| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am currently confused. The whole point of the Kinect (which I bet will throw up an error screen if anything blocks it's camera that stops play) is to make the console more readily available to the casual gamer market, and it's meant to be easy to use for home entertainment, and thus expand it's market beyond hard core gamers.
But it's also insisting on forcing these online checks. Do they last a minute? Ten minutes? Do we know? Remember, about 65% of Americans apparently don't have broadband at the moment, even though 93% have access to - are Microsoft assuming there exclusives (pretty much the only reason to buy this instead of a PS4) are enough to make those people upgrade to broadband, or are they content to loose 35% of Americans who don't have access to, can afford or want broadband currently?
We've been over this.
Among active internet users (which is a broad enough classification that it's really difficult to imagine the sort of person who wouldn't qualify but is still considering a next-generation console), broadband adoption is above 93%. It is probably safe to say that the majority of the remaining 7% are the sort of people who are not even a little interested in the Xbox One. At most, Microsoft is looking at making it impossible for 2 or 3% of their potential market to buy in.
It's easy to say "Oh my gosh, they're losing 35% of their customers," until you realize that the vast majority of that 35% have zero interest in video games.
I have constant internet access and I'm not getting an Xbox 1. For two reasons.
Always Online. I don't care if it's once per day or once per decade. This <poop> has to stop. The only reason they are doing this is to cut down on pirates (who will just hack the xbone anyways) and it makes the experience of a legitimate customer worse. Every consumer draws the line somewhere. Here is mine.
Always connected camera. This isn't too bad until you read the fine print where MS can record and sell that data. And not just MS. Any game on the xbone can do that and record the data for their own company (EA)! Now using this observational data for research purposes is illegal. But federal oversight is lacking in big corporation marketing departments. Even though it is illegal the laws will be hard to enforce. BUT that doesn't mean they can't legally acquire and store that data. This is built-in spyware for your home.
Sony will "win" this console war by virtue of not doing anything stupid (for now).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Always Online. I don't care if it's once per day or once per decade. This <poop> has to stop. The only reason they are doing this is to cut down on pirates (who will just hack the xbone anyways) and it makes the experience of a legitimate customer worse. Every consumer draws the line somewhere. Here is mine.
If you already have an always-on connection, in what possible way does a console that uses that always-on connection make the experience worse for you?
And, again, "Pirates will ignore the DRM protection anyway, so why bother with DRM?" is about as compelling an argument as, "Criminals will ignore gun control laws anyway, so why bother with gun control laws?"
Always connected camera. This isn't too bad until you read the fine print where MS can record and sell that data. And not just MS. Any game on the xbone can do that and record the data for their own company (EA)! Now using this observational data for research purposes is illegal. But federal oversight is lacking in big corporation marketing departments. Even though it is illegal the laws will be hard to enforce. BUT that doesn't mean they can't legally acquire and store that data. This is built-in spyware for your home.
I can see this being a concern for some people concerned about privacy. I am not one of those people, however. I already use dozens of online services that monetize the act of cataloging information about me. This is just one more.
Always Online. I don't care if it's once per day or once per decade. This <poop> has to stop. The only reason they are doing this is to cut down on pirates (who will just hack the xbone anyways) and it makes the experience of a legitimate customer worse. Every consumer draws the line somewhere. Here is mine.If you already have an always-on connection, in what possible way does a console that uses that always-on connection make the experience worse for you?
And, again, "Pirates will ignore the DRM protection anyway, so why bother with DRM?" is about as compelling an argument as, "Criminals will ignore gun control laws anyway, so why bother with gun control laws?"
DRM doesn't have to be invasive or hurt the legal user. Look to Steam. That is one huge DRM program for your computer and yet no one complains about it because the DRM is more convenient than driving to a store. (Steam games can only be on so many computers before they uninstall the oldest installation for your account). Things don't need to be "always online" to protect copy rights.
Does what Steam did stop pirates? No not all. But Steam doesn't hurt the legal user. There's no used games on Steam either (They just have massive 75% sales on old games).
Requiring "always online" for offline games is something I WILL NOT SUPPORT. This "feature" does not benefit me in anyway.
If it's not benefiting the experience of a legal consumer, it is hurting it.
