Console Discussion/E3/Tokyo Game Show Thread

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I don't think it's that bizarre. It's not perfectly rational, sure. But it's pretty common, and explainable -- when faced with a decision between two competitors like that, people do whatever it takes to make themselves feel comfortable with the decision they've made.

This. The right decision in the end is the one you're comfortable with, regardless of what the general public deems to be the best option.

[cartman]

ROFL

[SirFozzie]

Xbox One will not release in Asia until end of 2014.

Killer Instinct, is a free to play fighter with one playable fighter, the rest you have to buy...


They're going to be writing business school treatises on Microsoft's mistakes.. *shakes head*

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Xbox One will not release in Asia until end of 2014.

Killer Instinct, is a free to play fighter with one playable fighter, the rest you have to buy...


They're going to be writing business school treatises on Microsoft's mistakes.. *shakes head*

It's like EA came in and told MS how they should run a console while the rest of the world said, "NOOOOOOO!!!!".

[cartman]

IMHO, I'm (probably unsurprisingly) leaning towards the Xbox One. The one feature of the PS series that I cannot stand, the controllers, remains the same. The ergonomics on those just do not work for me. After about 30-45 minutes I start to get hand cramps.

As for the negative PR points, none of them apply to me in my situation. I already have my current Xbox connected 24x7. The used games thing is sounding more and more like a red herring, since it has been announced that it will be up to the game publishers to add this to the games. For me personally, I don't deal with the used game market at all, but I can see where it could give pause to those who do. And as for the price point, it is apparent that the difference is that the Kinect is being bundled, otherwise it would likely be at the $399 price point. In my experience with the Kinect on the 360, the value is enough to justify the $99 delta.

The entertainment integration will be wildcard. If they end up getting it to work as announced, that will be a pretty useful feature. They have dabbled in it in the past with Microsoft Media Center Edition, and the cancelled late-in the game USB dongle for DirecTV. Hopefully they will use the lessons learned from that to work well in this instance.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by cartman

And as for the price point, it is apparent that the difference is that the Kinect is being bundled, otherwise it would likely be at the $399 price point. In my experience with the Kinect on the 360, the value is enough to justify the $99 delta.

That's easily forgotten and a good point. It's also supposed to be much better than the kinect that's out now.

Kinect Sports Rivals announced..

Microsoft announces Kinect Sports Rivals for Xbox One [Update: Trailer] | Joystiq

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

And as for the price point, it is apparent that the difference is that the Kinect is being bundled, otherwise it would likely be at the $399 price point.

Whereas I doubt they could pay me $99 to take Kinect. Quite possibly THE least interesting game innovation of my lifetime for my purposes.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Whereas I doubt they could pay me $99 to take Kinect. Quite possibly THE least interesting game innovation of my lifetime for my purposes.

My daughter loves it and it is a major reason I am still thinking about getting the Xbox one.

[INDalltheway]

I am heavily leaning towards the PS4. I own both the 360 and PS3 and they only use the PS3 gets is as a bluray player and The Show occasionally. Where Sony lacked was the interface. I attached a leaked video of the PS4's interface and it looks greatly improved and much more intuitive.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

My daughter loves it and it is a major reason I am still thinking about getting the Xbox one.

My kids do too, especially when they have friends over. I'm hoping it's much improved, which from what I've read it appears to be.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The interesting thing to see going forward is what we see of the new PS Eye. The new model is actually designed very similar to the Kinect. Most are assuming Sony paid for some of the technology in order to mirror it's capabilities. Also, it will be sold at $59, yet another area where Sony will be undercutting MS's price. Given that the two systems are based on the same architecture, you're likely to see most motion camera games on both consoles, though I'm sure there will be some first party exclusives to differentiate the two systems.

The New PlayStation Eye Uses Some Of The Same Technology As Kinect | Analog Addiction

[TroyF]

I can't believe this. During the last cycle, it bordered on religious zealotry and I, as someone who had no dog in the fight was amazed at the bizzare posts you made.

