I am banking on the Xbox One, because it looks to me the much better console - and based on your preferences, I think it’s the right choice for you, too.
This is not the super-fashionable position right now, and that is mostly down to Microsoft’s poor communication about their choices. Everyone is freaking out about the change to DRM, but it actually makes the Xbox One the more attractive console for gamers, if you’re thinking about it rationally - MS basically aping the Steam model of digital distribution, and this is a repeat of 2004, which began with “Steam is the worst thing ever and locks down my PC; Valve can go eat a bag of dicks for RUINING GAMING.” Fast forward to today and we’re all “Steam is the best thing, I couldn’t be without it now.”
One big reason is the way it reduces the cost of buying games, by cutting out all the overhead that’s built into the retail price - from manufacturing, transport, storefront rental, inflation to ensure developers get workable compensation when taking into account the resale of physical media, etc. This gives a lower overall price and makes things like awesome Steam sales possible.
Sony scored a lot of internet points for their smug answer to how simple it will be to share a PS4 game - “Here you go…” hand over physical disc. But the fact is, there is much less benefit there for the actual gamer than you will have with sharing games on Xbox One. First, the “the disc is the game” approach is damned inconvenient and belongs in the 20th century. Why worry about the disc getting damaged or coming back at all? Hell, I’ve been burned with discs without them even leaving the house - I have kids.
With the Xbox One’s scheme, many more of your friends can easily have the benefit of your games, and vice versa, easily. First, anywhere you go - your games are available if you log in. And sharing? IT is amazing for sharing. Here it is, spelled out. That is much easier and provides more benefit to gamers than just 1 disc = 1 game.
So for me, I am not freaked out by the DRM, because it’s actually a good deal for gamers. Gamestop/EB is really, really not, and it’s ridiculous that there is so much handwringing about it.
Likewise, there has been a lot of grumbling about the assumption that all Xbox One users have access to broadband internet, but this is also a good thing, with benefits to the consumer. Many people are pissed off that MS is leaving people without always-on internet in the cold, and this is partly because they think the choice is strictly about DRM - and I would tend to agree that it would be a poor choice if its only aim was to facilitate DRM, but that’s not the reason that MS opted not to make a lowest-common denominator console - it allows developers to leverage the datacenters MS has provisioned to augment the Xbox One’s computational powers - so while the other consoles will be strictly limited by 2013 hardware for their lifetimes, Xbox One developers can offload anything that can tolerate a ~100ms delay to the cloud servers. This means better graphics, and larger, more complex, and more populated gaming environments than are possible on the PS4.
People are very focused on the potential inconvenience of having Xbox One depend on a broadband connection, without much regard for how much better starting from the assumption that it’s there will make gaming. You need to weigh that against any expected inconvenience during periods without a connection. For me, the amount of time I’ve spent without a working broadband connection in my livingroom over the last fifteen-year period is negligible, and I’m not about to deny myself something awesome because it won’t work if I lose my internet.
Finally, the Kinect2 for the win. Again, there has been a lot of push-back against the decision to build it in to the console, because many people think they don’t want the Kinect and would prefer it to be an option. But, again, MS made the best decision for gamers, here - because if you start from the assumption that all Xbox One owners have the Kinect, then developers can actually make good use of it. The current Kinect is neat and has potential, but it is far from perfect, and so far “games for Kinect” exist in a sort of ghetto of Kinect games. When every console has one, developers of mainstream games can exploit it - apart from the non-gaming aspects, the best use of Kinect assumes both hands are on the controller. There are millions of gamers who have a reflexive disdain for the Kinect because they think that motion controls are a gimmick for kids, girls, and old people - but when you can (for example) play a FPS shooter with all the traditional gamepad controls and strafe by leaning side-to-side, switch weapons instantly with voice instead of trying to awkwardly cycle through your options in the middle of a firefight, lob grenades with a quick gesture, direct AI teammates by voice, etc… these people are going to be happy they have Kinect, after all. Kinect integration with regular-controller games is built into main of the launch titles already, and this is being totally soft-balled. The new Kinect is leaps and bounds ahead of the current incarnation - I have been hot for it ever since the first tech demos started coming out.
This thing is going to be awesome, and in spite of all the negativity surrounding initial reactions to the these features, there is no doubt in my mind that it is going to be quickly forgotten once people get a load of what it actually brings to the gamer.
