I bought the OG X1 about a month after it released.Does releasing an upgraded mid-cycle version of a console for 500€ really make up for the shitty, unfinished product they sold at launch for 500€?
For me the answer is no but I can see why some people would answer with yes.
I kinda start to believe that the stance on Xbox One differs between early vs late adopters. If I hadn't bought an OG X1 and later bought the One S or X my opinion would probably be a lot different.
Did you guys own the OG?
Really? You pay 10 (or most of the times less) dollars and you get access to 180 games. Including games like:
- Fallout 4
- Rocket League
- The Elder Scrolls Online
- The Division
- Rise of the Tomb Raider
- Sea of Thieves
- Halo 5
- Gears of War 4
- Halo Wars 2
- Cities Skylines
- PES18
- Sunset Overdrive
+ 168 more
How is that pretty bad?
they can Fix it with High quality games New IPs invest more in the brand get there Core gamers back.....without need to release their games in PCThe brand was fatally wounded far before they made games available on PC.
I love Jim but in an industry full of toxicity (and he himself claims to hate the bigots etc that are found in it) he does often appeal to these people with his hyperbole, negativity and attacks on things/people.
they can Fix it with High quality games New IPs invest more in the brand get there Core gamers back.....without need to release their games in PC
This is really it, and gets to his point of thinking too much like a publisher. The best GAAS games are the AAA multiplat games. Nintendo and Sony fill the niches that the AAA publishers aren't hitting.The things Microsoft do well are typically genres done better by cross platform AAA publishers.
The things Sony and Nintendo do well no one does better than them.
That's really the difference. If I want GaaS or shooters, I'm better off on PC than Xbox or playing a cross platform game like Fortnite or Battlefield rather than Sea of Thieves or Halo 5.
If I want platformers, noone beats Nintendo. If I want action adventure games with strong narratives, noone today beats Sony.
I can tell you the negatives, loot boxes or microtransactions in general (which i all consider predatory), often unfinished or lack of content, lack of quality, strong online multiplayer focus. So pretty much Microsofts exclusive lineup this gen in a nutshell.What does that even mean? Are you talking about games that they want to run for years, and they should just eat the costs associated?
Lets walk down memory lane, when gaas were pretty much MMOs. Granted the market was substantially smaller, but you had Ultima Online, then EverQuest, and then WoW, with a few smaller MMOs still able to eke out an existence. All of these games had monthly fees AND paid expansions.
You also had an unbelievable number of failed games.
Heres the main point: I think it was discovered there was only so many gamers willing to shell out for monthly subs. And once they were subscribing, another product was unlikely to gain an additional sub from a user - you had to get them to switch to your game. WoW hit and I think they pretty much hit the ceiling on that.
But the monthly fee structure actually kept some of those games running for insane amounts of time (if you told me EQ would still be going in 2019, I dont think I would have ever believed you). EQ apparently has moved to (i think) a F2P MT based model mixed with the monthly premium model. But I digress
A lot of online games that were not quake got made and support dried up in very short amounts of time. That brought about the evolution of "gaas" - online games with years of developer support. How you monetize these is also evolving, but they are usually better games due to monetization.
So I ask you - what are the negatives, to you, of having a gaas (in general)? To me it's some of the methods of monetization - loot boxes, especially coupled with making gameplay onerous without paying money or spending an obscene amount of time.
Even Bungie ended up on the MT train for their gaas - and they added what I assume will be yearly paid content packs that are the full price of the game yet again (MMO model).
So all that said, expand on your point, give examples, reasons why you feel MS gaas, or gaas itself is detrimental.
How would you be excluded? Nobody prevents you from buying an Xbox.
It is not excuses... it is reality... neither of the games you listed are exclusives to XB1.
Wouldn't ppl on the weaker XBOs have a lesser experience? Isn't that what most ppl have? Kudos for MS having the most powerful mid gen refresh, but that doesn't mean the other 2 just disappear.
How would you be excluded? Nobody prevents you from buying an Xbox.
The difference between the S and the OG X1 is fairly negligible.I never expect a 100% finished product as an early adopter, I'm also ok with mid gen refreshs (kinda like the small, black 360s or PS2 slims).
