EPTThe XBox Thread - Page 123
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
| ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On June 12 2013 00:34 Stratos_speAr wrote: Sega was very well-known in the console community back in the day. MS's clout comes from its OS dominance, especially since the XBox has consistently flopped outside of the U.S. Even if the issues are the same, those examples show that big companies are hardly invincible, and mindless faith in the XBox thriving is pretty naive. It's not mindless faith in the XBox thriving, it's that the Xbox isn't going to crash and burn like most people keep talking about. If I were buying the Xbox, I'm not buying it because the PS4 blows it out of the water. I'm buying it because it has some cool stuff with the Kinect that I would want to try out because it's neat (like the Wii kinda put out there), and it has a lot of newer games that look interesting to me. I have absolutely no care what used game stuff it has because I never buy or play used games. I don't care what always-on DRM it has because I'm honestly never offline at home. I don't really care about your "what-if" scenarios because they don't apply to me. Like, I get that you guys think it's a bad business practice to have these online-always shenanigans because it does limit the number of people who can use it, but in reality if you're on TeamLiquid or Reddit debating it already it's rarely going to affect you. I would even go so far as to say only 0.001% of the users would ever notice the lack of online-ness, unless people actively try to shit on the system like with the Simcity launch because our first world societies today are basically always online, and if you are ever offline you bitch at your ISP for its failure. In the future, we will think of the Internet like how we think of our power grid today, and that's the kind of thing that MS is trying to say with shit like this. Okay, you're completely shitting on countries that don't have stable Internet systems, but that is pretty much the case for every online game on your computer. You can't really play LoL without Internet, so it really shouldn't be a problem not to expect generic AAA title on the Xbox to only be played with the Internet. It's just that there's this stigma attached to consoles where it should be a separate thing from a PC and be usable without the Internet, but this is the direction MS thinks the future will be like. Take a look at the mobile space and you see the same thing right? Farmville is unusable without Internet. I have a few MS games on my phone that aren't usable without Internet. If you've seen some tech-y movies, a lot of things require a stable upstream somewhere in order to work. No Internet, no dice. It's that kind of future MS is trying to push towards, which is understandable. And it's pretty shitty for a lot of consumers now, but at least you can see what they're trying to do and what they're doing wrong instead of shitting all over the company for things that they're intentionally doing in order to achieve the vision they seem to have set out. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
Regardless, this is the kind of thing that gets executives fired. Someone really fucked up. | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On June 12 2013 00:47 Integra wrote: Anyone else finding it funny how MS is focusing on the casual crowd but yet their machine is more expensive compared to the PS4 which is strictly for gaming? Usually it's the other way around. I imagine that $100 of the $500 price is the fucking creepy Orwellian kinect that's getting bundled with every single One. If they didn't force that thing down our throats it'd be $400. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 12 2013 00:49 Blisse wrote: It's not mindless faith in the XBox thriving, it's that the Xbox isn't going to crash and burn like most people keep talking about. If I were buying the Xbox, I'm not buying it because the PS4 blows it out of the water. I'm buying it because it has some cool stuff with the Kinect that I would want to try out because it's neat (like the Wii kinda put out there), and it has a lot of newer games that look interesting to me. I have absolutely no care what used game stuff it has because I never buy or play used games. I don't care what always-on DRM it has because I'm honestly never offline at home. I don't really care about your "what-if" scenarios because they don't apply to me. Like, I get that you guys think it's a bad business practice to have these online-always shenanigans because it does limit the number of people who can use it, but in reality if you're on TeamLiquid or Reddit debating it already it's rarely going to affect you. I would even go so far as to say only 0.001% of the users would ever notice the lack of online-ness, unless people actively try to shit on the system like with the Simcity launch because our first world societies today are basically always online, and if you are ever offline you bitch at your ISP for its failure. In the future, we will think of the Internet like how we think of our power grid today, and that's the kind of thing that