Hell no! I like open platforms.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Wired: Hardcore Console Gamers Dont Want Much, Just the Impossible
- Thread starter Piper Az
- Start date
Hell no! I like open platforms.
Last I checked Xbox one will play video games and should have basically the same library as the PS4 outside of exclusives. As far as DRM is concerned I digitally download most of my titles and haven't been able to trade in or share any of them and really don't see a problem with that.
Edit: Is everyone forgetting 15 exclusives coming and 8 are originally new IPS. Yeah, a some of them are going to be Kinect games but that is a lot of new IPS which is something everyone has been asking for.
sorry? why?
It's not like I have to hook my cable box up to the x1 if I don't want to. It's not like I have to buy an x1 if I don't want it.
I buy all of my games new and rarely lend them out (people tend to scratch them or never return them...) I don't trade them in but last time I moved I decided to thin the collection and sold quite a few rare games for more than I paid for them.
I do buy some DD on iOS, but so far apple's policy has been very friendly, I can use them on multiple devices, games I bought on the iPhone 1 still work on my 5, my ipad, everything. DD on a console seems loony to me, one account on one box and none of it carries over to the next one? no Thanks.
Thats what Sony wants you to think..
They will be just as much about other media come release.
He completely misread the 'hardcore gamers'. First and foremost, we want a more powerful console. Because it usually leads to better game, or at least better visuals.
Hardcore gamers also like other stuff like Netflix, NFL Sunday Ticket, Hulu, whatever. More things to do/watch is great, even if we have other devices to do the same thing. Why not, as long as the price isn't inflated too much because of the entertainment stuff. If it makes the Xbox One a healthy console and broaden it's appeal, great.
Our problem is simple: Microsoft is adding stuff with little value to us. In itself, it's fine (again, if the price tag isn't inflated because of it, Kinect probably does). But they are also removing stuff we value a lot. Like used games. Like being able to share games with friends and family. Like being able to play offline. Like possibly stripping us from ownership of our games. Basically, the tradeoff is absolutely awful for us.
Their whole conference was about new stuff we care little about, so it was hard to be excited. But it was ok with E3 on the horizon. Pitchforks were raised when we learned about the stuff they took from us.
Hardcore gamers also like other stuff like Netflix, NFL Sunday Ticket, Hulu, whatever. More things to do/watch is great, even if we have other devices to do the same thing. Why not, as long as the price isn't inflated too much because of the entertainment stuff. If it makes the Xbox One a healthy console and broaden it's appeal, great.
Our problem is simple: Microsoft is adding stuff with little value to us. In itself, it's fine (again, if the price tag isn't inflated because of it, Kinect probably does). But they are also removing stuff we value a lot. Like used games. Like being able to share games with friends and family. Like being able to play offline. Like possibly stripping us from ownership of our games. Basically, the tradeoff is absolutely awful for us.
Their whole conference was about new stuff we care little about, so it was hard to be excited. But it was ok with E3 on the horizon. Pitchforks were raised when we learned about the stuff they took from us.
The problem may be that he is right that the market some of us want is unsustainable, but his "hey maybe this is a good solution" answer seems very wrong. Maybe MS can't afford a $500 game only system, but allowing me to Skype with my Surface through my TV is not the solution.
FunnyBunny
Member
You're fooling yourself if you don't think Sony will push is media features and non gaming aspects of the PS4. This is the same company that forced BluRay into the PS3 at a high cost to leverage is future in the entertainment space.
The console market is expanding because of these added features. Many my non gaming friends have bought a PS3 or 360 because of Netflix, Hulu and other media services. These people are subsidizing the cost of hardware development for gamers.
Tech fetishists don't "get" it. Saying that "hardcore gamers" (barf) want the impossible is completely missing the point. This is for an imaginary market. My folks don't want graphs and numbers overlaying their television, and they travel too much for the Xbox One to be feasible. The BF's parents live in the woods where DSL won't venture. They aren't going to upgrade, either. Everyone I know uses tablets to accomplish the meta-functionality they're pushing. And the DRM and always-on Kinect weirds us out. It's not that this isn't for Us, it's not for Them, either. It's a clusterfuck that tech writers that spend all of their time on Twitter, wired in like victims of the Idiocracy don't "get."
Papacheeks
Banned
I have a huge problem with this article and the opinion of the person who published it.
