future, and people are happy because it doesn't cost $100 more.

Right now the kinect will just become another wasted RnD budget because no developer will use it since it isn't available everywhere and if I was in the market for an Xbox, I'd get the $399 over the $499 with a soon to be useless peripheral. They might as well scrap the entire program and pretend like it never existed.

Kinect is just completely unnecessary for gaming. If you like the extra features then whatever pay for it, but if you just want to game it's pretty worthless.

neonspark said,
Maybe the should see their financial state before high fiving. Sony bleeds cash worse than a shot patient

I think people forget this or dont think its that big of a deal. But, I think it is as well.

neonspark said,
Maybe the should see their financial state before high fiving. Sony bleeds cash worse than a shot patient

I imagine they then saw the PS4 as the saviour of Sony Computer Entertainment to stop it bleeding money.

And Microsoft's Xbox division is doing so great that there were rumours they were going to sell of the division. Xbox can barely compete outside of North America.

Tha Bloo Monkee said,
And Microsoft's Xbox division is doing so great that there were rumours they were going to sell of the division. Xbox can barely compete outside of North America.

Xbox has been profitable for much of its life. The 360 generation overall was profitable, even after the extended warranty. While Japan is always a lost cause to Microsoft, Europe has traditionally been largely neutral to either console. Microsoft maybe got cocky because of the success of last gen for them. But the Xbox being dominated will hopefully make them realise their mistakes and not repeat them last time. Just like Sony isn't repeating many of the mistakes it made last time.

Tha Bloo Monkee said,
And Microsoft's Xbox division is doing so great that there were rumours they were going to sell of the division. Xbox can barely compete outside of North America.

Rumors. There are rumors about everything. That doesnt mean much. XBOX has gotten the support of the company so it should be safe for now =).

Credit where credit is due, Sony certainly learned from the past and got it right with the PS4 reveal and E3 2013. Microsoft appeared to have ignored everything they got right when launching the 360, dug a hole and kept digging.

McKay said,
So the PS5 will be meh and the Xbox 2 will kick ass?


haha, xbox, xbox 360, xbox One, xbox 2? they already dug the hole for themselves on naming alone!

HA. I remember heated debates here, when MS said it will never happen.
That Kinect is an absolutely integral part of Xbox One.

HAHA.


Btw, I just picked up Xbox One without Kinect. It was that or sony. I owned PS2 and 3
However, I wanted to play some xbox exclusive. But I did not want to pay $100 extra for functionality I wont use.

I think it was well part due, and they should have sold it like that from the beginning!
MS is way ahead, but a slow learner. They could have killed it, if they released $400 version first.

Buying an Xbox without Kinect is not smart. You should be embarrassed to admit that considering how much of the console depends on Kinect and the Kinect version is worth a lot more money especially since it comes with a free game. Why buy the crappy cheap version that is missing 75% of the functionality of the system.

The Kinect isn't worth $100 but it's pretty easy to find the XB1 with Kinect for $400 or with Kinect and game for $450. The Kinect-less SKU would be worth while at $350, and $400 it's just stupid considering how much you can get the version with Kinect for.

panacea said,

some people want a NEW product with extended warranty from a store, if such can be found for a reasonable deal.

Again I reiterate: I do not care, nor want Kinect, even if it is only $20 more (instead of a hundred) I don't want to use skype (got pc and phone) and don't want gesture controls (wtf for, if i got a perfectly good controller) and i certainly don't want it for gaming (not one top tier game uses it in a way that is appealing)

i did own a 360 at one point, and i know how unreliable the bloody things are. so getting One used from someone I dont know, is out of question.

You can find it with Kinect for $400 NEW. So yeah, buying it without Kinect for $400 is stupid.

Edited by Andrew, Jun 27 2014, 10:41pm :

Avatar Roku said,
Buying an Xbox without Kinect is not smart. You should be embarrassed to admit that considering how much of the console depends on Kinect and the Kinect version is worth a lot more money especially since it comes with a free game. Why buy the crappy cheap version that is missing 75% of the functionality of the system.

So much depends on the Kinect, that's why we have all these awesome Kinect titles! :woot:

(gets about as much attention as the Vita gets from Sony)

Microsoft's problem wasn't that the One was $100 more expensive. The problem was that it was $100 and and less powerful. Microsoft's biggest mistake this generation was not blowing Sony out of the water with power. Sony can't afford it. They can't afford anything. All Microsoft had to do was make a console that was noticeably more powerful than Sony's console and eat the cost. It would have absolutely destroyed Sony.

forget kinect and add more power. they would have won this game for the next few years for sure! they say kinect was expensive to research and make, and that it was more then $100

so if they saved the money and just game people a most powerful console possible for $400
i think they would have won too.

kinect / move / wii sensors, are not what majority of gamers who buy MS and SONY want.

