[Polpolion]

wat.  you WANTED to be tracked and price gouged? 

Personally, I wanted to see it totally flop.

[Flak]

At least they should have learned from Sony's mistakes in the past, on how focusing on just the devs point of view, while completely ignoring the customer's concern will not end well for them.

[Akalabeth Angel]

wat.  you WANTED to be tracked and price gouged? 

Dude we're tracked every time we turn on the computer and the kinect could be turned off.

As for the cash, I wouldn't get it on launch anyway so whether it's 500 dollars to start it or not doesn't mean much to me. I would probably buy it a year later as I've still got 12-15 360 games to play through. So if I picked it up when it was 400, or had say some games bundled with it, why not?


The thing about Microsoft's console is that they're actually trying to innovate and add new features whereas all Sony did was to let Microsoft go first, tell people what they wanted to hear, and generally not do anything very interesting. I don't really give people props for being reactionary, which is why Microsoft backing down on their strategy is at best disappointing.

That and nothing they were going to do is really going to negatively impact how I play and experience games. I don't buy used games. I rarely trade in old games. Etcetera.

[JCDNWarrior]

To me, consoles should try to focus on one task most of all, namely gaming, with everything else being a pleasant extra feature, such as the ability to watch movies or listen music or browse the internet when online. That way, all of the processing power and memory can be dedicated to performing it's main task as good as possible without any variables in the way. A second very important part, to me, is that the device should be as simple as possible to plug-and-play with nothing delaying you, just turn it on, pop a disk in, and play.

As such, I don't see a need for much innovation, especially as it clearly comes as a much higher price tag than if they just keep it simple.

If anything gets in the way of the console's ability to simply play games, such as DRM, restrictions, unnecessary features that clog up the system, full game installations from disk to HDD, big updates that take a long time to complete or even crashing during, or even gets bricked, well then it's just a inferior, small form factor PC, lacking the ability to quickly diagnose and repair/swap faulty hardware.

As for pricing, the Xbox One will of course drop in price eventually but as long as the Kinect 2.0 is still mandatory and bundled, it'll be hard for MS to compete in pricing without losing a lot of money in the process, which will inevitably return in the form of (personalized) advertisement (thanks to Kinect 2.0), perhaps higher game prices, more DLC at higher prices, etc.

[Fury]

At the moment my biggest gripe with upcoming console generation is price of games. MS has already confirmed their prices will be 59.99 USD. Sony has yet to comment as far as I know, but I'd really, really, really like them to say prices will be dropped down to 49.99 USD. Not only is that much more affordable, it'd also force MS to reduce prices. Incidentally that's same price as what PC games typically sell for.

Sweet spot is 39.99 USD but we can dream, can't we...

[Flak]

I don't think I am that concern with Kinect watching my movements, assuming it also turned off if you unplug the console. I am not a console gamer myself (otherwise I wouldn't be here), but my cousins are. From what they said, they would be very annoyed if their consoles have any online requirement. They were very satisfied with their Xbox 360, and the selection of the games, prices, and no intrusive DRM-like things are the main reasons they picked it over the PS3. Probably Microsoft were too focused on developing other things that they forgot that the main reason for many people getting a console is just to play game, not so much doing anything in the internet.

[Luis Dias]

The thing about Microsoft's console is that they're actually trying to innovate and add new features whereas all Sony did was to let Microsoft go first, tell people what they wanted to hear, and generally not do anything very interesting. I don't really give people props for being reactionary, which is why Microsoft backing down on their strategy is at best disappointing.

I think their take on Gaikai and how that kind of server-side technology may well create new possibilities of awesomeness (and a lot of new SimCity-like fubars for sure) is *very* interesting at least. I hear you on the whole "revolutionary" thing, but sometimes you should just say "no" to new stuff. Sometimes, this new stuff is just not that great (wink wink 3D tvs wink wink). I'm very Appleish on this kind of design decisions: to me to say "no" to key stuff is much more important than a bunch of "yes"s that will just clob up until you just want to get rid of the whole shenanigan. And the Xbone is starting to feel that way. (And yeah, the Wii U is already passed beyond that point).

