4196 réponses à ce sujet

[AshedMan]

Ravensword wrote...

I think that Microsoft should stick to Windows.

Have you seen Win 8?  They can't even do Windows right anymore.  

[TheBlackBaron]

Technically it's not Microsoft that will be restricting the used games - Microsoft Studios, in any event, has come out and announced they won't be charging fees or restricting access to their own games. Sony still have the advantage on the renting/loaning and internet connection front, whatever effect that may have, but for the moment at least some of the shots at Microsoft and claims of no DRM seem to have been rather hypocritical.

As for a Kinect-less model, I very much doubt it, I suspect the sales data they have is making it clear that, for a not insignificant number of people, Kinect is a system seller (or at least an attention grabber). Just lowering it to $450 to take at least some of the pricing psychological edge off and being able to claim it's a better deal when you factor in that the PS4 equivalent to Kinect will cost $60 would do them a world of good, although I still think that $400 would be better.

[Splinter Cell 108]

AshedMan wrote...

Have you seen Win 8?  They can't even do Windows right anymore.  

There's a reason for that and it is because they continually want to compete with Apple and Google for the app, tablet and smartphone markets, the xbox one and windows 8 are products of that competition in which they'll never win, they've been trying for years and every time Google and Apple come out on top. Maybe the should stick to software, I mean that is where the company got to where it is, they should make an OS that is geared towards PCs though not for goddamn tablets, if people wanted an OS for tablets, they'd get a tablet. That CEO of theirs is running the company to the ground and has been doing so ever since he ws put in charge. 

Used game fees, I bet are a result of publisher pressuring Microsoft, specifically EA and Ubisoft since they seem to be the grade A ****s in that regard, especially if EA is involved in that partnership with Microsoft. How that came to happen I'll never understand, I thought they didn't like each other very much at least in the past. 

Modifié par Splinter Cell 108, 12 juin 2013 - 04:44 .

[NeonFlux117]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Technically it's not Microsoft that will be restricting the used games - Microsoft Studios, in any event, has come out and announced they won't be charging fees or restricting access to their own games. Sony still have the advantage on the renting/loaning and internet connection front, whatever effect that may have, but for the moment at least some of the shots at Microsoft and claims of no DRM seem to have been rather hypocritical.

As for a Kinect-less model, I very much doubt it, I suspect the sales data they have is making it clear that, for a not insignificant number of people, Kinect is a system seller (or at least an attention grabber). Just lowering it to $450 to take at least some of the pricing psychological edge off and being able to claim it's a better deal when you factor in that the PS4 equivalent to Kinect will cost $60 would do them a world of good, although I still think that $400 would be better.

I'm glad you view this objectivly. That's nice to see on BSN. I agree about 400 bucks, but I just don't think there is any chance for that. 450 is an outside shot, but still possible. Earlier today Trentton was on gametrailers and said something like this- "we just provide the platform, Sony 1st party games will not block used sales, but as far a 3rd party we don't and won't have anything to say". So... Yeah. It's hypocritical. So is the the 400 dollar thing. It's actually 460 bucks- cause PS4 requires you to buy PSN plus in order to play games online- JUST. LIKE. XB1. 

Modifié par NeonFlux117, 12 juin 2013 - 04:42 .

[LPPrince]

Plus, you can go into a Gamestop and buy a year's worth of XBL Gold for $50, instead of the $60 you would if you bought it digitally.

[TheBlackBaron]

Well, it's pretty clear by now that I'm an Xbox fanboy. But that means I want this thing to do well, which means you have to be able to step back and identify faults to improve it. Thanks for the compliment, though.

I was predicting $399 before E3, just because I thought Microsoft would realize the importance of not being undercut by Sony when that was such a big part of their jumping out to a lead over the PS3 in the early part of that war. They themselves may not have expected Sony to come out with just a $399 price tag.

Either way, they have to be able to establish that they can provide a value in some way that Sony can't. A $449 price would do that, although you could also go in another direction and offer a better bundle, whether that means games or more controllers or accessories or something.

[NeonFlux117]

J. Reezy wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...
So is the the 400 dollar thing. It's actually 460 bucks- cause PS4 requires you to buy PSN plus in order to play games online- JUST. LIKE. XB1. 

No. Xbox wasn't $350 and the Xbox 360 wasn't $460. This assumes that someone is required to pay for online services from the jump. I didn't get Xbox Live until 2009. And even then, you're not required to pay for a year of service.

derp kid, To paly online games like Halo, BF, COD and many more you must have a gold subscription. To play online games like BF, COD, KZ, Planetside 2 and many more you must have PSN plus for PS4. It's not rocket science bro, jeez. 

[NeonFlux117]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Well, it's pretty clear by now that I'm an Xbox fanboy. But that means I want this thing to do well, which means you have to be able to step back and identify faults to improve it. Thanks for the compliment, though.

