Super long post. Feel free to respond to key points you feel should be addressed and to discard ones you think we're at an empasse. I've thoroughly enjoyed this though. Thank you.
ZZoMBiE13 said:
OK I'm horrible at forum code and every time I've tried to do the point by point quote/reply thing it's always resembled the Hindenburg disaster. So bear with me as I try to offer my stance on these issues. And if I miss anything, please feel free to point it out because it's not intentional.
If you're interested, quoting just requires [ quote ] quoted text here [ /quote ] (without spaces between brackets and "quote"). If your end result looks bad, then you're likely missing a few [ /quote ] or [ quote ]'s. Or even worse, one of them is spelled qoute instead of quote. In a forum setting, you'd leave the first automatically generated quote in place so that my name stands out in the post so I know you're talking to me. Then just put an end [ /quote ] where you want my first quote to end for your response to begin. Use the preview button instead of posting it to proof. In any event, I have no trouble going through your post and parsing out what comments go to which of my comments. This tutorial was just in case you wanted it.
The initial "REVEAL" broadcast.
I actually wasn't bothered by the reveal as not being directed at me. I'm a college of business graduate. I understand that companies need to broaden the market of the product as best as possible and making the XBO a one-stop entertainment box can appeal to everyone. This is just them trying to compete with the one thing that kept the PS3 alive initially. That it was a $400-$600 blu-ray player at a time when just regular blu-ray players were more expensive (haha). This is their version of getting some of that action in this generation.
That being said, I was baffled that they repeatedly pushed the idea that you can run your cable box through it as if that's a game changer. I understand mentioning that possibility but it simply isn't a need almost any of us have. Our cable boxes generally work and DVRs are a must have today. My box not only records 4 channels at the same time (2 in HD), but can broadcast the recorded show to any other TV in my house (like the one in my bedroom or in our workout room). My cable company even allows me to access live shows remotely. That they spent so much time on that feature is like a company trying to compete wiht TiVo now, in this day and age after the original strongest need has passed. I guess all I'm saying is that they haven't met a need with any of the additional stuff. Do you need to run your cable TV through a second box?
Now you've mentioned many of the negative points by pointing to Don Mattrick. And those points are certainly fair. He was doing the company no favors in his vein effort to do damage control. But take him out of it. He's already gone. And we can talk about intent all day, but this dude screwed up. There are too many variables to know if this was his perspective, or Microsoft's perspective. So I'm laying most of this at his feet. I don't think he's an idiot, but I don't think he belongs in front of a camera without a teleprompter and a different dude writing his copy.
Gone or not, he was there during the production of the XBO. Make no mistake, that box arriving in stores this November was his baby, not the new CEO's. So unless her first step as CEO is to drastically change a device that thousands of people have already preordered (I assume not millions, yet, but possible), you can't take the ship changing hands as evidence that this will change an already developed product. As the CEO of the department, his perspective WAS Microsoft's perspective. Perhaps you'll see a better XBO version come out in a couple years thanks to the new CEO. But unlikely significantly different with the need to standardize consoles.
I did a little checking with some friends who work at GameStop (here in Texas, where they're based, they are so ubiquitous you can't be a gamer and not know a few people who work there). I asked a friend of mine who manages a GS location what the pre-order numbers were like. At the time I pre-ordered my PS4 (the day after announcement) they were at 25 pre-orders for the PS4. The X1 hadn't cracked double digits and it had been on offer for twice as long due to Sony's presser coming later in the day I guess (that's assumption on my part, not fact).
