Microsoft Decides to Stop Publishing Console Sales Figures

[AlexGoesHigh]

snip

The Wii U losing is damn shame given that despite being just a tad more powerful that a PS3 (and coming out a year before the Xbone and PS4), it does gaming so much better that its competitors, though that's mostly because of Nintendo owns games being awesome, but IMO almost all third party games that are on the other consoles tend to be worst on the Wii U, there are exception such as Shovel Knight but that's one of the rare occasion Nintendo helped a third party on something that they don't own, the only games i would buy for that console are all made by Nintedo, still those games are awesome and their gameplay make the price of the console worth it much more that its competitors first party, i will admit i have a soft spot for Halo, would buy a Xbone just for MCC and halo 5 (also Reach now that it can be played on a Xbone soon), damn Microsoft for owning such and awesome IP and keep it on a console. Leaving that aside i agree that unless you hate Nintendo and not having a great third party catalog, the Wii U is the better buy out of all three of them.

[Dabombinable]

The Wii U losing is damn shame given that despite being just a tad more powerful that a PS3 (and coming out a year before the Xbone and PS4), it does gaming so much better that its competitors, though that's mostly because of Nintendo owns games being awesome, but IMO almost all third party games that are on the other consoles tend to be worst on the Wii U, there are exception such as Shovel Knight but that's one of the rare occasion Nintendo helped a third party on something that they don't own, the only games i would buy for that console are all made by Nintedo, still those games are awesome and their gameplay make the price of the console worth it much more that its competitors first party, i will admit i have a soft spot for Halo, would buy a Xbone just for MCC and halo 5 (also Reach now that it can be played on a Xbone soon), damn Microsoft for owning such and awesome IP and keep it on a console. Leaving that aside i agree that unless you hate Nintendo and not having a great third party catalog, the Wii U is the better buy out of all three of them.

The WiiU isn't a tad more powerful, its actually weaker.

[AlexGoesHigh]

The WiiU isn't a tad more powerful, its actually weaker.

well then, that makes it a bit more disappointing hardware wise i knew its very close to old gen but i never knew it was actually worst that the PS3.

[Dabombinable]

well then, that makes it a bit more disappointing hardware wise i knew its very close to old gen but i never knew it was actually worst that the PS3.

I'll put it into perspective, the WiiU uses an upgraded Gamecube CPU, while the PS3's cell processor has been used in supercomputers (made from strung together PS3). And the other problem with the WiiU is its slow memory, not taking into consideration its low quantity-which isn't as much of an issue.

[Yoinkerman]

well then, that makes it a bit more disappointing hardware wise i knew its very close to old gen but i never knew it was actually worst that the PS3.

Its so funny when people think the console is bad because it's not as powerful. Y'all realize that the xbone and ps4 are potatoes compared to a computer right? And being "powerful" or not has basically no bearing on how fun the games are, right? The xbone and ps4 are clamouring all over themselves and each other trying to compete with PC in a race it can't possibly win, while nintendo is doing its own thing, making fun games that you can't get anywhere else. Nintendo is driving innovation in the console markets, while xbone and ps4 haven't realized they've already lost.

[Yog]

Honestly, being a top seller of any market should mean nothing to a consumer. If you're an investor feel free to fret over who is overselling but there's no point to the constant bickering among console buyers...buy the one that suits you best...that's all that matters.

[Misanthrope]

I'll put it into perspective, the WiiU uses an upgraded Gamecube CPU, while the PS3's cell processor has been used in supercomputers (made from strung together PS3). And the other problem with the WiiU is its slow memory, not taking into consideration its low quantity-which isn't as much of an issue.

 

And AMD has chips with "8 cores at 5ghz" and they loose to a fucking 4 core at 3.5ghz easily: all that it's just stupid marketing. They were only used in supercomputers because they could literally take advantage of Sony's crazy price that nearly cannibalized the entire fucking company.

[Dabombinable]

And AMD has chips with "8 cores at 5ghz" and they loose to a fucking 4 core at 3.5ghz easily: all that it's just stupid marketing. They were only used in supercomputers because they could literally take advantage of Sony's crazy price that nearly cannibalized the entire fucking company.

The CPU itself is actually that powerful-the price/performance of the Cell processor was that good at the price the PS3 was sold for, that in some cases it was the most cost effective solution at the time.

 

Its so funny when people think the console is bad because it's not as powerful. Y'all realize that the xbone and ps4 are potatoes compared to a computer right? And being "powerful" or not has basically no bearing on how fun the games are, right? The xbone and ps4 are clamouring all over themselves and each other trying to compete with PC in a race it can't possibly win, while nintendo is doing its own thing, making fun games that you can't get anywhere else. Nintendo is driving innovation in the console markets, while xbone and ps4 haven't realized they've already lost.

