4196 réponses à ce sujet

[Phoenix_Fyre]

Thank you

I prefer RPG's, but I am getting into other genres such as Assassin's Creed, and the amazing Bioshock games

would those be in PS4?

[AresKeith]

Phoenix_Fyre wrote...

Thank you

I prefer RPG's, but I am getting into other genres such as Assassin's Creed, and the amazing Bioshock games

would those be in PS4?

Assassin's Creed is and Bioshock games are still on PS3 and 360

[LPPrince]

Phoenix_Fyre wrote...

Thank you

I prefer RPG's, but I am getting into other genres such as Assassin's Creed, and the amazing Bioshock games

would those be in PS4?

Both of those you can get on either the X1 or PS4, doesn't matter.

You can even play them on 360 and PS3, for example Assassin's Creed IV(comes out later this year) and Bioshock Infinite(which is out right now but won't be next gen).

With X1 and PS4, just pick what you want.

PS4's $100 cheaper but lacks a motion control accessory(whether you see that as a positive or negative is up to you), You'd have to buy one separately. X1 is $100 more expensive but does have one(mandatory for use of the console).

PS4 hardware is a little superior to the X1, though the exact specs of the X1 I don't think have been completely revealed yet? I could be wrong. Take everything I say with a grain of sea salt.

PS4 and X1 will both require a subscription service to play multiplayer games online with friends and such, both of which charging at $5 a month($60 a year). Though I wonder if Sony will have it cheaper eventually because today you can buy a year's worth of Xbox Live Gold for $50(as I did the other day).

X1 is going to be using The Cloud with some of its games, which will supposedly benefit down the line, we'll have to see. I like the idea of not limiting games to what you can fit on a disc.

Anyway, pick what you want. If you're trying to save money, I suggest PS4. It'll make you as happy as you'll be on an X1. Go with X1 if you think motion control and other entertainment services are a fun time.

Modifié par LPPrince, 21 juin 2013 - 11:19 .

[LPPrince]

Oh and as for RPG's, that depends.

PS4 will definitely be where you want to go for JRPGs(Japanese style), though for WRPGs(Western style), I'd say its a little more towards the X1.

[Phoenix_Fyre]

I may get the PS4.... not a fan of COD, or Battlefield, and don't like the connect at all, plus $100 cheaper is really good since I don't have a lot of money

[LPPrince]

Then PS4 it is. Run with it.

By the way, CoD and Battlefield are for both consoles, lol. Not just X1.

Modifié par LPPrince, 21 juin 2013 - 11:28 .

[Phoenix_Fyre]

ahhhhh ok

Now I just need to cough up 400 bucks >_>

[LPPrince]

Phoenix_Fyre wrote...

ahhhhh ok

Now I just need to cough up 400 bucks >_>

Or better yet, manipulate someone into paying you $1000 for soufflés you will not produce for them and purchasing yourself both of them.

>

[Ravensword]

MerinTB wrote...

LPPrince wrote...
Kinect doesn't force you to get up and move around. You can in fact play by using your voice and using some motion control while still seated.

I dislike talking on phones, let alone to machines.

And I can't stand the Wii-mote.

Waving my hands like a jack****?  No thank you.

Heck, I even really dislike touch screens.

Not.  For.  Me.

Enjoy it if you like it.  Not telling anyone else they are wrong for liking it.

I want a keyboard and mouse.  Barring that, a controller in my hands (that I don't have to wave around - I like sticks and buttons) will do just dandy.

Let's not even get into having a three year old running around with naptimes and early bed times in our tiny apartment, or my wife trying to sleep.  Yes, I need voice commands so I don't have to push buttons like I need louder external speakers instead of my headphones so my family can't get any rest at the time I actually get to play games.

You can also include the fact that the Kinect is included in the price of the Xbone, so you're pretty much paying for something you don't want and don't really need. I keep saying that the Kinect is a glorified remote control.

[ShepnTali]

Adam Orth is giving his fascist tinted message as a speech...


http://www.escapistm...Online-Toxicity

Modifié par ShepnTali, 22 juin 2013 - 03:40 .

[Unknown_Warrior]

LPPrince wrote...

Oh and as for RPG's, that depends.

PS4 will definitely be where you want to go for JRPGs(Japanese style), though for WRPGs(Western style), I'd say its a little more towards the X1.