Oh, you find the numbers interesting as well. I'm also fasinated with the performance (it makes a good study case) so I've done a lot of personal research into the matter. Things are looking really bad for MS this generation. Do you remember how everyone was saying that the week of XBO's reversal that the console suddenly shot up into the #1 spot? That was a dishonest statement. It was indeed the top 3 of one list until it sold out, but the ps4 had 5 bundles, all of which were in the top 30 at the time. All of which, with the exception of the standard version, have since sold out. To get a good gauge on what's going on, look at this:
http://www.amazon.com/best-sellers-video-games/zgbs/videogames#1
That's the best sellers in the video games category right now. That's the list the XBO day one edition was at the top of and has no guage on how much something has sold overall (which makes journalists pointing to that somewhat dishonest). It's updated every hour so my numbers may be slightly off depending on when you click the link. But this list is usually fairly stable with items only dropping or rising a few spots each hour. However, the ps4 standard version is in #4 right now. The XBO standard edition? #48. To further put it into perspective. The ps4 controller is #53 and even the WiiU controller is #56, but the XBO controller? Not on the list. The controllers were the best way to look at which console was doing better back when the day one version of the XBO was still on sale.
Let's take it a step further: Below is the best sellers of 2013 in video games so far.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/2013/videogames
Ps4 launch day is #3, XBO day one is #6. This is huge, it means that even though the XBO took significantly longer to sell out, it didn't even have as many units as the ps4 launch day had to offer. So the launch day ps4 alone has sold more than the XBO launch edition. Now, one of them may add more launch day consoles later on, but that's where the numbers stand as of this posting. #54 is the Standard ps4. #80 is the ps4 controller. #81 is the Watch Dogs PS4 bundle. #98 is the Battlefield 4 PS4 bundle. A couple weeks ago, the Killzone bundle was also in this list so it shouldn't be far from the top 100. I also don't know where the knack bundle is but I assume it had the least number of bundles with it being a new IP that's not as anticipated as Watchdogs. But all of them sold out and all of the numbered ones have sold more than the XBO standard console (since its not on the list). The XBO controller isn't even on the list. The PS4 isn't just doubling its sales over the XBO. It's probably over 5:1 or close to it.
Last exmaple of public opinion: http://www.amazon.com/gp/most-wished-for/videogames#1
The ps4 standard edition is #1. The already sold out XBO day one edition is #3. PS4 controller is #6. But I want you to look through those pages and look at the kinds of games people are wanting. For example, Watchdogs for the XBO is #88, #13 is the ps4 version of Watchdogs.
This is the best kind of research we can do before actual numbers are released. But hopefully you found my results/research interesting. Popularity doesn't have anything to do with quality of a system but in the future it can seriously impact the system's ability to get exclusive titles or to be able to compete along other lines. The ps3 didn't even do this badly compared to the 360 but they launched in different years so I don't know if we can compare them. If we can, then MS has a lot of time to gain ground and take hold of a legitimate market share. If we can't, then the XBO may have a really tough time this generation.
Basically, what I'm hoping for is that Microsoft is trying to right the ship before they make the biggest mistakes. And that may be stupid on my part. But I've never seen a major company like them spend a week trying to build up an item and fall back because of customer outcry. Sony took years before they would even acknowledge that the PS3 had a problem. Nintendo still has trouble with assuming they can keep the same course and stay relevant in today's market. So while it may be foolish on my part (only time will tell), the reversal of these policies speaks volumes to me.
And for the record, I think the greed argument is silly. All companies are in this for the money.
Greed isn't evil, it's just motivation. It's letting the greed cloud your judgement that's the problem. MS saw something that would GREATLY benefit them at a significant cost to consumers as a whole. Get rid of the second hand market and make all games significantly more difficult to pirate by encorporating check-ins and always on drm. The perfect one-two punch. They ran the numbers and saw how much more money they could make in doing that. And I agree, a movie company would make a lot more money if people were unable to sell or loan their used DVDs/Blurays. But taking actions to make hardware that is anti-consumer in such a huge way is them forgetting one very important point. We don't have to give them our money. There is competition and right now the compitition looks bigger (more powerful), better (less restrictive), and cheaper ($$$). Microsoft could not see the client response for all the green in their eyes and so they made a grab. They then realized how it was making them look and got some of the worst PR imagineable. Big companies DO react to that. Sony couldn't admit that they had a problem until towards the end of the system because they were still selling units and they couldn't change the problem (the ps3 proprietary hardware is the problem I assume you're talking about) and Nintendo is actually admitting fault with their latest console. That's an unusual move to make this early but the dreadful sales speak for themselves. Still, I wouldn't think they'd say it.