Eh, Sony is still gigantic, people keep forgetting that. Sure, they had losses, but for starters Japan is not going to let anything happen to Sony, and they're still in the billions of equity.

Plus, Sony is extremely strong when it comes to hardware engineering. Their cameras, laptops, phones and consoles have always been nothing short of amazing when it comes to the hardware design. Nobody downsizes hardware without compromising power like Sony does.

evacc44 said,
Microsoft's problem wasn't that the One was $100 more expensive. The problem was that it was $100 and and less powerful. Microsoft's biggest mistake this generation was not blowing Sony out of the water with power. Sony can't afford it. They can't afford anything. All Microsoft had to do was make a console that was noticeably more powerful than Sony's console and eat the cost. It would have absolutely destroyed Sony.

Power is irrelevant. Both are visually identical, and too powerless for the 4k gaming revolution. If you want power. PC or go home

Shadowzz said,
But microsoft does not understand gamers.
At one point they did. However, dating a few years back, they've lost touch with not only gamers, but with consumers in general. Though recent changes appear to show Microsoft courting us again.

I agree sony was big and still big. But they are a shadow of their former glory and have huge financial problems. basically Samsung is killing them where they use to rule. They don't make laptops any more. cameras have failed to capture much share to Nikon/canon. consoles are weak with only the PS4 finally returning them to the top spot, but that won't save the company. the console market is too small. Their phones are great but Samsung wipes them out every day.

in other words, sony is trying hard, but you said it right. sony is huge: and the PS4 isn't big enough to save them.

I think the biggest issue was that Microsoft couldn't justify that extra cost to people. They were so busy changing their message every 10 seconds that very few people knew what was actually coming and what they were getting.

If they had come out on stage at the original reveal with a clear message and set out details about that console and what it was, they would have been in a much better situation.

I will give you that price is a major factor though. Imagine if Microsoft would have just ate the $100 and put it out with Kinect, and a bundled game (like it has now) for $400.

Edited by LightEco, Jun 23 2014, 10:58pm :

evacc44 said,
Microsoft's problem wasn't that the One was $100 more expensive. The problem was that it was $100 and and less powerful. Microsoft's biggest mistake this generation was not blowing Sony out of the water with power. Sony can't afford it. They can't afford anything. All Microsoft had to do was make a console that was noticeably more powerful than Sony's console and eat the cost. It would have absolutely destroyed Sony.

This. If they'd played their cards right, Sony would have been going the way of Sega...

Nahh. I didn't buy my PS4 because of the power to price difference; the difference between $400 and $500 in discretionary income is nominal. I did buy the PS4 due to the following: The need for an always on internet connection, basically forced digital games with an uncertain resell policy, an always on camera, a mandatory XBL subscription to watch Netflix, and a clearly rushed UX.

Had Microsoft fixed those issues before announcing, I would have gladly spent $500 for the XBOne, yes, even over a $400 PS4.

greenwizard88 said,
Nahh. I didn't buy my PS4 because of the power to price difference; the difference between $400 and $500 in discretionary income is nominal. I did buy the PS4 due to the following: The need for an always on internet connection, basically forced digital games with an uncertain resell policy, an always on camera, a mandatory XBL subscription to watch Netflix, and a clearly rushed UX.

Had Microsoft fixed those issues before announcing, I would have gladly spent $500 for the XBOne, yes, even over a $400 PS4.

Always on connection was changed prior to release.
Resell policy was changed prior to release.
Always on camera was and continues to be a myth. You can unplug if you're that paranoid.
XBL subscription policy changes are recent.
UX has improved considerably, but even launch version was more advanced than what you get on PS4 today.

greenwizard88 said,
Nahh. I didn't buy my PS4 because of the power to price difference; the difference between $400 and $500 in discretionary income is nominal. I did buy the PS4 due to the following: The need for an always on internet connection, basically forced digital games with an uncertain resell policy, an always on camera, a mandatory XBL subscription to watch Netflix, and a clearly rushed UX.

Had Microsoft fixed those issues before announcing, I would have gladly spent $500 for the XBOne, yes, even over a $400 PS4.

Given NONE of those apply any more (and few did by the time the consoles were generally available), it still calls your PS4 purchase into question.

Personally, I held off. I'll buy this Holiday season or early next year. It was clear both consoles were going to take a year or so to build up a library of games worth playing, and enhancements/fixes to the rushed software.

evacc44 said,
Microsoft's problem wasn't that the One was $100 more expensive. The problem was that it was $100 and and less powerful. Microsoft's biggest mistake this generation was not blowing Sony out of the water with power. Sony can't afford it. They can't afford anything. All Microsoft had to do was make a console that was noticeably more powerful than Sony's console and eat the cost. It would have absolutely destroyed Sony.

