Poll: Who IS buying the Xbox One?

[fleischwolke]

Not gonna buy it, but then I am not a great fan of consoles per se...I can upgrade my PC nicely for that kind of money

 

[smithy_2045]

I've been using Steam for 7.5 years, Xbox1 does nothing new that Steam hasn't been doing for ages.

Why don't you try comparing the Xbox to it's actual major competitor in the console market? PS4 won't be doing what the Xbox and Steam do. Why would I buy a console that doesn't have one of the major advantages console gaming has over PC gaming when it's competitor keeps that advantage?

Steam is a gaming platform like Xbox. It's a perfectly valid comparison.

Yeah, because this console war is between Microsoft and Valve. It's not like discussions about who "won" E3 revolved around the PS4 and XboxEin or anything like that. It's OK though, I do understand why you wouldn't be willing to compare the PS4 to the Xbox in terms of what you get when you buy a disk.

On both, you get a license to play the game. That's it.

 

[SecondPrize]

I've been using Steam for 7.5 years, Xbox1 does nothing new that Steam hasn't been doing for ages.

Why don't you try comparing the Xbox to it's actual major competitor in the console market? PS4 won't be doing what the Xbox and Steam do. Why would I buy a console that doesn't have one of the major advantages console gaming has over PC gaming when it's competitor keeps that advantage?

Steam is a gaming platform like Xbox. It's a perfectly valid comparison.

Yeah, because this console war is between Microsoft and Valve. It's not like discussions about who "won" E3 revolved around the PS4 and XboxEin or anything like that. It's OK though, I do understand why you wouldn't be willing to compare the PS4 to the Xbox in terms of what you get when you buy a disk.

On both, you get a license to play the game. That's it.

A publisher saying the magic word 'license' does not strip rights from us. Everyone involved has treated physical disks and cartridges as if first sale doctrine rights applied since the beginning of consoles. You can say license all you want, but when you haven't gone to courts to protect yourself against used game sales for your products, then people actually have the rights they've been using. Games on the PS4 are unchanged in practice in what we can do with them after legitimately purchasing them. With the xbox we will need permission, and even then will be limited in where we can buy and sell used games.

 

[shadowuser10141]

Might gen one eventually. I'll see how things turn out.

 

[Starik20X6]

All the bullshit of the Xbone aside, I still wouldn't buy it- because Microsoft still hasn't got any exclusive franchises that appeal to me. They've made zero effort to interest me and make me a customer, so I'll continue to extend the same courtesy (and my middle finger) to them. Call me when your hardware isn't a total dumpster fire, and your exclusive franchises aren't all macho gun-wank and incredibly bland sci-fi.

 

[Revolutionary]

Well maybe, I'm going to need to see a few more exclusives and a price drops. To address why I don't really care about the stuff people have been criticizing;
- I have a robust internet connection
- I don't sell my games anyway (I mostly use Steam)

 

[Peps]

( I know I said i wasn't going to respond, but I'm sorry, I just can't let that by without a response)

No, you're calling me a liar. See several posts ago, I clearly said if you can provide me with evidence that the used market is killing the industry, I'll change my opinion on the whole matter and even join in with the fight against it. Now you're saying that's not the case and I'd just argue against the evidence. hence, you're calling me a liar. That's not enough for you though, you also have to be condescending over the whole matter.

Oh and BTW, I'm not asking for absolute concrete evidence, I'm asking for any evidence. That's it, just anything that will actually go some way to prove the used market is killing the used industry and yet you haven't been able to do that, none of the indie devs in the links you have provided have done that, all I'm seeing to support you claim is a small handful of developers who are saying the used market is killing the industry and offering absolutely nothing to show how they know this. When developers or publishers speak out against piracy they can normally provide figures showing how many people are playing the game and how many people have actually bought it. That's the kind of evidence I'm looking for you to provide. If they can provide it for piracy, why can't it be provided for used games and why do you insist of thinking it's so wrong for me to expect at least some evidence, no matter how small, to back up an extremely severe claim?