Now I'm sitting here nodding my head on just about every point.

Good lord, what the hell has MS done to me.

[cartman]

I blame the pain medication from your rehab.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I should add that I went out of my way to preorder from Gamestop just to support them and give MS an added middle finger for their used game stance.

The biggest thing I've taken away from the way Sony and Microsoft have handled their announcements is just how bad Microsoft has dropped the ball with PR.

Microsoft and Sony have nearly identical stances when it comes to used games with the XboxOne and PS4. They're both putting DRM in the hands of the publishers.

Trade-in and resell your disc-based games: Today, some gamers choose to sell their old disc-based games back for cash and credit. We designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers. Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games.

That is pretty much what Sony said. Publishers will determine the DRM for their games.

What the pro-Sony movement is downplaying is that you will now need Playstation Plus to play games online with the PS4.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The interesting thing to see going forward is what we see of the new PS Eye. The new model is actually designed very similar to the Kinect. Most are assuming Sony paid for some of the technology in order to mirror it's capabilities. Also, it will be sold at $59, yet another area where Sony will be undercutting MS's price. Given that the two systems are based on the same architecture, you're likely to see most motion camera games on both consoles, though I'm sure there will be some first party exclusives to differentiate the two systems.

The New PlayStation Eye Uses Some Of The Same Technology As Kinect | Analog Addiction

Originally Posted by TroyF

I can't believe this. During the last cycle, it bordered on religious zealotry and I, as someone who had no dog in the fight was amazed at the bizzare posts you made.

Now I'm sitting here nodding my head on just about every point.

Good lord, what the hell has MS done to me.

I'll nitpick. Isn't the Kinect technically free? So I wouldn't call the PS Eye for $60 "yet another area" where Sony will be undercutting MS.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I should add that I went out of my way to preorder from Gamestop just to support them and give MS an added middle finger for their used game stance.

I'm sure Microsoft Games division is really going to miss all of the business you've given them over the years. Makes about as much sense as a vegetarian giving a steakhouse the finger.

The CEO of GameStop has already come out in support of how MS is handling used games on the Xbox One, and their share price is up 10% today on the clarifications from the presentations yesterday.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I'll nitpick. Isn't the Kinect technically free? So I wouldn't call the PS Eye for $60 "yet another area" where Sony will be undercutting MS.

X1 + Kinect = $499

PS4 + PS Eye 2 = $459

$499 > $459

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

The CEO of GameStop has already come out in support of how MS is handling used games on the Xbox One, and their share price is up 10% today on the clarifications from the presentations yesterday.

This is even more baffling then what we saw yesterday. MS keeps compounding their PR mistakes.

Yesterday, all they had to do was walk out and say, "We needed to clarify that our console supports publisher-defined DRM."

Did they do that? Absolutely not. Why? Because it's not that simple on their console and they know it.

Now, they saw Jack Tretton waltz out last night and absolutely stick a foot in their ass in front of millions of consumers. That hurt, so what do you do if you're MS and you know it's simply not true and there's no difference between the two setups? You stay up all night and figure out how you're going to walk out today and explain the horrible misunderstanding, right?

Except they didn't do that. They said nothing today, choosing to 'focus on games' instead for a second straight day. Then the Gamestop lead guy runs out to say that X1 supports used games. Why does he do that? Because he's interested in raising his stock price (which he did). Meanwhile, MS continues to hope that no one is noticing that they aren't saying anything.

It's just ridiculous. It brings into question what the leadership is doing in the Xbox division.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

This is even more baffling then what we saw yesterday. MS keeps compounding their PR mistakes.

Yesterday, all they had to do was walk out and say, "We needed to clarify that our console supports publisher-defined DRM."

Did they do that? Absolutely not. Why? Because it's not that simple on their console and they know it.

Now, they saw Jack Tretton waltz out last night and absolutely stick a foot in their ass in front of millions of consumers. That hurt, so what do you do if you're MS and you know it's simply not true and there's no difference between the two setups? You stay up all night and figure out how you're going to walk out today and explain the horrible misunderstanding, right?

