I bought a PS4. Now what?

[GearSolidMetal]

But you listed TLOU2 and we don't even know when that's coming out.

Yeah, but we know its going to be awesome.

NaughtyDog, bro.

 

[Madmick]

I don't give a crap about fanboy wars. It's absurd that anyone should be telling others what to think or enjoy. I have never cared about the Xbox one X or the PS4 Pro. If I really wanted one I could get one but I have no desire to spend that extra money for slightly better graphics. To me they are an unnecessary cash grab. I only care about playing the games.

I don't know how you think you can tell me what I should or shouldn't be buying.

I am not in control of your purchases, and I have not suggested that I should be granted that control over your life. Ergo, it should be self-evident that I am forwarding an opinion on objective purchasing strategies (as they exist in the abstract). You take offense at perspective which has no power over your life, and you invent offenses which haven't been given. Nobody dictated to you "what to think or enjoy."

You remain under the errant impression that the only difference between these consoles is "slightly better graphics." First, better graphics isn't the sum of their differences, which is something I tried to highlight, and second, even if that were true, or mostly true, then do you also play on a $70 19" Element 720p TV? How about an old cathode dino-box from the 20th century taken for free off someone's lawn sale because they didn't want to pay the dump fee? Are those newfangled 40"+ 1080p TVs just a "cash grab", too? @Ice That Jaw is putting it bluntly, perhaps impolitely, but the truth is that you do care about graphics-- we all do. The question is simply a matter of porridge. When you say, "I don't care about slightly better graphics", he rolls his eyes out of a wiser familiarity with these perspectives. You care. It's just that you don't care enough to warrant the $200 upcharge.

Your ignorance is distilled in your attempt at a subjective fortress, "To me they are an unnecessary cash grab." This reveals your true mindset. It's value-based, and you wrongly believe Microsoft/Sony is bilking you, but In fact, the Xbox One S when it was introduced in 2016 was the only version of the Xbox One released so far that was sold at a slight profit upon release. The Xbox One X made no profit when launched at $500 last year, and the original Xbox One was sold at a significant loss when it was released for $471 which as you can see had already come down to $300 by 2016. The same is true, generally, for Sony and other console makers across generations.They don't make their money from the sales of the consoles, themselves.

It's not that you are necessarily wrong about which purchase would be a better value for you, but you do fail to grasp the full scope differentiating what you are paying for. This isn't a story about a glass slipper. It's a matter of money. You're sublimating. That's what he mocks.

A lot of the guys in my clan are buying Xbox 1S or whatever the newest, fastest version is, and I don't get it. Yeah, loading screens suck but I can wait eight more seconds if I need to, instead of dropping $400 on a new system that is the same system, only "upgraded".

The only way I would go buy another Xbox is if mine either broke, or if my wife suddenly took an interested in gaming with me, which she won't because she hates video games.

8 seconds (or 50) repeated anywhere from a few times to a few dozen times an hour over thousands of hours adds up.

Besides, upgrading to an Xbox One X when you already own one, or buying a second unit, is not analogous to choosing between the two variants in 2018.

 

[empsim]

get PSVR if you want to experience something actually new and next-gen feeling

 

[IamStryker]

I am not in control of your purchases, and I have not suggested that I should be granted that control over your life. Ergo, it should be self-evident that I am forwarding an opinion on objective purchasing strategies (as they exist in the abstract). You take offense at perspective which has no power over your life, and you invent offenses which haven't been given. Nobody dictated to you "what to think or enjoy."

I'll explain my reasoning here. You agreed with someone who said that everyone needs to care about slightly better graphics. Then in your post you said "but it's 2018, and you really shouldn't be buying hardware that was already outdated in 2013-- not even console hardware. I'm inclined to agree with him on that point." That is what I had the problem with. Why does it matter to you what other people buy and why did you phrase it like that?

You remain under the errant impression that the only difference between these consoles is "slightly better graphics." First, better graphics isn't the sum of their differences, which is something I tried to highlight, and second, even if that were true, or mostly true, then do you also play on a $70 19" Element 720p TV? How about an old cathode dino-box from the 20th century taken for free off someone's lawn sale because they didn't want to pay the dump fee? Are those newfangled 40"+ 1080p TVs just a "cash grab", too? @Ice That Jaw is putting it bluntly, perhaps impolitely, but the truth is that you do care about graphics-- we all do. The question is simply a matter of porridge. When you say, "I don't care about slightly better graphics", he rolls his eyes out of a wiser familiarity with these perspectives. You care. It's just that you don't care enough to warrant the $200 upcharge.