I can't provide a solid thread of logic for what argument? That you should be expected to provide some evidence when making a serious claim? That's then only real argument I've been trying to make here and I'm pretty sure I've already provided an extremely logical argument in support of that. In case you missed it the several other times I posted it, here it is again...developers must have evidence to know that used games are killing the industry, otherwise they have just randomly chosen to blame used games for no reason at all. So if the evidence exists, why aren't they willing to provide that evidence? Why do they simply expect us to take their word for it? When a developer tries to claim piracy is an issue, they provide some figures to back up their claim. Why can't the developers saying used games are an issue do the same? Why are we expected to just take their word for it? Should I just be expected to take people's word on other things too? A lot of people claim ghosts exist. They can provide no evidence for this, but would you expect me to just take their word for it? Most of them have no reason to lie (BTW, I'm not talking about Psychics or others who make money through it, I'm talking about the many regular people who believe in ghosts), so by your logic, I should just be expected to take their word for it. After all, most of them probably know more about ghosts than I do. What about religion? No real proof, but people who know more about religion than I do claim their god or gods exist, so I guess I should just take their word for it. But, wait, they don't all believe the same thing, so logically at least some of them have to be wrong. But, how can that be? I mean, they're clearly right, they said they are and they know more about it than I do

Tell me, if it was such a big issue (and it has to be if your claim is to be believed), why haven't more developers spoken out about used games? Why have only a very small proportion of indie developers come out to attack the industry? If it's an indisputable fact that it's killing the industry, shouldn't we expect there to be a massive movement from the indie scene trying to convince us of this fact?

Or are you suggesting I should provide a solid thread of logic for the argument that used games aren't killing the industry? If so, I haven't done that because it's not an argument that I've tried to make. I asked you to provide evidence that used was killing the industry, that's not the same thing as saying it's not true. That said, you want me to provide some arguments to back up the idea that used isn't killing the industry? Ok, I will.
- The knowledge that games can be returned means that people are more likely to take a risk when buying a game. If we are forced to keep every game we buy, purchasing a new game at full price becomes a very significant investment, with a used market, it is less of an issue because we know we will be able to get some money back on bad purchases.
- Trade-in credit allows people to buy more games. When I was young, I often relied on trade-in credit to get my new games. I didn't have enough money to just buy new games when they came out, however if I traded in a game or two, I did. That is still a sale of a new game, where the money comes from doesn't matter. Used games allowed me to buy new games I couldn't have otherwise bought
- Being able to buy older games used can lead to people wanting to buy newer games in the same franchise or from the same developer. Long after it came out and was no longer possible to buy new, I picked up a used copy of Psychonauts. That game made me a massive fan of Schafer and Double Fine, so much so that every single game they have released since, I have bought on the day of release and I've donated a fairly decent amount to their Kickstarter campaigns. If it had not been for that used copy of Psychonauts, I almost certainly wouldn't have done that.
- Increased sales of DLC. Used games mean more people end up playing said game. While the creator will not see a return from that second sale, they will see a return from any DLC the used owner decides to buy and the following used owner and the following used owner, etc.

Now before you start arguing against a point I haven't made...again, I'm not saying the above reasons are arguments that the used market is a good thing. I'm saying they are arguments against the idea that the used market is killing the industry. Allow me to pre-emptively explain the logic behind that, just in case you were thinking of asking. For the used market to be killing the industry, it has to be taking a very significant amount of money away from the industry. It's not just a simple case of 'it's taking some money away therefore it's killing the industry', hurting maybe, but not killing. That's the key point here. In fact, it has to be taking away (or at least coming very close to) enough money so that games actually can't make a profit. Would you agree that's fair? If games are still making a profit (I'm speaking generally here, even without a used market, not every game would sell enough to make a profit), then by definition, the industry can't be dying and therefore used games can't be killing it. Now, the above arguments in favour of the used market show that money is being put back into the industry as a direct result of the used market. I'm not suggesting it's as much as is being taken out (I doubt it's even particularly close), but it is something that's being put back in. THAT's the point of asking for evidence. We NEED to know how much used games are costing the industry (or at least just a single developer) and how much they are putting back in. Then we can see how much of an actual impact it's having and work out if it's actually killing the industry or not. Simply having a handful of developers say that it is isn't enough, not even slightly. We should not be willing to give up something that has, for almost as long as gaming has existed, been one of the fundamentals of console gaming, the right to sell a game you no longer want, something that many people rely on in order to get their games, for a claim that is just based on the word of a relatively small group of developers who are not willing to offer any proof.

Why wouldn't you try argue against the evidence? I know I would have if I was absolutely convinced about my views. I would scrutinise everything about the data, and I would look for the tiniest of flaws. There's nothing wrong with it, I think you just need to realise that the evidence you're looking for is probably impossible to get a hold of. Market research for a company is very sensitive data, so if you don't accept their word, then fine. There is a difference between someone stating that ghosts exists with no thread of logic, and someone stating something that has a very strong thread of logic that can be backed up with traditional economic theories.

http://www.1up.com/news/gamestop-report-reveals-profit-margins There's some data from GameStop that indicates that the used games market is taking a massive chunk of sales away from developers, which makes perfect sense of course. Of course, you're going to view the evidence differently, which proves my point exactly that you will scrutinise everything and view evidence in a way that supports your views. To counteract this huge loss of sales, that's where online passes, micro-transactions, and DLC are coming from. If used game sales were not heavily affecting any developer, then you wouldn't see such systems being created. I always laugh at gamers who feel so self-entitled that they should have to pay to play online, or that it's "disgusting" when a developer makes you pay for extras... The only reason those things exist is because of the consumer, but of course the consumer isn't to blame for wanting to purchase the cheaper product.

