The Big Question: Who 'Won'?

Yes, it's a stupid question. Yes it probably has no consequences with regards to anything -- sales, end quality, whatever -- but there is a certain pleasure in debating who 'won' E3. Now that Sony and Microsoft had their conferences, and Nintendo did its thing with Nintendo Direct, maybe it's time to ask the big question: who 'won'?

I obviously have my own pointless opinions on who has performed best so far, but I'll leave it for you folks to discuss in the comments. AND VOTE!

Who 'Won' E3 (Whatever That Means!)


Comments

    I chose with my heart and went with Nintendo.

    Nintendo will always be a winner to me <3

    I think SONY did a great job this year. thoroughl;y enjoyed the presentation. I think it is also fair to say that the console is sexier than the XBONE. I also have heard that the XBONE design is a copy of the PS4 not the other way around

      I like the PS4 rhombus, but I think i am showing my age when i worry about cleaning all the dust out of those crevices.

      Last edited 12/06/13 12:01 pm

        Gah, I wish people would stop calling it a rhombus. It's an oblique square prism - a stunted cube that has been skewed such two of the shorter sides become parallelograms. Or a more general term would be parallelepiped. There is no rhombus on it anywhere...
        /pedantic-rant

        That aside, I completely agree. My 360 is getting noisier and noisier thanks to the dust that keeps drifting in through the vents, and there's not really much I can do about it.

          You are technically correct - the best kind of correct

      Aww come on, how can "X-BONE" not be sexy - it's a phallic allusion right there in the name!

    I think Sony won with the (US) price, features and games.

    But Nintendo did alright, nothing amazing, but still nice.

      Sort of a quiet... nerdy thing. Not my usual, but nice.

    On the head to head between Sony and MS, I think Sony pretty clearly won E3. Maybe not on games, but the public relations war is pretty much over at this point.

    Comparing Sony to Nintendo is a bit harder because Nintendo didn't release hardware this year. Without drawing any comparisons, I think this was a massive failure for the Wii U. For months, fanboys have been telling me that Nintendo was going to finally announce some games. They did announce a handful of good titles, but not nearly enough to make me want to pay full price the console. In fact, I think we have to accept that there won't be a lot on offer (if they ever is) until 2015.

    Last edited 12/06/13 11:28 am

      Have to agree with this. I so want to buy a wiiu but Nintendo just ain't giving me a reason to. Might buy a PS 4 depending on whether the bluray is region locked.

        PS4 itself is region free.

        http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/11/4417948/ps4-region-free-report

          Yeah I'm aware but I don't think it's known yet whether or not it is region free for blurays. If it's like the ps3 then I assume not which means I'll have to grab a local ps4

            I thought Bluray players were always region free? *shrug* No idea. Be stupid if its not honestly.

              Not sure about BD on PS3 but the DVD player is.. found that out when I tried to watch my Garth Marenghi DVD :'(

              Local stand-alone Blu Ray players will most likely be region free for DVD playback (despite stating Region 4 on the packaging), but will be locked to Region B for Blu Ray playback. Therefore they will only play Region Free or Region B (Aus & UK) discs. It is possible to find stand-alone Blu Ray players that can be modded with firmware to make them region free for Blu Ray.

              Note though that a large proportion of Blu Ray discs are region free, but certainly research if you are planning on buying any discs from the USA. Also note that the PS3 (and most likely PS4) is actually locked to Region 4 for DVD playback as well as Region B for Blu Ray.

              @velt Most blu-rays are region free but it's at the discretion of the publisher. Check the back of the box for more info. Region B = EU/Aus. Region A = US & Japan. Region C = .... OTHER PLACES!

              I have a US PS3 and it's very rarely caused an issue.

            Bluray is definitely region locked. The regioning is part of the spec. Movie publishers get to decide whether to region their releases or not.

            It seems like basically everything on PS4 is "the way it worked on PS3" and PS3 is region locked for Bluray.

              That's not a deal breaker for me, cant say I import my movies. Games on the otherhand I have in the past. Now we have our R rating though thats changed a bit.

                If you really need or want a different region player it's not that hard to import them. If it's anything like PS3 it'll have a universal power supply, and it's not regioned for games.

                I have a JP PS3 and one of the reasons I got it over an AU one (aside from it being about $200 cheaper at the time, and being a different color) was that it has a Region A (US/Japan) BD player.

            I'd say it's a sure thing that Blu Ray movies WILL be region locked. That's the way things have been ever since consoles started playing movies.