The only time WRPG's were primarily on Xbox was during the late Xbox FAT and early Xbox 360 era, when Bethesda and BioWare produced exclusively for Xbox.

Actually, the only exclusive WRPGs on 360 in past few years I can think of are Fable and The Witcher 2 (console exclusivety at least). No upcoming games have been announced for the former (except a remake of Fable 1), and Molyneux left the company (take that for what you will) and TW3 has been confirmed PS4/X1/PC for the latter.

Currently, no exclusive JRPGs have been announced for either PS4 or X1, but the Tales series by Namco seems to be shifting from erratic console exclusivety to mainly PlayStation and the others I don't really pay attention to.

Modifié par Unknown_Warrior, 22 juin 2013 - 04:33 .

[Ulous]

I think I was always going to get the XB1, I had switched to XBOX360 after being the previous owner of both the PS1 & PS2, I don't think I could kiss goodbye to everything I had built up on XBOX 360, ultimately with the DRM thing I think it's going to happen one way or the other on both new systems and after all the internet ranting I have to say i'm a bit dismayed at the below statement from MS.

"These changes will impact some of the scenarios we previously announced
for Xbox One. The sharing of games will work as it does today, you will
simply share the disc. Downloaded titles cannot be shared or resold.
Also, similar to today, playing disc based games will require that the
disc be in the tray."

Can someone explain to me how this is good news? I mean do I need to wory about going back to the days of having a walkman again and buying cassette's?

Modifié par Ulous, 22 juin 2013 - 06:40 .

[ShepnTali]

Here's a thought concerning the sharing of digital titles. Why not ease into it with both options. If the sharing digitally plan is lovely and wonderful (and yes, it does have some merit), then people will organically gravitate to that way. If it's so awesome, even with it's restrictions, what would it hurt to have both options available? Atleast as testing ground in this new gen. Clearly, it's not everyone's cup of tea.

[Clips7]

Phoenix_Fyre wrote...

ahhhhh ok

Now I just need to cough up 400 bucks >_>

Most games seen will be on both systems....you have your mainstays on xbox which will be Halo, Gears of War,...but the new exclusives like titanfall and a few others, might only be timed exclusives...well maybe not titanfall since i believe that is a 1st party title. Ryse actually looks good too...

With Sony you can believe the next Last of Us game will most definitely be out there along with Uncharted, the next Gran-Turismo, God of War...they have a couple of exclusives as well i think one of them is called outlast....i don't think you can really go wrong with either system in terms of games....

i was always going to get a ps4 anyway, but not at launch..if sony was going to take a similar position like MS, i was just going to sit this one out and just enjoy my ps3. gaming has come such a looong way and some of the practices now just make it seem like the whole industry is corrupted.

I know everybody is in this to make money, but anytime a game like tomb raider that sells what? 3-5 million copies i believe or less in a month is considered a failure, then something is incredibly wrong with how these companies deem success...even if they did spend a ton of money on developing Tomb Raider..any game that sells 3-5 million copies in one month should be shattering sales records for the said company overall...

Modifié par Clips7, 22 juin 2013 - 06:56 .

[Ravensword]

ShepnTali wrote...

Adam Orth is giving his fascist tinted message as a speech...


http://www.escapistm...Online-Toxicity

Pot. Kettle. Black.

It might be amusing to see how this assbag will probably try to spin his employment termination as being caused by other people's toxic behavior on the Internet and not his own trolling.

Now,  I can understand horsing around on the Internet here and there. It's pretty much one of the reasons why the Internet exists--to anonymously **** w/ random people who live thousands of miles away from you w/o fear of physical retribution (not really, but you get the idea).

Orthie here was simply doing it wrong; he wasn't trolling anonymously and he was a Microsoft employee who was talking about a Microsoft product and indirectly insulting customers who do not have the luxury of having a realiable and steady connection, thus harming the company he works for.

He's wasn't fired b/c people on the Internet somehow turned on him, but b/c of his complete lack of professionalism, as well as a lack of maturity on the issue of what consumers will not tolerate in terms of DRM and always on policies.

He deserverdly lost his job.

Modifié par Ravensword, 22 juin 2013 - 10:07 .

[Homebound]

Im just glad Microsoft learned its lesson in regards to DRM and all the toomfoolery they were planning on shoving up our cakeholes.

Thats one victory for gamers everywhere. Lets hope they remember theres only so much crap people will put up with until they actively destroy your brand.