Except they didn't do that. They said nothing today, choosing to 'focus on games' instead for a second straight day. Then the Gamestop lead guy runs out to say that X1 supports used games. Why does he do that? Because he's interested in raising his stock price (which he did). Meanwhile, MS continues to hope that no one is noticing that they aren't saying anything.

It's just ridiculous. It brings into question what the leadership is doing in the Xbox division.

Except that is exactly what they have said. Are you seriously that willfully obtuse? You in fact made fun of that, stating

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That's code for "no used games but the blame isn't on us anymore despite the fact that we're facilitating the option for our publishers".

Let's not defend stupid, no matter who ends up taking the shaft on it.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

X1 + Kinect = $499

PS4 + PS Eye 2 = $459

$499 > $459

However, the fact that EVERY XBOne comes with Kinect means that developers can take its existence for granted and utilize it in EVERY game if they so choose. Since the Eye 2 is an add-on, it is development spent on a peripheral that may or may not be there, stifling normal development for it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

dola

Here's another example of a WTF regarding this generation. This is a quote from Don Mattrick when asked by a member of the military if he would be able to play the Xbox One overseas where they have limited connectivity even on their bases.

"fortunately we have a product for people without some form of connectivity, its called the xbox 360"

Goodness.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's just ridiculous. It brings into question what the leadership is doing in the Xbox division.

With some of the decisions Microsoft made with Windows 8, I think that you need to question Microsoft's leadership full stop.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

However, the fact that EVERY XBOne comes with Kinect means that developers can take its existence for granted and utilize it in EVERY game if they so choose. Since the Eye 2 is an add-on, it is development spent on a peripheral that may or may not be there, stifling normal development for it.

There's a good chunk of the gaming market that doesn't want to get off their ass and move around to play a game (I'm one of them). The thought of every game requiring movement controller support is something I'm not interested in.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Except that is exactly what they have said. Are you seriously that willfully obtuse? You in fact made fun of that, stating

They didn't state anything in the conferences at all. That's going to bring more scrutiny, not less. See yesterday.

The head of MS Xbox division needs to stand on a stage and shout it to the world. Even then, it may be too late but at least he might save his job.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There's a good chunk of the gaming market that doesn't want to get off their ass and move around to play a game (I'm one of them). The thought of every game requiring movement controller support is something I'm not interested in.

I would agree with you on that one - it's not something I'm personally interested in. I was just relating this as I think there might be some interesting things developed because Kinect is a given while Eye 2 is not.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I would agree with you on that one - it's not something I'm personally interested in. I was just relating this as I think there might be some interesting things developed because Kinect is a given while Eye 2 is not.

I don't think so only because of the similar architecture. Last generation, it was a wildly different process to develop for the 360 vs. the PS3 simply because the PS3 was a cell processor and a totally different beast. The developers are likely going to be thrilled with this generation in comparison because the development process should be cheaper and less complicated.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Atocep

What the pro-Sony movement is downplaying is that you will now need Playstation Plus to play games online with the PS4.

I know for me it amounts to rearranging deck chairs. I've paid Microsoft for online game play for the last ten years. When the "pro-Sony movement" was touting the free online play as a reason for superiority, I shrugged. I've played Xbox Live and PSN both, and found Live superior.

If I'm not buying Xbox One - and at this point in time, I do not intend to do so - then I'm taking the money I've been paying Microsoft and giving it to Sony instead.

The used games brouhaha is a minor concern for me - if I discover a game down the road that I didn't play brand new, as I occasionally do on SNES or Genesis, say, I want to be able to play that game without shenanigans.

On the other hand, I'm much more concerned about the ability to play my games at ALL down the road. With the licensing model Microsoft are taking with Xbox One, when they shut the servers off for a switch to Xbox Live 4.0 with their next console, that whole 24-hour check-in thing means that all the games you've "licensed" in the interim are now unplayable. If I invest in a console, I want to be able to use that whenever the hell I want to. I can play my Sega Genesis, right now, even though the games are 20+ years old. That won't be true of Xbox One, and that is the primary reason I'm not going to be buying that console.