      Im with you, I think the XBONE games outshone sony but the closing theme from Sony really brought it home.

        Better games, maybe BUT most of those good games are on PC and PS4 ie MGS5 and BF4.

      I think Sony even outshone in the games area, why? Because they actually played their games on stage. Footage is one thing but actually being played live is another. When they're doing that, the feeling of disconnect is even less. I didn't see many MS games I cannot confidently say won't make it over to the ps4 eventually, or at least their sequels. Possibly vice versa too, given the cost of games now.

        Well - I tend to agree. The other thing I noted about many of the MS exclusives is that they are being made by absolute bottom the barrel developers. Anyone that thinks Killer Instinct will be any good should look at the wiki page for the developer. They are basically a movie game studio.

          Feeling so conflicted. Double Helix... ugh. They came from SHINY who made Earthworm Jim and MDK.

          But those days are long behind them. They also turned out ENTER THE MATRIX. One of the *worst* *games* *ever*. I'll pass on this, for sure. Esp since its a f2p fighting game where you buy the fighters.

            I have to admit, the whole paying for individual fighters actually makes a lot of sense to me, BUT I can only see it working if you can trial each fighter for a couple of days.

              Exactly, that's how I'd see it too. Despite what I said up there Im not entirely against the premise, just how it seems set out. Though, fair enough it might not be fully said here. It's technically no worse than downloading new characters for say Injustice, and I've gotten 3 so far. If you had special moves locked. You could get the fighter, with maybe one special move available and all others locked. Endings were locked etc and could only use them in vs mode. Really restrict it and yes, definitely time lock it. You have to be able to 'try before you buy'.

              Last edited 12/06/13 2:45 pm

    Nintendo played it safe but still had some quality stuff to show.
    Microsoft had some good games but earned some bad favour by ignoring the DRM elephant in the room.
    Sony beat the crap out of Microsoft with a lead pipe.

      I think you have summed it up perfectly lol.

    I've always backed Sony, but I was a little disappointed to hear they're shifting online multiplayer to PS+ (I'm saying this even though I have a PS+ subscription already). That being said, I was sold when they clarified their position on DRM and used games.

      I've always argued in favour of paid multplayer gaming services like XBL because I feel like if it's a source of revenue, the company will give it more attention. Offering free multiplayer is a drain on Sony so they're going to minimise their investment. This was a mistake they let go on for too long.

      PS+ is still less than XBL Gold, and if it means a better service then they should go for it.

        Hey does anyone remember there was a point in time where Sony specifically said on record "We will never charge for PSN"? It was an article about it on Kotaku as well. probably a year ago?
        Someone from Kotaku should dig that up and ask them to explain themselves.

          Eh, I do recall them saying that but it was probably with respect to the PS3 only. I recall at the time arguing that they could introduce paid online play with a f2p component (I.e.: up to level 50 in COD but only pain members can prestige, etc.) without breaking their "rule".

          I don't think any comments made can be treated as a hedge against ever paying for online on any console ever. At worst, it's an easily dismissed promise

    My vote is on Sony, and for the first time since PlayStation 1, I want to buy a console. But only for FF15. However I'm pretty sure PC will start seeing some ports because, you know, the magical technology called Direct X 11 allows them to easily implement their games on different hardware *rollseyes*

    However Nintendo get second place simply because I like Super Smash and Pokemon X / Y, both for me 3ds.

    Also I'm making a whole new convention full of PC exclusives, PC is missing the love.

    I don't understand why this is even a poll. The Socceroos won 4-0.

      GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL GOAL GOAL GOAL GOAL GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLALALALALALALALALALALALALAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLL!!!!

      One game to go!

      Still shaking my head actually at that handball in the box in the final minutes against Japan. If we'd held on to win that game we'd have already qualified after last night's result. Still, we're in a good position now, so we need to beat Iraq next week to ensure our place.

    Suprisingly Sony. The nintendo line up made me cry with frustration. The microsoft reveal made me laugh at their arrogance. Best E3 in years.

    Why is there no "I'm a fence sitting dude from the Neutral Planet" option? I'm inclined to say that I want both the PS4 and the Xbox One now. Both have their pros/cons.

    Perhaps Sony is a bit ahead, but Quantum Break on the Xbox (which I believe is an exclusive)... that looks deliciously awesome.

      Totally agree, both have pros and cons, I thought Titanfall was the best game at E3 which unfortunately is also only on Xbox One.