[Akalabeth Angel]

Thing is, with the Xbox . . okay, there are a bunch of features people don't like. Those features don't bother me personally. But thing is Xbox had two ways to go:

1. Chicken-ass out, and go back on their plans
2. Stick to their guns, but add new incentives that outweigh the potential backlash

People like say, the Jimquisition, who I no longer watch, but he anyway he complained about "death of ownership" and **** like that with the new Xbox DRM. But thing is, this lack of used game (which is opt in anyway, not all the time) is already prevalent with Valve's Steam. But when I brought this up on another forum everyone had a double standard saying "oh but Steam does so and so, so it's okay to have DRM and to not own games or whatnot".  So obviously people ARE willing to put up with this DRM scheme, in fact I blame gamers for Microsoft even trying it in the first place. If Steam had flopped we wouldn't have even had this **** to begin with.

M$ just had to incentivize it enough that people wouldn't care just like Valve's done.

[Luis Dias]

Oh yeah, absolutely. I blame MS's utterly appalling marketing ability on this one. And by "marketing" I don't mean merely "talk talk talk", but that's also included, I mean marketing in its full sense: the bringing of a technology or a new idea to the market. That means good implementation and actually convincing people your plan is not only fair but awesome. They should have zeroed on people's fears about DRM "lock in" from the get-go with an "opt-in" plan or something and they were utterly stupid for not doing so, when there was a bunch of evidence that people would *not* put up with a draconian new system that didn't appeal to people's natural conservatism on these matters.

And they mostly just had to say something like "You'll be able to do everything you were able to do with the 360, DON'T WORRY!, but if you opt-in to this amazing new system of a market, this is how the new rules are". And people would eat that ****, because in their minds would always be "ok, fine, and if they want to really milk me I'll just opt-out and do what I've been doing". Give people breathing room and they'll always put money or your faces. What is WRONG with you marketing people?

[NGTM-1R]

is already prevalent with Valve's Steam

No. It's not.

Microsoft is selling you physical game media with all the necessary information on it required to run the game. This is something that is easily, quickly, and cheaply transferred. Steam's entire methodology is different.

[An4ximandros]

 But is that not what happens when I buy a Steam game on, say, Gamestop? What makes it different from what MS wanted to do?

[NGTM-1R]

But is that not what happens when I buy a Steam game on, say, Gamestop? What makes it different from what MS wanted to do?

Ah, here's the other trap: you're attempting to compare the PC market to the console market. PC games don't have, and have never had, the huge resale movement that console games have.

[Akalabeth Angel]

is already prevalent with Valve's Steam

No. It's not.

Microsoft is selling you physical game media with all the necessary information on it required to run the game. This is something that is easily, quickly, and cheaply transferred. Steam's entire methodology is different.

So when I bought both the Half Life Episodes and Half Life 2 and these two games were entirely tied to steam and couldn't be traded or resold you're telling me it's different? Bull****.

Your rationalization is just the sort of nonsense I see everywhere.

It's the same ****ing thing.
And Valve started it. Now people are *****ing about Microsoft while at the same time praising Valve and Steam and fail to see the irony of it.

[NGTM-1R]

So when I bought both the Half Life Episodes and Half Life 2 and these two games were entirely tied to steam and couldn't be traded or resold you're telling me it's different?

PC.

Console.

PC.

Console.

One of these things is not like the other~

[Luis Dias]

That's not really an argument now is it.

[Scotty]

[modhat]Akalabeth, calm down.  If you're getting angry at the discussion, you're taking it too seriously, especially if it's about video games.

At the same time, NGTM, you don't need to be an ass about it, no matter how much I may agree with your point.[/modhat]

[NGTM-1R]

That's not really an argument now is it.