There is a cycle that happens ever so often when new tech hits a wall, and needs to evolve. People are not buying as much because there's nothing "OMG got a have it out". Also if companies hadn't price gouged the fuck out of gamer's people would be spending more. DLC is bullshit unless it's expansion worthy, and company's aren't being smart creating games with cheap tools and assets available to them.
So they cut corner's in marketing, development time, and content. Then charge people out the ass for it to make up the difference through DLC and add on's. The main problem isn't with the consoles itself or the main game creators, it's the CEO's and big wigs that run the industry.
They have no fucking clue how to run the commerce of gaming, it is not the same as the movie industry, but they treat it as such. Yes, it has similarity's like script writer's, voice talent, mo-cap actors, but it's totally different medium. You don't pay 9 dollars to sit and watch it for 2 hours, then go home like you do in a theater. No, you pay 59.99, 29.99, 19.99 plus tax, to sit down and play for hours alone or with a friend. Then the next day you can do it again, or trade it in for something else.
The only reason we pay more for games is because they say that it's way more expensive to make games? If that was really the case, why did it take longer for pc games to change over to 59.99 price tag? It's because of the Entertainment industry who control the gaming industry. There are still brand new pc titles that only sell for 49.99. You know why? It's because it was more efficient and easier to build a pc version than it was a console version. That is the honest truth. Deve,oper kit's are basically full pc's with custom console OS's and controller ID's.
Companies like Microsoft and Sony tried this whole generation to pull the wool over everyone's eye's, but I know for fact it's all bullshit.
If we had actual people who knew gaming, like an arcade manufacturer or a actual game designer as a CEO for company leader's you would see more efficiency.
But all that is mute because they keep doing it, unless like this guy points out we have a game industry crash.
Which is sort of happening with CEO's stepping down, number's not being met, sales down. But this also happened last generation, with a few exceptions.
I believe also that's why there's a lot of big titles coming out this year, like GTA V, gran turismo, Last of Us, to help spur sales going into Next Gen. There are more cross gen games coming out then I'v ever seen in any gen.
Watch Dogs, Battlefield 4, Call of duty:Ghosts, Madden, NHL, Fifa, Need For speed, Diablo 3, Batman, Assassins creed 4.
Those are huge franchise games that are going to sell, regardless on either platform, companies are doubling down. Because if the prices are too high for next gen consoles which I don't think they will be, they need to fall back on current.
I kind of agree on some points of the article, but like other's have said, the writer seems to be out of touch with the industry.
There is a cycle that happens ever so often when new tech hits a wall, and needs to evolve. People are not buying as much because there's nothing "OMG got a have it out". Also if companies hadn't price gouged the fuck out of gamer's people would be spending more. DLC is bullshit unless it's expansion worthy, and company's aren't being smart creating games with cheap tools and assets available to them.
So they cut corner's in marketing, development time, and content. Then charge people out the ass for it to make up the difference through DLC and add on's. The main problem isn't with the consoles itself or the main game creators, it's the CEO's and big wigs that run the industry.
They have no fucking clue how to run the commerce of gaming, it is not the same as the movie industry, but they treat it as such. Yes, it has similarity's like script writer's, voice talent, mo-cap actors, but it's totally different medium. You don't pay 9 dollars to sit and watch it for 2 hours, then go home like you do in a theater. No, you pay 59.99, 29.99, 19.99 plus tax, to sit down and play for hours alone or with a friend. Then the next day you can do it again, or trade it in for something else.
The only reason we pay more for games is because they say that it's way more expensive to make games? If that was really the case, why did it take longer for pc games to change over to 59.99 price tag? It's because of the Entertainment industry who control the gaming industry. There are still brand new pc titles that only sell for 49.99. You know why? It's because it was more efficient and easier to build a pc version than it was a console version. That is the honest truth. Deve,oper kit's are basically full pc's with custom console OS's and controller ID's.
Companies like Microsoft and Sony tried this whole generation to pull the wool over everyone's eye's, but I know for fact it's all bullshit.
If we had actual people who knew gaming, like an arcade manufacturer or a actual game designer as a CEO for company leader's you would see more efficiency.
But all that is mute because they keep doing it, unless like this guy points out we have a game industry crash.
Which is sort of happening with CEO's stepping down, number's not being met, sales down. But this also happened last generation, with a few exceptions.
I believe also that's why there's a lot of big titles coming out this year, like GTA V, gran turismo, Last of Us, to help spur sales going into Next Gen. There are more cross gen games coming out then I'v ever seen in any gen.
Watch Dogs, Battlefield 4, Call of duty:Ghosts, Madden, NHL, Fifa, Need For speed, Diablo 3, Batman, Assassins creed 4.