Always connected camera. This isn't too bad until you read the fine print where MS can record and sell that data. And not just MS. Any game on the xbone can do that and record the data for their own company (EA)! Now using this observational data for research purposes is illegal. But federal oversight is lacking in big corporation marketing departments. Even though it is illegal the laws will be hard to enforce. BUT that doesn't mean they can't legally acquire and store that data. This is built-in spyware for your home.I can see this being a concern for some people concerned about privacy. I am not one of those people, however. I already use dozens of online services that monetize the act of cataloging information about me. This is just one more.
And what about other people in your house who may value their privacy? Your purchase does not affect only you.
And what about other people in your house who may value their privacy? Your purchase does not affect only you.Always connected camera. This isn't too bad until you read the fine print where MS can record and sell that data. And not just MS. Any game on the xbone can do that and record the data for their own company (EA)! Now using this observational data for research purposes is illegal. But federal oversight is lacking in big corporation marketing departments. Even though it is illegal the laws will be hard to enforce. BUT that doesn't mean they can't legally acquire and store that data. This is built-in spyware for your home.I can see this being a concern for some people concerned about privacy. I am not one of those people, however. I already use dozens of online services that monetize the act of cataloging information about me. This is just one more.
I'll be sure to greet them at the door with a disclaimer along the lines of, "Anything you do or say in here is recorded by Microsoft, and is being actively combed-through by a creepy, middle-aged dude intent on using images of you cuddling with your girlfriend on my couch to find you and do terrible things to you."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be sure to greet them at the door with a disclaimer along the lines of, "Anything you do or say in here is recorded by Microsoft, and is being actively combed-through by a creepy, middle-aged dude intent on using images of you cuddling with your girlfriend on my couch to find you and do terrible things to you."And what about other people in your house who may value their privacy? Your purchase does not affect only you.Always connected camera. This isn't too bad until you read the fine print where MS can record and sell that data. And not just MS. Any game on the xbone can do that and record the data for their own company (EA)! Now using this observational data for research purposes is illegal. But federal oversight is lacking in big corporation marketing departments. Even though it is illegal the laws will be hard to enforce. BUT that doesn't mean they can't legally acquire and store that data. This is built-in spyware for your home.I can see this being a concern for some people concerned about privacy. I am not one of those people, however. I already use dozens of online services that monetize the act of cataloging information about me. This is just one more.
And you don't see how that is a turn off?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scott, I have seen you use the term "par for the course" a few times in this thread to justify various things. One could say that ability to play offline and the ability to take my copy of Mortal Kombat over to my buddies house so we can play are things that have been "par for the course" for decades. I guess that term only applies when used to your advantage though.
Also I would like for you to fully address the numerous valid and legal points Irontruth has raised on the the right of first sale (other than one sentence saying you "feel" it will be revisited). Although I guess it is most likely that you have avoided the subject because you don't have a valid argument against it.
Personally I don't reward greed, I don't support projects and companies that attempt to squeeze every nickle and dime out of customers rather than rely on the quality of their goods and services to up their market share (unless said company is a necessity, like a utilities company).
I used to love Bioware, and happily bought all of their games, the Baldur's Gate trilogy are some of the greatest pieces of gaming ever created. Unfortunately Bioware (in personnel, business practices, and spirit) is not the same company anymore that made classics like BG2, NWN, and KOTOR.
Thankfully we have wonderful options like GOG and Kickstarter to utilize, personally I am more looking forward to Torment and Project Eternity than I am anything a AAA studio has on the docket.
Finally, the true beauty of capitalism is that these companies excessive greed opens up a spot for a new company and console to come in and offer great features like the ability to play offline and the ability to lend a game to a friend. This is my biggest hope, someone new will come along and offer a gaming console and service based completely on consumer (gamer) satisfaction, and THAT is what will drive it to success, that it treats its customers with respect. The ideal scenario is that it would be so successful that it decimates the competition, causing the large nickle and diming companies to relook at the their business practices.
Although how sad is it when the decades old practices of offline gaming and portability would be touted as "features"...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you don't see how that is a turn off?
That was hyperbole. No one is actively monitoring anything. The fact that you didn't recognize that is concerning.
