It's just like with the other questionable decisions Microsoft has made lately to make everyone hate them so vehemently: there is someone at the top of the food chain there that isn't listening to other people and really must think he's just the smartest guy in that (and any other) room..... it's just strange to watch..... and this is coming from someone who has been leaning on a 360 to do most of his gaming for the last 6 years.
Interesting. I wonder how many people are going to not buy an XBone because the Kinect makes it more expensive (or at least not the same price) as the PS4? I know things are leaning towards Sony right now because apparently there are some people that aren't too bright up top at Microsoft..... but there have to be some people that are 50/50 either way..... and that $100 makes a big difference. Why are they pushing the stupid Kinect so much?!?!? I've yet to see one motion-control game that actually lives up the the promise that it might have had..... a couple at the end of the Wii lifespan were OK... but not really anything that made me go "WOW! I'm sure glad I'm not using a regular controller!!"
Actually 2500 is a pretty large sample size.... it's all about the margin of error...... when you get into a couple of hundred you start getting a low enough MoE to start drawing some conclusions..... but the flaw here is that this is 2500 Nielson Participants, it's probably not really random.
Good point. I took more than my share of stat classes... and you MUST look at the sample and premise of the study before you get into the actual numbers. So many studies are so obviously flawed.... its amazing that some of these studies don't get shot down before they see the light of day. A lot of my test questions were looking at a study and seeing how it's flawed.
This is a response to everyone that is saying that the PS4 isn't "The greatest PC-thingee whatever ever made":
The dude was saying that because of how it's set up that it has advantages over something that is set up with the best possible parts... thus his comment that it is set up better than something that just uses "brute force." He also seems to be indicating that certain bottlenecks are bypassed due to it's architecture and design. Also: since game designers will be designing to maximize THIS particular setup; they won't have to worry about dealing with every possible chip/hardware/whatever combination that a given PC might have.
All of that said: since I've been quite happy playing on a system with 1/32 the memory and God knows how much less processing power: I'll be quite content.
It makes me sad that when I played on PCs all the time and had my LAN parties that, deep down inside, all my PC friends might have been conceited jerks that somehow measure their self-worth by a bunch of esoteric computing numbers/figures that somehow make them superior to people that own consoles. Well, you guys can feel superior all you want: whatever floats your boat... there are people with worse self-esteem crutches than having a fast computer.... but I'm pretty damn happy having only spent $400 the last 6+ years on console hardware and probably $12-15 average per game... so lets say $2,000 the last 6 years for my main hobby... so lets guesstimate $330 a year.... so that's under $30 a month for a hobby that I spend a LOT of time on (what can I say, I've got more free time than the average bear.) There are always PC people that state how cheap PCs are and how consoles are somehow more expensive.... but anecdotally everyone I've known that was way-into PCs has spent a HUGE amount more than I have. I went console to cut costs.... I guess if I somehow needed a PC that could run the Matrix (the actual one... not the movie) I'd go buy one... but since I've averaged a dollar a day over the last 6 years gaming I think I'll stick with that.... regardless of how "inferior" that makes me to the surprisingly defensive PC crowd.
CaptWaffle's comments