Its performance is bad because many AAA developers have found that to port their game to it would be to the games detriment the Wii U is that weak. The first Wii while also underpowered was just fine as it was being targeted at the right market.

[CTR640]

Microsucks to stop publishing console sales? Lol, MS is butthurt as the PS4 is the most popular potatoe machine.

Xbox One is the rotten one and the PS4 is the half rotten. Phil Spence is such an asshole, damn.

And MS is also fucking stubborn as fuck, they simply really want to keep Forza and Halo exclusive for that shit console, fuck!

[Dabombinable]

Microsucks to stop publishing console sales? Lol, MS is butthurt as the PS4 is the most popular potatoe machine.

Xbox One is the rotten one and the PS4 is the half rotten. Phil Spence is such an asshole, damn.

And MS is also fucking stubborn as fuck, they simply really want to keep Forza and Halo exclusive for that shit console, fuck!

Remember, they are called the Xbone and Pisspoor for a reason-they are both shit compared to previous consoles.

[Derangel]

Remember, they are called the Xbone and Pisspoor for a reason-they are both shit compared to previous consoles.

 

They're both significantly more powerful and capable than previous consoles. What developers choose do with games on the systems is an entirely different matter.

[Dabombinable]

They're both significantly more powerful and capable than previous consoles. What developers choose do with games on the systems is an entirely different matter.

No, they aren't. And that's part of the problem.

[Derangel]

No, they aren't. And that's part of the problem.

 

They're not as powerful as they should have been and the hardware jump isn't as big as previous generations but let's not pretend that they aren't a jump from previous consoles. The consoles are more than capable of 1080p gaming at stable frame rates if developers and publishers cared about more than graphics at all costs.

[Dabombinable]

They're not as powerful as they should have been and the hardware jump isn't as big as previous generations but let's not pretend that they aren't a jump from previous consoles. The consoles are more than capable of 1080p gaming at stable frame rates if developers and publishers cared about more than graphics at all costs.

Its just not developers and publishers that care about it, but the people who buy consoles as well. They may be an improvement over previous consoles, but they are still well below 1080p capable in all games unless the settings are on minimum and the graphics look like shit. Go and have a look at what the Xbone and Pisspoor compare to hardware wise. Shitty APU can only do so much.

[Prysin]

The Wii U losing is damn shame given that despite being just a tad more powerful that a PS3 (and coming out a year before the Xbone and PS4), it does gaming so much better that its competitors, though that's mostly because of Nintendo owns games being awesome, but IMO almost all third party games that are on the other consoles tend to be worst on the Wii U, there are exception such as Shovel Knight but that's one of the rare occasion Nintendo helped a third party on something that they don't own, the only games i would buy for that console are all made by Nintedo, still those games are awesome and their gameplay make the price of the console worth it much more that its competitors first party, i will admit i have a soft spot for Halo, would buy a Xbone just for MCC and halo 5 (also Reach now that it can be played on a Xbone soon), damn Microsoft for owning such and awesome IP and keep it on a console. Leaving that aside i agree that unless you hate Nintendo and not having a great third party catalog, the Wii U is the better buy out of all three of them.

The only handheld to ever outperform (both theoretically and realistically) the PS3 in hardware is the PSvita... and it only outperforms the original PS3 by like 3-5%, not the updated slim version (superslim PS3 was as slow as normal PS3).

so now you know.

[Prysin]

Its Xbones and Pisspoors. TBH despite the older harder, the PS3 and Xbox 360 do their job of just being consoles far better than the supposedly "next gen" consoles.

 

And what context would that be? More people buy the Pisspoor, ergo, more people like it, therefore its the better choice.

the pisspoor does a better job at being a actual gaming machine then the PS3 ever did.

i own BOTH (PS3 slim, the "best" performing version. And the PS4)...

The PS3 CAN NOT run BF3 or BF4 or hardline with more then 24 players. Yes, it CAN run 32, in theory. But performance isnt consistent enough that sony actually let it do it. So while PC could run 64 player games, on the massive Armored Kill maps (3.4km diagonally for the biggest one), the PS3 could ONLY run 24 players..

try play a game with maps designed for 64 players, when you yourself can ONLY have 24 on the map.

It was boring. as fuck.

the most effective weapon was the M98B sniper rifle, attack heli or MBT and just camp and kill shit from afar. I was quite good at that. Really good. But the game itself was boring.

Also, it is the PCMR that has sort of inspired this generations consoles..

Do you really think Sony and MS doesnt listen to any of the fanboy wars AT ALL?