Do you believe that Kinect feeds will be actively monitored? Or used to stage home invasions?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm in the Air Force, an there is a HUGE amount of individuals in the service who take their consoles with them when they deploy. The MWR usually has dozens of consoles set up for service members to play in their down time as well. Internet access for these places, when it actually exists, is horribly slow and extremely unreliable. I have a feeling that many military members won't bother with the XBOne. And those dozens of consoles in the MWR? They'll all be PS4s and WiiUs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm in the Air Force, an there is a HUGE amount of individuals in the service who take their consoles with them when they deploy. The MWR usually has dozens of consoles set up for service members to play in their down time as well. Internet access for these places, when it actually exists, is horribly slow and extremely unreliable. I have a feeling that many military members won't bother with the XBOne. And those dozens of consoles in the MWR? They'll all be PS4s and WiiUs.
As a former Air Force member who was deployed to Al-Udeid, I can personally attest to the validity of this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway. I also realized one other reason I dislike this stuff so much. 1982 may have passed us by without the eponymous book coming to fruition, but I am a father and gamer and a scifi nerd. I'm not interested in my son having to live in a world similar to the one described in that book or, say, Shadowrun.But... but... but that would be so cool.
Playing them would be cool, I'd entirely agree.
Actually living the life of a runner or other adventurer, always worried about betrayal, corporate espionage, and/or Big Brother catching you doing something deemed "illegal" for no purpose other than to make them money (whether or not magic or fantasy tech like some worlds have exists) or even living as a citizen in conditions described in that world is substantially less so, and would, in fact, suck, whether or not it was "cool". Collateral damage is a thing in those games and fictional works. Not trusting your friends and neighbors is a thing in those worlds. These things don't make for a good, fun, happy life. In fact, they suck, massively. Might be fulfilling knocking down bad guys a notch and (directly or not) assisting the oppressed, but I prefer them to find fulfillment in times of prosperity for many and relative safety and freedom. :)
I'd rather my descendants keep playing cool adventure games than actually living them. :)
EDITS 1&2: Hmp. Well played, iPad/autocorrect. Well played.
And you don't see how that is a turn off?That was hyperbole. No one is actively monitoring anything. The fact that you didn't recognize that is concerning.
Do you believe that Kinect feeds will be actively monitored? Or used to stage home invasions?
Do you believe they couldn't be?
The Xbone is already begging illicit people to crack it deeply and thoroughly. What's to stop them from using that to your disadvantage?Why does the kinect have to be connected?
What purpose does that serve?
This is one of two reasons I won't be getting an Xbone. Until they fix these, they have no chance of my business. Both of these are deal breakers.
The other stuff like used games and being mean to indie devs. I don't really care about, but always online and always watching are WILL NOT BUY conditions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you believe they couldn't be?
There is a massive gulf between "could be" and "will be".
The Xbone is already begging illicit people to crack it deeply and thoroughly. What's to stop them from using that to your disadvantage?
Functionally speaking, the Kinect is just a souped-up webcam. Your home is no more vulnerable to a hacker with a Kinect plugged in than it is with your laptop plugged in.
Why does the kinect have to be connected?
What purpose does that serve?
I can only guess, but it's clear that Microsoft has an idea of what purpose it might serve which is why they are bundling it with the console.
@Scott Betts
I've decided that you are not being legit.
@Scott Betts
I've decided that you are not being legit.
Hahahahahaha
"I've decided that you are not being legit," is now my favorite don't-let-the-door-hit-you insult of all time.
Scott, I will take your lack of a response to my earlier post (considering you responded to posts after mine) as a declaration of concession, and that you possess no counterpoints to argue. Pleasure debating with you. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Always Online. I don't care if it's once per day or once per decade. This <poop> has to stop. The only reason they are doing this is to cut down on pirates (who will just hack the xbone anyways) and it makes the experience of a legitimate customer worse. Every consumer draws the line somewhere. Here is mine.If you already have an always-on connection, in what possible way does a console that uses that always-on connection make the experience worse for you?
And, again, "Pirates will ignore the DRM protection anyway, so why bother with DRM?" is about as compelling an argument as, "Criminals will ignore gun control laws anyway, so why bother with gun control laws?"