Do you really think a lot of developers want to risk bad PR trying to convince gamers that used games are bad for the industry? You know yourself how reactive gamers can be when their "rights" are taken from them.

Anyways, let's get onto your points of discussion, because that's far more interesting to me. When used games are blocked, prices will come down because the demand will go up. Steam has proven this. I'm aware that Microsoft are claiming that new games will cost $60 for first party games (no mention of Sony prices), but believe it or not, that is a price reduction in itself because of inflation and increased costs of developing next-gen games. We also don't know if they intend on having Steam-like sales, and we have no idea what publishers are going to charge for their products. It's still early days yet, and I can see Microsoft pulling a Nintendo by suddenly changing their pricing strategy overnight. Time will still tell for this one until we receive more details, however, economic laws state that there's a very high probability. If not, then Microsoft really need to learn how to be a better business. I'd be shocked that a business who's been playing for years will screw up so badly. But basically, your first argument is redundant because prices will be adjusted to be more appealing to consumers.

One of your biggest arguments seem to be that used games encourages people to buy new games. That's very possible, and I'm sure there are people who fit in that category. However, are you honestly convinced that the majority of consumers will change their purchasing habits away from used games? If a used copy of a game is available, why would they break their habits and purchase new? It doesn't seem exactly rational. Same thing for buying newer games from a franchise, why would they buy a new copy of the game when a used copy is available? The second a buyer goes up to a GameStop counter to purchase a new game, they're going to upsell and encourage the customer to buy used. The type of buyers who trade-in games to buy other games seem like they really need to conserve their money, so it makes sense to buy used right?

The DLC argument is a solid argument, as TotalBiscuits stated himself in his video, and it's why you see DLC everywhere now, so that used games aren't affecting the developers that much. But a similar argument can be used to argue that piracy is perfectly fine as well, as buyers can purchase online passes to play online with their pirated product, but I'm pretty sure we can all agree that piracy is not good for developers in the least.

As a customer, what would you rather see? Steam-likes where there's no online passes or "unnecessary" DLC or whatever other things developers implement to protect their products, or would you rather see the opposite? Do you like the current system or would you rather move to a system that benefits everyone involved?

 

[xDarc]

They could stop making games entirely for anything but xbox one and I still wouldn't buy it. I would go outside.

 

[NoOne852]

Maybe in the year or two when I get a next gen console they will have worked out the problems that are keeping me away. Otherwise, no. I will be getting the PS4 instead.

 

[Whateveralot]

I love how you're adding only 1 option to the poll. No, I'm not buying the Xbone and I was never intending to (not even before the announcement).

 

[Griffolion]

Nope. Not a chance. If I'm to get a console, it will be the PS4.

 

[Something Amyss]

I am. At least 1, possibly 2.
From the UK.

And yes, I do have very good reasons for picking this over the PS4. It's not just blind loyalty - it's legitimately the better choice for me.

Forgive me if this has been answered already, the thread's seven pages long so maybe it has. But why? What specifically is better about it for you?

This is definitely not a flame. I just have trouble seeing enough positives to merit it being the Console of Choice for much of anyne.

 

[Childe]

Ya I'm not getting it. Only reason im getting the ps4 at all is so i can play KH3. Been waiting to long to pass it up even if it sucks lol

 

[jim1398]

Why wouldn't you try argue against the evidence? I know I would have if I was absolutely convinced about my views. I would scrutinise everything about the data, and I would look for the tiniest of flaws. There's nothing wrong with it, I think you just need to realise that the evidence you're looking for is probably impossible to get a hold of. Market research for a company is very sensitive data, so if you don't accept their word, then fine. There is a difference between someone stating that ghosts exists with no thread of logic, and someone stating something that has a very strong thread of logic that can be backed up with traditional economic theories.

http://www.1up.com/news/gamestop-report-reveals-profit-margins There's some data from GameStop that indicates that the used games market is taking a massive chunk of sales away from developers, which makes perfect sense of course. Of course, you're going to view the evidence differently, which proves my point exactly that you will scrutinise everything and view evidence in a way that supports your views. To counteract this huge loss of sales, that's where online passes, micro-transactions, and DLC are coming from. If used game sales were not heavily affecting any developer, then you wouldn't see such systems being created. I always laugh at gamers who feel so self-entitled that they should have to pay to play online, or that it's "disgusting" when a developer makes you pay for extras... The only reason those things exist is because of the consumer, but of course the consumer isn't to blame for wanting to purchase the cheaper product.