Those are huge franchise games that are going to sell, regardless on either platform, companies are doubling down. Because if the prices are too high for next gen consoles which I don't think they will be, they need to fall back on current.
I kind of agree on some points of the article, but like other's have said, the writer seems to be out of touch with the industry.
Anti consumer? No they are anti me having to switch discs all the damned time to play a agame. And fast game switching from the OS... So am I and I am far from anti consumer.
Last I heard ps4 will have fast game switching too ..they need a policy for DRM to do that as well
What has he ever written to give you such high expectations?
Sounds like another one of his jaded "today's gamers are the problem" rants if you ask me.
He also misses the fact that Sony trying to offer an all-in-one is what put them in their current fiscal situation. They forced bluray when games didn't need it and pushed an obtuse hardware design to promote their latest take over the world scheme with Cell.
PS4 is Sony finally getting back to the task at hand - servicing gamers and developers above all else.
I enjoy a Tuesday gaming night with friends, every Tuesday, for the past 11 years. There are usually four of us. We all have the same consoles, and games come out of the wood-work to sample or play right through in weekly installments.
So obviously the issue that is minimal for you has a big effect on my personal social fabric.
People play games different ways and in different settings. Just because this newer model won't adversly effect loners doesn't mean it's not an issue. Game lending/sharing, like books, movies and TV seasons, is how lot's of people connect and enjoy something common to communicate about.
Game companies will explain this away not because it improves gaming in any way but because they are greedy.
So, people think that all the 3rd party games won't be coming to both consoles?
The EA's, and Ubisofts etc?
No one even knows how much work Microsoft Studios has put into the games.
XBLA games? Who knows how big all that will be.
A lot of the differences will come down to marketing.
Heck, I know there are exclusives..yada yada yada.
In the end game libraries will probbaly be the same.
The EA's, and Ubisofts etc?
No one even knows how much work Microsoft Studios has put into the games.
XBLA games? Who knows how big all that will be.
A lot of the differences will come down to marketing.
Heck, I know there are exclusives..yada yada yada.
In the end game libraries will probbaly be the same.
That's right man! You don't have to do shit! Just say NOPE, and move on.
Dude, what you don't realize is that the difference between the way Sony and Microsoft are approaching this generation will make a huge difference down the road.
They may have all the same AAA games for the most part, but all of the interesting stuff will be built on the platform that is catering to developers this time, not pushing them away with ridiculous restrictions.
It's not the same this time. Not the same at all.
They may have all the same AAA games for the most part, but all of the interesting stuff will be built on the platform that is catering to developers this time, not pushing them away with ridiculous restrictions.
It's not the same this time. Not the same at all.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
It's partially the developing industry's own goddamn fault for aiming for the stars and the moon and suddenly realizing that they aimed too high. Who is asking for games that cost into $100 million dollars and took an entire generation to make? Would the sales be impacted if that were halved or quartered? Is there enough sales potential (realistic, actual sales potential, none of this "it might sell better than Pokemon" bullshit). We've seen good looking games made on smaller budgets. Look at the stuff coming out of Eastern Europe for god sakes.
The industry aimed too high, suddenly started ballooning budgets, and then went "oh god there aren't any sales here to cover it up." Their response to this? Homogenize, wring the AAA space of any creativity and put the advertising on full blast. But we can't have smaller budgets, oh no. We've got to have our mo-capped dogs and celebrity voice actors that nobody fucking asked for. We've got to cover the cost of letting you develop your game for five years because you have no direction. We've got to cover you trying to wedge into an already saturated market of shooters and brown, and then failing miserably.
And then, time and time again, the consumers are expected to show up at the door every time these developers come out with some new way to make the package look worse. Oh, now you get half the content. Oh, now we're going to sell you that content back to you over a period of a year. Oh, now we're placing your game's access on computers you don't control, and then those computers won't work. Oh, now the game doesn't actually belong to you, it never did.
If the industry was smart, they would have had a linear progression of costs, but they're run by idiots who don't understand the market. Instead, they're baking these stupid anti-consumer things into the console, and selling the console on silly TV fluff and apps that half your entertainment center already runs. Because, sure, that will get people to buy a $500 monolith instead of a $50 Roku. Who the hell comes up with this shit?
Thus we're left with the consumers having to continue putting up with shitty decisions that negatively impact their side of the transaction because the fish move out of the way. It's about time people started getting pissed off.
