The Sony PlayStation 5 will win the next console battle, but the future belongs to Microsoft

[Redaktion]

History repeats itself: Sony and Microsoft will launch new consoles in the fall, but while the PlayStation 5 focuses on the upcoming console war, the Xbox team looks to the future that Microsoft does not want to miss again.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/The-Sony-PlayStation-5-will-win-the-next-console-battle-but-the-future-belongs-to-Microsoft.482359.0.html

[Azhar Ali]

The same logic should have worked for the original Xbox but didn't. It seems MS is going to fall into the same self-dug pitfall of "visioning way too far" and not thinking about the immediate present. Remember Kinect and how MS wanted to revolutionize the living room as the gaming room?

[Anonym]

Sony is a known quantity. So, it all boils to pricing and whether or not Microsoft can deliver great first-party games in the upcoming presentation.

As it stands, I'd rather buy a PS5 PRO later, and get the Xbox Series X now. The Series X does not require any special optimization, it's raw power in CPU and GPU, the things that matter while we are in the cross-gen games phase. By the time the truly next generation games arrive to take advantage of that SSD beaut, Sony may be trying to upsell the PS5 PRO.

If Microsoft pulls a pricing war like in the Xbox 360 days, then it is a no brainer. They do need to get their messaging right to maximize their appeal to the people already leaning towards a PlayStation. Then again, all of this is under the assumption that Microsoft doesn't pull another Xbox One launch.

[ZODD]

There is no reason to buy XsX since all the games will be on PC.
I suspect it will be much more expensive than the PS5 and while being the most powerful console will lack any exclusives that you can't find on other platforms

[G-nice]

Yeah but how it currently looks, the series x and ps5 will beat all machines built in 2019 and before. PC masterrace, but you can't deny the fact that a gaming machine which does not require any maintenance or regurly updates (you cannot compare a desktop from 2014 to one from 2020 cause the newer one will stomp the older pc) unlike a pc which needs a videocard every 2 years if you want to keep gaming on the highest presets. (a console from 2014 still performs the same as day one 6 year later while an pc would've needed to upgrade 3 times to stay relevan)

Not to mention the cost factor of a pc is significantly higher than that of a console. The initial cost of a pc compared to next gen could be around 2K.

If i look at the most current steam chart the most used card is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060.

If you want to achieve the performance the next gen is supposedly to going to achieve, you'll need a GPU that costs double, maybe even triple that of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060.

i probably won't be getting this gen, cause pc masterrace (and amd has become competitive again) but i can't deny the fact that the newer boxes will be monsters that can crunch numbers more easily than a 2080 t.i. can do

[Superguy]

I disagree for several reasons.

First off, streaming music and streaming video games are like apples and oranges. Yo don't need much to successfully stream music: an internet connection, a player, and a speaker of some sort. You don't need much bandwidth to have acceptable sound - even with crappy data connections. You can also take it anywhere and it's fairly unobtrusive.

Gaming, on the other hand, requires much more data, and at least a controller to have a decent experience. It takes at least 10 Mb to get a decent experience on Stadia. Problem is you're not going to get this often, if at all, I a public Wifi like Starbucks. Even at hotels, the "premium" internet offering often doesn't break 10 Mb. So the only reliable connections will be a cell connection or a private wifi connection. Not very portable.

Similarly, the experience overall isn't going to be that great.  Who wants to game constantly on a 6" phone screen, as is often shown as the use case? Even when playing on a PS Vita, the experience was just OK. Not something I'd want to do for hours on. A PC/laptop makes more sense, which brings us to the next point.

Even if this is meant to be primarily a home service, there are a lot of problems with the idea. First off, MS is late to the party. There are already other services or there offering streaming, like Nvidia, Google, and Sony PSNow.  They all have problems. Nvidia tried using games people already owned and just did the platformv thing and devs got pissed because they want to double dip. Stadia is struggling. PSNow has a lot of content, but it's missing a lot, and games come and go.  It's more of a supplement for additional content, not an outright solution.

Secondly, content is getting stovepiped just like it is in video. Before, Netflix was mostly a one stop shop, and you might need Hulu for current programming. Everyone got Amazon with Prime. That covered it for most people. However, content providers got greedy. If you want Disney content, you have to go directly to them. Same with CBS, HBO, and more.

We're seeing that with gaming services. Ubisoft and EA have theirs, as do others. That's a lot of subscriptions to manage. How many people will be willing to pay monthly? What about buying games vs streaming them? If you buy them, they're yours. I'd you rent them, they're gone once you unsubscribe.