What I'm not OK with is billion dollar companies, that have all the money in the world and appropriate R&D ressources, selling me a 500€ product at launch that:
a) needs to be overhauled after only 2.5 years (S)
b) was sold with a periphal that was discontinued within 2-3 years
And then they expect me to pay them another 500€ for a more powerful version with only 3 years left this gen?
When you charge 500€ for a product, you simply don't get to have that "trial & error" approach. You also don't get a "do over" three years later and expect people to fork out another 500€. No Microsoft, you get one shot per generation and that's it.
No matter what Sony and MS have done since 2013, it's the first impression that counts and all in all the OG PS4 simpy was a better product than the OG X1.
I get that plent of folks buy the revisions, but the launch day models are the benchmark IMO
When someone discusses the OG PlayStation, does the slim PSOne version come to mind? Not for me.
If sony had a leading PC operating system (dont peer to far into that dark dark timeline), you can be 100% guaranteed at some point they would do the same sort of thing.
What does that even mean? Are you talking about games that they want to run for years, and they should just eat the costs associated?
Lets walk down memory lane, when gaas were pretty much MMOs. Granted the market was substantially smaller, but you had Ultima Online, then EverQuest, and then WoW, with a few smaller MMOs still able to eke out an existence. All of these games had monthly fees AND paid expansions.
You also had an unbelievable number of failed games.
Heres the main point: I think it was discovered there was only so many gamers willing to shell out for monthly subs. And once they were subscribing, another product was unlikely to gain an additional sub from a user - you had to get them to switch to your game. WoW hit and I think they pretty much hit the ceiling on that.
But the monthly fee structure actually kept some of those games running for insane amounts of time (if you told me EQ would still be going in 2019, I dont think I would have ever believed you). EQ apparently has moved to (i think) a F2P MT based model mixed with the monthly premium model. But I digress
A lot of online games that were not quake got made and support dried up in very short amounts of time. That brought about the evolution of "gaas" - online games with years of developer support. How you monetize these is also evolving, but they are usually better games due to monetization.
So I ask you - what are the negatives, to you, of having a gaas (in general)? To me it's some of the methods of monetization - loot boxes, especially coupled with making gameplay onerous without paying money or spending an obscene amount of time.
Even Bungie ended up on the MT train for their gaas - and they added what I assume will be yearly paid content packs that are the full price of the game yet again (MMO model).
So all that said, expand on your point, give examples, reasons why you feel MS gaas, or gaas itself is detrimental.
they can Fix it with High quality games New IPs invest more in the brand get there Core gamers back.....without need to release their games in PC
Those "core" gamers are gone and are not coming back in a hurry.
Consumers voted with their wallets and bought PS4's. How attractive was a cheaper and more powerful console against a console that was more expensive, bundled with a on spy cam, 720 vs 1080 etc
MS have been on the back foot ever since and playing catch up, they simply haven't been able to catch up.
Another thing Xbox One year one had quite a few exclusive IP's and no PC versions, hardly pushed the console into people's homes.
Sorry about that, but I got ad in that video.... Not sure if youtube fuck up or not, but sorry to Jim, if I was being wrong.
The difference between the S and the OG X1 is fairly negligible.
I can tell you the negatives, loot boxes or microtransactions in general (which i all consider predatory), often unfinished or lack of content, lack of quality, strong online multiplayer focus. So pretty much Microsofts exclusive lineup this gen in a nutshell.
it's okey if they Do that
they will come If they Find Something intresting....MS Inhibitors at the start of the gen...Was the reason To let peole avoid them....If the Continue like Xbox 360 days thing for sure will be diffrentThose "core" gamers are gone and are not coming back in a hurry.
Consumers voted with their wallets and bought PS4's. How attractive was a cheaper and more powerful console against a console that was more expensive, bundled with a on spy cam, 720 vs 1080 etc
MS have been on the back foot ever since and playing catch up, they simply haven't been able to catch up.
Another thing Xbox One year one had quite a few exclusive IP's and no PC versions, hardly pushed the console into people's homes.
If an external party files a Content ID claim in YouTube one of their options (other than blocking the video outright or doing nothing at all) is to monetize the video. The accusing party then earns the ad revenues.Sorry about that, but I got ad in that video.... Not sure if youtube fuck up or not, but sorry to Jim, if I was being wrong.
it's okey if they Do that
want to play their games then buy Xbox simple
I can only speak for myself, but it feels like Microsoft only started trying when they got in trouble with sales. That's like spitting into the face of every early adopter.