For me the only difference I would care about is the graphics which I find to only be slightly better or hardly noticeable. I'm not denying that load times are a little different as well but I just don't care much about them.

Having a bigger screen is more important to me than the graphical difference of the Pro or X. I can also use that same tv for a long time in different rooms of my house so it's kind of apples and oranges.

Your ignorance is distilled in your attempt at a subjective fortress, "To me they are an unnecessary cash grab." This reveals your true mindset. It's value-based, and you wrongly believe Microsoft/Sony is bilking you, but In fact, the Xbox One S when it was introduced in 2016 was the only version of the Xbox One released so far that was sold at a slight profit upon release. The Xbox One X made no profit when launched at $500 last year, and the original Xbox One was sold at a significant loss when it was released for $471 which as you can see had already come down to $300 by 2016. The same is true, generally, for Sony and other console makers across generations.They don't make their money from the sales of the consoles, themselves.

I don't care about their sales per console or anything. It was just an off hand comment that to me those consoles aren't needed. I was never forming a long argument about how Sony and Microsoft are evil or anything like that. You are also making assumptions about my previous short posts about those consoles. I knew about the load times, I just cared so little I didn't mention them.

It's not that you are necessarily wrong about which purchase would be a better value for you, but you do fail to grasp the full scope differentiating what you are paying for. This isn't a story about a glass slipper. It's a matter of money. You're sublimating. That's what he mocks.

No I said to that guy that not everyone cares about slightly better graphics and his response was a douchey "keep telling yourself that bro". If he wanted to make an argument about load times and whatnot we could have just agreed to disagree but his response made him look exactly how I thought he would.

8 seconds (or 50) repeated anywhere from a few times to a few dozen times an hour over thousands of hours adds up.

Would probably matter more to someone who plays 6 hours a day. For me it's not a big deal.

Besides, upgrading to an Xbox One X when you already own one, or buying a second unit, is not analogous to choosing between the two variants in 2018.

Some people would prefer to pay $150-$200 less for a PS4 slim over a Pro. That will make a lot of sense for some and not much to others depending on their lifestyles and preferences.

 

[90 50]

I am not in control of your purchases, and I have not suggested that I should be granted that control over your life. Ergo, it should be self-evident that I am forwarding an opinion on objective purchasing strategies (as they exist in the abstract). You take offense at perspective which has no power over your life, and you invent offenses which haven't been given. Nobody dictated to you "what to think or enjoy."

You remain under the errant impression that the only difference between these consoles is "slightly better graphics." First, better graphics isn't the sum of their differences, which is something I tried to highlight, and second, even if that were true, or mostly true, then do you also play on a $70 19" Element 720p TV? How about an old cathode dino-box from the 20th century taken for free off someone's lawn sale because they didn't want to pay the dump fee? Are those newfangled 40"+ 1080p TVs just a "cash grab", too? @Ice That Jaw is putting it bluntly, perhaps impolitely, but the truth is that you do care about graphics-- we all do. The question is simply a matter of porridge. When you say, "I don't care about slightly better graphics", he rolls his eyes out of a wiser familiarity with these perspectives. You care. It's just that you don't care enough to warrant the $200 upcharge.

Your ignorance is distilled in your attempt at a subjective fortress, "To me they are an unnecessary cash grab." This reveals your true mindset. It's value-based, and you wrongly believe Microsoft/Sony is bilking you, but In fact, the Xbox One S when it was introduced in 2016 was the only version of the Xbox One released so far that was sold at a slight profit upon release. The Xbox One X made no profit when launched at $500 last year, and the original Xbox One was sold at a significant loss when it was released for $471 which as you can see had already come down to $300 by 2016. The same is true, generally, for Sony and other console makers across generations.They don't make their money from the sales of the consoles, themselves.