Streaming games may have a place, but it's too murky right now. Too many issues, and it's hard too see a consistent profit coming from these. Consoles will be here for a long time to come.

[Anonym]

There is no reason to buy XsX since all the games will be on PC.

Actually, knowing that I only need to buy Microsoft games once and they are also available to play in the PC, or that if I subscribe GamePass Ultimate I can play those games everywhere (xCloud or Xbox+PC), is one of *THE* reasons to buy a Xbox Series X -- the price to power ratio of that system, at least in the first year, will surpass any other PC. That's just how the console business works. Microsoft is the one making the weird thing of allowing to cross between PC and console without paying a premium for it, and that is really nice.

Sony exclusives are also really nice, but not having them in PlayStation Now (ergo playable on PC) is more of a testament to how far behind that service is, and buying a PS5 just for those games has become like a modern day Stockholm syndrome. Sony needs to catch-up on that front really fast, that is also one of the key points this article is making.

[Vanessa]

Some gamers, including myself, want to own their games for decades to come. I can still boot up my old SNES and play if I'm in a nostalgic mood.

Not so with cloud streaming as it's just a rental. You don't own squat and they control what games you can play and how long they will be available. If I can't own it on hardware and play without internet and server dependence then I don't want it, no matter how fantastic the games will be.

[DougJudy]

Yeah but how it currently looks, the series x and ps5 will beat all machines built in 2019 and before. PC masterrace, but you can't deny the fact that a gaming machine which does not require any maintenance or regurly updates (you cannot compare a desktop from 2014 to one from 2020 cause the newer one will stomp the older pc) unlike a pc which needs a videocard every 2 years if you want to keep gaming on the highest presets. (a console from 2014 still performs the same as day one 6 year later while an pc would've needed to upgrade 3 times to stay relevan)

Not to mention the cost factor of a pc is significantly higher than that of a console. The initial cost of a pc compared to next gen could be around 2K.

If i look at the most current steam chart the most used card is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060.

If you want to achieve the performance the next gen is supposedly to going to achieve, you'll need a GPU that costs double, maybe even triple that of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060.

i probably won't be getting this gen, cause pc masterrace (and amd has become competitive again) but i can't deny the fact that the newer boxes will be monsters that can crunch numbers more easily than a 2080 t.i. can do

What you said is almost completely wrong. A computer from 2014 doesn't magically turn bad because we're in 2020, lower the graphics settings and it will run just as well as the consoles do.

You're equating a console to max settings all the time which never happens, they are simply optimized out of the box and take all the choices away from you, but you can do those same choices or even better ones on a pc. The console is more convenient, sure, but the capabilities are the same.

You also point out the next gen "will be monsters that can crunch numbers more easily than a 2080 t.i. ", well they simply won't. They'll be a lot cheaper, but neither of them reaches 2080ti performance (xbox is close) when comparing tflops which is all we can do.

Consoles are a lot more cost effective because their production scale allows for much better margins, but over their product cycle they get undercut by pc components rather quickly, not in raw price, but the increased performance of a pc around 3 years after console launch is worth the extra price.

[Xifhart]

If you want to reach billions of people, it's called mobile gaming.

And if we're talking about mobile gaming, there's button limitation. No touchscreen can emulate the accuracy & feel of physical button. You'll be limiting yourself to relatively simplified control (& gameplay).

External controller is too much investment for non gamers.

There's also mobile internet issue & data cost. NA or EU might be fine, but most of Asia & Africa is just not there yet.

They're 30 years too early on this gamble.

[Anonym]

A computer from 2014 doesn't magically turn bad because we're in 2020, lower the graphics settings and it will run just as well as the consoles do.

Actually, there are a few key aspects that you are leaving out. A big chunk of today's gaming performance comes from optimization, that is done in the GPU drivers. 6 years is a really long time, GPU architectures change and evolve, so do the support interests of the GPU manufacturer (ergo, that driver optimization goes away). The whole mantra of AMD/ATI cards performing better in the long-run is solely due to this, their architecture hasn't changed as often as NVidia's, hence all driver optimization stays relevant for longer to the older cards.