Besides the rampant flaming, there ARE good points why PC was better at console price point.A PS3/fagbox couldnt stream without having a capture card and a PC to stream to the net with.

A lot of the extra features that came with the PS4 and fagbox1 was stuff that PC gamers has been rubbing in the face of console owners for a while.

as for performance... no, it is not as massive leap as from the PS2 to the PS3. But i think MS and Sony learnt from their previous gen, which was heavily over engineered and cost them quite a bit of money, in losses, per console due to this excessive hardware performance.

However, as we see on the PC side of things too... if you look back a few years, we know that even though a sandy bridge/Phenom II CPU came out in the latter half of the PS3/fagbox era, it is still quite usable today. Like, it really does still play games just fine. Same with the 7000 series/600 series Nvidia cards. They are still not out of the game, atleast not 1080p, in terms of matching consoles... so a PC from yesteryear isnt going to see massive improvements over one of today outside of raw graphical fidelity. WHICH HAS IMPROVED...

i mean, PS3 played BF3 at 768p.... SEVENSIXTYEIGHT.....

atleast BF4 does 900p or 1080p (dun remember which), with much more aggressive AA settings and also way way way way more particle effects. (look at smoke quality in PS4 games vs PS3... its HUGE)

A fair argument is this though.

the package that is the PS4/fagbox1, is WAY more pleasing to the eye then a similarily priced PC is. Especially when considering hardware.

If i wanted a PC in my livingroom, it would have to look the part. Not be a noisy eyesore... so a Ncase M1 or Silverstone RVO2b or something akin to those... that means mITX, which means very expensive, very fast. very very very fast indeed.

In the end, consoles is 100% about the experience. The experience and convenience of gaming. And even though i love to play games on PC, there is some things PC just doesnt do very well. And ever since PS3/fagbox got their own voice comms ingame, multiplayer on PC hasnt been much better either. Infact, in some cases, Consoles are far more "alive" on the multiplayer side, for longer, then PC is. and that is NOT because there isnt other games to play. Remember consoles often get the cool shit first (to make them more attractive).

[Dabombinable]

the pisspoor does a better job at being a actual gaming machine then the PS3 ever did.

i own BOTH (PS3 slim, the "best" performing version. And the PS4)...

The PS3 CAN NOT run BF3 or BF4 or hardline with more then 24 players. Yes, it CAN run 32, in theory. But performance isnt consistent enough that sony actually let it do it. So while PC could run 64 player games, on the massive Armored Kill maps (3.4km diagonally for the biggest one), the PS3 could ONLY run 24 players..

try play a game with maps designed for 64 players, when you yourself can ONLY have 24 on the map.

It was boring. as fuck.

the most effective weapon was the M98B sniper rifle, attack heli or MBT and just camp and kill shit from afar. I was quite good at that. Really good. But the game itself was boring.

Also, it is the PCMR that has sort of inspired this generations consoles..

Do you really think Sony and MS doesnt listen to any of the fanboy wars AT ALL?

Besides the rampant flaming, there ARE good points why PC was better at console price point.A PS3/fagbox couldnt stream without having a capture card and a PC to stream to the net with.

A lot of the extra features that came with the PS4 and fagbox1 was stuff that PC gamers has been rubbing in the face of console owners for a while.

as for performance... no, it is not as massive leap as from the PS2 to the PS3. But i think MS and Sony learnt from their previous gen, which was heavily over engineered and cost them quite a bit of money, in losses, per console due to this excessive hardware performance.

However, as we see on the PC side of things too... if you look back a few years, we know that even though a sandy bridge/Phenom II CPU came out in the latter half of the PS3/fagbox era, it is still quite usable today. Like, it really does still play games just fine. Same with the 7000 series/600 series Nvidia cards. They are still not out of the game, atleast not 1080p, in terms of matching consoles... so a PC from yesteryear isnt going to see massive improvements over one of today outside of raw graphical fidelity. WHICH HAS IMPROVED...

i mean, PS3 played BF3 at 768p.... SEVENSIXTYEIGHT.....

atleast BF4 does 900p or 1080p (dun remember which), with much more aggressive AA settings and also way way way way more particle effects. (look at smoke quality in PS4 games vs PS3... its HUGE)

A fair argument is this though.

the package that is the PS4/fagbox1, is WAY more pleasing to the eye then a similarily priced PC is. Especially when considering hardware.

If i wanted a PC in my livingroom, it would have to look the part. Not be a noisy eyesore... so a Ncase M1 or Silverstone RVO2b or something akin to those... that means mITX, which means very expensive, very fast. very very very fast indeed.