It's not that you are necessarily wrong about which purchase would be a better value for you, but you do fail to grasp the full scope differentiating what you are paying for. This isn't a story about a glass slipper. It's a matter of money. You're sublimating. That's what he mocks.

8 seconds (or 50) repeated anywhere from a few times to a few dozen times an hour over thousands of hours adds up.

Besides, upgrading to an Xbox One X when you already own one, or buying a second unit, is not analogous to choosing between the two variants in 2018.

Slightly off topic but concerning load times etc, I find it strange that in this day and age consoles are still going with hdd instead of ssd.

Especially the X, it has a 5400rpm hdd?
What the fak ?

I have an external ssd that I plugged into my one and formatted for Xbox.

I’ve never tested it but I suppose my load times are faster on the games I have on it vs the internal 5400 rpm hdd

I’m guessing the thing to do would be pop open a new X, clone the hdd and put an ssd in its place.

Theoretically it should work?

 

[Madmick]

Slightly off topic but concerning load times etc, I find it strange that in this day and age consoles are still going with hdd instead of ssd.

Especially the X, it has a 5400rpm hdd?
What the fak ?

I have an external ssd that I plugged into my one and formatted for Xbox.

I’ve never tested it but I suppose my load times are faster on the games I have on it vs the internal 5400 rpm hdd

I’m guessing the thing to do would be pop open a new X, clone the hdd and put an ssd in its place.

Theoretically it should work?

HDDs are still a better value for pure gaming; especially when the seller's strategy is to cater to the lowest budget possible. That is the strongest appeal to the consoles (as you can see in this thread). It's their market wedge. You can build PCs with better values in terms of processing power to dollar spent than the Xbox One S, for example, but there is no way in hell you're going to put one together for $200-$260. The floor for a gaming PC right now is around $550. That's roughly double what most gamers are willing to pay for their hardware.

The lower RPM is to keep the heat down.

I'll explain my reasoning here. You agreed with someone who said that everyone needs to care bout slightly better graphics. Then in your post you said "but it's 2018, and you really shouldn't be buying hardware that was already outdated in 2013-- not even console hardware. I'm inclined to agree with him on that point." That is what I had the problem with. Why does it matter to you what other people buy and why did you phrase it like that?

For me the only difference I would care about is the graphics which I find to only be slightly better or hardly noticeable. I'm not denying that load times are a little different as well but I just don't care much about them.

Having a bigger screen is more important to me than the graphical difference of the Pro or X. I can also use that same tv for a long time in different rooms of my house so it's kind of apples and oranges.

I don't care about their sales per console or anything. It was just an off hand comment that to me those consoles aren't needed. I was never forming a long argument about how Sony and Microsoft are evil or anything like that. You are also making assumptions about my previous short posts about those consoles. I knew about the load times, I just cared so little I didn't mention them.

No I said to that guy that not everyone cares about slightly better graphics and his response was a douchey "keep telling yourself that bro". If he wanted to make an argument about load times and whatnot we could have just agreed to disagree but his response made him look exactly how I thought he would.

Would probably matter more to someone who plays 6 hours a day. For me it's not a big deal.

Some people would prefer to pay $150-$200 less for a PS4 slim over a Pro. That will make a lot of sense for some and not much to others depending on their lifestyles and preferences.

Because I was addressing you. Change one word: "...one really shouldn't be buying hardware that was already outdated in 2013..." That's just a generally good rule of thumb for all consumers. I'm someone who favors the "buy-one-generation-back" strategy with most electronics, too, because it usually makes the most sense. Buying hardware that was built on reference designs 5 generations back is inadvisable.

I could be wrong that the lesser units will age well relative to the purchase date in 2018, and the strongest basis for that presumption is the fact the majority of PS4 or XB1 owners are still on the lower-end units, so Microsoft and Sony will probably work hard to keep them relevant, but we are in virgin territory for console owners, and in that blind, it's wise to match the hardware to the software developed to harness what is on the market. That strategy tends to be the most consumer-friendly. The caveat of going cheap is slug metal.