Furthermore, the amount of effort to get a game working well in 2014 will be significantly different if you keep that same hardware all the way into 2020. In fact, there is some hubris here. Game developers specifically change the game (i.e., the source code and assets) so that it runs better on those consoles. Those changes go far beyond simple feature toggles, they specifically target the full capabilities of that hardware within the game design. Realistically, consoles are the reason why you get to keep your old PC gaming for longer, you are exploiting the console's optimizations to run in your measly hardware. Kill the consoles, and you'll be in for a no so sweet treat -- after all, do you really believe GPU manufacturers (and their insidious influence through game sponsorships) don't have a vested interest into getting you to buy new hardware shortly after a new architecture comes out?

TL;DR money speaks and having millions in standardized hardware (i.e., consoles) strongly encourages studios to get the best out of that specific hardware.

[Owen]

Console gaming is actually very expensive long-term. If you are a long-term gamer, PC is the way to go.

I will give you one example, I spent hundreds of £ buy games on my PS3. But once I sold the console, all my games are gone. There is absolutely no way I can re-play these old games (unless of course I re-buy another PS3). And some older games turn up in PS4 as remaster edition (e.g. dark soul, tomb raider), and I have to buy these games again if I want to play them on my PS4 or even again on PS5.

On the other hand, all my steam library still works after a decade (I still play Fallout 2 by the way). Even my non-steam games brought pre-steam era still works. Boy, I am not going to re-buy all these again.

Also, PCs are not expensive nowdays, just watch some LowSpecGamer's video, £250 can easily give you 1080p medium settings in most games. The beauty of PC gaming is that most hardwares have a very long life span, far longer than a console generation. For example, GTX750ti can still give you OKish experience in modern games (that's a pre-PS4 graphics card). And I still game on my GT710 (about 25fps at highest settings in Stellaris at 1440P).

Even if you buy new, a Ryzen 4800H and RTX2060 laptop can be had for about £1,000 (which allow gaming on a airplane, just like a Switch). Most importantly, you don't have to buy old games again on any new system, that's hundreds of (if not thousands)  saving towards new releases.

TL;DR, PC gaming is not expensive if done in the right way.

[Anonym]

I will give you one example, I spent hundreds of £ buy games on my PS3. But once I sold the console, all my games are gone.

That's very much a non-issue in the Xbox, you can still play Xbox 360 games on all Xbox Ones, and will keep playing them moving to the Xbox Series X. In fact, Microsoft even doubled-down on that strategy, you only need one purchase of their first-party games to play *both* on the PC and XBOX (no double dipping -- or triple/quadruple as in the PlayStation new consoles example). They are increasingly capitalizing on the fact the de facto OS is Windows (a Microsoft product) to just brand all Microsoft gaming as Xbox regardless of being played on a console box or your own PC hardware.

The real advantage of a PC is that your hardware is usable in more ways than just gaming. That is the killer argument, so just argue that without further rationalizing.
As a dedicated gaming machine, there is good reason why the price-performance of that first year of a console is unbeatable. It's not because of some "dark magic" that makes consoles special or some other rationalizing BS, but rather because consoles are effectively sold at a loss in that first year. Very competent people already spent a lot of time working with the manufacturers and game studios to get the best hardware for that price-point, which they are effectively subsidizing and the studios are committed to support fully in the next years. Professionals are doing the work for you, and they are paying for that privilege in the first year. That is a pretty sweet deal for a no-frills gaming experience.

[S.Yu]

I disagree for several reasons.

First off, streaming music and streaming video games are like apples and oranges. Yo don't need much to successfully stream music: an internet connection, a player, and a speaker of some sort. You don't need much bandwidth to have acceptable sound - even with crappy data connections. You can also take it anywhere and it's fairly unobtrusive.

Gaming, on the other hand, requires much more data, and at least a controller to have a decent experience. It takes at least 10 Mb to get a decent experience on Stadia. Problem is you're not going to get this often, if at all, I a public Wifi like Starbucks. Even at hotels, the "premium" internet offering often doesn't break 10 Mb. So the only reliable connections will be a cell connection or a private wifi connection. Not very portable.

Similarly, the experience overall isn't going to be that great.  Who wants to game constantly on a 6" phone screen, as is often shown as the use case? Even when playing on a PS Vita, the experience was just OK. Not something I'd want to do for hours on. A PC/laptop makes more sense, which brings us to the next point.

Even if this is meant to be primarily a home service, there are a lot of problems with the idea. First off, MS is late to the party. There are already other services or there offering streaming, like Nvidia, Google, and Sony PSNow.  They all have problems. Nvidia tried using games people already owned and just did the platformv thing and devs got pissed because they want to double dip. Stadia is struggling. PSNow has a lot of content, but it's missing a lot, and games come and go.  It's more of a supplement for additional content, not an outright solution.