Do you really think a lot of developers want to risk bad PR trying to convince gamers that used games are bad for the industry? You know yourself how reactive gamers can be when their "rights" are taken from them.

Anyways, let's get onto your points of discussion, because that's far more interesting to me. When used games are blocked, prices will come down because the demand will go up. Steam has proven this. I'm aware that Microsoft are claiming that new games will cost $60 for first party games (no mention of Sony prices), but believe it or not, that is a price reduction in itself because of inflation and increased costs of developing next-gen games. We also don't know if they intend on having Steam-like sales, and we have no idea what publishers are going to charge for their products. It's still early days yet, and I can see Microsoft pulling a Nintendo by suddenly changing their pricing strategy overnight. Time will still tell for this one until we receive more details, however, economic laws state that there's a very high probability. If not, then Microsoft really need to learn how to be a better business. I'd be shocked that a business who's been playing for years will screw up so badly. But basically, your first argument is redundant because prices will be adjusted to be more appealing to consumers.

One of your biggest arguments seem to be that used games encourages people to buy new games. That's very possible, and I'm sure there are people who fit in that category. However, are you honestly convinced that the majority of consumers will change their purchasing habits away from used games? If a used copy of a game is available, why would they break their habits and purchase new? It doesn't seem exactly rational. Same thing for buying newer games from a franchise, why would they buy a new copy of the game when a used copy is available? The second a buyer goes up to a GameStop counter to purchase a new game, they're going to upsell and encourage the customer to buy used. The type of buyers who trade-in games to buy other games seem like they really need to conserve their money, so it makes sense to buy used right?

The DLC argument is a solid argument, as TotalBiscuits stated himself in his video, and it's why you see DLC everywhere now, so that used games aren't affecting the developers that much. But a similar argument can be used to argue that piracy is perfectly fine as well, as buyers can purchase online passes to play online with their pirated product, but I'm pretty sure we can all agree that piracy is not good for developers in the least.

As a customer, what would you rather see? Steam-likes where there's no online passes or "unnecessary" DLC or whatever other things developers implement to protect their products, or would you rather see the opposite? Do you like the current system or would you rather move to a system that benefits everyone involved?

There you go, making assumptions again. I'd suggest you stop it, you don't seem to be very good at it. I've made it quite clear that I'm not convinced of anything, my own views on the used market included. Unfortunately you didn't seem to pick up on that, instead you chose to make repeated incorrect assumptions under the mistaken impression that simply because I questioned your claim, I must be absolutely sure the opposite is true.

You keep saying the evidence is impossible to get hold of, yet as I've said before (a point you keep choosing to ignore), they are more than happy to give figures when it comes to piracy. Developers and publishers have given us figures for how many people have played their game and how many people have bought their game. They aren't particularly worried about giving us that information. So what exactly is it about the used sales information they must have (again, if they haven't got it, then they are just assuming used sales are killing the industry) that is so sensitive? What, they're happy to tell us how many people bought their game but telling us how many people bought it used is somehow going to have dire consequences? I'm sorry, but where's the logic there?

Again with the assumptions. Do you want me to just leave and you can have this discussion yourself with this imaginary version of me that you've created? I'm not going to view that data differently, it quite clearly shows that they make a large amount of money from the used market. What it doesn't show (and please, if you think it does, I'd love to hear how) is that the used market is killing the games industry. Let's not forget, I'm not asking you to prove the used market is hurting the games industry (if you'd claimed that, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now, oh and BTW, if you want to revise your original claim and instead start claiming that, feel free and we can call it a day), I'm asking you to prove that it's killing the industry.

Hmm, I don't think you can simply say that steam has proven that. There are several other factors at work with PC game prices, not simply demand. If it were that simple, then prices on GFWL and Origin should have dropped too. Oh wait, that's right, Microsoft don't care at all about PC do they (well, according to you, seems like a bit a large claim to make without any proof, but then I guess that's a bit of a theme with you...oh hey, I can make assumption too!), but it seems like EA care about PC, so much so that they created an entire service for it to try and rival steam. Yet, prices on Origin don't even come close to Steams prices, they are often only just under the console versions price. They've even stated that they are not willing to match steams frequent 75% off sales. So if it's just about increased demand due to no used games, why exactly can't they match those steam sales?