MS is trying to say with shit like this. Okay, you're completely shitting on countries that don't have stable Internet systems, but that is pretty much the case for every online game on your computer. You can't really play LoL without Internet, so it really shouldn't be a problem not to expect generic AAA title on the Xbox to only be played with the Internet. It's just that there's this stigma attached to consoles where it should be a separate thing from a PC and be usable without the Internet, but this is the direction MS thinks the future will be like. Take a look at the mobile space and you see the same thing right? Farmville is unusable without Internet. I have a few MS games on my phone that aren't usable without Internet. If you've seen some tech-y movies, a lot of things require a stable upstream somewhere in order to work. No Internet, no dice. It's that kind of future MS is trying to push towards, which is understandable. And it's pretty shitty for a lot of consumers now, but at least you can see what they're trying to do and what they're doing wrong instead of shitting all over the company for things that they're intentionally doing in order to achieve the vision they seem to have set out. We all know what MS is trying to do, and we get that people will still buy the console. However, what we're saying is that issues like DRM, always online, and a higher price tag WILL push a lot of people away because, contrary to your personal, anecdotal evidence that hints of a rather privileged life compared to even your average American (let alone people from other countries), these are serious issues to the average consumer. $100 extra is a lot of money, having to pay $60 for every game is a noticeable burden on the wallet, and having to be connected so much is a noticeable issue. America's internet infrastructure is very, very poor for a developed country. Here's the part that I really don't understand. Microsoft undoubtedly focus-grouped the hell out of XB1 and all of the "features" that people are complaining about. Assuming that they did these focus groups properly, there is absolutely zero possibility that they had no idea that they'd were at risk of arousing the public ire that they have. This begs the question: did some executive(s) ignore what the focus groups were saying or did they gerrymander the process to get the result that they wanted to hear? Regardless, this is the kind of thing that gets executives fired. Someone really fucked up. Focus groups aren't always good things. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7405-Damn-Fine-Coffee The host is incredibly obnoxious and I hate his particular accent, but he honestly is a damn genius when it comes to video game issues. | ||
|
FromShouri
United States862 Posts
Your internet argument is a straw man. Just because theyre on it doesnt mean they have a stable connection. From aug 2012 to jan 2013 i had horrible internet problems the thing would randonly go out for a few hours to a few days. During this time i used my ps3 and other consoles just fine. Not too mention they may not have tethering on their mobiles or are at a friends. If your internet goes out at the time it wants to check are you going ro want to lung your xbone to a friend or families house just to be able to play offline? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 12 2013 00:49 Blisse wrote: It's not mindless faith in the XBox thriving, it's that the Xbox isn't going to crash and burn like most people keep talking about. If I were buying the Xbox, I'm not buying it because the PS4 blows it out of the water. I'm buying it because it has some cool stuff with the Kinect that I would want to try out because it's neat (like the Wii kinda put out there), and it has a lot of newer games that look interesting to me. I have absolutely no care what used game stuff it has because I never buy or play used games. I don't care what always-on DRM it has because I'm honestly never offline at home. I don't really care about your "what-if" scenarios because they don't apply to me. Like, I get that you guys think it's a bad business practice to have these online-always shenanigans because it does limit the number of people who can use it, but in reality if you're on TeamLiquid or Reddit debating it already it's rarely going to affect you. I would even go so far as to say only 0.001% of the users would ever notice the lack of online-ness, unless people actively try to shit on the system like with the Simcity launch because our first world societies today are basically always online, and if you are ever offline you bitch at your ISP for its failure. In the future, we will think of the Internet like how we think of our power grid today, and that's the kind of thing that MS is trying to say with shit like this. Okay, you're completely shitting on countries that don't have stable Internet systems, but that is pretty much the case for every online game on your computer. You can't really play LoL without Internet, so it really shouldn't be a problem not to expect generic AAA title on the Xbox to only be played with the Internet. It's just that there's this stigma attached to consoles