I was predicting $399 before E3, just because I thought Microsoft would realize the importance of not being undercut by Sony when that was such a big part of their jumping out to a lead over the PS3 in the early part of that war. They themselves may not have expected Sony to come out with just a $399 price tag.

Either way, they have to be able to establish that they can provide a value in some way that Sony can't. A $449 price would do that, although you could also go in another direction and offer a better bundle, whether that means games or more controllers or accessories or something.

Your still not nearly as fanatical and dense as most Playstation fanboys. I play PC, 360 and PS3. I've been a Sony Plus member since it's inception, I've been with XBL since forever, I luv consoles- both of them. In my opinion this generation, Sony has had better Single Player exclusives, 360 has had better MP exclusives. Sony was free to play. XB charged but it's live service is way. WAY better than Sony's. Remember when PSN was out for over 5 weeks cause annoynmous Derped them, lol. XBL is way more stable and responsive- but it costs. Sony is free and getting better. Both are great. And guess what both are getting 64 players in BF4!!!!!! can't we all get along. 



PC will always be better than both, sorry I gotta douche it up a little. 

Modifié par NeonFlux117, 12 juin 2013 - 05:11 .

[NeonFlux117]

J. Reezy wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...
So is the the 400 dollar thing. It's actually 460 bucks- cause PS4 requires you to buy PSN plus in order to play games online- JUST. LIKE. XB1. 

No. Xbox wasn't $350 and the Xbox 360 wasn't $460. This assumes that someone is required to pay for online services from the jump. I didn't get Xbox Live until 2009. And even then, you're not required to pay for a year of service.

derp kid, To paly online games like Halo, BF, COD and many more you must have a gold subscription. To play online games like BF, COD, KZ, Planetside 2 and many more you must have PSN plus for PS4. It's not rocket science bro, jeez. 

I missed the part where I derped. You haven't enlightened me on anything. I think you missed my point, or ignored it. I can't be sure with you.

I guess if you're only going to play single player games and watch netflix, then yeah, you don't need PSN plus for PS4. 

[AresKeith]

J. Reezy wrote...

Oh, and multiplayer games like CoD can be played offline. It's called split screen multiplayer. Maybe you've not heard of it.

Memories of me and my cosuins doing that 

[dreamgazer]

(long, nostalgic sigh)

Modifié par dreamgazer, 12 juin 2013 - 05:21 .

[NeonFlux117]

J. Reezy wrote...

Oh, and multiplayer games like CoD can be played offline. It's called split screen multiplayer. Maybe you've not heard of it.

I do not know any COD player who does this. It's all about competitive MP. But I guess you're correct, from a cetain point of view. 

[NeonFlux117]

J. Reezy wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

Oh, and multiplayer games like CoD can be played offline. It's called split screen multiplayer. Maybe you've not heard of it.

I do not know any COD player who does this. It's all about competitive MP. But I guess you're correct, from a cetain point of view. 

No. I'm just correct. It's a game feature.

don't be too big of a d-bag reezy, I think you should go drink some warm milk and have a cookie or something. 




























































It's a joke Reezy, chill. Just chill. 

Modifié par NeonFlux117, 12 juin 2013 - 05:19 .

[Salamander Soup]

The Xbox forums are in mega nuclear fallout, with members left and right excited about PS4. Maybe next gen Microsoft will correct mistakes.

[NeonFlux117]

Salamander Soup wrote...

The Xbox forums are in mega nuclear fallout, with members left and right excited about PS4. Maybe next gen Microsoft will correct mistakes.

link, I must view this exodus. 

[Ravensword]

AshedMan wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

I think that Microsoft should stick to Windows.

Have you seen Win 8?  They can't even do Windows right anymore.  

The only time I've seen Windows 8 was on those tablet spots. Otherwise, no, I haven't. I have heard something about being required to be online to use Windows 8 or something. I don't know.

[Mr.House]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

I was talking to some friends today who aren't bias fanboys- owners of both consoles and pc's. And they said that all Microsoft has to is- not restrict used games, not always online (well, it's pretty much always online, needs internet every 24 hours), and a kinect-less model priced at or around 450 bucks.

I think these are reasonable things that microsoft should consider. Microsoft will not go down without a fight, and the raging fan-boysism of the internet is just a wh*re of the moment complex.

It ain't over. Not by a long shot. Microsoft still has exclusive content and still has halo. Their still very, very much alive.

Their exclusive stuff is not really that good and Halo is not enough for all the cons. There's also the issue of M$ giving the finger to indie devs where Sony has embraced them with a big hug.

[AresKeith]

Ravensword wrote...

AshedMan wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

I think that Microsoft should stick to Windows.

Have you seen Win 8?  They can't even do Windows right anymore.  

The only time I've seen Windows 8 was on those tablet spots. Otherwise, no, I haven't. I have heard something about being required to be online to use Windows 8 or something. I don't know.

There's always cable company

[dreamgazer]

Again, jokes are intended to be funny, Neon.