The thing is, it really is an argument, because the computer game resale/trade thing doesn't exist and has never existed. You can't restrict something that doesn't exist. If you're complaining you lost options, it's your fault for never utilizing them, otherwise people might have actually fought for your options.

The console resale/trade market does exist and has existed. Attempts to shut it down are going after something real, something that actually, provably, exists and keeps a number of companies in business in addition to providing lots of people cheap games.

[Mongoose]

The complaints on the PC side of things are also heavily mitigated by the fact that Steam has such voluminous and frequent sales, which enables the consumer to purchase even fairly-new games without breaking the bank.  That doesn't happen as a rule on the console side of things, with the possible exception of some sort of "Greatest Hits" re-release a few years down the road.  The used games market provides a range of pricing options that don't exist for most console titles, and it also enables people to get their hands on hits from previous generations that have long been out-of-print, an issue that obviously doesn't exist on Steam.

[BloodEagle]

is already prevalent with Valve's Steam

No. It's not.

Microsoft is selling you physical game media with all the necessary information on it required to run the game. This is something that is easily, quickly, and cheaply transferred. Steam's entire methodology is different.

So when I bought both the Half Life Episodes and Half Life 2 and these two games were entirely tied to steam and couldn't be traded or resold you're telling me it's different? Bull****.

Your rationalization is just the sort of nonsense I see everywhere.

It's the same ****ing thing.
And Valve started it. Now people are *****ing about Microsoft while at the same time praising Valve and Steam and fail to see the irony of it.

#1. No one likes that they can't resell Steam games, even if they wouldn't do so. (If you can find someone that thinks otherwise, I'd recommend protecting the gene-pool with extreme prejudice)

#2. The PC market (as NGTM-1R said), especially for the past eight years or so, has not had nearly the rate of resale that consoles have.  It's just not something that really happened in large numbers and it's been getting smaller and smaller ever since digital distribution became popular and accepted.

#3. The PC market (including but not limited to Steam) offers a Hell of a lot more in the way of basic functionality than this next or any console generation.

#4. Have you been to GoG lately?  Who the Hell needs used PC games when you get deals like that?

#5. Consoles had two major things on PC games: Optimization and it-just-works.  When you put a disc or cartridge into a console, you simply played it.  You didn't have to worry about (note: ps3/360 kind of did some of this) installs, patches, customizing, bug-fixing, or any of that stuff.  You put the disc in, and you played the game, and it ran well.

Then Microsoft decided to remove the 'it-just-works' part, tack on the parts of PC / digital distribution that people do not like while not taking the parts that people do like, and attach a spy camera and microphone to it for ****s and giggles.  Oh, then they actively insulted millions of people when they 'didn't get it'.

Valve does a lot of things that bug me, but they are no where near the level of stupidity and anti-consumerism that Microsoft attempted to (and still may) reach.

[Scourge of Ages]

Like I said (much) earlier, MS wanted to be Steam.

But, they failed to realize what makes Steam popular, the same as Origin did.

Some of the most important and best things about Steam are: Frequency and quality of sales, making the same games significantly cheaper than buying them from a store; convenience of having so many games under one roof, and mostly guaranteed to work; and Steam DRM is much, much more forgiving than most of the things that other companies try.

I sincerely doubt that MS was going to make the XBone store as friendly as Steam, I sincerely doubt that the prices offered online would be any better than just buying a (new) disk even years after a game is released, the process for buying games did not seem convenient at all, and the DRM plan at first was downright idiotic. (yes speculation, but not groundless speculation)

Also, Steam never says "our way is the only way to play games on your PC". Very few games absolutely require Steam, and there's frequently multiple other ways to buy and play games. If MS had done what Luis Dias suggested up the page a bit and given everybody the option of taking each game online-only or traditional disk-based, they would have fared much, much, MUCH better in the public eye.

Blarg, probably ninja'd, I'll post this anyway. EDIT: yep. Great post, BloodEagle