|
Post by Matt on Jun 20, 2013 11:02:45 GMT
A lot of people have been saying how easy the 24 hour update is, and I think thats true when I'm at home and have internet or at the very worst 3g to connect with. However all the youth clubs I run are in rural village where 3g is rubbish, and while the village has internet connection, my service isn't going to pay £15 a month to hook up every community centre, youth centre and church hall be work out of up to the internet. The worrying thing about this is its already an issue on the 360.. I took Sonic and sega all stars racing to a youth club last week, only to be told I couldn't play until I downloaded an update, I had the same problem, with guitar hero world tour and sega dram cast collection.
While most normal fans do have the internet, it the other people that suffer, youth clubs like our, as has been mentioned many time the military, I know Microsoft was arguing the 360 was still available for them (1 it isn't and it funny how few people realise that they do already need the net to play games just not every 24 hours.)
I get Microsoft's drive, but I also can see even in this day and age, we're not ready for all digital. Also worth noting that we are 8 countries ahead of the US in terms of broadband take up by population, meaning lack of a net connection in an even bigger problem there in there biggest market.
xbox1 has no chance in japan, so it really needs to win in the us and Europe, which even after this announcement is going to be a hard sell at this point.
|
|
|
Post by modochi on Jun 20, 2013 12:01:20 GMT
Will any of these companies be there at all, with the way the world is going currently in the energy and resource departments, it's even harder to see our entire way of life being here in 20 years to 30 years time.
As for stream, I never really trusted it. Call me old fashion, but if I buy something I want to have a physical copy of it in my hands, something that I can see and know is mine. So many things can go wrong with digital copies that every purchase is a gamble with a high risk of losing out.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jun 20, 2013 17:26:58 GMT
Kind of frustrating having two active topics for the same thing, but concerning the Xbox news today:
It is somewhat of a pity, though. Microsoft were focusing on bringing digital ownership into the 21st Century in a way that NO-ONE does right now. The fact is, all of that was a great step forward and it is disappointing that we’ve thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
The limitations that people riled on about with the Xbox One were specific to disc-based media, which, I can guarantee you, is going away either way, and the system would have been -great- if it didn’t have to support the discs because of how embedded the bricks and mortar retailers are in the industry right now – though GAME and HMV’s dances with death over the past year are a clear sign that this is already on the way out.
We wouldn’t have needed the once-a-day check-in if it were just digital titles – that was a specific requirement to avoid people just sticking the game in their system, installing it and then selling it off and keeping the game because they never checked in with the auth servers ever again. With digital only, they could have easily implemented the exact same system as Steam and been a LOT more lenient.
But, as much as Microsoft are NOT wrong that digital distribution is going to overtake physical sales (almost certainly within this generation one way or another) and were definitely being PRO-consumer in giving us rights over digital content that was actually pretty similar to our rights with physical goods – and even better through the nature of the beast being digital and unlimited in supply – (again, no-one else does this AT ALL yet, so it’s disheartening to see the first movements towards this being shouted down)… the fact is, they were skipping ahead to the end of the book.
Physical sales are here for now, and they’re going to be pretty important over the first half of the Xbox One and PS4′s life, at the very least. Microsoft were trying to just jump to the end of the book where physical sales are already an irrelevance and to build a digital ecosystem the same way as Apple and Google have done during the 360′s life. Evidently, they misjudged it entirely and we’re just not at that place yet.
I hope that Microsoft do still continue down their path of building their digital platform. Digital sales on consoles -suck- right now because they’re just not competitive. They’re not competitive because no-one wanted the retailers to kick off about it and the publishers didn’t want to ‘lose money’ on paper in what, to them, is essentially a way of recouping costs of losing out on the used trade that’s keeping retailers like GAME alive on life-support. I’d rather not have to wait for the physical media to drop off before we got Steam-like competitive pricing on the digital front, though (on both systems – this is a cross-platform problem).
In the end, we’re back where we started – instead of forging off on a new path. Maybe that new path would have worked, maybe it wouldn’t. I’d rather have been in the position of Microsoft trying something new and failing than just continuing the status quo, but I guess I am the minority.
Ultimately, I stand by the fact that this would have all blown over entirely relatively quickly after release, so this was never going to be that big an impact on the system's eventual success. However, Microsoft can swing public opinion back towards them with this step back and that's definitely going to help them at launch (especially since the launch period is when price matters the least).
Instead of 'getting rid of Kinect', Microsoft's next objective should be in piling the One's first year with a great selection of good games that make subtle, but elegant and innovative use, of the fact the Kinect is part of the system.
Kinect being a core feature of the system allows developers to do what they couldn’t before – exploit it in more subtle ways of enhancing the user input. We only got crap “wave your arms around like a [censored]” games before because it’s impossible to sell in a £150 peripheral for the idea of some extremely subtle enhancements like head-tracking, voice commands, infra-red sensors, etc, etc.
The PS4 is cheaper (without its camera, designed to match the Kinect on its key functions because Sony completely acknowledges that this is something that developers are now building in), so if it’s -really- that big a deal, get the PS4 because it’s cheaper. In no way is Microsoft’s decision a bad one, though.
The only reason Sony aren’t following suit is because Microsoft are doing the hard work of including the hardware for them and they wanted to undercut Microsoft – a move that makes a massive amount of sense given the initial advantage the cheaper 360 had over the expensive PS3.