Sigh, the PS4 is not more powerful than the X1. It spread to be on property which is why most publications e state that when speaking about both of them. The esram is such a key component and differentiator. Esram is the future which is able to offload 6gb of textures without using the 8gb ram. You'll understand that soon enough.

pmbAustin said,

Given NONE of those apply any more (and few did by the time the consoles were generally available), it still calls your PS4 purchase into question.

That basically just shows how Microsoft messed up the messaging. They changed their story so many times that people didn't know what was true or false anymore. It really hurt the console.

evacc44 said,
Microsoft's problem wasn't that the One was $100 more expensive. The problem was that it was $100 and and less powerful. Microsoft's biggest mistake this generation was not blowing Sony out of the water with power. Sony can't afford it. They can't afford anything. All Microsoft had to do was make a console that was noticeably more powerful than Sony's console and eat the cost. It would have absolutely destroyed Sony.

Better the devil you know.
I'd wager they'd rather have a competitor in Sony, than someone who could come in and fill the gap, and knock them sideways, like how they've been losing in the consumer space for a while.

Enron said,

Always on connection was changed prior to release.
Resell policy was changed prior to release.
Always on camera was and continues to be a myth. You can unplug if you're that paranoid.
XBL subscription policy changes are recent.
UX has improved considerably, but even launch version was more advanced than what you get on PS4 today.

I think that when launching a product, it's the first image that people get, that matters (and that remain in the mind of everybody). Microsoft might fix the product to meet more the expectations, or just improve the marketing message associated to its product, it's already a bit too late.

Regarding "the always on" camera, I consider that when there's the possibility to violate the privacy, it's usually done (snowden made it obvious to us, that almost everyone are unconditionally "spied").

evacc44 said,
Microsoft's biggest mistake this generation was not blowing Sony out of the water with power.

*Sigh* Yes because Microsoft knew exactly what hardware they were going to use for the PS4....

duk3togo said,

Sigh, the PS4 is not more powerful than the X1. It spread to be on property which is why most publications e state that when speaking about both of them. The esram is such a key component and differentiator. Esram is the future which is able to offload 6gb of textures without using the 8gb ram. You'll understand that soon enough.

PS4 is significantly more powerful, that's why many games run at higher resolutions or framerates on PS4 and none run better on XB1. The measly 32MB ESRAM is still slower than the standard 8GB system RAM in PS4. Sorry, Microsoft ######ed up big time. They had really incompetent idiots running the show the past few years.

Silver47 said,

*Sigh* Yes because Microsoft knew exactly what hardware they were going to use for the PS4....

They didn't have to. The PS4 is weak and the XB1 is even more pathetically weak thanks to Kinect wasting $150 of the $500 retail price (they started out breaking even on these unlike previous generations). It would have done a lot better at either $350 with the same specs or $400 with better specs. And if they weren't total idiots and had better consumer-friendly policies and EXPLAINED everything they could have even done $450 and made it significantly more powerful than PS4.

mrp04 said,

PS4 is significantly more powerful, that's why many games run at higher resolutions or framerates on PS4 and none run better on XB1. The measly 32MB ESRAM is still slower than the standard 8GB system RAM in PS4. Sorry, Microsoft ######ed up big time. They had really incompetent idiots running the show the past few years.


While I don't agree that system is significantly less powerful, I agree that Microsoft could have done much better job on bringing the next gen console to the market. they could have even make it so you can do PC + Console gaming on a single account because its X86 based anyway. but they chose not to. they made that ridiculous limitation of checking every 24 hours that they took back either. all and all, They could do much better job but failed to do so.

trojan_market said,

While I don't agree that system is significantly less powerful, I agree that Microsoft could have done much better job on bringing the next gen console to the market. they could have even make it so you can do PC + Console gaming on a single account because its X86 based anyway. but they chose not to. they made that ridiculous limitation of checking every 24 hours that they took back either. all and all, They could do much better job but failed to do so.

The PS4 has 50% more GPU cores that are clocked at 94% of the clock rate of the XB1's cores. 1*1.5*800/853 = 1.407. The PS4 has 40.7% more GPU power than the XB1. And direct number comparisons are valid because they use the same GPU architecture. Up until recently 10% of the XB1's GPU was locked away meaning the PS4 had around 50% more GPU power at launch.

That is a significant difference in computational capability. When the PS4 can barely eek by doing 1080p the XB1 just can't do it for most games.

So true. After the last console race, this next one was in favour of Microsoft, and then their PR department messed up. MS will prolly just try and release another console in a couple years to switch up the console race. I'm feeling this because w the rise of steamboxes, why not jump to a PC that is dumbed down like a console but have a variety of different machines that can play the games people want.