The idea of them turning off the servers isn't hypothetical. They already did that with Xbox Live 1.0 when they decided to stop supporting Xbox. Anything you acquired via Xbox Live, if you don't have it on your Xbox (or possibly 360) hard drive, you cannot get it back. You can't play it. It's gone. This is just the next step up from that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Why? I imagine there are brands or business you're loyal to because they treat you well. That's true of virtually everybody. If you don't develop some kind of brand loyalty, I think there's something wrong with you.

I think we're talking about different things. I don't consider previous experience to be "brand loyalty". Now I enjoy Dunkin Donuts coffee and will purchase it because every time I have it is satisfying and the price is good. I don't consider that loyalty to a brand though. Because if the 7-11 down the street started making better coffee at a cheaper price, I'd immediately switch.

When I talk about brand loyalty, I'm talking about people who will purchase an inferior product or take an inferior deal because they have some emotional attachment to the brand name. I find that to be weird as a consumer.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The thing is, I'm sitting here thinking about it, and I can find exactly one commonality between Sony's moves last time and Microsoft's moves this time: pricing themselves out of the impulse buy market. Sony didn't restrict used game sales in 2006. Sony didn't require an online connection with a daily required check-in to activate and play games in 2006. Sony didn't create a system that seemed to be focused on TV and services with gaming as an afterthought in 2006.

I'm talking about the pricing and unnecessary hardware being attached to the product that drives up the cost. I think those are the two biggest errors that Sony made with the PS3 and Microsoft is making with the XBox One.

The used game and online check-in are extremely minor issues that most people don't give a shit about. Just something for people on Reddit to throw a fit over.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm talking about the pricing and unnecessary hardware being attached to the product that drives up the cost. I think those are the two biggest errors that Sony made with the PS3 and Microsoft is making with the XBox One.

The used game and online check-in are extremely minor issues that most people don't give a shit about. Just something for people on Reddit to throw a fit over.

Unnecessary hardware? You're referring to the blu-ray drive? I dunno. That definitely contributed to the pricing, but it enabled them to kill HD-DVD as a competitor, and it led to the next generation of Microsoft hardware having a blu-ray drive in the machine. Which baffles me a little bit since you don't have to have the disc in the machine to play it, actually.

But the bottom line is that there's a strong chance that Sony's getting royalties on every Xbox One sold unless there's some really fancy shenaniganry going on that I haven't heard about. Short-term iffy decision, but looking like it might have been a savvy move in the long-term.

The used game stuff? Most people *like you* may not give a shit, but you're completely discounting the soccer mom market. They're going to be resentful as hell if borrowing/renting/etc is impossible or needlessly complicated.

The online check-in? Somewhere between 30-40% of the US population - where the bulk of Microsoft's market share resides - doesn't have broadband access. Some of that is for rural reasons, some of that is going to be people who see no need for it as yet, some will just be people who can't afford it. So, yeah, some percentage of that 30-40% are never going to be Xbox One customers in the first place, I grant you.

But some percentage just got frozen out of the market with that decision, and some percentage are going to look at it and say "Okay, there's an extra $30-50/month cost associated with ownership of this device because I need broadband to use it."

And that's even without repeating my earlier objection to the online check-in.

These may not be things that matter to you and those in your boat, but I would strongly argue against characterizing them as "extremely minor issues that most people don't give a shit about."

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by cartman

I'm sure Microsoft Games division is really going to miss all of the business you've given them over the years. Makes about as much sense as a vegetarian giving a steakhouse the finger.

The CEO of GameStop has already come out in support of how MS is handling used games on the Xbox One, and their share price is up 10% today on the clarifications from the presentations yesterday.

I haven't seen any statement from GameStop supporting MS -- I think that's an overstatement.

GameStop shares were up Friday when Microsoft clarified that they would let publishers decided -- and not yet saying what they will do as a publisher. GameStop shares went up today because Sony is saying the PS4 won't block used games at all.