If you did in fact buy those games or sub to gamepass - why does it matter /where/ you played them? I /really/ don't get people's mindset on this, or how you can try to spin it as a negative. If sony had a leading PC operating system (dont peer to far into that dark dark timeline), you can be 100% guaranteed at some point they would do the same sort of thing.
In fact, a lot of PS4 console exclusives end up on PC. So? I get them where it makes sense to get them. Yay, options!
I have been PC/console gaming for a long time (hi games on the schools Apple II's back in the 80's and my atari something I think 2600), so maybe the number of transitions in the market make me somehow more open to being happy with more options? I don't get where all this latching on to terms like "exclusive" or "generations" so rigidly comes from.
It's pretty simple. Remember when you would unlock costumes, weapons and all sorts of other stuff as you played games? Micro transactions made that far less commonplace, and now you have to pay for what used to be in the game. Let alone other things like Day One DLC.
Remember when you could earn, or at least buy a specific weapon or costume or piece of content? Now loot boxes have replaced that, and it's basicslly gambling for you to get something you want.
GaaS is another evolution of the industry that offers publishers a way to monetize their game more while in most cases making the game worse. It may not be a fundamental detriment to the game, but sometimes it is. Sometimes it actually changes how the game does its progress or reward systems.
I don't play many multiplayer games so it doesn't affect me often, but the GaaS model changes games and there is a ripple affect. I mean who would have thought loot boxes would have become so prevalent that single player games would have them?
Products get cheaper over time.As fas as the image on my screen is concerned? Yes.
But the OG X1 was 500€ with a 500gig HDD, made you pay for Kinect and was 40% bigger in size.
The One S released only 2.5 years later for 299€ (500GB). No Kinect, 4K streaming, 40% smaller with a much much better build quality.
Only a couple of month later a One S could be found for 199€ with two games.
I can only speak for myself, but it feels like Microsoft only started trying when they got in trouble with sales. That's like spitting into the face of every early adopter.
No, i have no interest in multiplayer games in general. So it's obviously a negative for me when publishers focus on that.So... you prefer when games with strong online components go away after a year or so? I am trying to get you to actually put detail to the string of buzzwords - elaborate?
I have enjoyed many a gaas and not spent a dime. Games that crutch on spending to play reasonably I just dont touch. Games like fortnite, despite everything being cosmetic, I have never felt more compelled to spend money on, and have safely put that game out of mind. I still give activision their blood money for destiny2, but I have fun with a group of friends playing it, but I havent ever spent on their MT store.
Whats wrong with online multiplayer? Some people prefer it to whatever it is you are obviously hinting at is the antithesis of online multiplayer.
I, through he powerful method of thinking about it for a minute, have come to the conclusion (years ago) that MTs will work itself out, eventually. Phone gaming came along and brought it to a darker place, and everyone tried chasing it. I think Fornite is an addiction machine with how they have every single thing in the game structured, but you know, itll pass and something will get figured out that is a good mix of paying to keep the lights on and not being predatory.
Phone gaming is almost always horrible - almost non-games like pokemon go (which I still open up every once and a while) make playing without paying almost non-optional.
Anyway, it's a nuanced topic - being so black and white about it will keep you from playing some great games for years to come.
You could buy the OG Xbox One without Kinect long before the Xbox One S was released. I got mine without Kinect around September/October 2014.As fas as the image on my screen is concerned? Yes.
But the OG X1 was 500€ with a 500gig HDD, made you pay for Kinect and was 40% bigger in size.
The One S released only 2.5 years later for 299€ (500GB). No Kinect, 4K streaming, 40% smaller with a much much better build quality.
Only a couple of month later a One S could be found for 199€ with two games.
I can only speak for myself, but it feels like Microsoft only started trying when they got in trouble with sales. That's like spitting into the face of every early adopter.
Right, again, that was the idea. It just has completely failed.That's exactly the reason they release on PC now though.
They are leveraging their most loyal fans to to push a potentially far more lucrative business (aka the Store) at the expense of their traditional console business.
With cross-buy PC and One sale numbers will become cloudy instead it will be Store sales (owners).
The Store becomes a serious revenue generator and looks far more attractive.