You really have no clue what is involved in online piracy, do you?
I am currently confused. The whole point of the Kinect (which I bet will throw up an error screen if anything blocks it's camera that stops play) is to make the console more readily available to the casual gamer market, and it's meant to be easy to use for home entertainment, and thus expand it's market beyond hard core gamers.
But it's also insisting on forcing these online checks. Do they last a minute? Ten minutes? Do we know? Remember, about 65% of Americans apparently don't have broadband at the moment, even though 93% have access to - are Microsoft assuming there exclusives (pretty much the only reason to buy this instead of a PS4) are enough to make those people upgrade to broadband, or are they content to loose 35% of Americans who don't have access to, can afford or want broadband currently?
We've been over this.
Among active internet users (which is a broad enough classification that it's really difficult to imagine the sort of person who wouldn't qualify but is still considering a next-generation console), broadband adoption is above 93%. It is probably safe to say that the majority of the remaining 7% are the sort of people who are not even a little interested in the Xbox One. At most, Microsoft is looking at making it impossible for 2 or 3% of their potential market to buy in.
It's easy to say "Oh my gosh, they're losing 35% of their customers," until you realize that the vast majority of that 35% have zero interest in video games.
I thought they were trying to attract new fans, people who weren't necessarily gamers initially. My point (as mentioned in the third, missing, paragraph of the above post) is that it's trying to be a hardcore platform for casual gamers. Which doesn't work.
Let's say you're completely right. That really, only a much smaller market will be affected. The current Xbox has sold 25.4 million units. 7% of that (if my maths are right) is 1.8 million people, rounded up. Now, Microsoft makes about $12 per sale of each new game sold on the Xbox, or so I have been informed. Let's assume each of those people would, otherwise, buy a single game a year.
Microsoft is loosing $21.6 million dollars, instantly. And that's assuming very much a best case scenario - that only the 7% you estimate wouldn't get it and each of them would only buy a single game. For kicks and giggles, let's say they loose 35% at 10 games a year - after all, they're pretty much cutting out all sales from anywhere that's not America, the more modern Europeon countries, Japan and Australia, as Southern America, Africa, etc is not going to have the broadband for this, and then there are the people like me who don't like the second hand policy, and the people who don't want a Kinect, etc.
At those numbers, they loose 8.89 million people and $1066 million in revenue. Which seems to me relatively unpleasant number to loose a year, even for a company as big as Microsoft.
Please, answer me this; what advantage has the Xbox One got over the PS4? Right now, what advantage to sales does the always online, no second hand games, we're watching you through your Kinect so don't say terrorist policy of the Kinect got to the PS4? Because I really, really can't see any. I'm not arguing that the console is evil, that Microsoft hate us (that one is obvious - I've used Windows ME) or anything like that. I'm arguing that this stuff is going to hurt it's sales, badly.
EDIT: Whoops, my mistake - 25.4 millions is just the US. The numbers are 77.2 million world wide. So the numbers at 7%, with one game a year, would be 5.4 million and $64 million a year, or at 35% and ten games a year would be 27.2 million people and 3242.2 million dollars a year.
Which...does not make those numbers any better, really.
Scott, I will take your lack of a response to my earlier post (considering you responded to posts after mine) as a declaration of concession, and that you possess no counterpoints to argue. Pleasure debating with you. ;)
You didn't say much, other than to rail against the man a whole lot.
Which is a sort of silly thing to try and use against me. I am a backer of both Project Eternity and Torment - in fact, I was able to attend the Torment launch party in person. But while I love those projects for what they intend, I also love where companies like Bioware are going. I think the Mass Effect series is incredible (yes, all three games), I think The Old Republic is tremendous. I look forward to whatever they decide to do next.
As for an "opening" in the market, it looks like Ouya is positioned to take advantage of it, with a proximate launch window, public E3 presence, and crowdfunded, little-guy development attitude/perception. It will be interesting to see how it fares.
http://forums.xbox.com/xbox_forums/general_discussion/f/3817/t/1362841.aspx
I'll just leave this here.