[Ravensword]

Another thing that Microsoft could do would be to make the Kinect optional and have that reflected in the price tag.

[ViSeiRa]

Ulous wrote...

I think I was always going to get the XB1, I had switched to XBOX360 after being the previous owner of both the PS1 & PS2, I don't think I could kiss goodbye to everything I had built up on XBOX 360, ultimately with the DRM thing I think it's going to happen one way or the other on both new systems and after all the internet ranting I have to say i'm a bit dismayed at the below statement from MS.

"These changes will impact some of the scenarios we previously announced
for Xbox One. The sharing of games will work as it does today, you will
simply share the disc. Downloaded titles cannot be shared or resold.
Also, similar to today, playing disc based games will require that the
disc be in the tray."

Can someone explain to me how this is good news? I mean do I need to wory about going back to the days of having a walkman again and buying cassette's?

Welcome to the "I'm dismayed MSFT backed down and reversed their policies and vision" club... it's truly a loss for this next-gen generation to still be mired in previous-gen limitations such as disk-based games and disk-based rental and swapping culture.

Anyone willing to go at it with me? I can easily illustrate how MSFT's original model is superior to the one a lot of gamers are currently clinging to.

Modifié par ViSeirA, 22 juin 2013 - 10:24 .

[ViSeiRa]

billy the squid wrote...

ViSeirA wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

ViSeirA wrote...

Bekkael wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Interesting if true. If anything it makes me glad the share system wasn't implemented. Sorry to crush your dreams alleged Microsoft guy.

Awwwwww. Poor little employee is sad because the stupid consumers won't play nice.

Because an anonymous post on Pastebin is to be trusted, right?

Aaron Greenberg Chief of Staff for Interactive Entertainment Business at Microsoft just denounced this on Twitter and said there was no limit whatsoever.

It's sad to see such a "game changing" feature go away.

It was also confirmed by CBoat who has been an insider giving correct information almost all of the time.

I know, but he has been misinformed before hasn't he? the PS4's 4 GB limit on GGDR5 memory is the most recent that comes to mind... maybe the time limit was considered at one point, doesn't mean it was going into the final product.

Mis informed? On PS4's moving development target, out of date more like. 

Think about this for one second. MS a company which attempted to kill the used game industry with it's latest bout of restrictions and publishers bemoaning the used games market, hurting the business, are going to allow people to share their game, for free, with up to 10 people on their friends list?

Do you honestly believe that? As it's entirely counter productive when compared to their plans for used games.

Out of date it is, how is that so different from what's happening right now? I already said it could have been considered earlier.

Even Marc Whitten confirmed the same on Twitter, and the limitation on the sharing was that only two people at the same time can play the same game, the original sharer and only one of his 10 friends...

And now to counter your point, MS a company which attempted to kill the used game industry with it's
latest bout of restrictions and publishers bemoaning the used games
market, hurting the business, did reverse its entire next-gen plan based on either lackluster pre-orders (not likely, X1 was either #1 or #2 in Amazon's charts since availability) or based on gamers' feedback (not likely either), so what motivated them to do it anyway? I say bad PR and loss of trust.

Microsoft's PR is such a sad joke, they just can't simply communicate an idea...

You don't think Microsoft couldn't have stuck with their original plan? they could have, they have the money to spend, and the X1 would have never tanked... it's simply a matter of image now, they risked being first. Now simply stand and watch as BOTH Sony and Microsoft do it at the same time and when they do no one will have a choice but to accept it.

Disk-based games are just too costly for publishers, digital cuts all the middle-men, the supply chains, the retail stores, all of which take a margin of the publishers' profit... it's happening no matter what.

Modifié par ViSeirA, 22 juin 2013 - 10:23 .

[billy the squid]

Out of date is more accurate as the PS4's DDR5 capacity was a moving target in development they hadn't decided they would use 8GB until recently, it's why many of the launch titles there aren't using the full 8GB to it's full capacity. They didn't know how much RAM would be available.

What is happening now is that MS's PR is a trainwreck. If they knew what the family planning entailed they would have given the details in the 2 weeks and explained why, instead they bumbled about and no executive in MS could accurately explain what the Family share plan entailed. It screams that it was something they hadn't fully thought out, or they realised it wasn't enough to turn the tide of opinion in their favour.