Secondly, content is getting stovepiped just like it is in video. Before, Netflix was mostly a one stop shop, and you might need Hulu for current programming. Everyone got Amazon with Prime. That covered it for most people. However, content providers got greedy. If you want Disney content, you have to go directly to them. Same with CBS, HBO, and more.

We're seeing that with gaming services. Ubisoft and EA have theirs, as do others. That's a lot of subscriptions to manage. How many people will be willing to pay monthly? What about buying games vs streaming them? If you buy them, they're yours. I'd you rent them, they're gone once you unsubscribe.

Streaming games may have a place, but it's too murky right now. Too many issues, and it's hard too see a consistent profit coming from these. Consoles will be here for a long time to come.

I agree, but I reckon some "industry insider" is gonna come over and brag about how 5G could change everything. Maybe 5 years later, maybe 10, but 5G will definitely not replace 4G now, and streaming games with 4G is not realistic with the connection quality that covers...at least 95% of the world population? Even less considering some carriers like China's try to throttle 4G to make way for half-a**ed 5G speeds that good 4G could achieve anyway, like that in HK or SK.

[Owen]

I will give you one example, I spent hundreds of £ buy games on my PS3. But once I sold the console, all my games are gone.

That's very much a non-issue in the Xbox, you can still play Xbox 360 games on all Xbox Ones, and will keep playing them moving to the Xbox Series X. In fact, Microsoft even doubled-down on that strategy, you only need one purchase of their first-party games to play *both* on the PC and XBOX (no double dipping -- or triple/quadruple as in the PlayStation new consoles example). They are increasingly capitalizing on the fact the de facto OS is Windows (a Microsoft product) to just brand all Microsoft gaming as Xbox regardless of being played on a console box or your own PC hardware.

The real advantage of a PC is that your hardware is usable in more ways than just gaming. That is the killer argument, so just argue that without further rationalizing.
As a dedicated gaming machine, there is good reason why the price-performance of that first year of a console is unbeatable. It's not because of some "dark magic" that makes consoles special or some other rationalizing BS, but rather because consoles are effectively sold at a loss in that first year. Very competent people already spent a lot of time working with the manufacturers and game studios to get the best hardware for that price-point, which they are effectively subsidizing and the studios are committed to support fully in the next years. Professionals are doing the work for you, and they are paying for that privilege in the first year. That is a pretty sweet deal for a no-frills gaming experience.

I will give you one example, I spent hundreds of £ buy games on my PS3. But once I sold the console, all my games are gone.

That's very much a non-issue in the Xbox, you can still play Xbox 360 games on all Xbox Ones, and will keep playing them moving to the Xbox Series X. In fact, Microsoft even doubled-down on that strategy, you only need one purchase of their first-party games to play *both* on the PC and XBOX (no double dipping -- or triple/quadruple as in the PlayStation new consoles example). They are increasingly capitalizing on the fact the de facto OS is Windows (a Microsoft product) to just brand all Microsoft gaming as Xbox regardless of being played on a console box or your own PC hardware.

The real advantage of a PC is that your hardware is usable in more ways than just gaming. That is the killer argument, so just argue that without further rationalizing.
As a dedicated gaming machine, there is good reason why the price-performance of that first year of a console is unbeatable. It's not because of some "dark magic" that makes consoles special or some other rationalizing BS, but rather because consoles are effectively sold at a loss in that first year. Very competent people already spent a lot of time working with the manufacturers and game studios to get the best hardware for that price-point, which they are effectively subsidizing and the studios are committed to support fully in the next years. Professionals are doing the work for you, and they are paying for that privilege in the first year. That is a pretty sweet deal for a no-frills gaming experience.

There are tons of games that are not available in MS windows store. The game pass MS trying to push only include a few games, most PC games are not there. For example, I want to play Fallout 2, can I buy it on the so claimed xbox x?

Plus, MS had f**ked gamers so many times in the past (windows live, MS game points) why would I buy games from them again? I have used Xbox Game Pass and I will never used it again.

Also, in the first year of a console release there are hardly any games, you basically pay a huge premium to wait. The same apply to PS5 and Xbox X (don't tell me about backward compatiblity here, if i want to play old games why would I buy a new console?). You basically need to buy all the games again. On the PC side, a new laptop/PC can always play all the games you already owned, plus new games.