    The thing is i don't really want a PS4 yet, There aren't any games that interest me enough to go out and pre order one for launch, the games that do interest me are coming to either PC (Watch Dogs) or the PS3 itself (GTA V).

    I have never owned a Xbox 360 so i doubt if i will buy an Xbox One.

    I'm surprised this question is even being asked. From the big three, Microsoft showed two interesting games (MGSV and Titanfall), neither of which were exclusives. Spark looked interesting, but not my type of game. Sony showed an interesting game, then another, then another, and another, and another... you get the idea. Nintendo were off in their own little world, as usual (disclaimer: I am clearly not in their target demographic, and haven't been since the Gameboy Advance SP came out; Nintendo fans probably see something I don't).
    I hate that Sony's now moving multiplayer to PS+, and I still think the controller is weird and unergonomic, but they stole the show. Without question.

      You forgot Quantum Break, Dead Rising 3, and Forza 5.

      Maybe those games were not interesting to you, but they were shown, and they're exclusives. It's also worth noting that most of the PS4 games shown weren't exclusives either - Destiny was probably the anchor of their show (apart from the no DRM/no online checking/lower price point bombshells) and that's going to be on everything. Even Kingdom Hearts 3 is going multiplatform. What Sony mainly has right now is exclusive DLC/content packs (like the "Road Warrior" pack for Mad Max, whatever that entails).

      While I agree Sony stole the show, let's not completely undersell what Microsoft put forth.

        Dead Rising 3 looks nothing like the previous games - it's got the colour palette of a Gears game, and seems to have lost its sense of humour. Quantum Break looks like an interesting premise, but it just sounds like a game with both CGI and live-action cutscenes, except the live-action cutscenes are longer than normal. And Forza 5... I'll admit that I'm not a fan of Forza, and I'm sceptical of graphics showcases that use racing games because they're (for the most part) static objects. The car damage effects were rather underwhelming - they looked like they'd been pelted with golfballs, or something. Although the tracks did look interesting, aesthetically at least.
        And I love Halo's campaign and lore; I'm a gamer because of Halo CE. But that Halo trailer made no sense. Why was Master Chief wearing a cloak over his armour? He's jumped from orbit in that thing more than once, but he's afraid of a little sand?
        As for Sony's exclusives, they were rather vague about it, but Killzone, Infamous, and maybe FF-XV will be. That, and the general reactions from the developers (the ease of porting, the indie support). And I was talking more about "things displayed that would entice me to buy their console". None of the games shown by Microsoft apart from MGSV and Titanfall looked interesting to me. Every title showed by Sony, with the exception of NBA, TES:Online, and FF:XIV, looked interesting to me. On a pure "who showed what, and what was interesting", Sony wins hands down. On a "who has the better exclusives", I'm still siding more towards Sony than Microsoft.

        I know I'm being subjective. It's difficult to be objective about this, as a long-time Xbox user myself. It's also difficult to be objective when it seemed like every presenter at the MS conference either looked smug or sullen, while most presenters at Sony's looked excited.

    I'm not sure who won, as Sony and Nintendo were both playing similar but different games (Rugby League vs Rugby Union) but I know who lost.

    Sony definitely scored a lot of points by appealing directly to the concerns that gamers had in their minds after the XBOne reveal. It's interesting to see the big brouhaha about PS+ being required for online multiplayer. Sure, it was sneaky to mix it in with all the "We're not going down MS' path" stuff to take attention away from it, but the choice is a reasonable one given the current climate in the games industry with regards to used games.

    From what I've read, online passes are no longer allowed with PS4 games due to the PS+ subscription requirement. This basically ensures that gamers are getting a fair shake by not being charged by every company for every game to play multiplayer. It also means that you can trade freely without needing to worry about re-purchasing passes and activating games. It may seem like you're suddenly losing something up front, but the long term benefits are worth it given how the industry was starting to change.

    Last edited 12/06/13 12:32 pm

    I reckon Sony "won" but I've been happy with Xbox Live, the overall Xbox experience, and prefer the controller layout. I prefer the exclusives available to Xbone over PS4 even if I think Halo has lost what once made it so great. The $100 USD/$50 AUD price difference is negated by the inclusion of the Kinect sensor - whether having to use Kinect is a good thing is still an open issue, but it doesn't bother me.