The executives also said that they were using the check in for benefits, the power of cloud improving thing exponentially and would allow you to trade games. Yet, as soon as you look at the caveats and limitations none of it looked that good, it's half truths and smoke and mirrors. There's no reason to believe anything that comes out of that man's mouth. Apparently according to Major Nelson the 24 hour check and DRM was very difficult to remove, they disabled it with a day one patch. That's a perfect example the behavior I'm talking about.

Wow, you really believe that MS didn't reverse it's policy because it's pre orders were tanking? MS has only ever thought about it's bottom line and it's track record is horrific. It was #1 and what happened after E3? It got demolished by the PS4, what we saw were the inevitable early uptakers and brand loyalists who will pre order it anyway.

If MS had stuck with their original plan the thing would have been a disaster on the level of new coke. What does MS's budget have to do with anything. Because it's software arm can bank roll the hardware aspects of the X1 doesn't mean that it wouldn't flop, it'd still flop. MS would just take the loss. It doesn't mean they would have done so happily.

Sony could have done the same as MS, they didn't and the flaying MS got over the last 2 weeks is a good indication as to why they didn't. Yes, digital is inevitable. Yet there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. MS did it in a specific way to line it's own pocket at the expense of the consumer, and every "advantage" was designed around that mentality. Disk based games are still cheap. And none of that explains why MS and Origin refuse to let prices devalue on their digital distribution systems, yet jump into bed with the likes of Gamestop at every opportunity, when they know what they are.

Greed, pure greed.

Modifié par billy the squid, 22 juin 2013 - 11:19 .

[billy the squid]

ShepnTali wrote...

Adam Orth is giving his fascist tinted message as a speech...


http://www.escapistm...Online-Toxicity

Ah, sweet billy strikes again, the guy just doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut.

[ViSeiRa]

billy the squid wrote...

Out of date is more accurate as the PS4's DDR5 capacity was a moving target in development they hadn't decided they would use 8GB until recently, it's why many of the launch titles there aren't using the full 8GB to it's full capacity. They didn't know how much RAM would be available.

What is happening now is that MS's PR is a trainwreck. If they knew what the family planning entailed they would have given the details in the 2 weeks and explained why, instead they bumbled about and no executive in MS could accurately explain what the Family share plan entailed. It screams that it was something they hadn't fully thought out, or they realised it wasn't enough to turn the tide of opinion in their favour.

The executives also said that they were using the check in for benefits, the power of cloud improving thing exponentially and would allow you to trade games. Yet, as soon as you look at the caveats and limitations none of it looked that good, it's half truths and smoke and mirrors. There's no reason to believe anything that comes out of that man's mouth. Apparently according to Major Nelson the 24 hour check and DRM was very difficult to remove, they disabled it with a day one patch. That's a perfect example the behavior I'm talking about.

Wow, you really believe that MS didn't reverse it's policy because it's pre orders were tanking? MS has only ever thought about it's bottom line and it's track record is horrific. It was #1 and what happened after E3? It got demolished by the PS4, what we saw were the inevitable early uptakers and brand loyalists who will pre order it anyway.

If MS had stuck with their original plan the thing would have been a disaster on the level of new coke. What does MS's budget have to do with anything. Because it's software arm can bank roll the hardware aspects of the X1 doesn't mean that it wouldn't flop, it'd still flop. MS would just take the loss. It doesn't mean they would have done so happily.

Sony could have done the same as MS, they didn't and the flaying MS got over the last 2 weeks is a good indication as to why they didn't. Yes, digital is inevitable. Yet there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. MS did it in a specific way to line it's own pocket at the expense of the consumer, and every "advantage" was designed around that mentality. Disk based games are still cheap. And none of that explains why MS and Origin refuse to let prices devalue on their digital distribution systems, yet jump into bed with the likes of Gamestop at every opportunity, when they know what they are.

Greed, pure greed.

At least there's one thing we agree on, their PR and Marketing are train-wrecks, but we disagree on why they changed the policies.

Microsoft penetrated the home console market in the first place by taking loses on the Xbox, it's not a new tactic for them... they work best when cornered and their track record shows it, and I still stand by my original hypothesis... they backtracked because of image not the pre-orders.

It's a simple matter, Sony actually managed to surprise MSFT by maintaining the status quo... that's what  garbled their message in the first place and now they were being known as the bad guy, so they backtracked completely and you know why?  because in the future they'll be the "bad guys" together and instead of  losing a few million customers this gen and "losing" them all over again afterwards because of their investment in the Sony ecosystem they as well decided to maintain the current standards because: why the hell not?