Sony and Microsoft both said in 2013 that they intended for these consoles to have a 10-year lifespan. Few believe them, lately, but what happens if they're sincere? What happens if they release another upgrade revision, then cancel production of the Xbox One S as the base unit? That shifts the landscape. I just don't think even the most purist gamers will want to be gaming on 2010 2013 hardware in 2023. Spiritually, that's closer to retro gaming. I'm a retro gamer who also likes contemporary games like Stardew Valley and Papers, Please, but one doesn't decide on the best truck purchase according to which can haul a 5-year-old girl in the passenger seat.

You are rationalizing while he is unflinchingly observing a truth of human nature that exists outside of yourself. I don't mind that you opine that to some it isn't worth it. That's true. I object to the notion that they don't want it. That's not.

I don't care which you buy. These are abstract musings to me. I didn't say everyone needs to care about slightly better graphics. I observed the truth that everybody already does. That's why YouTube has 60fps video. That is how I was drawn into this thread; by acknowledging the truth to his comment irrespective of tact. If gifted an unlimited budget, where money doesn't matter, who would pick the cheaper unit? No one.

You have conceded that with your final sentences. This was productive discourse.

 

[90 50]

HDDs are still a better value for pure gaming; especially when the seller's strategy is to cater to the lowest budget possible. That is the strongest appeal to the consoles (as you can see in this thread). It's their market wedge. You can build PCs with better values in terms of processing power to dollar spent than the Xbox One S, for example, but there is no way in hell you're going to put one together for $200-$260. The floor for a gaming PC right now is around $550. That's roughly double what most gamers are willing to pay for their hardware.

The lower RPM is to keep the heat down.

Because I was addressing you. Change one word: "...one really shouldn't be buying hardware that was already outdated in 2013..." That's just a generally good rule of thumb for all consumers. I'm someone who favors the "buy-one-generation-back" strategy with most electronics, too, because it usually makes the most sense. Buying hardware that was built on reference designs 5 generations back is inadvisable. I could be wrong that the lesser units will age well relative to the purchase date in 2018, and the strongest basis for that presumption is the fact the majority of PS4 or XB1 owners are still on the lower-end units, so Microsoft and Sony will probably work hard to keep them relevant, but we are in virgin territory for console owners, and in that blind, it's wise to match the hardware to the software developed to harness what is on the market. That strategy tends to be the most consumer-friendly. The caveat of going cheap is slug metal.

Sony and Microsoft both said in 2013 that they intended for these consoles to have a 10-year lifespan. Few believe them, lately, but what happens if they are? What happens if they release another upgrade revision, then cancel production of the Xbox One S as the base unit? That shifts the landscape. I just don't think even the most purist gamers will want to be gaming on 2010 2013 hardware in 2023. Spiritually, that's closer to retro gaming. I'm a retro gamer who also likes contemporary games like Stardew Valley and Papers, Please, but one doesn't decide on the best truck purchase according to which can haul a 5-year-old girl in the passenger seat.

You are rationalizing while he is unflinchingly observing a truth of human nature that exists outside of yourself. I don't mind that you opine that to some it isn't worth it. That's true. I object to the notion that they don't want it. That's not.

I don't care which you buy. These are abstract musings to me. I didn't say everyone needs to care about slightly better graphics. I observed the truth that everybody already does. That's why YouTube has 60fps video. That is how I was drawn into this thread; by acknowledging the truth to his comment irrespective of tact. If gifted an unlimited budget, where money doesn't matter, who would pick the cheaper unit? No one.

You have conceded that with your final sentences. This was productive discourse.

I get that hdd are a better value for disk size, but sdd’s Have gotten really cheap now.

I can see the original still coming with a hdd, and even the S.

But the X “Upgrade “ console has a 5400 rpm hdd? For a cost savings to the manufacturer or a few dollars at the most at their order size level? Iff that?

And as far as heat goes I am supprised they have an internal psu now instead of the old brick external style.

I obviously don’t speak for everyone but I can’t see an ssd generating so much more heat than an hdd that they could not have engineered that out, even if they had to go with the external brick power converter.

I’d be happier with that and a ssd, than internal psu and 5400 rpm hdd.

It makes no sense for the upgraded console to have that is all I’m saying.

 

[tru3f4n]

Because I have all three character types up to 600 and the new shit drops in a couple weeks. Plus; Clan.

yeah but you're missing out on three extra chances to get the tyranny of heaven

 

[StabbyMcHatchet]

Ha! It finally dropped for me last night, MASTERWORKED!
It only took 25 completions to get it, pffft.