In the end, consoles is 100% about the experience. The experience and convenience of gaming. And even though i love to play games on PC, there is some things PC just doesnt do very well. And ever since PS3/fagbox got their own voice comms ingame, multiplayer on PC hasnt been much better either. Infact, in some cases, Consoles are far more "alive" on the multiplayer side, for longer, then PC is. and that is NOT because there isnt other games to play. Remember consoles often get the cool shit first (to make them more attractive).

Convenience went out the window with large game installs.

[bogus]

Yeah, when people say "PS4 won console war", it's a stupid and uninformed statement. The XBOX One hasn't "lost" the console war. This isn't VHS vs BetaMAX or HD-DVD vs BluRay. Both the PS4 and XBOX One are here to stay.

 

If Microsoft Sells 25 Million XBOX units vs 35 Million PS4's (Figures entirely made up to demonstrate a point), does that make the XBOX a failure? HELL NO! They still sold millions of consoles.

 

Besides, as you state, selling games is what matters. Microsoft and Sony both make a majority of their Console profits via Game Sales. They do, after all, get a significant cut of every game sold for their systems.

 

While I think Microsoft should continue to publish the figures, simply for transparency and curiosity, I don't think console sales necessarily mean anything, beyond a certain point. Game sales and total profit margins are significantly more important in the long run.

This is it - let me just add another layer to this if I may, which is Consumers Misinformation and Media Role in Misinformation:

The hurge for content creation is so big and has such dyer consequences in it's quality, to the point that the media is completly fucking up public perception with shitty-ass click bait content.

 

Brands suffer from this Media ignorance. Consumers suffer from this Media ignorance.

 

You have people with no experience commenting on subjects that they don't fully understand, or simply don't understand at all, giving a sense of being experts in the way the express their oppinions - when they are basicly spitting out shit, and people who are already poorly informed are eating it and molding their own perception of the subjects.

 

For example, you have hardware reviewers/overclockers, making market analysis... who the fuck are these dudes to make such statements? People actually value their oppinions, and such "tech journalists" don't care if they are not the right guys to comment some subjects.

 

It's like the major problem we have here in the forum with @patrickjp93 , where a kid, with no experience and ignorant in alot of subjects, is spreading missinformation supported by lies.

This whole console war/ pc-vs-console/ and other click bait matters drive alot of traffic/clicks/views - and every shit is worth talking about, fueled by the sweet ol'ignorance.

Why should brands keep fueling it with their figures to be distorted by ignorant joes who instead of sticking to what they do best and leaving this market analysis to those who actually understand it?

You know what? Good for Microsoft. 

You have this in alot of markets, GPU is another one close to this community, which is rotten with shills and toxicity that's putting alot of pressure on one brand (AMD Radeon) who actually delivers great products. Brands are also investing in this counter information by injecting "Native Content" cash, to fuel more ignorance.

It's a shame.

[Prysin]

Convenience went out the window with large game installs.

as if the games ar any smaller on PC.....

You're just salty cuz strailia has notoriously bad internet...

[Qub3d]

as if the games ar any smaller on PC.....

You're just salty cuz strailia has notoriously bad internet...

The U.S. does, as well. And Luke (in last week's WAN show) mentioned a big issue that comes from downloading big games: Hitting Data Caps. A modern AAA title can eat through as much as a fifth of a monthly data cap. 

[PlayStation 2]

Nintendo? The company that uses what are effectively overclocked Gamecube CPU in their Wii U?

The Wii U uses a tri-core version of the GameCube CPU.

That's the Wii that uses the overclocked GameCube shit.

[PlayStation 2]

the pisspoor does a better job at being a actual gaming machine then the PS3 ever did.

i own BOTH (PS3 slim, the "best" performing version. And the PS4)...

The PS3 CAN NOT run BF3 or BF4 or hardline with more then 24 players. Yes, it CAN run 32, in theory. But performance isnt consistent enough that sony actually let it do it. So while PC could run 64 player games, on the massive Armored Kill maps (3.4km diagonally for the biggest one), the PS3 could ONLY run 24 players..

try play a game with maps designed for 64 players, when you yourself can ONLY have 24 on the map.

It was boring. as fuck.

the most effective weapon was the M98B sniper rifle, attack heli or MBT and just camp and kill shit from afar. I was quite good at that. Really good. But the game itself was boring.

Also, it is the PCMR that has sort of inspired this generations consoles..

Do you really think Sony and MS doesnt listen to any of the fanboy wars AT ALL?

Besides the rampant flaming, there ARE good points why PC was better at console price point.A PS3/fagbox couldnt stream without having a capture card and a PC to stream to the net with.