Ambroos said,
Eh, Sony is still gigantic, people keep forgetting that. Sure, they had losses, but for starters Japan is not going to let anything happen to Sony, and they're still in the billions of equity.

Sony is haemorrhaging money like someone left the plug out of their bank account.

mrp04 said,

PS4 is significantly more powerful, that's why many games run at higher resolutions or framerates on PS4 and none run better on XB1. The measly 32MB ESRAM is still slower than the standard 8GB system RAM in PS4. Sorry, Microsoft ######ed up big time. They had really incompetent idiots running the show the past few years.


If you can run 60fps/1080p on a PC with just 4gb ddr3 ram you could definitely do it on the X1. Here some info on the Eram.

http://misterxmedia.livejournal.com/140681.html

duk3togo said,

If you can run 60fps/1080p on a PC with just 4gb ddr3 ram you could definitely do it on the X1. Here some info on the Eram.

http://misterxmedia.livejournal.com/140681.html

http://www.ign.com/wikis/xbox-..._Resolutions_and_Framerates

There isn't a single game that runs better on XB1. Not a single one. There are many that run better on PS4.

Why? It's because PS4 is faster. The XB1 probably has better and more efficient development tools (Microsoft is always great at development tools) but no matter how good the tools are if the hardware has that big of a difference in computational power then there's not much you can do about it. Why is it so hard for people to admit this?

With the new Xbox SDK being released now, and the up-coming DirectX 12, the differences will nearly vanish.

The point we're making, and that you're not getting, is that the difference/distinction isn't nearly as huge as you claim. MOST users, sitting on the couch, would be hard pressed to tell the difference in MOST cases. It's truly not NEARLY as significant as you make it out to be.

Yes, it's faster. But show me where that matters that much. And with the new SDK (giving games a nearly 10% CPU speed bump) and DX12 (giving more direct access to hardware and greater speed), it'll matter even less.

Because Sony never updates their firmware...

Last generation, any progress MS did on firmware and development tools, Sony matched on the PS3. They both did impressive optimizations after the release date.
This generation will be no different.

The only exception is that now Microsoft is boasting about it and last generation both barely did.

Stop acting like the 10% and better dev tools will magically make the Xbox equal in power and output. DX12 isn't due till 2015... let alone game developers catching on to it, at best end of 2015..... Yeah Sony is ofc sitting still... stay logical man, damn.

Stop acting like a difference that is barely perceptible to most users at the moment is that big of a deal.

Edited by Andrew, Jun 27 2014, 10:32pm :

mrp04 said,

They didn't have to. The PS4 is weak and the XB1 is even more pathetically weak thanks to Kinect wasting $150 of the $500 retail price (they started out breaking even on these unlike previous generations). It would have done a lot better at either $350 with the same specs or $400 with better specs. And if they weren't total idiots and had better consumer-friendly policies and EXPLAINED everything they could have even done $450 and made it significantly more powerful than PS4.

Jesus, did Microsoft ###### in your cereal or something? But you completely missed my point though, Microsoft probably didn't know what Sony and Sony probably didn't know what Microsoft were gonna do.

Looking at the One in a vacuum, what Microsoft did makes sense. They didn't want to go the GDDR5 route as supply could of been a problem, especially as we are see more and more gfx cards using higher and higher amounts now, they went for easier to obtain DDR3. Knowing they had to go with DDR3 they then decided they needed something to compensate for it so they invested in the SRAM. They also had the die size to consider and power requirements to take in account, didn't want a big power hungry die pumping out loads of heat and repeat of what happened to the 360's RRoD.
So now the Xbox engineers looked back at their system and were probably very happy with what they had built.

Now coming out of the vacuum and the Sony announcement, I bet there were a few "well, ####" moments amongst the xbox team. All because Sony probably went "We need a product with need to sell otherwise we're all sunk, budget and cost be dammed!". The xbox team weren't idiots, they knew what they were building.

But I guess hindsight makes us all geniuses like you right?

Edited by Andrew, Jun 27 2014, 10:03pm :

mrp04 said,

http://www.ign.com/wikis/xbox-..._Resolutions_and_Framerates

There isn't a single game that runs better on XB1. Not a single one. There are many that run better on PS4.

Why? It's because PS4 is faster. The XB1 probably has better and more efficient development tools (Microsoft is always great at development tools) but no matter how good the tools are if the hardware has that big of a difference in computational power then there's not much you can do about it. Why is it so hard for people to admit this?


Developers have made claim that the X1 is difficult to program for because of the SDK and the use of new tech esram. So I can see where you are coming from in terms of thinking its more powerful. But Sony is not as powerful as people think because even Sony had to cut corners.

http://www.inquisitr.com/11590...080p-native-resolution-lie/