 

[IamStryker]

Because I was addressing you. Change one word: "...one really shouldn't be buying hardware that was already outdated in 2013..." That's just a generally good rule of thumb for all consumers.

You were addressing me? So you are telling me what I should and shouldn't buy correct? I don't think my problem with that changes even if you say it was addressing everyone. No matter what you think of the hardware people still have legitimate reasons for wanting to buy it. I have absolutely no way to play PS4 exclusives without a PS4. I do not need the small advantages that come with a Pro.

You are rationalizing while he is unflinchingly observing a truth of human nature that exists outside of yourself. I don't mind that you opine that to some it isn't worth it. That's true. I object to the notion that they don't want it. That's not.

Well want and need are two different things. I wouldn't mind having an X or Pro but I don't at all feel that I need it so I don't buy it. That's pretty easy to follow reasoning but he felt the need to mock people who disagree with him.

 

[blaseblah]

Lol at fanboys debating minute discrepancies in graphics and peformance. The reality is the vast majority of people playing these games don't care. That has never decided which console wins each generation. I went from PS2 to 360 to PS4 and it had nothing to do with graphics.

 

[Madmick]

You were addressing me? So you are telling me what I should and shouldn't buy correct? I don't think my problem with that changes even if you say it was addressing everyone. No matter what you think of the hardware people still have legitimate reasons for wanting to buy it. I have absolutely no way to play PS4 exclusives without a PS4. I do not need the small advantages that come with a Pro.

Well want and need are two different things. I wouldn't mind having an X or Pro but I don't at all feel that I need it so I don't buy it. That's pretty easy to follow reasoning but he felt the need to mock people who disagree with him.

Yes, I was addressing you, but this is a forum. You aren't the only audience to this discourse. This isn't a PM. I'm suggesting this for everyone. The PS4/XB1S are built on 2010 reference hardware architecture.

Indeed, needing isn't synonymous to wanting (i.e. caring). Again, everyone cares about "slightly better graphics". Telling yourself differently is lying to yourself. Saying you don't care to the tune of $200 is a different story. You care. You just don't care about it as much as you care about $200. This is the nuance you failed to grasp: the matter of opportunity cost. I'm not willing to buy an airplane ticket to get to SoCal when I could drive a car, but I'm not going to lie to myself that I wouldn't take a private plane every trip if I had that Bezos money.

Lol at fanboys debating minute discrepancies in graphics and peformance. The reality is the vast majority of people playing these games don't care. That has never decided which console wins each generation. I went from PS2 to 360 to PS4 and it had nothing to do with graphics.

That isn't the debate.

 

[IamStryker]

Yes, I was addressing you, but this is a forum. You aren't the only audience to this discourse. This isn't a PM. I'm suggesting this for everyone. The PS4/XB1S are built on 2010 reference hardware architecture.

Indeed, needing isn't synonymous to wanting (i.e. caring). Again, everyone cares about "slightly better graphics". Telling yourself differently is lying to yourself.

I don't' know where you and the other guy get off trying to tell me what I care about. I care so very little that the extra money means more to me than the slightly better graphics. When I care that little it may as well be non existent.

So what if it's 2010 architecture? I still have legitimate reasons for buying it? Do you get that?

Saying you don't care to the tune of $200 is a different story. You care. You just don't care about it as much as you care about $200. This is the nuance you failed to grasp: the matter of opportunity cost. I'm not willing to buy an airplane ticket to get to SoCal when I could drive a car, but I'm not going to lie to myself that I wouldn't take a private plane every trip if I had that Bezos money.
.

Not sure why you think I failed to grasp this when it has been exactly my point the entire time. So do you still think I am wrong for getting the slim over the Pro? Or are we in agreement here that this entirely depends on the preferences and circumstances of the individual?

 

[90 50]

Lol at fanboys debating minute discrepancies in graphics and peformance. The reality is the vast majority of people playing these games don't care. That has never decided which console wins each generation. I went from PS2 to 360 to PS4 and it had nothing to do with graphics.