Unless I'm missing something in the nuance, the analyst read is that Sony is embracing use games fully while Microsoft is leaving the door open to taking a cut or block used games.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Unnecessary hardware? You're referring to the blu-ray drive? I dunno. That definitely contributed to the pricing, but it enabled them to kill HD-DVD as a competitor, and it led to the next generation of Microsoft hardware having a blu-ray drive in the machine. Which baffles me a little bit since you don't have to have the disc in the machine to play it, actually.

The PS2 hardware that gave the early models of the PS3 backwards compatible probably falls under unnecessary hardware. It certainly hurt it with the higher price tag attached early on.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The used game and online check-in are extremely minor issues that most people don't give a shit about. Just something for people on Reddit to throw a fit over.

That is more or less the pro-sony movement I was talking about. As far as most of the internet is concerned right now, Microsoft can do no right and everything Sony does is gold.

I haven't seen anything from either console that has me leaning one way or the other at this point. I have both a Plus and a Gold account, I haven't gone 24 hours without an internet connection on a console since I've owned my PS3/360, and region free won't do anything for me. Since it's publisher-determined DRM on both consoles you're not going to see any difference in the used game market either.

What will likely determine the console we end up getting is whichever one my son's friends get because he'll play it the most and that's where price may be important. Parents of kids tend to go with the cheaper option when given the chance.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm talking about the pricing and unnecessary hardware being attached to the product that drives up the cost. I think those are the two biggest errors that Sony made with the PS3 and Microsoft is making with the XBox One.

The used game and online check-in are extremely minor issues that most people don't give a shit about. Just something for people on Reddit to throw a fit over.

I keep hearing about how the online requirement and used game issues are worthless.

For kicks and giggles, I had my wife read off my list of games. I currently own 72 games. 16 of them were purchased used. That's about 22% of my library. Figure a savings of at least $10 on each game and that's $160 or more. That doesn't count the games I've traded back in. For the record, I don't consider myself a high volume renter or used game purchaser, but I do it enough where it does make a difference. (as an aside, two of those used game purchases happened after the hip thing so I would have something to do)

As for the internet, I am essentially tied to MS. My internet connection goes down for any reason and I'm done? Really? I just spent $500 on a console and I can't play it whenever and however I want? Meanwhile, another console offers me the ability to do all of those things at a price point of $100 less?

I'm sorry, I don't want to overstate the issues or their importance, but I also don't feel that it is appropriate to just dismiss these concerns either.

The excuses from the Sony fanboys or the people minimizing the issues with the PS3 launch were bizzare. I'm not a smart guy and I could see Sony was going to wipe out its market share in one fell swoop.

Now the tables are turned. I'm still not very smart, but I am smart enough to know the PS4 is going to beat the living hell out of MS barring some major change in strategy by the XBox team in the next couple of months.

I think Bill Harris said it best today, MS is being mocked right now. They got their asses handed to them and people are just making fun of them. Even the people who are going to get an XBox One have to realize right now that their console is in trouble.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think we're talking about different things. I don't consider previous experience to be "brand loyalty". Now I enjoy Dunkin Donuts coffee and will purchase it because every time I have it is satisfying and the price is good. I don't consider that loyalty to a brand though. Because if the 7-11 down the street started making better coffee at a cheaper price, I'd immediately switch.

When I talk about brand loyalty, I'm talking about people who will purchase an inferior product or take an inferior deal because they have some emotional attachment to the brand name. I find that to be weird as a consumer.

What is the clearly inferior product here? I'm not sure I'd call any iteration of PS or Xbox a clearly inferior product. I'd defend any consumer having brand loyalty to either PS or MS if they feel they got good value for their money and were treated well. Purchasing an inferior product because of emotional attachment to a brand name isn't brand loyalty -- it's being sucker.

If you go to Dunkin' Donuts and you continued to go their because you enjoy the coffee and you appreciate the service, even though 7-11 has just a good a cup of coffee for 5 cents less, that's brand loyalty.