I mean, Nintendo literally admitted failure, saying what they've done wrong without mentioning a solution. If they don't act, they may be dead in the water again. It's truly a shame.
There's also a few other points that I'll throw in here regarding the big 2. Sony's entire stage show is reactionary. These aren't proactive policies they put in place back in February. These are decisions they made on the fly. So they get no points from me regarding them. They had enough games that looked good (Seriously, Transistor looks amazing) that it warranted attention. But their policies only came into being in service of opportunity.
Look at it this way. They looked at MS's terrible launch and learned in real time and responded flexibly in ways large corporations aren't usually able to. They paid attention to people on sites like these and not only understood our stances, but responded to them. You can act like them responding in real time is a bad thing, but Microsoft not responding quickly to these complaints was their problem. What Sony likely did was to have several different possible routes they could have taken. They probably did even more planning that Microsoft which had one course to take and that was it. So looking at Sony react and change their product in live time isn't necessarily any lack of planning. You're getting both systems so you shouldn't have trouble seeing this as a good thing. We want companies to be fluid enough to respond to things we don't like and companies that are rigidly set against us come across as asses by comparison. That's how it should be.
And I don't see the video of "game sharing" as all that professional. Sure, we all remember the SEGA/Nintendon't commercials and it's a cute call back. But again, no points for doing nothing at all while the other guy crashes and burns. That's just rubbing salt in the wound. And I bet if MS had made a "How do you not get your data stolen" video when Sony was screwing the pooch, no one would have laughed.
Doing nothing? Sony patented software that would do exactly what Microsoft is trying to do. Sony likely decided not to go through with it at this conference.
Deciding to do nothing is every bit as much a choice as deciding to do something differently. That video may have been nothing short of a burn, but it made its point clearly and concisely. Sony was on our side there, had they not been, Microsoft and Sony would have done a lot to kill our right of first sale. Sure, Sony was on our side because they knew we'd prefer them for doing it and buyer preference = $$$. But the reason does not negate the effect. It just means they know who pays their bills and that's important.
I guess my point is that brand loyalty is just a fool's errand.
I don't know who is talking about brand loyalty. I'm making specific points about mistakes and concerns, not broad "Sony/Microsoft" are so "this/that". I'll assume this statement is for people in general and not me. I've enjoyed both company's products and have owned every console/system that both companys have produced. As stated, I will likely get an XBO in a few years and play the back catalogue then.
The ad thing, the Twitch TV thing (which isn't actually tv, it's the main website where games are streamed), these are all just subjective points to me. The hardware and cloud computing things as well. You can see them as shoehorning in control, that is certainly your right and privilege to choose to, but that is the same stance Valve took with STEAM. And everyone hated that too at first. "I have to install this client to run my game? BLASPHEMY" were the cries I recall. But that bold step that once seemed anti-consumer is now regaled as the savior of PC gaming. Used in every "We are the PC gaming master race" thread all across the internet. iTunes as well was once lamented and is now most everyone's go-to way to purchase music. Formerly seen as draconian and anit-consumer but now rallied behind. Why wouldn't a company like Microsoft try and do a console version of that?
You only have to be online for Valve to download the game, as noted, no one cares as long as they can still play offline. The cloud computing issue of the XBO that I'm talking about will be permanently always online if you want to play even single player games that use it. Are you stating that Always Online gaming will eventually be seen as a positive even though it gives the player virtually nothing but lag in single player gaming? You're talking about bringing the simCity possibility to EVERY game at minimal or no benefit to you. The more processing that happens on the server side, the faster your internet will have to be and the larger the potential of a degraded game experience for something that the ps4 may be able to entirely process in-console. This is no trivial thing. The ps4 being around 50% more powerful means that there is a great possibility that the XBO ports will require cloud computing much sooner. Remember though, cloud computing is only as good as the network connection. Microsoft can have the most powerful servers in the world but if your connection is being throttled by the amount of data going back and forth then you'll experience all the joys of lag in single layer games.
