Nobody wanted Steam either. It came forced down your throat with Half Life 2 and everybody hated it. In that sense the comparison is apt.
Nobody wanted Steam either. It came forced down your throat with Half Life 2 and everybody hated it. In that sense the comparison is apt.
The ability to sell your games was far from ironclad. The most info we got was trading in to MS partnered shops, which would have meant shit trade in values.
CoD sales on pc are nowhere near what they are on consoles. You rarely see more than 10, 000 at a time and it averages 3-6000 users mostly. The consistently low player counts make it difficult to play most of the other modes like party games, there are zero players in the leagues. Its pretty much nearly as dead as the Wii U ver.
This works best with Steam because it's competing with dozens of other companies doing the exact same thing. On the One, there is only one marketplace and they already roped you into dropping 500 bucks on the damned thing - they're not worried about stringing as much money out of you as they can.
Note: Valve wants as much of your money as it can take too, but it's reined in by competition.
BUT IT WAS NOTHING LIKE STEAM
Like seriously. The way people describe Xbone's original system is like "Just like Steam" is a selling point or a buzzword. It's not. Steam's design and way of operationv is nice, but that's not what I want from a console. It has nice features that i want implemented in everything, but I don't want everything to be like Steam ffs.
Honestly if they kept the always online and reduced the price to $399, I'd buy it in the future
lol does anyone not paid to write about gaming actually think the Steam comparison makes any sense?
Terribly compared to other platforms, and COD as a series is now almost irrelevant on PC?
Right, that's what I was thinking about. Thanks for the link.
Everybody hated it? No.
Also, quotes and opinions like this used to come from 'insiders' of the industry who talked anonymously or behind the scenes. Now crap like that is blown out in the press, in the open. What an era my friends ...
Call of Duty on the PC is a bit of a fickle beast. The player counts are relatively high initially, but they drop off after a few months as people move back to their preferred CoD entry, Battlefield or Valve's evergreen titles.
Note: Valve wants as much of your money as it can take too, but it's reined in by competition.
'We're going to be Steam. You like Steam, don't you?'
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
Yes.lol does anyone not paid to write about gaming actually think the Steam comparison makes any sense?
Like Steam but with expensive games and also online.
Basically, Microsoft said, 'We're going to be Steam. You like Steam, don't you?'
Not true. We want new and different things we just don't want our console to be on complete lock-down to get it.
wow! what deep insight and thorough understanding. I'd give all my money to have this guy as a consultant to my business.Jesse Schell: Listening to customers was x company's big mistake
It was a poorly thought out plan no doubt. Instead of going all-in for digital distribution like they should have they decided to straddle the fence with a confusing, convoluted setup that got them ripped to shreds in the mainstream press. They tried to have it both ways and everyone rejected it. Whoever thought the 24 hour check-in would be accepted by anyone probably doesn't have a job at MS anymore. What a disaster.
But they were never going to be like Steam. The point of Steam is that it has competitors who force it to have Steam Sales.
On a closed system console, there are no competitors. Thus, there will be no sales on that scale.
That's a terrible comparison.
Microsoft's mistake was the launch price and leaving an opening for them to be forced to do a 180
.....imo
Both of those mistakes could've have been prevented if they released a console with no optical drive. If they were going for an always online gen anyway....they should've made it digital download only. And released it for much much cheaper. I mean they seemed like they were already ready to move on from consumers who didn't have always online connectivity. The main reason they backtracked was because they feared losing their connected consumers to Sony because of the anti-consumer message that was being perceived.
But with most customers, the cheap cost of the system would've eventually brought in the crowd...even if it were perceived anti-consumer.
But with the bad image, once a day check in, Kinect always watching...and on top of that $100 more expensive than a more powerful system? It was doomed.
How much do some think they could've sold the XboxOne with no optical drive?