[billy the squid]

ViSeirA wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Out of date is more accurate as the PS4's DDR5 capacity was a moving target in development they hadn't decided they would use 8GB until recently, it's why many of the launch titles there aren't using the full 8GB to it's full capacity. They didn't know how much RAM would be available.

What is happening now is that MS's PR is a trainwreck. If they knew what the family planning entailed they would have given the details in the 2 weeks and explained why, instead they bumbled about and no executive in MS could accurately explain what the Family share plan entailed. It screams that it was something they hadn't fully thought out, or they realised it wasn't enough to turn the tide of opinion in their favour.

The executives also said that they were using the check in for benefits, the power of cloud improving thing exponentially and would allow you to trade games. Yet, as soon as you look at the caveats and limitations none of it looked that good, it's half truths and smoke and mirrors. There's no reason to believe anything that comes out of that man's mouth. Apparently according to Major Nelson the 24 hour check and DRM was very difficult to remove, they disabled it with a day one patch. That's a perfect example the behavior I'm talking about.

Wow, you really believe that MS didn't reverse it's policy because it's pre orders were tanking? MS has only ever thought about it's bottom line and it's track record is horrific. It was #1 and what happened after E3? It got demolished by the PS4, what we saw were the inevitable early uptakers and brand loyalists who will pre order it anyway.

If MS had stuck with their original plan the thing would have been a disaster on the level of new coke. What does MS's budget have to do with anything. Because it's software arm can bank roll the hardware aspects of the X1 doesn't mean that it wouldn't flop, it'd still flop. MS would just take the loss. It doesn't mean they would have done so happily.

Sony could have done the same as MS, they didn't and the flaying MS got over the last 2 weeks is a good indication as to why they didn't. Yes, digital is inevitable. Yet there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. MS did it in a specific way to line it's own pocket at the expense of the consumer, and every "advantage" was designed around that mentality. Disk based games are still cheap. And none of that explains why MS and Origin refuse to let prices devalue on their digital distribution systems, yet jump into bed with the likes of Gamestop at every opportunity, when they know what they are.

Greed, pure greed.

At least there's one thing we agree on, their PR and Marketing are train-wrecks, but we disagree on why they changed the policies.

Microsoft penetrated the home console market in the first place by taking loses on the Xbox, it's not a new tactic for them... they work best when cornered and their track record shows it, and I still stand by my original hypothesis... they backtracked because of image not the pre-orders.

It's a simple matter, Sony actually managed to surprise MSFT by maintaining the status quo... that's what  garbled their message in the first place and now they were being known as the bad guy, so they backtracked completely and you know why?  because in the future they'll be the "bad guys" together and instead of  losing a few million customers this gen and "losing" them all over again afterwards because of their investment in the Sony ecosystem they as well decided to maintain the current standards because: why the hell not?

It took losses because it entered into the market as a new participant, when Sony dominated it with the PS2. There's a huge difference between a new product line entering a market and an existing product line screwing things up. Their track record shows nothing of the sort, at every turn since the release of the 360 they have been cutting corners and trying to squeeze the market progressively. 

You can stand by it, but it's wrong. What does their image impact on? Pre orders, investor sentiments, loosing market share to Sony, doing damage to their long term reputation, means little if there is not negative impact to the underlying revenue. MS has shown that multiple times in the past with it's Windows operating systems and the desire to build in redundancies.

Their message was garbbled because they got called out on their attempts to squeeze everyone for money. We didn't even know what Sony was doing until E3 and they were getting flak before that over their messaging and lack of clarity. 

They're not the bad guy because they tried to go digital, drop that fantasy right now, they're the bad guy because they tried to screw everyone over while they were doing it. Or was any of the following beneficial region locking, lack of support, 24 hour internet connection, shoving cloud down everyone's throat, vague policies on sharing, clamping down on used games, although you can bet that Gamestop would have been the beneficiary in that deal as a "participating retailer". They back tracked because they were taking a hammering at every turn, and then Sony messed things up by doing the opposite. The appearance of an alternative would have hurt their revenue badly. 

There will be a move to digital as time progesses, but there's a difference in the way the likes of Steam, Sony, Desura, Amazon, GoG, Greenman Gaming have gone about doing it, and what MS and EA tried to do. So no they won't be the "bad" guy because they go digital, they'll be the "bad" guy because they try and extort consumers.

