"Today, PlayStation revealed that its PS5 has sold 40 million units. Microsoft doesn’t share hardware numbers typically, but court documents, math, and slides from an ID@Xbox in Brazil seem to suggest the Xbox Series X|S line-up is around 20-23 million units sold globally. That essentially puts the PS5 at a 2:1 advantage against Xbox, but perhaps the split is even worse than that beneath the surface. "

  • upstream@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can’t compete… because Sony is paying publishers to make games exclusive for the PS5.

    As a PC gamer at heart exclusives suck.

    Over the years I almost bought a console on a few occasions due to exclusives, or games shipping first on console.

    Red Dead Redemption and GTA IV, then GTA V.

    By the time RDR2 came out I had bought an Xbox One S - because it was the cheapest 4K BD player on the market.

    Oh, the irony. Still haven’t bought a 4K BD. Prices were ridiculous. Probably still are. Found that 4K streaming titles on Apple TV were so good I didn’t need better than that.

    But since stumbling into the One S led me to buy RDR2 on release day.

    Halfway through I upgraded to the One X, and when Series X came out I had it less than a month later after putting in a pre-order about a month before release.

    A colleague who pre-ordered PS5 six months before I even thought about the Series X had to wait 7 months from release for his.

    • TwilightVulpine@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree that exclusives suck, but acquisitions are worse in every way. At least with a deal you can hope that eventually the game will be out for everything, or the next one will. Now if anyone hopes to get a Bethesda game on other consoles again, they are out of luck.

      But also, if first-party XBox games were more appealing they wouldn’t be in this situation. Sony can’t lock Nintendo out of the market because people want Mario and Zelda anyway.

      • upstream@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Nintendo does their own thing, “always”* has, and is hardly relevant in this discussion.

        What astonishes me is that paying for exclusivity in what is, in practice, a two player market isn’t considered anti-trust.

        And yes, with “paying for exclusivity” I do mean both Sony’s approach and Microsoft’s acquisition-based approach.

        * : Eg. everyone who was a Nintendo switch also has something else, unless they’re < 12 years old.