A lot of the extra features that came with the PS4 and fagbox1 was stuff that PC gamers has been rubbing in the face of console owners for a while.

as for performance... no, it is not as massive leap as from the PS2 to the PS3. But i think MS and Sony learnt from their previous gen, which was heavily over engineered and cost them quite a bit of money, in losses, per console due to this excessive hardware performance.

However, as we see on the PC side of things too... if you look back a few years, we know that even though a sandy bridge/Phenom II CPU came out in the latter half of the PS3/fagbox era, it is still quite usable today. Like, it really does still play games just fine. Same with the 7000 series/600 series Nvidia cards. They are still not out of the game, atleast not 1080p, in terms of matching consoles... so a PC from yesteryear isnt going to see massive improvements over one of today outside of raw graphical fidelity. WHICH HAS IMPROVED...

i mean, PS3 played BF3 at 768p.... SEVENSIXTYEIGHT.....

atleast BF4 does 900p or 1080p (dun remember which), with much more aggressive AA settings and also way way way way more particle effects. (look at smoke quality in PS4 games vs PS3... its HUGE)

A fair argument is this though.

the package that is the PS4/fagbox1, is WAY more pleasing to the eye then a similarily priced PC is. Especially when considering hardware.

If i wanted a PC in my livingroom, it would have to look the part. Not be a noisy eyesore... so a Ncase M1 or Silverstone RVO2b or something akin to those... that means mITX, which means very expensive, very fast. very very very fast indeed.

In the end, consoles is 100% about the experience. The experience and convenience of gaming. And even though i love to play games on PC, there is some things PC just doesnt do very well. And ever since PS3/fagbox got their own voice comms ingame, multiplayer on PC hasnt been much better either. Infact, in some cases, Consoles are far more "alive" on the multiplayer side, for longer, then PC is. and that is NOT because there isnt other games to play. Remember consoles often get the cool shit first (to make them more attractive).

There is so much wrong with this.

 

1. If you're trying to make the PS3 look bad, it ran BF4 at 1280x704, not 1360x768.

2. What do you mean "consistent enough"? Ever heard of MAG?

3. amd refreshes and nvidia's shitty drivers

i dont give enough fucks atm to fix whatever else

[Prysin]

The U.S. does, as well. And Luke (in last week's WAN show) mentioned a big issue that comes from downloading big games: Hitting Data Caps. A modern AAA title can eat through as much as a fifth of a monthly data cap. 

yeah well huge downloads are NOT a consoie exclusive by any means.

Lots of the data install is actually from disc still...

[dalekphalm]

yeah well huge downloads are NOT a consoie exclusive by any means.

Lots of the data install is actually from disc still...

While true in many circumstances, this is certainly not a universal rule.

 

More and more, with AAA games, the physical disc often does not contain the full game, or even in some circumstances, simply adds the game to Steam or Origin, and does a full download anyway.

 

Your PS4 fanboyism and bias is quite confusing and very obvious.

 

The PS4 is vaguely faster than the XBOX One. That is a fact. The larger GPU and the GDDR5 unified System Memory do give it a slight edge. But it's a pretty damn small edge.

 

To literally fanboy all over the place like you're doing, over such a small difference? It's bizarre.

 

Software/user experience wise, it's 100% subjective as to whether the PS4 or XBO are superior. Many would claim that the XBO offers a superior user experience. They're neither right nor wrong, since, as I mentioned, it's subjective.

 

A properly built gaming PC is superior to both, hardware wise. Whether the user experience is superior, is debatable. In many cases, for many people, it is better. But some people want the console experience, where things are dirt simple, and don't require troubleshooting very often. PC does not offer that experience very well. For us tech enthusiasts, that's not a problem, since we are capable of searching for solutions to issues, updating GPU Drivers, dealing with Developer Support, etc. Not everyone cares for that.

 

Your continual referral of the XBO as the "fagbox" is quite amusing. It's cute that you think such a tiny difference in performance somehow makes the PS4 a good console, and the XBO a bad one.

Frankly, if you were looking at it objectively, you'd either see them BOTH as poor value and bad pieces of technology, or you would see that they are both similar enough, and provide a similar enough gaming experience, to be good value for someone who is looking for the least amount of hassle for both "hardcore" and casual gaming.

 

I personally exclusively game on PC right now. I've owned many consoles in the past, but PC gaming has always been my dominant gaming platform. But for my friends who aren't tech savvy, consoles offer excellent value to them. Many of them don't want to deal with all of the tiny issues we don't think about when dealing with full PC gaming.

[Albatross]

Did they ever remove the spy issues with the console? If not, they should just stop making the crappy thing in the first place.