Yup. Microsoft have ballsed this up. The PS4 is not just 'more powerful' (as a generic phrase) than the XB1, it's got serious legs over it in terms of graphics power and memory. PS4 exclusives (or even multiformat games on PS4 and PC) could be considerably more impressive than XB1 ones once developers have gotten to grips with both systems.
Microsoft seriously need to get to grips with this issue in the next six months otherwise they could find that Sony outstrips them much more quickly than they did this time.
And, again, "Pirates will ignore the DRM protection anyway, so why bother with DRM?" is about as compelling an argument as, "Criminals will ignore gun control laws anyway, so why bother with gun control laws?"
False equivalence.
Criminals need to get hold of guns. The majority of gun crime in the USA is carried out by people who bought guns legally from authorised dealers. If you remove the ability of people to buy guns legally, you force them to go to illegal sources. However, illegal sources by definition cannot advertise. Getting hold of a gun through illegal/illicit channels is vastly more difficult than through legal ones. You run a considerable risk of exposure and arrest from the police and possible injury or extortion from dealing with a criminal element. Gun control massively restricts the access to guns from common criminals and ordinary people who might seek a weapon to do something in the heat of the moment.
If you look at a country like the UK, severe restrictions on gun controls means that gun crime is vanishingly rare. During the terror attack on the streets of London last week, the two criminals could not easily obtain a quality firearm so were forced to resort to an old, rusty handgun which (depending on conflicting reports) either failed to discharge or, if it did, misfired and possibly injured the user rather than the police or passers-by.
If you want to avoid DRM, you can do so for most titles in about 10 minutes of Googling without having to deal with shady underworld elements or risking your personal safety. The temptation to 'break the law' in this case is much greater. If you've already bought the game in the EU, in fact, there's no legal case to answer if you hack or mod it to remove the DRM (since doing so only violates the EULA, and the EULA is always legally unenforceable).
There's no used games on Steam either
Incorrect, at least in Europe. Valve have been forced by law to enact a process where you can resell your Steam games to other people.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is my take on Scott, and why in a better world he would be right but in the real world he is wrong.
Scott (or at least my perception of Scott) believes it is completely legitimate for a company to put protections in place to protect the intellectual property they put the blood, sweat and tears into developing from being pirated and stolen.
He is fine with closed content, DRM, etc...because that is just a creator protecting what they created from being stolen.
And in a perfect world, this would make sense.
But in the real world, this doesn't work. And frankly overly credits the holder of a given intellectual property with actually being creative (I am looking at you EA)
What has been shown is that the market will self correct for price point. I will pay Louis CK 5 bucks to watch his video on the site rather than risk viruses and inconvenience through piracy. I probably won't pay 20.
Similarly, I will probably pay as much as 500 dollars for a game system where I can play all my existing games and reasonably expect to be able to buy quality used games in the 10 to 20 dollar range, with maybe once a year purchases beyond that price point.
I have absolutely no interest in something at that price point that obsoletes my current game library and will charge me whenever I buy a second use game.
The job of the business is to get me to want to give them my money.
That is it. That is what they do.
So far, the market they are aiming at doesn't seem interested in doing that.
Which is a failure.
Not looking so well for Microsoft...
Hey, at least they're even in Kosovo, Western Sahara and Somaliland.
You mean to tell me that, among vocal internet users who follow large gaming websites and have been made very aware of the recent publicity crisis, people are tending to offer token support to the console that wasn't involved in the publicity crisis?
It certainly suggests that the Xbox One is not popular with gamers with access to broadband Internet...you know, it's sole target market (still can't see casual gamers being willing to go through the hassle for this thing).
It certainly suggests that the Xbox One is not popular with gamers with access to broadband Internet...you know, it's sole target market (still can't see casual gamers being willing to go through the hassle for this thing).
It suggests that it made a subset of gamers angry enough to complain. But, as is always the case with a horde of angry internet nerds, the ones you hear from are typically just the angriest, and you end up hearing far more complaints than you would if you were taking an accurate sampling.
I wouldn't dismiss it that quickly. At the least, it means that about 90% of the vocal internet users following large gaming websites are not going to buy a Xbox One. Do you believe that the ratio will be significantly different for other groups?
They key word here is "vocal". These are just the ones who reacted to the announcement event most angrily.