As you say, time will tell but then you also say that prices will be adjusted? So which is it? Either time is going to tell or prices will be adjusted. If it's the latter, then how do you know? Sure, economic law states it should, but then that should also apply to Origin and yet it hasn't. This, again, seems to tie in with your love of assumptions. You're just assuming they'll lower the prices because it's what supports your argument. Let's make some more assumptions shall we? It looks like fun. Let's assume the Xbox One sells really, really well. Well then surely that sends the message that the majority of people don't really need an incentive to put up with it's various restrictions. So, why would Microsoft choose to lower prices if we've shown them that we are happy to buy their console anyway? There's no logic in that. No, what actually has to happen is we have to send them the message that we don't want the console, then they have to bring in measures to make it appear more attractive, such as lowering the price of games. Ah but wait, you've been making the argument that they'll do this ahead of time, that they aren't going to wait until the console is already out. Are you really sure about that? I know, economic law and all that, but we're talking about the video games industry here. It's an industry where companies are willing to spend so much on budgets that they have to sell over 5 million copies to make a return (oh and please don't try to blame that on used, if they can't make a good profit on 5 million sales then that's not down to used sales, that's down to terrible business decisions). It's an industry where Microsoft is willing to release a new console in only 21 countries (BTW, if you like TotalBuscuit, you should check out his June 14th content patch, he goes into great detail about how idiotic Microsoft are for that). You expect any of these companies to make sensible business decisions? Really?!

You claim it's one of my biggest arguments, yet it's one you've not fully understood. As I said, trade-in credit allows people to buy more new games. I'm not talking about people who can buy new and choose to buy used, I'm talking about people who can't just buy everything new. That has nothing to do with habit, it's about necessity. As for why they would want to buy new, why do people pre-order? Why do the people who do buy their games new do so? I'm sure we'd all like to believe it's because they want as much money to go to the makers as possible, but do we really believe that (please, please tell me you don't...)? No, the reason is because they want the game as soon as possible. Well guess what, that also applies to the people I'm talking about. They also want games as soon as possible and they're willing to trade-in some of their older games to get those new games.

Do I really need to state this again? I'm not saying used is good for the industry. How many more times would you like me to repeat this point?

The problem is with the assumption that we would get steam like sales. Nice loaded question BTW.

 

[destroyer383]

I am. At least 1, possibly 2.
From the UK.

And yes, I do have very good reasons for picking this over the PS4. It's not just blind loyalty - it's legitimately the better choice for me.

Can you elaborate on why or how?

Frankly, I don't see much difference in the two platforms. But, as many people have said before, as long as that thing is attached to it, I will not get one.

But you're from the UK where you have about as much privacy as a caged rodent in an elementary (primary?) classroom. Maybe you're used to having everything you say and do spied on (don't bring up America's current scandals involving our intelligence agencies... the fact we're NOT used to being spied on in such a way is WHY they're scandals).

I agree with you about the kinect being a horrible privacy issue, for that and the incredible amount of restrictions being placed on it i will not get a Xbox one.
With that said, im from the UK and i disagree with your accusation that we have no privacy, we have plenty of privacy.

 

[Ren_Li]

Just a point, but some people will have to get it for their jobs. Like... Video game reviewers.
Just want to point out that there will be people buying it for reasons other than... well, wanting to.

For me, no. Noooo. No no no. I said as soon as the new gen was being talked about that lack of backwards compatibility would be a deal breaker for some time (however long it would take to release a decent number of games I'd want); but pretty much everything the Xbone can do puts me off. From TV and Skype, to having a Kinect, feels like paying for a bunch of stuff that I don't want, need, or will ever even consider using.
If it was backwards compatible, I might- might- consider it- if I had moved to a place with stable internet by release date so I could actually use it (and if MS hadn't screwed up the PR so badly). As it is, I'm planning on saving up so I can get a modest-but-functional gaming PC. And I'll stick to my 360 for the old games I am, apparently, "backwards" for still loving.

(But honestly, MS has made me feel genuinely insulted by insinuating that this area of my interests, and that facet of my life, are so unimportant and beneath them to be ridiculous that I expect them to consider them. Even if they corrected their mistakes and made a console I genuinely want, I would be very hesitant to give them my money.)

 

[Edl01]

That's 117 too many sales for this console.
People wonder why publishers and developers have no respect for consumers, but how can we expect them too when we will buy anything they give us no matter what kind of crap they pull with it. The new Xbox could be on fire and run off the power of dead babies and people would still buy it.

 

[Moth_Monk]

I am probably going to get it but for the games only, not the console.

Rather like supporting the troops but not the war? Or some other nonsensical contradiction in terms, yes?

Captcha: egg on