where it should be a separate thing from a PC and be usable without the Internet, but this is the direction MS thinks the future will be like. Take a look at the mobile space and you see the same thing right? Farmville is unusable without Internet. I have a few MS games on my phone that aren't usable without Internet. If you've seen some tech-y movies, a lot of things require a stable upstream somewhere in order to work. No Internet, no dice. It's that kind of future MS is trying to push towards, which is understandable. And it's pretty shitty for a lot of consumers now, but at least you can see what they're trying to do and what they're doing wrong instead of shitting all over the company for things that they're intentionally doing in order to achieve the vision they seem to have set out. At the end of the day, companies have to sell products that consumers want at prices that consumers will accept. Microsoft is having problems with both of these issues. I don't really care that much about enforcing DRM and limiting sharing. However, a very large segment (if not most) of the hardcore gaming audience does care about these things. Charging a $100 premium is just icing on the shitcake. The bottom line is that Microsoft is antagonizing its core consumer audience. With all of the negative press, I'm sure someone over there has finally taken notice and adjustments will be made. Still, let's not sugarcoat how badly they have shit the bed so far. | ||
|
mortalisx
United Kingdom21 Posts
On June 12 2013 00:39 Gescom wrote: Those examples are all from 15+ years ago. It's a different ballgame now. MS can just throw money at the problem. Not really, they are still a public company who aim to generate profit from their products and services. The cost to salvage the xbone from its ugly fate might not be worth it to them as a business. Sure, they will probably have another shot in the next generation thanks to their large assets and other revenue streams, but Xbone's future is bleak to say the least. Microsoft are really struggling to establish themselves in emerging markets (windows phone, windows tablet) while they face increased competition from markets they traditionally dominated, like desktop software, which also happen to be negatively affected by the growth of tablet computing, smartphones etc. Now we have a case of their console presence being threatened. Not good. | ||
|
Masheyoon
United States781 Posts
On June 12 2013 00:24 takingbackoj wrote: Big companies? Haha, none of those companies are even remotely comparable to MS. And you should go find out why exactly those systems flopped. I'll give you a hint, it had nothing to to with any of the issues Xbox One has. Really bad analogy. So you're saying that just because M$ is a big company the Xbone won't fail? M$ as a company will be fine regardless of how the Xbone performs, but that doesn't mean the system itself won't crash and burn as others before it. Some have even speculated that the reason why M$ has attempted to pull such corporate BS with the Xbone is because they can afford to see it fail (it's a logical explanation as to why M$ continues to ignore the people). The aforementioned systems failed because they did not appeal to and/or excite the average consumer, much like the Xbone at this point in time. Did they sell *something*? Yes, but it wasn't nearly enough to keep them afloat, or rather, warrant further distribution. This poll is quite evident of the Xbone's future: http://www.gamefaqs.com/poll/index.html?poll=5110 Could it still sell like hotcakes? Sure... but it'd pretty stupid of anyone to bet on it. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On June 11 2013 17:29 sandyph wrote: I cant play my NES games on my SNES and my SNES games on my N64. not sure when backward compatibility suddenly become an issue Since the target audience and library for these consoles became closer and closer to the PC--it becomes relevant to the comparison. If I'm buying a game that is on both a next-gen console and on PC, I can replay the game again in 10 years on any PC I have by then, but I have to keep the console around for another 2 generations if I want to go back and replay it on a console. Nintendo consoles never have to worry about this because their target demographic is never going to make the comparison to PC gaming, and even if they did, their library is made up of more exclusives. Even then, Nintendo's track record for back-compatibility isn't even that bad (Gamecube->Wii, Game Boy games up to the GBA being totally back-compatible, DS being back-compatible to the GBA, etc.). | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 12 2013 01:10 TheYango wrote: Since the target audience and library for these consoles became closer and closer to the PC--it becomes relevant to the comparison. If I'm buying a game that is on both a next-gen console and on PC, I can replay the game again in 10 years on any PC I have by then, but I have to keep the console around for another 2 generations if I want to go back and replay it on a console. Nintendo consoles never have to worry about this because their target demographic is never going to make the