Kohler?? Really? I am disappoint. I usually agree with ya dude, but this is an awful analysis Chris. You're whipping out strawmen left and right here. I understand the desire to push back against the excesses of the online chatter and whining to try to insert some perpective and calm into the discussion but you've really misread the complaints here.
MS is concerned that we have to switch discs, so they are implementing multiple systems that look anti-consumer to the untrained eye but are actually merely anti-ass-off-couch.
J
Jotamide
Unconfirmed Member
You had me until consoles are dead.
metalslimer
Member
Kohler has been prone to complete bullshit strawmen articles lately so this doesn't surprise me at all
Papacheeks
Banned
EXACTLY BRO, YOU HIT IT ON THE NOSE. THIS IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY IN MY POST.
Thank you.
Support it. Support the fuck out of it then. I'm not going to, and none of the corporate ballcupping defense is going to make me do it.
The last I checked MS spent the majority of their reveal talking about everything but games. And then we find out hey, fuck you, all gamers are criminals and we're going to treat them as such while bleeding them for as much money as we can. So no, while its fantastic that none of this bothers you personally, some of us have friends we like to trade with, like seeing copies of games on our shelves, don't live in area with 10mb connections all over, and occasionally we like to buy shit from companies not spending every waking money trying to figure out how to dick us over.
It was either this or "the xbone is vaporware." I guess the coin landed heads.
VeryGooster
Banned
Until E3, the Xbox One just comes off like a solution to an imaginary problem.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
I think the last system that only played games was the Gamecube.
Callibretto
Member
the reason sony lost so much money is precisely because they're chasing that non gaming function like bluray. if Sony skip bluray, it probably won't cost as high as it is now and will probably perform much better financially
I thought Bluray was a huge selling point of PS3?
So based on the way this article words things... just because the WiiU can't allegedly showcase graphics that the hypothetical PS4 and Xbox One games will be sporting, that means it is now graphically incompetent?
I'm glad I live on Planet Earth. Or at least a planet where I have not eaten the hyperbolic garbage that the internet echo chamber produces.
I'm glad I live on Planet Earth. Or at least a planet where I have not eaten the hyperbolic garbage that the internet echo chamber produces.
And it was beloved. It was also powerful for it's time and those two statements are intertwined. As mentioned before if Nintendo released a Gamecube 2 - with the same design philosophy - it would be an instant contender with the PS4 and Xbox One.
Because in the end it's all that a ton of gamers really want.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
The thing is, I don't believe that a big powerful console is necessarily a bad thing. The problem comes from every AAA game coming out having to scream "WE PUSHED THE CONSOLE TO THE METAL" and trying to convince everyone that it's the best looking game yet. We've got some games on the PC that look fine and use just a subset of those advanced rendering features - it shows that you don't need to be the best at everything to impress.
Hell, do we always need to graphically impress? There can and should be deviation in graphical fidelity. It would be natural to have that if companies were honest about how much money they could make on a game.
It was still the cheapest Blu-ray player on the market, but it was also the most expensive game console by a large margin. It was a technological gamble and Sony lost. The prices didn't go down quickly enough.
He's right as far as the understanding that there aren't enough enthusiasts to support what types of systems and games enthusiasts typically Demand. That's been true for a long time now.
The industry knows the average consumer won't even look at a game that's more expensive than $60 (or a system above $300), which is why they've spent the last 10 years testing the enthusiast market to see what we'll accept to make up for the unsustainable model we demand.
Ms is giving us a box that they no doubt calculate will be acceptable to the enthusiast crowd who's bark is often worse than its bite.
It's a delicate balancing act. You need the enthusiast because they're revenue generators, but you can't cater exclusively to them without massive losses. Gotta get the average crowd interested too and while attempting to appeal to them it's insanely easy to alienate the enthusiasts. (Nintendo)
I will be shocked if Sony's strategy isn't near identical to MS's in the end. Maybe they'll market it better to make the enthusiasts think they actually care about them in the way enthusiasts desire, but the math will be a copy paste.
The industry knows the average consumer won't even look at a game that's more expensive than $60 (or a system above $300), which is why they've spent the last 10 years testing the enthusiast market to see what we'll accept to make up for the unsustainable model we demand.
Ms is giving us a box that they no doubt calculate will be acceptable to the enthusiast crowd who's bark is often worse than its bite.