Also, are you not familiar with Sony's game streaming service? It seems like you don't when you bring up Twitch TV if that's all it is:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/20/4010420/sonys-playstation-4-will-use-gaikai-game-streaming-technology
The ad thing is significant. You're talking about a box in your house that is listening to and processing your words to try to market to you. It's like allowing companies to listen in on your private conversations only to get a call back the moment you're done talking with an offer from a flower company to sell you discounted apology flowers for what you just said. Do you really have no qualms with that? You may not but I'm interested to hear if you don't care about that kind of invasion of privacy.
If I remember the news articles correctly, Sony was the first to patent anti-used games technology. Kudos to them for not implementing it of course. That one does earn points. But if I had to assume, and this is nothing other than an assumption, I'd wager that both companies were under pressure from the big publishers to do that. Used games don't even effect the platform holders that much. It's the EAs and the Activisions who want to end that trend. But again, that's just me trying to see beyond the veil, not any hard evidence.
Oh, you already knew this. I'm responding as I'm reading so I hadn't read this when I mentioned that Sony has the tech to force used games out. So why did you not give Sony points above for doing nothing while MS burned if you knew that in this case, doing nothing was not folding to big publishers in favor of the customer is always right motto? You were specifically referring to the preowned games video which directly relates to this.
The SimCity example is troubling. I was part of that debacle and it was a mishandled situation without equal. Even Diablo 3 wasn't that bad as SimCity continues to be broken and all but unplayable, though they still have my $60 so I'm going to own that one. I should have known better. I'm a well informed gamer who took a gamble, and it didn't pay off.
That was EA. Now imagine every developer being responsible for the same thing EA was for their own game launch.
But I don't mind the idea of a digital copy of my collection that I don't have to put in the disc tray each time.
Then buy a digital copy. That's available regardless of what they decided to do here. Why get a disk at all? Just remember, you only have 500GB of available disk space and we don't know if the HDD is still proprietary for Microsoft like it was last gen so you may end up spending $300 if you want 1TB. Hopefully they went the Sony route this time and allow any HDD that fits. Why do I point that out? Because current gen games exceed 40GB sometimes already. I can only imagine the size that the next generation of games may take up. The x86 may alleviate that though. Even so, we're seeing a lot of big named games climb up there in size. Perhaps the 50GB limit on Bluray will hold that back but Sony has already figured out how to put 1TB of space in 2x layers so who knows. Also, implementing a download portion or multiple disks isn't entirely out of the question.
I like the idea of being able to share my games with a set "family" that I can control. And digital trading needs to happen. It should have already happened. And I'm hoping that this is one of the things that makes it to the Xbox One. Digital property needs to have some options and that is part of managing our rights to our products. Our digital rights. Digital Rights Management can be seen from a negative or a positive, it just depends one whether you stare from above it or below it.
Digital trading should not be held hostage at the demand of the death of physical trading. Also, the method that they had to share your games with family wasn't to share the full game like you thought. It was sharing the game in timed-demo format. Yay. If they can get through all of Skyrim in one or two hours then they're golden.
For the record, I'm not championing the Xbox One. I'm not recommending it to anyone either.
Right, you're just explaining why you're buying it. I undestand that completely. That you are buying both early on is what makes you ideal for this discussion. My responses to you aren't to try to convince you not to buy it. It's your money. If you have a decent job then $500 isn't the end of the world. I'm just trying to levy real complaints against the system and see what your reasoning is. At the end of the day, if just for the games you prefer, then that's enough.