comparison to PC gaming, and even if they did, their library is made up of more exclusives. Even then, Nintendo's track record for back-compatibility isn't even that bad (Gamecube->Wii, Game Boy games up to the GBA being totally back-compatible, DS being back-compatible to the GBA, etc.). The post you quoted is also misguided for another reason. Back then, every game system had radically different game cartridges. I had all different shapes of game cartridges sitting in a box, and it made sense that you couldn't play one game cartridge on another system. However, with technology progressing, the CD won, and every game system started using CD's, and companies discovered the way to make systems backwards compatible (PS1+PS2, Gamecube+Wii, XBox+360, etc.). Now, when that is no longer available after it becoming the technological norm, it is disappointing. | ||
|
Masheyoon
United States781 Posts
Keep digging that hole, M$. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On June 12 2013 00:56 xDaunt wrote: At the end of the day, companies have to sell products that consumers want at prices that consumers will accept. Microsoft is having problems with both of these issues. I don't really care that much about enforcing DRM and limiting sharing. However, a very large segment (if not most) of the hardcore gaming audience does care about these things. Charging a $100 premium is just icing on the shitcake. The bottom line is that Microsoft is antagonizing its core consumer audience. With all of the negative press, I'm sure someone over there has finally taken notice and adjustments will be made. Still, let's not sugarcoat how badly they have shit the bed so far. My point is, from the perspective of looking ahead and trying to see what's going to happen in the future, none of this matters because these issues won't really be relevant down the road. Of course it's going to have horrible backlash now and it is completely screwing the user base right now, but in 10 years with the next consoles, I want to say that most of these issues with used games and DRM will be completely irrelevant. It's just that MS is trying to push things way too early. And the hardcore gaming audience only wants the gaming portion and this is getting in their way. But again, I want to say that a lot of these features will become expected with your devices in the next generation. We can look at Samsung's S4 hand gestures as a small example. Again, MS just thought that because it had a good degree of market dominance that it could push these things forward more quickly, and it's honestly trying to push them forward more quickly. It's just that no one is ready for any of these things, and frankly people don't want to be ready because some of the things do seem pretty shitty now (limiting used games), but a lot of developers are jumping on that. I'm not sure what the developers were doing letting Sony be so free with used games and having MS not be because it doesn't seem to make sense, but I guess Sony pushed for the freedom and MS pushed for the restrictions. The pricing comparison is irrelevant to my comments. It's completely stupid of them to not have priced it more strategically so they wouldn't be undercut by Sony in this case. I'm just saying that the "features" of the One can be justified, regardless of how shitty a company MS is at marketing and consumer pleasing. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9860 Posts
On June 12 2013 01:33 Masheyoon wrote: Someone on another forum brought this to my attention: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57588725/? Keep digging that hole, M$. Look at all those comments from Sony marketing employees on twitter :\ | ||
|
Velouria
United States78 Posts
| ||
|
Caphe
Vietnam10817 Posts
 . | ||
|
Velouria
United States78 Posts
On June 12 2013 01:50 Caphe wrote: So why are we still in an Xbox thread? Someone should make a topic about the PS4 already .or just make this a ps4/xbox1 thread | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 12 2013 01:33 Masheyoon wrote: Someone on another forum brought this to my attention: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57588725/? Keep digging that hole, M$. Whatever. People need to relax. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
This isn't just some private conversation or an extremely small, niche market event. This is one of the biggest and most covered video game events of the year. So yea, when you have a dialog that furthers stereotypes and mimics scenarios of sexual abuse, people are going to be justified in being upset. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 12 2013 02:01 Stratos_speAr wrote: This isn't just some private conversation or an extremely small, niche market event. This is one of the biggest and most covered video game events of the year. So yea, when you have a dialog that furthers stereotypes and mimics scenarios of sexual abuse, people are going to be justified in being upset. I can't even imagine how stiff people must be to have perceived the conversation that way in real time. It's like they're trying to find politically incorrect things to complain about. | ||
| ||