    Sony's "no DRM" promise is not exactly as clean as they'd have you believe since publishers can still decide if they want their games to be able to be traded or not, but in any case I generally only buy my games new so the loss of ability to buy pre-owned doesn't affect me.

    So, while Sony put up a really good show and won a lot of points, I'll stick with Xbone as my lead console. It's just the choice I am more comfortable making.

      Sony's "no DRM" promise is not exactly as clean as they'd have you believe since publishers can still decide if they want their games to be able to be traded or notThey aren't doing anything different to what is currently being done. They were referring to the fact that they aren't doing anything extra like Microsoft.

        I acknowledge that, the Xbone is going above and beyond to screw people who want to buy and play pre-owned games. While I agree this is a dick move, I'm just saying that the PS4 isn't going to be a libertine wonderland of DRM-free content.

      I will grant you that the xbox one controller is a thing of beauty.

      but sadly if I go with a console next gen it'll be a PS4 despite me only having owned xboxes up to this point.

        I had a PS2, then an Xbox, then a 360, then a PS3. I felt the Xbox experience was superior to the PS2 so it became my main console and that stayed true when I got my 360. I picked up a PS3 mainly to play exclusives and imports before I realised I could import UK region 360 games, and my PS3 has mostly gathered dust since I finished with Heavy Rain, apart from the occasional Blu-Ray movie. Since the Xbone has a blu-ray drive now, I guess that it will serve all my purposes.

        I'm not anti-PS4, and I'll get one for exclusives in a few years when it's really cheap, but I don't game enough anymore to justify more than one console and I want to continue with the experience that I feel has served me the most consistently well over the last decade.

    1'st Sony. They Earned it
    2'nd Nintendo
    3'rd Microsoft

    Microsoft have fucked up, sony did alright, although they did great in comparison, nintendo, well they just went about being nintendo and announced the same things they've already released (not that that's too big of a problem).

    I was just really disappointed with the xbone, the console itself doesn't offer me anything the PS4 couldn't give me just as well if not better (and cheaper), but even then the xbone only has a couple of exclusives and they aren't that amazing in the first place (only one that interested me really was halo and I kinda stopped playing them after reach so it's not too big of a loss). it's almost like they bought in to the bullshit people spew everywhere on the internet "a console is only as good as it's exclusives" and are trying to rely solely on that information, despite their exclusives still not being that great.

    what really grabbed me about PS4 however was the attitude, they knew people didn't what the bullshit microsoft was selling so they didn't do it, and people responded, they knew people wanted great games so they presented great games and for the most part didn't try to make them seem like exclusives when they weren't. they just got a whole bunch of great reveals that could be played on their console, they even included octodad in their montage. all in all they just presented like someone who knew what they were doing, and who made consoles from a gamers perspective and not just a corporate money tree perspective.

    and on the whole PS+ thing, I think people need to look at why they made that change, it's hard to provide a service for free even if it is just facilitating multiplayer, last i heard they were actively losing money because they weren't charging for the service (although it was no doubt offset by other incomes mind you), but by rolling it in with an already cheap service (cheaper in comparison to xbox live) they are essentially giving you the PS+ service as a bonus.

    at the end of the day Sony proved who's more interested in making a console that people want, microsoft proved they are gonna try and cruise by on exclusive titles alone, and nintendo proved what we already knew, that nintendo love innovation as long as they don't have to leave their IP.

    what really grabbed me about PS4 however was the attitude, they knew people didn't what the bullshit microsoft was selling so they didn't do it, and people responded, they knew people wanted great games so they presented great games and for the most part didn't try to make them seem like exclusives when they weren't. they just got a whole bunch of great reveals that could be played on their console, they even included octodad in their montage. all in all they just presented like someone who knew what they were doing, and who made consoles from a gamers perspective and not just a corporate money tree perspective.

    The Sony presentation was more relaxed and reacted more to the audience. This was lacking in the MS presentation. I also felt that Sony presenters talked more about the games themselves rather than the technological buzzwords behind it. I think it gave the presentation more heart.

    MS had (IMO) the better games and showed more live demos. But robots for presenters who didn't dare to go off script. They needed presenters who talked about the games in their own words and could vamp when things went wrong.

    Nintendo had a game where Mario can turn into a cat. BOMB DROPPED!

      SHUT UP AND TAKE MY CHEEZBURGERZ!

      Last edited 12/06/13 2:01 pm

      This might ruin the game for you. Beware before clicking.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z7QeWLlgAU

      If it's not Nyancat, I don't want to hear it.

Join the discussion!