This is all about personal preferences and weighing pros and cons. For example I like the GwG model that the games you get are yours for good, with no restrictions. But they are mostly older, but still great games. PS+ model is funamentaly different: you get quite new games but they're just rented, not yours.
Everyone who says one is better than the other is just judging by his own needs and feelings. I can see a point in both models, I just prefer the GwG one.
@Crossel777 I don't think it's so "black and white". Let's just think about the numbers: Sony sold 1 mio in 2 strongest countries, then MS 1 mio in 13 strongest countries, then Sony 2.3 in 32 countries. In the meantime MS is going up.
I don't care who wins, just stay calm, early sales mean nothing - innovators and early adopters is just a very, very small group. Moreover, after policies reversal MS is gaining momentum.
@XBones I don't agree. The changes they wanted to make were not bad altogether, Microsoft only failed in giving out more benefits of always-online and digital-only. Not to mention the Internet crowd, scared by some nonsense fears, gave it to them big time. Also, those people are in many ways opinion leaders.
Given the graphics quality, mocap quality, fight fluidness and sense of detail, I don't think this game deserves any less than 6/10, no matter who reviews it. I know reviews are subjective but this one is a total miss for me.
There are tons of games shorter, shallower, more repetitive, yet getting sevens or more.
On PC the game look actually good. But on consoles (I mean on PS4) it is a disappointment for me - IMHO the BF4 looks way better! Even on PS4 in 1080p the game doesn't look sharp.
@dbene The games definitely will look better after some time, right now the devs just didn't have enough time (nor motivation - they're going to sell like 10 current-gen to 1 next-gen copies) to deeply explore the new hardware and it will take a while (still bear in mind the 10:1 ratio that is not changing very much any time soon).
But, you may have a point stating we reached the "ceiling". You see, we have 10times more powerful consoles, the graphics definitely look a lot better but not 10times better. Yes, it will develop over time but every marginal improvement will now require a lot more graphics power than before (just to start with, we have 4times the resolution). And it is not possible to make the consoles any more expensive.
So I think we will have better technologies (DX11), better effects, better AI (8-core CPUs), better multiplayer but not so much better graphics. But if the average internet connection develops over time, we may get to the age of streaming games...
@A_Rabid_Dog @wizaard88 I have been on both sides of the situation, I know very well how this works. Local branches of a company meet with people during formal or informal meetings, or give mostly informal "interviews" to local press. The reps in local branches don't have most accurate or up-to-date info but share what they know - they must do that or the press/attendees will talk bad about them.
This kind of info usually gets to community forums or blogs, and are corrected or explained later on.
But this is not the case of Xbox One. The pressure, bias and media trying to make every line, every word of MS reps into sensation is unbelieveable.
So what is right? Local MS reps should be silent? Then you and press would say they're not sharing info. If they say something not entirely accurate during mostly informal meetings, it's considered to be bad as well.
@Sorrow_316 That's normal in any large company. The thing is no other company or product is so closely and intensively watched like Microsoft with Xbox One. That's why you only know about Microsoft in this regard, even though it happens hundred of times each and every day.
Everything Microsoft says nowadays is made into sensation and published right away.
wizaard88's comments