Xbox One or Playstation 4?  

321 members have voted

  1. 1. Based on what we know, which console are you looking to purchase?



Recommended Posts

PS4 for me. Microsoft really shot themselves in the foot with the DRM / Internet connection thing.

I'm glad that Sony seemed to have listened to what people wanted with the recent DRM campaigns etc.

I'm not pleased about having to pay for online gameplay with the PS4, but I guess the games that plus comes with are a nice bonus.

It's going to be an interesting few months ahead, thats for sure.

Very surprised (good way) at Sony.

The ability to fire up a PS4 and still play games 15-20 years from now means PS4 is on my list of console's to buy.

$100 cheaper, region free games, and no mandatory camera / microphone connection requirement is icing on the cake for me.

When will depend on game availability (or if there BC via internet streaming is more robust then I think it will be), however Final Fantasy XV and Kingdom Hearts 3 are games that could trigger purchase of the system at their release.

Just maintaining the current console business model of used games, no internet requirement (vs Microsoft attempt to shift to pc game model) is enough to counterbalance the PSN Plus requirement for multiplayer with me. The fact that Plus is dual membership for both PS3 / PS4 at the same time make it a bit easier to swallow.

Didn't know buying a console at launch means you have no intention of buying the competitors?

<clippy>

It looks like you are trying to start an argument,

1. would you like to pick a different forum member?

</clippy>

(go back and read my post, I didn't make a general statement. Why are you upset that I called out AB?)

  • Like 3

I'm not pleased about having to pay for online gameplay with the PS4, but I guess the games that plus comes with are a nice bonus.

It was inevitable with the push towards MMO/Online only games we're seeing. Even more so when they want to adopt F2P models. I'm just surprised they didn't do it sooner with the PS3. Knew it was coming the moment they added PS+ all those years ago, but what's more surprising is Microsoft's unwillingness to match it & instead spend the profits from XBL towards timed DLC. It's obviously not as favourable and when the bulk of it seems to be spent on BF/CoD each year, it's a time bomb waiting to go off when the interest is fading in both franchises.

Sucks that they gave no date, Holiday 2013 doesn't say much. Anyone got a link to all the supported PSN+ countries? It seems my country always gets shafted when it comes to these types of things and services.

It's all down to personal choice

The way I see it is this...

Pure games console: PS4

Cheaper

Games console with extra stuff: XBOX One

More expensive, but does come with Kinect

so if you want the TV functionality, and like playing games with your family such as Kinect Sports...and think the extra ?80 is worth it then get the xbox

cant play Kinect Sports on it though as thats for the Xbox 360 and the 360 is not backwards compatible

Neither for the moment.

To me (and this is my personal opinion), neither Sony's or Microsoft's announcements have failed to convince me to purchase one or the other.

May be I am getting past my gaming prime or my expectations were too high but I feel rather disappointed.

cant play Kinect Sports on it though as thats for the Xbox 360 and the 360 is not backwards compatible

Kinect Sports Rivals is coming for Xbox One.

6481_503170356432669_1066142631_n.jpg

hmmm... decisions, decisions.

Based on what is shown, PS4 should be $459.99 :p

I honestly don't know at this moment in time. I've always favoured the Xbox 360 this generation, for the games and Xbox Live.

However after Sony's E3 conference yesterday I really am unsure. It comes down to games and DRM, the Xbox has always had the game franchises and arcade games that have appealed to me, but the DRM and restrictions on the Xbox One are too extreme.

In contrast the PS4 has got it right with no DRM and the price is around what i was expecting to pay but i cant say the exclusive games appeal that much to me.

I've got a few months to think it over anyway... cant help thinking i should just cut my losses and get back in PC gaming.

Coming from a veteran Xbox Live member, this seems to be the case. Sure I love my exclusives, but goddammit, Microsoft.

Same here, I never expected it but I honestly see Sony on top this next generation.

I voted PS4, but I'm going to stay away from both consoles at the release. The only game I'm truly interested in is Destiny, but it's not coming out until "2014" which is a large gap and it leaves room for delays. There is also the possibility it will come out for the PC too, in which case I'll get it for that and upgrade my computer.

But, I will be getting the PS4 sooner or later. It's cheaper, focused on games, doesn't require a Kinect, has an indefinite lifespan thanks to no restricitons, and is in a better position for indie gaming.

Coming from a veteran Xbox Live member, this seems to be the case. Sure I love my exclusives, but goddammit, Microsoft.

I owned a launch day 360 and I have been a huge supporter of Microsoft. But this is me too. Halo has went down hill a lot, so it's no longer a console seller for me. And The xbox1 issues+price look terrible. So far, PS4 is the console to buy. Although with a family, I don't have money to burn and I will have to wait anyway. So I will probably see which one ends up looking best after launch.

I actually preordered the One late yesterday afternoon after watching the EA press conference I DVR'd. Battlefield 4 got me all sorts of excited.

XBox-One-PREORDER.jpg

I also thought to myself I liked a few games, like Forza 5, Dead Rising 3, and below, and although I was hoping they would not do similar things, I really thought there would have to be some sort of similar restrictions Sony was going to implement. So I just figured I would get both consoles and be done with it.

I then preordered the PS4 right after their press conference...

PS4_PreOrder.PNG

I am about to go cancel my XBox One preorder

At this point in time I feel it is a matter of supporting what I personally feel is good for console gaming and what is not good for console gaming. Sony is no doubt taking more of a gaming console can still be a gaming console approach, and I like that. I appreciate they are not trying to force a new way of doing things on people. I recognize it may wind up eventually being the old, "wrong" way of viewing things, but for now they are saying this next generation can still first and foremost be about how to just play good old fashioned controller based games as simply and as easy as possible.

So It is more about principle now than anything else for myself. That and I figure if I do change my mind and want to pick up an XBox One at launch, it will be much easier to do so this time around.

  • Like 4

I personally feel like the PS4 is doing what the Xbox 360 originally set out to do, and the Xbox One is doing what the PS3 originally set out to do, so they've sort of switched sides.

I play almost all of my games on the Xbox 360 at the moment but I am definitely going to be getting the PS4 first. I will get them both eventually, that's just how things go. I always like having the option of playing both types of exclusives, but I reckon I'd be using the PS4 as the main console.

I am biased of course as I like the PS3 and I was likely to buy the PS4 anyway.

But here are important things for me:

1. Game re-sell. I have trouble deciding if I like a game or not. I buy one and know if I like it within about half an hour. If I don't, I want to re-sell it. I prefer to buy my games on disc so it's easy to re-sell them. I re-sell about half the games I buy.

2. Doesn't have to check in. I have my PS3 wifi connected always, but I don't want to think it MUST be connected. I don't play much online multiplayer, so it's creepy to HAVE to be connected.

Downside?

1. As I said in 2, I don't care much for online multiplayer games, so the monthly fee for online play on the PS4 doesn't affect me. If I do take to that sort of play, then I guess the cost would be a down side, but you have to pay on Xbox anyway, so it's not actually a loss.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!