I find it weird that someone wouldn't have brand loyalty. If your wife works at Dunkin' Donuts and you find that 7-11 has better coffee for less money, you're going to start going there for coffee? That's being a dick.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by mckerney

The PS2 hardware that gave the early models of the PS3 backwards compatible probably falls under unnecessary hardware. It certainly hurt it with the higher price tag attached early on.

I think the PS2 hardware had very little to do with the cost of the PS3, to be honest. That was entirely on the R&D and production of the Cell, plus the relative newness of blu-ray as an optical medium.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The used game stuff? Most people *like you* may not give a shit, but you're completely discounting the soccer mom market. They're going to be resentful as hell if borrowing/renting/etc is impossible or needlessly complicated.

What Microsoft said already takes place in most major games. And it will continue to take place on both consoles. Almost all your major games have "Online Passes" that are used to hurt the used game market. Did I miss something about Sony eliminating this practice? The used game market will not change much at all.

On top of that, the soccer mom market will still thrive. New games come down in price quickly. Bioshock Infinite is already at $40. Many popular year old games hit the $20 price point. There is no shortage of budget options out there for soccer moms and that won't be changing.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The online check-in? Somewhere between 30-40% of the US population - where the bulk of Microsoft's market share resides - doesn't have broadband access. Some of that is for rural reasons, some of that is going to be people who see no need for it as yet, some will just be people who can't afford it. So, yeah, some percentage of that 30-40% are never going to be Xbox One customers in the first place, I grant you.

The people ONLINE who are complaining about this are not going to have an issue with it. You know, the same people who love Steam.

I think the 24-hour check-in is dumb as shit, but I really don't think it's going to effect a lot of their core audience if they leave it in.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

If you go to Dunkin' Donuts and you continued to go their because you enjoy the coffee and you appreciate the service, even though 7-11 has just a good a cup of coffee for 5 cents less, that's brand loyalty.

I consider that stupid. I'd take the better coffee and save the nickel every time. Be loyal to family, friends, co-workers, etc. Not to a logo and company name. As a consumer you should get the best bang for your buck.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by TroyF

For kicks and giggles, I had my wife read off my list of games. I currently own 72 games. 16 of them were purchased used. That's about 22% of my library. Figure a savings of at least $10 on each game and that's $160 or more. That doesn't count the games I've traded back in. For the record, I don't consider myself a high volume renter or used game purchaser, but I do it enough where it does make a difference. (as an aside, two of those used game purchases happened after the hip thing so I would have something to do)

Where are you being told that you can't buy used games?

Originally Posted by TroyF

As for the internet, I am essentially tied to MS. My internet connection goes down for any reason and I'm done? Really? I just spent $500 on a console and I can't play it whenever and however I want? Meanwhile, another console offers me the ability to do all of those things at a price point of $100 less?

When was the last time your internet went off for 24 hours straight? How many times do you envision this happening over the next 7 years?

The $100 less is the big one. I'll be buying the PS4 because of it. I just find it funny that people find this 24-hour thing so debilitating. I've never had a situation since I owned both my PS3 and Xbox 360 where I lost internet for a day straight.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The people ONLINE who are complaining about this are not going to have an issue with it. You know, the same people who love Steam.

I think the 24-hour check-in is dumb as shit, but I really don't think it's going to effect a lot of their core audience if they leave it in.

You realize Steam has an offline mode, right? As in, you activate on installation and then don't have to be online to play the game aftewards if you don't want to?

If Microsoft were adopting a Steam model, I doubt the hue and cry would be as loud as it is. They aren't, though. They're requiring the console to check in every 24 hours or you can't play your games. Period.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

You realize Steam has an offline mode, right? As in, you activate on installation and then don't have to be online to play the game aftewards if you don't want to?

If Microsoft were adopting a Steam model, I doubt the hue and cry would be as loud as it is. They aren't, though. They're requiring the console to check in every 24 hours or you can't play your games. Period.