Graphics have never been what has lead some consoles to do better than others.
For instance Sega generally always was ahead of Nintendo in graphics and sound , but Nintendo always found ways to outsell them in most markets.

Sega has some major dumb moments over the years and leads them out of the console game(ps was originally supposed to be Sega console with Sony partnership. Sega fucked the couch on that one)

So now Sony and Xbox are console kings, along comes the wii, which is not graphically supperiour to either in that generation.

Yet it becomes the Highest selling console of the generation (and maybe all time? Need to look up numbers for reference on that).

As I remeber the turbo graphix console at the time had the best graphics but was pretty much a flop.

 

[Madmick]

I don't' know where you and the other guy get off trying to tell me what I care about. I care so very little that the extra money means more to me than the slightly better graphics. When I care that little it may as well be non existent.

So what if it's 2010 architecture? I still have legitimate reasons for buying it? Do you get that?

Yes, but I simultaneously understand that someone who has a legitimate reason to buy a laptop-- if given the choice of purchasing a 2010 unit for $200 instead of 2016 unit for $400-- would be making a questionable, fairly criticized decision according to his own criteria.

Not sure why you think I failed to grasp this when it has been exactly my point the entire time. So do you still think I am wrong for getting the slim over the Pro? Or are we in agreement here that this entirely depends on the preferences and circumstances of the individual?

Everyone's different and not everyone cares about slightly better graphics.

 

[My Spot]

Graphics have never been what has lead some consoles to do better than others.
For instance Sega generally always was ahead of Nintendo in graphics and sound , but Nintendo always found ways to outsell them in most markets.

Sega has some major dumb moments over the years and leads them out of the console game(ps was originally supposed to be Sega console with Sony partnership. Sega fucked the couch on that one)

So now Sony and Xbox are console kings, along comes the wii, which is not graphically supperiour to either in that generation.

Yet it becomes the Highest selling console of the generation (and maybe all time? Need to look up numbers for reference on that).

As I remeber the turbo graphix console at the time had the best graphics but was pretty much a flop.

Huh? The SNES kicked the shit out of Genesis in terms of graphics and sound. It came out 2 years later. Same with the N64 and Saturn.

Also, it was Nintendo and not Sega who almost partnered with Sony for a CD add-on.

 

[90 50]

Huh? The SNES kicked the shit out of Genesis in terms of graphics and sound. It came out 2 years later. Same with the N64 and Saturn.

Also, it was Nintendo and not Sega who almost partnered with Sony for a CD add-on.

You really need to refresh your history on that.

 

[Madmick]

Huh? The SNES kicked the shit out of Genesis in terms of graphics and sound. It came out 2 years later. Same with the N64 and Saturn.

Also, it was Nintendo and not Sega who almost partnered with Sony for a CD add-on.

Generally speaking, the Genesis was more powerful than the SNES. One of my childhood friends used to always shit on my SNES, usually rooting his preference in graphics, but really it was just because he liked Sonic and Mortal Kombat more than the Mario games and Street Fighter II. In reality, prior to the rise of 3D graphics, the real benchmark was the quality of shading and art style.

But I remember kids being enthused with how much better games would look from generation to generation back then. I remember the boys debating hype material for systems like the Jaguar or 3DO on the bus rides home. Back then the leaps were larger due to the diminishing returns effect of the polygon count.

Graphics have never been what has lead some consoles to do better than others.

For instance Sega generally always was ahead of Nintendo in graphics and sound , but Nintendo always found ways to outsell them in most markets.

Sega has some major dumb moments over the years and leads them out of the console game(ps was originally supposed to be Sega console with Sony partnership. Sega fucked the couch on that one)

So now Sony and Xbox are console kings, along comes the wii, which is not graphically supperiour to either in that generation.

Yet it becomes the Highest selling console of the generation (and maybe all time? Need to look up numbers for reference on that).

As I remeber the turbo graphix console at the time had the best graphics but was pretty much a flop.

Wrong. Graphics have played a powerful role; especially from the PS1-PS3 generations. There are a lot of factors that have contributed to wins. It's also mostly irrelevant to discuss console history when discussing the PS4/XB1 platforms. Never before have any two consoles been so close to identical. They're practically AMD prebuilt skins with mostly identical libraries.