And yes, I do. I believe that most people who would be part of the intended market do not know about the controversy to begin with, and I believe that many of those who aren't aware of it wouldn't be particularly bothered if they were.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who do you think are the intended market?I wouldn't dismiss it that quickly. At the least, it means that about 90% of the vocal internet users following large gaming websites are not going to buy a Xbox One. Do you believe that the ratio will be significantly different for other groups?They key word here is "vocal". These are just the ones who reacted to the announcement event most angrily.
And yes, I do. I believe that most people who would be part of the intended market do not know about the controversy to begin with, and I believe that many of those who aren't aware of it wouldn't be particularly bothered if they were.
The sum total of the hardcore gamers, the semicasual gamers, the casual gamers, the gamer-adjacent (friends and relatives), the parents of gamers, the parents of young children who will be gamers in a few years, technology enthusiasts, the media-savvy, etc. It's a pretty diverse group, with a handful of commonalities. And a lot of room to grow market penetration in many of those segments.
In mass media market terms, they're going to target the populations with the purchasing power, par usual.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who do you think are the intended market?I wouldn't dismiss it that quickly. At the least, it means that about 90% of the vocal internet users following large gaming websites are not going to buy a Xbox One. Do you believe that the ratio will be significantly different for other groups?They key word here is "vocal". These are just the ones who reacted to the announcement event most angrily.
And yes, I do. I believe that most people who would be part of the intended market do not know about the controversy to begin with, and I believe that many of those who aren't aware of it wouldn't be particularly bothered if they were.
Apparently people who are online, but don't do any research into a $500 product before they buy it. Hell, people who don't do any research into that product and are NOT online.
In short, dumbasses. :P
|
|
Who do you think are the intended market?
looks like they trying to get part of the Apple TV market.
Makes sense from MS point of view why they trying to make the Xbox One more then a game console.
Who do you think are the intended market?I wouldn't dismiss it that quickly. At the least, it means that about 90% of the vocal internet users following large gaming websites are not going to buy a Xbox One. Do you believe that the ratio will be significantly different for other groups?They key word here is "vocal". These are just the ones who reacted to the announcement event most angrily.
And yes, I do. I believe that most people who would be part of the intended market do not know about the controversy to begin with, and I believe that many of those who aren't aware of it wouldn't be particularly bothered if they were.
Apparently people who are online, but don't do any research into a $500 product before they buy it. Hell, people who don't do any research into that product and are NOT online.
In short, dumbasses. :P
That's it, huh? Can't think of any more?
To be quite fair, that's the demographic YOU'VE painted over the past few pages.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It certainly suggests that the Xbox One is not popular with gamers with access to broadband Internet...you know, it's sole target market (still can't see casual gamers being willing to go through the hassle for this thing).But, as is always the case with a horde of angry internet nerds,
Seems par for the course with your replies too. Anyone who disagrees with your POV frequently becomes labeled this.
|
|
I wouldn't dismiss it that quickly. At the least, it means that about 90% of the vocal internet users following large gaming websites are not going to buy a Xbox One. Do you believe that the ratio will be significantly different for other groups?
They key word here is "vocal". These are just the ones who reacted to the announcement event most angrily.
And yes, I do. I believe that most people who would be part of the intended market do not know about the controversy to begin with, and I believe that many of those who aren't aware of it wouldn't be particularly bothered if they were.
I'm one of those--I only know about the 'controversy' because of these message boards. If I had never clicked on this thread, I'd likely never know anyone was particularly upset at all.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You mean to tell me that, among vocal internet users who follow large gaming websites and have been made very aware of the recent publicity crisis, people are tending to offer token support to the console that wasn't involved in the publicity crisis?Not looking so well for Microsoft...
Hey, at least they're even in Kosovo, Western Sahara and Somaliland.
Good thing the XBox isn't marketed toward internet users.
And by "Publicity Crisis" do you mean "Introduction"
|
|
Who do you think are the intended market?I wouldn't dismiss it that quickly. At the least, it means that about 90% of the vocal internet users following large gaming websites are not going to buy a Xbox One. Do you believe that the ratio will be significantly different for other groups?They key word here is "vocal". These are just the ones who reacted to the announcement event most angrily.