I like Fable as well, and I'm excited to see what Lionhead can do without Peter Molyneux gushing about all the leaves on the trees. I liked Killer Instinct back in the 90s as well so I'm excited to see if they cock that one up or if it's actually interesting. And more than that, I'm excited for the games that are unknown quantities. Sunset Overdrive, Titanfall, and Quantum Break specifically. They may all suck, but I'm interested. Comparatively, Sony is offering me a new InFAMOUS, which is exciting, and the indie focus which I plan to support in earnest. Especially Transistor. But most of their stage show were games I could get for either. Kingdom Hearts, Watch Dogs, these aren't exclusive titles. Destiny will be ubiquitous and available on both next gen as well as both current gen offerings.
I like all the games you've mentioned. Though several for the XBO will be available on my pc (Titanfall was of particular interest to me). But Sony hasn't announced their full exclusive lineup from what I can tell. They (SCE, not counting any third party devs) have 30 ps4 exclusives in development right now, 20 of which will launch in the first year and 12 of which are entirely new IPs.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/sony-one-ups-microsoft-with-20-ps4-exclusives-in-first-year/
I would wait until the German Gamescom in which they're planning to announce the rest. Who knows, maybe XBO also has games they haven't announced. Forgive me if they have already announced the rest of the games and I just haven't seen it yet.
If I take the step back and look at it objectively, counting only the gaming that I truly care about. X1 makes far more sense for me now that they've reversed the policies I didn't like. But that is just for me and my personal needs and desires. And again, I'm going to get both. I've never been in a position (financially or hype level wise) to be able to do that before in my entire lengthy gaming life (and I'm 41, so it's been through pretty much gamings entire history). And more than not being able to, I've never wanted to before. Even the 360 had to get Dead Rising and Saints Row before I was really invested in it. I got it a few months after launch, the PS3 2 years after it's launch and only because I wanted the version that did software backward compatibility. I did buy the Wii on launch, but only because my daughter wanted it. I've spent more time with real Katana in my hands than a WiiMote. And in case you're wondering, I'm not a samurai. My sword is usually just a decoration unless I'm showing it off to someone.
It is certainly a new phase of my life in which I don't have to worry about these kinds of expenditures as much. I mean, $500 isn't simple for me but it's not huge anymore like it was even five years go. I'm 27. I work in the heavy tech industry. I'm not doing great, but I am the guy that six-figure income people call when they can't solve a problem. Now all I need to do is get to be one of those guys for just one firm and I'll be set.
The last small point I'm going to hit on is the hardware thing. I think it's too early to start comparing hardware or saying definitely that any specs were pushed a certain way to do this or that. I do think it's regrettable for MS that Sony went for the better RAM and they didn't. But in practice, none of us know how it's going to pan out. MS's system on a chip design may pan out or it may be a spectacular failure. Either way though, no system has ever "won the gen" by being the most powerful or technically advanced and they're both x86 anyway. At the end of the day, most games will probably be built on Frostbite 3 or Unreal 4 anyway. And the ones that aren't will likely be optimized better since the hardware is far more similar now than ever before. Basically, while mildly concerned, until we have more than supposition and nebulous hardware specs, I don't want to have a big discussion about it. I'm simply not well versed enough to speak with any kind of authority on the matter so I would not want to spread misinformation here. I hope that doesn't sound like a cop out. But I wouldn't go to a gun fight without my Magnum and I'm not prepared to debate a topic that I haven't researched in earnest. Essentially though, I think it's the least interesting thing going on right now because as long as the software runs well, I don't really think it's the biggest talking point. I keep going back to the games and that's where each company will earn my money and support.
I hope that covered everything, but let me know if I missed anything.
We've almost never had a system that was this much more powerful from the start and cheaper. The specs may have been kept lower because the Kinect two costs almost as much as the XBO (Microsoft just mentioned this) and can you imagine if they'd started at $600 or higher this gen?