The PS4 won because Microsoft infamously bungled the XB1 launch, but also because (in fact more importantly) because the PS4 was cheaper at launch. These combined to win them critical early inertia after which it becomes about social circles, and also because they pumped out better exclusives; not because they spent more money developing them, or on partnerships to entice their development-- not even close.

The Xbox 360 was more advanced the best PCs at the time it was released. That was a big deal at the time, but more important was that they beat the PS3 to market by a year. That devastated Sony. So, in fact, console gamers wanted the latest and greatest. This was a defining wedge for Microsoft. They also benefited from the Xbox's innovation among consoles of bringing substantial online gaming to its market.
The PS3 then retook and eventually "won" the generation because the huge price tag was halved, making it one of the cheapest Blu-Ray players to buy with Blu-Ray trouncing HD-DVD, and because it once again winning the late development of exclusives. The hardware relevancy of the PS4 played a major role in that comeback.

The PS2 destroyed the original Xbox because Microsoft was a neophyte to the game with no franchises, but it's real competitor was the Gamecube, and I dare say that hardware sophistication played a large role in that win.

The PS2 also benefited from the shockwave in hardware advancement that the original Playstation brought to the game. The Nintendo 64 was a technological marvel itself. Super Mario 64 left the world agape when it dropped. Previous 64-bit consoles like the Jaguar were a mess. At the same time, for the reasons Austin has mentioned, the PS1 drank Sega's milkshake. They got caught with their pants down.
https://thesolidstategamer.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/playstation-versus-n64-a-hardware-analysis/
Console gamers who always insist "it's just the games" overlook the fact that the Dreamcast was one of the greatest commercial disappointments in history despite that it has one of the most revered & innovative libraries in the history of consoles.

Prior to that gaming was largely considered a industry for children/adolescents, and Nintendo's monster franchises, Mario & Zelda, largely unopposed a quarter of a century ago, carried every generation. Mario Bros. is credited with saving the gaming industry itself, in the early days, and that game decided Nintendo's dominance over rivals like Atari for a solid decade. Otherwise, as I said, prior to the rise of 3D modeling, such as we got in 64-bit systems, it was all 2D graphics, and the craft of the art designers trumped the hardware itself more significantly than it does today. This was compounded by the fact there was a very small amount of open-source IP as tools such as their exists today with all the engines. Development was building each game more closely from scratch.

 

[blaseblah]

Graphics have never been what has lead some consoles to do better than others.
For instance Sega generally always was ahead of Nintendo in graphics and sound , but Nintendo always found ways to outsell them in most markets.

Sega has some major dumb moments over the years and leads them out of the console game(ps was originally supposed to be Sega console with Sony partnership. Sega fucked the couch on that one)

So now Sony and Xbox are console kings, along comes the wii, which is not graphically supperiour to either in that generation.

Yet it becomes the Highest selling console of the generation (and maybe all time? Need to look up numbers for reference on that).

As I remeber the turbo graphix console at the time had the best graphics but was pretty much a flop.

The PS3 was the most powerful console on the market but that didn't matter. Sony lost the first half of that generation due to the price, losing their exclusives and a weaker library. They turned it around because of the price dropping and the games that came out. The games and price matter way more than graphics ever will.

 

[IamStryker]

Yes, but I simultaneously understand that someone who has a legitimate reason to buy a laptop-- if given the choice of purchasing a 2010 unit for $200 instead of 2016 unit for $400-- would be making a questionable, fairly criticized decision according to his own criteria.

Not at good comparison. What does that laptop have to do with a PS4 slim vs. a PS4 pro? You have a huge amount of choices with laptops and two choices when it comes to PS4's.

Ever think someone has more to say than one sentence on a topic? When I said that not everyone cares about slightly better graphics it's a very easy assumption that they are basing that off of money. Most any gamer who plays current generation games would get the most high end tech if they have an endless supply of money even if it's only slight upgrades that they may or may not notice. Of course I would get the pro if money isn't an object. I said one sentence and you start writing paragraphs making assumptions about me? Yeah ok.

You didn't answer my questions so here they are again,
So do you still think I am wrong for getting the slim over the Pro? Or are we in agreement here that this entirely depends on the preferences and circumstances of the individual?