And yes, I do. I believe that most people who would be part of the intended market do not know about the controversy to begin with, and I believe that many of those who aren't aware of it wouldn't be particularly bothered if they were.
Apparently people who are online, but don't do any research into a $500 product before they buy it. Hell, people who don't do any research into that product and are NOT online.
In short, dumbasses. :P
Pardon moi, dumbass, here: without you pretties here telling me how awful this machine will be, I have a feeling I'd never know (til I got it home this Xmas, right). The most research I'm likely to do is at Amazon looking for games and add-ons. Xbox is over a decade old, and most people have probably at least heard of it before. If it were a new system, say the Google Gamepport (made that up), I'd research the hell out of it.
It is a new product.
Just because the last system was successful or good doesn't mean the new one will be any good.
Ask Atari or Sega.
|
|
It is a new product.
Just because the last system was successful or good doesn't mean the new one will be any good.
Ask Atari or Sega.
Most of my mates I've run into this weekend aren't seeing it as a new machine, per se (me neither), they're seeing it as a new Xbox; semantics, a little, way of thinking, a lot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems par for the course with your replies too. Anyone who disagrees with your POV frequently becomes labeled this.It certainly suggests that the Xbox One is not popular with gamers with access to broadband Internet...you know, it's sole target market (still can't see casual gamers being willing to go through the hassle for this thing).But, as is always the case with a horde of angry internet nerds,
I don't mind being given a label. I know I'm not angry. Angry is when I hurl furniture. This is me being irritable, disappointed and actually a little bit hurt, because I honestly feel like Microsoft is quite unpleasant by doing this. That by making something producers will love they've alienated fans very badly.
I am getting a little grumpy that most of what I say is being ignored, especially the one major question I've asked twice now - what advantage does the Xbox One actually have?
If it was the only console out there, people would buy it (or switch to PC gaming) and not have much choice. But it isn't. The PS4, as it stands, can do everything the Xbox One can bar the TV function, which you already have to own anyway to have it work on the One, and the Xbox Exclusive games...but the PS4 will have it's own exclusives. And I personally much prefer games like Heavy Rain to Halo.
So other than those two factors, which I feel are non-factors to a point, what advantage does the One offer? Because if it doesn't have any advantages over the PS4, it'll loose, as we have a long, long list of disadvantages.
|
|
The only real advantages for me:
-the blokes I play online, and have played with for years now, are all Xbox players.
-I'm really hoping that recent games, like Fallout NV and Halo 4 will still work with the X1, mainly so I don't feel any compulsion to keep the old console around, or buy 'updated' versions
-Halo, which is what has kept me from the PS camp all these years
If people I regularly combat online make the switch, then the only real thing keeping me with MS is Halo
**I have a potentially unhealthy attachment to Halo, the only games I've ever played that can both enrage me and bring me to literal tears**
OK, so, I can get new friends (sorry, mates); the only thing keeping me is Halo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I greatly enjoy Halo as well, and I'm very curious to see where 343 is taking the new trilogy, as I very much liked what they did with Halo 4 both story wise and multiplayer wise.
Not curious enough to put up with this b**@!@@@ though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I don't think Halo and Gears of War (or smaller exclusives, like Fable) will be enough to keep the fans. Not all of them, anyway. The only way I can see the One working is if they manage to get some major companies to give them exclusives - someone like EA, although as evil as they are it might not be a smart plan.
They have to offer something Sony can't or won't, something big enough to bring in gamers. The console isn't more powerful than the PS4; it's exclusive functions are meeting negative criticism (the Kinect) or just aren't that useful (the TV that you already need a cable box for); the second hand 'Trust Microsoft to set a descent price' resale system and inability to upgrade the hard drive are actively making gamers dislike the system, and I can't imagine most game shops are happy either.
The only way I see this working is if it brings a lot of big name, exclusive games to the system, and bring them in fast and hard. They need to grab the Final Fantasies, Resident Evils, Call of Duties and such off the PS4 and on the Xbox. Problem is, while producers don't like second hand games, they do like selling copies in the first place - they'll want to make games for both consoles unless Microsoft pays them plenty of cash or one machine is clearly more dominant (no point in making games for a console no one owns, really).