But one thing is clear here: Microsoft pulled a genius move by making Sony seem like the bad guy here, since it made people forget that they made the same thing for more than 14 years

This has been a delightful exchange. Not being sarcastic.

“Well, Minecraft is owned by Microsoft and a Universal Windows Application. So sharing progress etc. between Xbox and PC makes sense. I doubt you will be able to share progress between all the other devices though.”

“Don’t expect Sony or Nintendo to ever use that”

Minecraft is cross-platform on Windows 10, Xbox One, VR, IOS, Android and last, but not least, -the Nintendo Switch.

PC players will only have the advantage of higher framerates if they have the hardware for it. The average PC used for gaming last year were made of two…

“I don’t think a developer could just enable social features – all three platform makers would have to create APIs for eachother and enable their platforms to communicate with eachother.”

What kind of social features are you talking about when you say that?

A friend list in the game?
Sure, it’s not just pushing a…

Your example of the handhelds is interesting for several reasons.

 Firstly, the handhelds have not generally been considered part of the console generations, so their leaps or incremental upgrades haven’t been a part of the discussion when we have talked about console generations.

So by that logic, those handheld you…

It’s not pointless. Regardless of you not being able to form a cross-network group, the player pool when you play online is still significantly expanded, allowing you to find matches quicker.

Sure, adding friends to a group cross network and then do matchmaking would be extra sweet, but as long as Sony says no, then…

“It’s the same game with a higher resolution, your logic is like saying that moving the resolution slider on PC is the equivalent of going from Atari2600 to PS4, it totally ignores everything else that is going on.”

This is a gross misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what I said.

But, funnily enough, your example,…

“ A leap is when the games cannot be achieved on the previous generation (the pro and bonex are just the same games with higher pixel count)“

Xbox One games with higher pixwe count is LITERALLY something that can’t beachieved on the previous ‘generation’. The software for different versions are on a singe disc, like on…

How do you personally define a leap, why should others agree with you, and do you disagree with the article title?

What a silly thing to say. Xbox One can’t run the 4k-versions of games that the X does. Just like the 360 couldn’t run the One-version of Cod, even though its the same game with fancier graphics

By that logic, Xbox one isn’t a differentgeneration than 360, since it plays 360games. Way flawed argument.

Ah, so completely arbitrary, then. Gotcha.

Massive graphical downgrade is subjective. If you have invented exactly where you personally put that line.

The next Forza will run in 4k, something that won’t happen on Xbox One, but that’s not enough for you because all they did was add pixels?

Ok, cool. Can you tell me about pro’s and cons of VR skyrim in third person? Do you see the character wawing their arms like you do? How does it work, and what did you experience?

Why not? It’s as great of a leap in hardware capabilities.
Are you saying that only consoles that make your previous games obsolete deserve the “generation” mantle? For arbitrary reasons?

To be fair, the post apocalyptic ones looked pretty spectacular.

Are you serious with your comment?

Nintendo weren’t the only one. Avatars on 360 showed up in games, too.

Nice, I’d love to hear about the difference, if any!

That’s a cool experience to hear about. I haven’t thought much about the perceived size of things in VR but particularly if you’re going for something that feels “real”, then I understand it can be a pretty big deal getting the size ratio in relation to the viewport right.