Modifié par billy the squid, 22 juin 2013 - 12:54 .

[ViSeiRa]

billy the squid wrote...

It took losses because it entered into the market as a new participant, when Sony dominated it with the PS2. There's a huge difference between a new product line entering a market and an existing product line screwing things up. Their track record shows nothing of the sort, at evee ry turn sincthe release of the 360 they have been cutting corners and trying to squeeze the market progressively. 

You can stand by it, but it's wrong. What does their image impact on? Pre orders, investor sentiments, loosing market share to Sony, doing damage to their long term reputation, means little if there is not negative impact to the underlying revenue. MS has shown that multiple times in the past with it's Windows operating systems and the desire to build in redundancies.

Their message was garbbled because they got called out on their attempts to squeeze everyone for money. We didn't even know what Sony was doing until E3 and they were getting flak before that over their messaging and lack of clarity. 

They're not the bad guy because they tried to go digital, drop that fantasy right now, they're the bad guy because they tried to screw everyone over while they were doing it. Or was any of the following beneficial region locking, lack of support, 24 hour internet connection, shoving cloud down everyone's throat, vague policies on sharing, clamping down on used games, although you can bet that Gamestop would have been the beneficiary in that deal as a "participating retailer". They back tracked because they were taking a hammering at every turn, and then Sony messed things up by doing the opposite. The appearance of an alternative would have hurt their revenue badly. 

There will be a move to digital as time progesses, but there's a difference in the way the likes of Steam, Sony, Desura, Amazon, GoG, Greenman Gaming have gone about doing it, and what MS and EA tried to do. So no they won't be the "bad" guy because they go digital, they'll be the "bad" guy because they try and extort consumers.

Their track record doesn't prove they're loss leaders? c'mon... check your info, see their Azure IaaS price points, that's a prime example of their business strategies, in that instance to compete with Amazon's AWS (and to push customers towards their full PaaS packages). Bing is one of their other biggest loss leaders as well... in fact the entirety of their online services division (Bing, MSN, XBOX LIVE, Hotmail - Now Outlook -) was making losses until late 2011 - early 2012 when it finally began turning profits. When it comes to MSFT's business practices I'd know m8, believe me I would... but that's a debate for another time.

Anyway, out of all the stuff you said the thing that got my attention was how Sony, Steam and GOG do it better... now let's start with GOG (tbh I love these guys as well as CD Projekt) but which AAA titles except for The Witcher do you see over there?

Now Steam, why do think there's an offline mode on Steam? because always online is NOT required, because there's no game lending, renting or borrowing when it comes to Steam, MSFT needed the 24-hour online check specifically for that and maybe other stuff too but that's the main driving force behind this decision (in order to allow digital game sharing).

And how is Sony's approach different from Microsoft right now when it comes to digital? PS4 and Xbox One are the same digitally now... and barring the day 1 digital for PS3, it's only an advantage for previous-gen, nothing more.

If you really think digital is the way, and you want game resale, sharing and renting... could you please offer me a system architecture that supports that business model without requiring periodic authentications checks? let's get a little bit productive, see a problem? don't just point at it and say "I don't like"... suggest an alternative.

[billy the squid]

ViSeirA wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

It took losses because it entered into the market as a new participant, when Sony dominated it with the PS2. There's a huge difference between a new product line entering a market and an existing product line screwing things up. Their track record shows nothing of the sort, at evee ry turn sincthe release of the 360 they have been cutting corners and trying to squeeze the market progressively. 

You can stand by it, but it's wrong. What does their image impact on? Pre orders, investor sentiments, loosing market share to Sony, doing damage to their long term reputation, means little if there is not negative impact to the underlying revenue. MS has shown that multiple times in the past with it's Windows operating systems and the desire to build in redundancies.

Their message was garbbled because they got called out on their attempts to squeeze everyone for money. We didn't even know what Sony was doing until E3 and they were getting flak before that over their messaging and lack of clarity. 

They're not the bad guy because they tried to go digital, drop that fantasy right now, they're the bad guy because they tried to screw everyone over while they were doing it. Or was any of the following beneficial region locking, lack of support, 24 hour internet connection, shoving cloud down everyone's throat, vague policies on sharing, clamping down on used games, although you can bet that Gamestop would have been the beneficiary in that deal as a "participating retailer". They back tracked because they were taking a hammering at every turn, and then Sony messed things up by doing the opposite. The appearance of an alternative would have hurt their revenue badly. 