Nah.Do you think this could have changed since Sea of Thieves and State of Decay 2? The beta numbers were encouraging for the Windows version of Sea of Thieves.
I also think games like Gears and Halo don't have the mindshare on pc many people think they do.
You seem upset. Not a good way to live, bud.Lmao right back at you, Sony did not charge for online on ps3 and the service has been great since the launch of ps4 for me at least. So please keep that BS to yourself, it will not become true no matter how many times you type it.
This generation has been a bit different than previous, but the main issue that crops up with MS's plan isn't really bad for the consumer, but for MS.
Bringing all MS first party games to PC has multiple issues for them, first it removes a probably the biggest single reason to buy a console: exclusive software. Would anyone have bought a PS2 if it only had the weakest-performing multiplatform games? Probably not, but it had thousands of games and a TON of full exclusives, which greatly helped its success
Second, while yes PC ports can increase software sales, you are also giving your consumer an incentive to switch to PC gaming, which is NOT in Microsofts best interest. Joe Gamer decides Xbox One X isn't good enough, so he builds a rig and plays, say, State of Decay 2. He enjoys the experience, and decides to spend more time on PC. You think Joe is going to use the Windows store for all of his 3rd party gaming purchases? Fuck no, he's headed to Steam, GOG, Humble, etc. That's a LOT of money MS just lost now that Joe isn't locked into their ecosystem. Even if MS doesnt incept the idea that gamers should play on PC, they are SEVERELY outclassed on PC and there isn't a sane person out there that will buy anything more than MS Studios games on the Windows store.
The One fell dramatically in price far before the S though.But the OG X1 was 500€ with a 500gig HDD, made you pay for Kinect and was 40% bigger in size.
The One S released only 2.5 years later for 299€ (500GB). No Kinect, 4K streaming, 40% smaller with a much much better build quality.
Man the amount of personal attacks on Jim in this thread is staggering. You may not like his opinion or how it states it, or some other thing that he said five years ago, but c'mon.
I also don't understand the media and forum sentiment on here about Game Pass. The game selection is indeed poor.
This generation has been a bit different than previous, but the main issue that crops up with MS's plan isn't really bad for the consumer, but for MS.
Bringing all MS first party games to PC has multiple issues for them, first it removes a probably the biggest single reason to buy a console: exclusive software. Would anyone have bought a PS2 if it only had the weakest-performing multiplatform games? Probably not, but it had thousands of games and a TON of full exclusives, which greatly helped its success
Second, while yes PC ports can increase software sales, you are also giving your consumer an incentive to switch to PC gaming, which is NOT in Microsofts best interest. Joe Gamer decides Xbox One X isn't good enough, so he builds a rig and plays, say, State of Decay 2. He enjoys the experience, and decides to spend more time on PC. You think Joe is going to use the Windows store for all of his 3rd party gaming purchases? Fuck no, he's headed to Steam, GOG, Humble, etc. That's a LOT of money MS just lost now that Joe isn't locked into their ecosystem. Even if MS doesnt incept the idea that gamers should play on PC, they are SEVERELY outclassed on PC and there isn't a sane person out there that will buy anything more than MS Studios games on the Windows store.
I think we (defined here as people without any metrics to base anything on) jump to probably incorrect conclusions about this. I back this up with all the games that come out on ps4 and pc - if keeping them on PS4 only was a great proposition why release on PC? It's not a hard answer - the markets probably dont overlap enough to make it a bad proposition (at least that my take).
But, this (still) is the idea.Right, again, that was the idea. It just has completely failed.
If an external party files a Content ID claim in YouTube one of their options (other than blocking the video outright or doing nothing at all) is to monetize the video. The accusing party then earns the ad revenues.
Would you rather them not try and course correct? I don't understand comments like this; please clarify.
No, i have no interest in multiplayer games in general. So it's obviously a negative for me when publishers focus on that.
And the problem with a GaaS or games that use any kind of microtransations in general is that they always try to lure you into spending money which always has a negative influence on the games design.
So even if i don't use mtx they always have a bad influence on the games i play.
Maybe they'll try one more push with Gears Tactics, Age of Empires and a pc Gamepass. Who knows.
But to their point, they still have some heavy hitters (God of War, Horizon, etc.) that they can market as PS4 games. So they do see the benefit of having true exclusives.