• mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    14 hours ago

    That is a tricky question to answer, because the PlayStation and the Switch serve fundamentally different use cases, and there’s only a small amount of crossover between the two game libraries. If you want to play Nintendo games, you’ll get a Switch. If you don’t care about Nintendo games, you’ll get a PlayStation. They’re only superficially competing, and many console gamers will end up owning both.

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      13 hours ago

      There was still back and forth between PlayStation and Xbox. For the PS3, Sony went bonkers on architecture, and as a result Xbox won a lot of players. With the Xbox One, they made stupid plays on TV access and always-online, and Sony succeeded against their foot-shooting. Then, with the Series S|X, Xbox still lost but won back some consumers by introducing service-based game rental, which Sony followed suit on later.

      The two have bettered each other by serving as competition to capitalize on the other’s anti-consumer actions, and by at least competing on pricing and ideas. Imagine if people called out the Xbox One’s always online, but PlayStation didn’t exist.

      “lol, too bad gamers”