It's a delicate balancing act. You need the enthusiast because they're revenue generators, but you can't cater exclusively to them without massive losses. Gotta get the average crowd interested too and while attempting to appeal to them it's insanely easy to alienate the enthusiasts. (Nintendo)
I will be shocked if Sony's strategy isn't near identical to MS's in the end. Maybe they'll market it better to make the enthusiasts think they actually care about them in the way enthusiasts desire, but the math will be a copy paste.
I guess Sony pulled of the impossible then since the PS4 is exactly what I was looking for. A game machine first and also does some other things. They did not gimp the GPU to include something like Kinect 2.0. They did not let the OS eat up 3 god damn gigs of ram. As long as Sony does not screw it up price wise or DRM they built the hard core gaming machine. This was machine designed and budgeted around playing games.
hydragonwarrior
Member
Nope - graphics and powerful hardware is being asked for as well. Otherwise XBone and WiiU wouldn't be bashed to hell and back by gamers.
entremet
Member
If you build a PC, you shouldn't have any BS program, unless you cloned a previous drive.
No Sony looks like they learned from history. Only core gamers buy these 399.99 dollar machines. The casuals won't take a look until they get under 299.99. Sony is going after the core gamers first then will go after the casuals. It is funny and ironic that is what MS did with the 360 to great success.
Woo-Fu
Banned
In his defense, a not insignificant portion of those 150 million consoles ARE dead.
Palette Swap
Member
Gamefaqs posting turned into journalism.
It absolutely was. I have a dozen casual gamer friends who bought the PS3 because they had just bought an HDTV and needed something to play movies. At the very least, they said, I'll have a good Blu-Ray player and it can play some games, like Rock Band.
Also, the Blu-Ray has been a massive boon for gaming. All that disc space has made PS3 games all the better. I would say that Blu-Ray became essential for gaming through the console generation and not a tertiary gimmick.
Ask any developer of HD games if they think the BR is unnecesary. They state the opposite without question.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
It was "15 exclusives, 8 of which are original IPs".
That doesn't necessarily mean that those 15 exclusives are exclusive games, it could mean exclusive DLC (timed and non-timed) for 15 games - 8 of which will be new IPs.
The main function of the xbox one is not games? That's probably news to Microsoft, because they can shave out the processors and extra ram and sell the Xbox one as a tv and app device for about 150 dollars. Does not compute. It's a game console. It has a fast GPU/CPU and lots of ram. It comes with a controller.
So how is it not a games console? Why does other functionality ruin the device?
sleeping_dragon
Banned
Xbone : Jack of all trades but a master of none.
Phonomezer
Banned
It's silly no? DRM/ALWAYS ONLINE should be the only legitimate complaints. All the other shit is just how the systems are marketed.
Microsoft can market it completely different from one day to the next. Same with SONY.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
The problem with pointing at the PS3 as an example is that Sony really messed up the package to the point where even the enthusiasts didn't want it. Cost too much, didn't have any meaningful exclusives (aside from vague promises that never panned out), only had a new video format to sell itself. Sony spent a few years floundering, and after while they got their shit together and made a solid system with some good games. Now they're on good footing with the enthusiast, and for good reason.
The PS3's problem was that it was set back by two or three years. They should have gotten that market a long time ago. By now they should be letting the system drop to mass market prices like the PS2 did. Less than $200. But the system wasn't future-proofed for the price either. Sony's mistakes are not indicators of a poor market, they're indicators of Sony's mistakes.
It's important to come out swinging with the enthusiasts and then in the middle of that peak, turn to the mass market. Microsoft tried to do this without lowering their price - it was the Kinect - and it didn't work to the degree that they hoped, so they're doing it again by packaging the Kinect in with the system. Their problem is that the enthusiasts market won't want their new hardware because they're trying to prepare too heavily for the mass market transition.
The PS3's problem was that it was set back by two or three years. They should have gotten that market a long time ago. By now they should be letting the system drop to mass market prices like the PS2 did. Less than $200. But the system wasn't future-proofed for the price either. Sony's mistakes are not indicators of a poor market, they're indicators of Sony's mistakes.
It's important to come out swinging with the enthusiasts and then in the middle of that peak, turn to the mass market. Microsoft tried to do this without lowering their price - it was the Kinect - and it didn't work to the degree that they hoped, so they're doing it again by packaging the Kinect in with the system. Their problem is that the enthusiasts market won't want their new hardware because they're trying to prepare too heavily for the mass market transition.
soulassssns
Banned
Im unwilling to say I think Sony has taken the right lessons from history considering their most recent release, but I agree they'll heavily market to the enthusiast crowd before the average crowd.