There will be a move to digital as time progesses, but there's a difference in the way the likes of Steam, Sony, Desura, Amazon, GoG, Greenman Gaming have gone about doing it, and what MS and EA tried to do. So no they won't be the "bad" guy because they go digital, they'll be the "bad" guy because they try and extort consumers.

Their track record doesn't prove they're loss leaders? c'mon... check your info, see their Azure IaaS price points, that's a prime example of their business strategies, in that instance to compete with Amazon's AWS (and to push customers towards their full PaaS packages). Bing is one of their other biggest loss leaders as well... in fact the entirety of their online services division (Bing, MSN, XBOX LIVE, Hotmail - Now Outlook -) was making losses until late 2011 - early 2012 when it finally began turning profits. When it comes to MSFT's business practices I'd know m8, believe me I would... but that's a debate for another time.

Anyway, out of all the stuff you said the thing that got my attention was how Sony, Steam and GOG do it better... now let's start with GOG (tbh I love these guys as well as CD Projekt) but which AAA titles except for The Witcher do you see over there?

Now Steam, why do think there's an offline mode on Steam? because always online is NOT required, because there's no game lending, renting or borrowing when it comes to Steam, MSFT needed the 24-hour online check specifically for that and maybe other stuff too but that's the main driving force behind this decision (in order to allow digital game sharing).

And how is Sony's approach different from Microsoft right now when it comes to digital? PS4 and Xbox One are the same digitally now... and barring the day 1 digital for PS3, it's only an advantage for previous-gen, nothing more.

If you really think digital is the way, and you want game resale, sharing and renting... could you please offer me a system architecture that supports that business model without requiring periodic authentications checks? let's get a little bit productive, see a problem? don't just point at it and say "I don't like"... suggest an alternative.

Bing is not a loss leader, it doesn't stimulate uptake of other products, it's simply out competed on every front by the likes Of Fire Fox and Google Chrome. There's a rather large difference between stating an item is a loss leader and simply being inferior vs the competition, the same with Xbox Live, and outlook. They're not loss leaders, their online policies are rubbish and they take losses for it.

Xbox Live is a good example. It's a walled garden digital system, yet it continually takes losses, it does little to stimulate uptake of other products as it had abysmal indi policies, the cost of DD is high, the subscription is higher than the PSN, nothing it does is benefitial. But it continues to exist because it has a secure market by forcibly carving one out via the restrictions of the X 360.

Steam will have to comply with the Usedsoft and Oracle case, which it is currently doing via game trading and borrowing in the Steam network. While there is no indication that MS would have even considered allowing the full lending of games, especially considering all their partners have been attempting to stamp it out. There's no indication that Steam will require the off line mode to be removed, and it's likely that the trading will have to be done via steam. The unique license key being transfered online. Yet it doesn't prevent me from playing offline for any other purchase as I need the key to activate the product.

GoG has the issue that it retains no DRM policies, and as the likes of EA and their ilk have shown a level of paranoid distrust of anything without DRM, which only further illustrates their dislike of trading or borrowing anything, so why would they want MS to allow people to digitally borrow and play their games for free?

Xbox didn't provide any alternative, it was their way or nothing. The family sharing was a pipe dream, none of which had been detailed properly as to how it would work, nor did it require the online check, if one wanted to restrict it to digital only, while the digital trading itself is already being implemented via Steam.

The PS4 already does the live streaming of games, free selections to rent online, cheaper and has day 1 digital downloads, I can use netflix for free, I can use the net for free, I can download patches and updates for free. The same with the myriad of other DD systems, they're all cheaper and provide a better service than Xbox Live and Origin, it's advantageous because I'm not getting screwed by the PSN at every turn. 

What we were actually left with was. You might get a sharing plan, in sponsored countries maybe in the future, with no indication of what was being shared, not idea how the trading system would work or how much it would be in terms of cost. There's your problem right there a lot of cons, and some very vague pros which may of may not materialise. I'm not being paid to implement anything, they want money off me, so find a way to do it that doesn't involve raming a load of extortionate practices down everyone's throat , then we'll see if it's worth it. 

Nor does making a false equavalency out of digital or physical disks work, not even Steam does that and it's predominately digital.

Modifié par billy the squid, 22 juin 2013 - 03:28 .