Agree with you Sack. Here's one: What if you take your console and some games on vacation and don't have an available internet connection where you end up? You're fucked.

That's just stupid by MS.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

With some of the decisions Microsoft made with Windows 8, I think that you need to question Microsoft's leadership full stop.

That's worth exploring right there. Say what you will about Microsoft's business approach and strategies -- and I could say plenty -- but they do seem to be on a streak of misjudging. Now I'm sure that the executives with day-to-day control of Windows and Xbox are completely different people, but it could very well be a cultural approach undermining the company.

Just curious ... is there any harm for Microsoft in coming back in August and announcing they've changed their mind -- they are going to offer Xbox One both with and without Kinect? The PS3 lesson is that you're going to change eventually, and you're better off doing it sooner than later.

Another question ... Xbox One is set for November. I keep seeing Sony targeting either 4th quarter or December. Amazon has it listed as Dec. 31, and that date is popping up elsewhere too.

If Sony really releases this thing after Christmas (or Dec. 15 or so), does it really matter what Microsoft does? Won't they still win the holiday season, then can cut prices six months down the road when Sony has caught up?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

That's worth exploring right there. Say what you will about Microsoft's business approach and strategies -- and I could say plenty -- but they do seem to be on a streak of misjudging. Now I'm sure that the executives with day-to-day control of Windows and Xbox are completely different people, but it could very well be a cultural approach undermining the company.

Just curious ... is there any harm for Microsoft in coming back in August and announcing they've changed their mind -- they are going to offer Xbox One both with and without Kinect? The PS3 lesson is that you're going to change eventually, and you're better off doing it sooner than later.

Another question ... Xbox One is set for November. I keep seeing Sony targeting either 4th quarter or December. Amazon has it listed as Dec. 31, and that date is popping up elsewhere too.

If Sony really releases this thing after Christmas (or Dec. 15 or so), does it really matter what Microsoft does? Won't they still win the holiday season, then can cut prices six months down the road when Sony has caught up?

Dec. 31 is a placeholder date.

I'm betting on somewhere in the Nov 15 window.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I haven't seen any statement from GameStop supporting MS -- I think that's an overstatement.

Xbox 720 a 'very hot, compelling device' says GameStop - GameSpot.com
GameStop President Tony Bartel Promises 'Seamless Transition' Of Xbox One Used Game Sales - Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaud...nd-pre-orders/

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Dec. 31 is a placeholder date.

I'm betting on somewhere in the Nov 15 window.

It feels like Sony is doing the same thing regarding the release window that they did at E3. Wait for MS to play it's hand and then throw an advantageous trump card on top of the pile again.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It feels like Sony is doing the same thing regarding the release window that they did at E3. Wait for MS to play it's hand and then throw an advantageous trump card on top of the pile again.

No doubt. I'm sure they'll both be out in time for holidays.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by cartman

I'm sure Microsoft Games division is really going to miss all of the business you've given them over the years. Makes about as much sense as a vegetarian giving a steakhouse the finger.

The CEO of GameStop has already come out in support of how MS is handling used games on the Xbox One, and their share price is up 10% today on the clarifications from the presentations yesterday.

Exactly... he's a troll when it comes to Sony vs MS. If Sony released a turd, he would buy it.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

X1 + Kinect = $499

PS4 + PS Eye 2 = $459

$499 > $459

So are you assuming the ps eye 2 is as good as the Kinect 2?

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There's a good chunk of the gaming market that doesn't want to get off their ass and move around to play a game (I'm one of them). The thought of every game requiring movement controller support is something I'm not interested in.

Of course.. unless Sony had a proven move controller.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

So are you assuming the ps eye 2 is as good as the Kinect 2?

We don't know yet. Are you assuming the Kinect 2 is as good as the PS Eye 2?

We have not see the full features of both products, so it's awfully premature to make an assumption either way. What we do know is that the PS Eye 2 now uses the same technology as Kinect 2, so it's an apples to apples comparison. We also know that there's a difference of $40 between the two products.