Consoles and online play are not the same things. Xbox Live has more subscribers than Playstation Plus even though PS4 has outsold the Xbox One. In their fiscal year findings for 2016, Sony had 20.8 million Playstation Plus subscribers across all devices (source). Microsoft on the other has had 55 million active users in their fiscal year findings (source), and previous estimates put Xbox Live Gold vs. Silver subscribers at about 50%... meaning that Xbox Live has probably 4-5 million more subscribers than PlayStation Plus.
Only when you take into account the handheld market. When you don't, Nintendo isn't close to either - even with the Switch. The Wii U was a huge failure.
This is a question for a Sony executive or business major, but I explained their rationale to you. Why give your competitor an advantage? Last I checked PlayStation is one of their only brands keeping Sony afloat. Prior to PS4 they were having financial troubles if I recall. A perfect example is their deal with Marvel/Disney for Spider-Man. If they weren't hurting at the time, I don't think they would have agreed to that.
Hyperbole much? There are great non-FPS games on both consoles... and Xbox has an amazing array of independent games that are worth the price of admission alone thanks to their ID @ Xbox initiative.
This is semantics dude. I was referring to console market share in both, despite verbiage possibly seeming to imply I was referring to online subscribers.
It isn't semantics when you are making the case for cross-platform play. The only people who can play online, are those who are subscribed to the premium network on both services - meaning they are the only people that really matter in the argument. Cross platform play is irrelevant to those who don't play online. Gamers that play online, are generally more mature (teenagers and above) who tend to spend more money on games - making them the most profitable demographic. Hardly semantics.
The fact remains that Xbox only tries to be a vehicle for high level gaming and if counterstrike and the horde of other 3rd party titles that people play a lot didn't exist Xbox would get massacred. Xbox live is the best online gaming experience and the Xbox is the most powerful system. Beyond that, I don't really know what it has going for it.
The best racing game in Forza, the most popular first-party shooter in Halo, Gears of War, fantastic indie games, superior media consumption capabilities, TV integration, superior development platform, backwards compatibility, EA Access, Xbox Game Pass, Games with Gold, Xbox Games Anywhere, the best controller, voice controls, etc.. The market is beyond you, you realize that right? The only PS game I would buy the console for is The Last of Us... does that mean that their console exclusives aren't good? No, it means that they just aren't important to me. You stated that PlayStation has no reason to allow cross-platform play with Xbox because it is the most popular console. I pointed out how that was a flawed argument as Microsoft leads PlayStation in online subscribers, because network subscribers is exactly where cross platform comes into play. You can choose to ignore that fact all you want. Cross-platform online play would help both sides, as it would lead gamers on both platforms to buy more games.
I never once stated that PSN has more subscribers than XBL. If I did, please by all means, quote it. As for your assertion that subscribers are the only factor in cross-platform play -- that's really ignorant. Both console makers are just as concerned with amount of consoles sold, and it's certainly a factor in their decision to not allow/disallow cross-platform. You missed the point as usual because (as is your standard behavior) you are too concerned about the points you're making and no one else's. As for cross-platform "helping everyone", while I as a consumer agree it would be nice. Sony, who is a business with a purpose of making money, clearly disagree with your opinion. Otherwise they would be doing it. Last post from me on the subject.
I really can't speak to which one first-person shooter is the best. But Microsoft even a couple of days ago conceeded that they lacked exclusives. Also, most competitive gaming is done with pcs, league of legends, dota 2, overwatch, street fighter, cod, battlefield, etc. I just think that why would anybody want to buy Xbox just to play halo. In fact, you can get forza on your pc now. It doesn't make sense, they are never going to beat out a pc for true gaming, and so what they are banking on the fact that you can't get Madden on a pc. Lol Xbox live is the one thing they have going for them.
I have both Xbox and PS4. Xbox exclusives just arent that good anymore. I play my xbox more but I like the PS4 exclusives better.
Halo and Gears are the games I see quoted the most. When was the last Halo game? Gears? Did I just miss them?
Halo 5 which came out a couple years ago, the campaign is okay, but the multiplayer is in my opinion the best in the series since the first Halo. Gears of War 4 came out last year, and is quite good as well. Gorgeous graphically. Gears 4 is confirmed to be getting a 4K patch for Xbox One X. 343 is currently in evaluation mode, I would wager that Halo 5 will likely get one as well.
How is me providing facts, my "opinion?" Cross platform play is only relevant to online players, so the number of consoles sold is not the metric you should make the argument for or against - the number of online players is. The basis of Marketing 101 is knowing your key demographic. The argument is, as the Xbox and PlayStation both have similar numbers in online players, it would be mutually beneficial for them to offer cross-platform online play. This isn't just my opinion, but the opinion of most in the gaming market - and it is definitely the opinion of Microsoft as their "Play Anywhere" games prove. I understood your point exactly, you just didn't like my answer (as usual), and it is easier to write off my response than to defend your position or refute mine. Also, cross-network play would play zero role in exclusive titles and would be for titles only on each system. This doesn't even factor into the benefits when having to code, release, and support only one online architecture for all platforms, which would greatly help developers across the board. The line between PC and console is blurring more every release, and the next generation (or maybe even this one), it will be nearly gone completely. The Xbox One is literally a Windows 10 PC sharing the same kernel as PC. Obviously games like Dota and LoL will be outliers, but for traditional game releases, how you play won't matter - especially with VR. With this generation, you'll see more games being cross-platform online play (with Minecraft and Xbox Play Anywhere leading the way). I can envision future Microsoft Studios releases following suite this generation (Halo, Gears of War, etc.), and then big partners like Titanfall close behind. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen. In future generations, most of the gameplay will eventually move to the cloud, and the set top box, PC or console, will simply be a beefy terminal. Microsoft has stated that they are indeed lacking mega-console exclusives, but they'd rather invest in the independent market than pay for console exclusives. The head of Xbox has even said that console exclusives are a detriment to innovation, and he isn't wrong. With that said, Microsoft also has a vastly different stance on exclusives, as it is heavily invested in two gaming markets with PC and Xbox. Sony has a completely different business model for exclusives in that regard. Microsoft wants PC games on Xbox, and vice-versa.