However, you shouldn’t rule out the Kinect 2 based on prior performance of games on the last one – not only an inferior model, but a model that was exclusively bought by people that WANTED the arms-waving nonsense, not the people that would like to see it used in actually game-enhancing innovative ways (a movement towards which we saw at the end of the 360′s life, but which was still ignored because, as I said, they’re just not worth going out and buying a £150 accessory, half a decade into a system’s life, for). If you can’t think of anything that’d interest you using it, I guarantee you’ll have changed your mind by the end of the One’s lifespan with at least -one- game.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the omission of the PS Eye from the PS4 console to be a similar omission to the dual-shock from the original PS1, or the omission of a hard drive from the Xbox 360 Arcade versions. It’s easy to say it’s worth saving the money on a feature that we can’t see the benefits from at this distance from them being put to good use – but that can definitely end up coming back on you.
|
|
|
Post by L. T. Dangerous on Jun 20, 2013 17:55:24 GMT
If you can’t think of anything that’d interest you using it, I guarantee you’ll have changed your mind by the end of the One’s lifespan with at least -one- game. I don't see what you're basing that on, though. Surely not the Kinect we already have.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jun 20, 2013 18:27:18 GMT
I'm basing it on experience of people decrying other "gimmicky" features of other systems that had no immediately apparent value... until one creative person comes along and comes up with something genius for it.
The Kinect being there as a core system feature is a massive thing for developers and is the only way it could ever deliver on the promises Microsoft made when the hardware was first introduced as Natal.
It's like complaining the Wii U Gamepad is an expensive addition to the cost of the system. Yes, yes it is. And if it were just an optional peripheral, it would never take off. It's a core feature of the hardware though, and that gives it the chance to be fully explored on more levels than just "the obvious". Zombi U takes best advantage of it at the moment, but there's definitely a lot more potential there for further creative ideas.
It's the same as the Kinect 2, and, ultimately, the same with the PS Eye. Sony didn't copy the basic features of the Kinect and integrate them into their system for no reason, they can see where it's headed too. Their decision in the end to not include it with every system was solely based on cutting costs to pull the undercutting stunt. It's a good move, and essentially places the Xbox One in the same position as the PS3 last generation (with an expensive feature driving the cost of the system up in the aim of making it ubiquitous - then Blu-ray, now Kinect). It paid off for Microsoft initially back then, just as it will probably pay off for Sony initially, while both systems are in their first year or so before price cuts rebalance things - but Sony ended up selling the most units of the two in the end, and it's not going to cripple Microsoft either.
|
|
|
Post by Juliett. Bravo. Alfa. on Jun 20, 2013 21:15:19 GMT
Right so at it stands at the moment.
Wii U I feel needs to have about £50 slashed off it for me. But because of Sonic and Bayo 2 its now in my mind. AND I guess maybe a decent Metroid. Saddened by the Super Mario 3D Land U thing really. Mostly because people are going to get it for £40 and I just dont think its really worth it. Not saying its a bad game I just been playing Super Mario 3D Land on the 3DS and it doesn't look like a massive improvement. Want Super Mario Solar System.
PS4 is still in the lead for the gigantic balls to actively say "We support used games".
Xbox One is at least palatable now.
|
|
|
Post by modochi on Jun 28, 2013 20:56:23 GMT
So how about that Ouya thingie, it sounds like a cheap, easy to use, no nonsense console using Android tech. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouya
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jun 28, 2013 21:47:15 GMT
It's also underpowered and buggy as hell. You get what you pay for.
In better news of a related nature, however, Google are reportedly working on their own Android 'games console', which if it's anything like the recent Nexus devices, will be powerful and cheap. Worth hanging on for that instead, really.
|
|
|
Post by modochi on Jul 16, 2013 14:02:57 GMT
It's also underpowered and buggy as hell. You get what you pay for. You make it sound like a Chinese knock off product. I'm leaning quite a lot towards the Wii U at the moment, but the PS3 is still in the lead, but I'm just not seeing a lot of games for it that I'm finding interesting. And I'm not going to spend money on a game system unless it has something to offer up game wise.
|
|
|
Post by Badly-Drawn Manchild on Jul 26, 2013 14:50:30 GMT
You make it sound like a Chinese knock off product. General consensus that I've been reading seems to judge it as a very flaky piece of kit that's only of interest to hardcore technology freaks.
|
|
|
Post by L. T. Dangerous on Jul 28, 2013 9:52:32 GMT
I'm genuinely amazed that Game are selling the Ouya. Considering they've been circling the drain for the last year, that seems like an enormous risk for them to take when, realistically, it has zero chance of beating any of the other three games consoles.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jul 28, 2013 10:45:43 GMT
It's not that big a risk considering they can stock a shelf-full of them for a fraction of the price of the other consoles. They'll sell some based solely on the price and the media coverage, and I'd wager they'd make a profit on it before selling even half their stock.
Meanwhile, GAME makes next to no money on any real console because the wholesale price on those is pretty much the RRP.
As far as GAME as concerned, the Ouya is more profitable to them than any of the other systems. It's the same reason their hardware is now branching out into phones and tablets (both new and pre-owned). That hardware can actually turn a profit on its own. The main consoles, on the other hand, are pretty much specifically designed so the retailer makes their money on the games, not the hardware. The only reason GAME even really bothers with the consoles in the first place - business-wise - is because the more consoles they sell, the more games they can sell.
The reason GAME have been collapsing, really, is because the games themselves are no longer that profitable. Supermarkets and online shopping have forced prices down beyond where GAME can truly afford them. That is why GAME have in turn become a video game pawn shop. Pre-owned games make them the most profit, so that's what they focus on. The problem, though, is that this is an unsustainable model in a world that is increasingly moving towards digital distribution.
|
|
|
Post by modochi on Sept 28, 2013 12:11:51 GMT
I hope this is really, really wrong.
They released the sales price for the PS4 at my local electronic entertainments store and it's clocking it at roughly 700USD/450GB. No word from the store if the price includes anything beyond the basic package content.
|
|