Yeah, I remembered about just no keynote so edited. And no, Sony hasn't SAID that, I'm just predicting.
It'd be a weird move. Microsoft let the cat out of the bag on Tuesday. Surely Sony has the design of their new console finalised ~6 months before its launch? Assuming they do, there's really no reason to hold it back anymore.
The reveal wasn't aimed at gamers, and I think that was intentional. They're trying to differentiate themselves from the PS4 as a full-service entertainment system, and appeal to people outside the typical gaming community. They've seen the sweet, sweet monies being pulled down by tablets and such, and they want to expand their market.
I figure they're waiting until E3 to actually drop the gamer stuff hardcore. This reveal got them talked about as an option for enhanced tv, video conferencing and such which they are hoping will get it noticed by people who aren't typically in their available markets.
Well... that's a pretty stupid approach if that's true. No one that's interested in watching TV needs an XBox to do it. It seems like a large portion of their audience is more interested in cord cutting (getting rid of cable) than being excited about it. A Roku is like 30 bucks if you really need a simple to use streaming device for your TV.
It sounds more like they're jacking the price up with extraneous functionality no one wants. That's an approach that would actively work against getting a large install base (which pretty much is the name of the game for consoles).
People interested in those extra functions will already have them, or be able to get them for hundreds of dollars cheaper.
"It plays video games." Presentation over after one line and a single-slide presentation with bullet point hardware specs.
There's nothing else to add to how something plays video games.
That PS4 reveal showed how to add to the experience of GAMING.
The leap from xbox > xbox 360 totally added to the experience with xbox live. And hell I don't even like XBL since I'm mainly a PC gamer, but I can't deny it was huge improvement in the console world.
It will be pretty bad if E3 is simply game announcements for Xbone.
I know a lot of xbox fans who are already looking at making the PC switch.... and well well, valve is working a fancy "steambox" to make that console > PC switch less jarring for those who don't care about the tech savvy shit. I swear Gabe is a future telling wizard or something.
That's not an excuse. Unless Microsoft literally doesn't classify the Xbox One as a games console, it is a reasonable expectation that the most important aspect of the device is its ability to play games. Games should be the first thing shown as it is the thing almost everyone will buy it for.
When Samsung demos its new TV, it doesn't have an hour long presentation about how good the speakers are. It turns on the fucking screen.
'Wait for e3' is a cheap out that has been used dozens of times before. So is the idea that they are 'getting all the boring stuff out of the way first' to allow their e3 presentation to be stellar.
Here's the thing. At e3, Microsoft is competing with Sony, with Nintendo, and with practically every other game producer in the entire world for news coverage. Adam Sessler only has 24 hours in his day and he has to appeal to his entire audience, Xbox fans and Playstation fans.
Whereas right now, Microsoft has the entire gaming press to itself. They had the opportunity to dominate the news for weeks with nothing but positive Xbox brand recognition.
e3 is not the place you bring out your best guns. It is the place to bury bad news. The exact opposite.
"It plays video games." Presentation over after one line and a single-slide presentation with bullet point hardware specs.
There's nothing else to add to how something plays video games.
People would think what you would add to that would be games or things that would enhance playing games.
Waggle controls and a screen in your controller.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
The reveal wasn't aimed at gamers, and I think that was intentional. They're trying to differentiate themselves from the PS4 as a full-service entertainment system, and appeal to people outside the typical gaming community. They've seen the sweet, sweet monies being pulled down by tablets and such, and they want to expand their market.
I figure they're waiting until E3 to actually drop the gamer stuff hardcore. This reveal got them talked about as an option for enhanced tv, video conferencing and such which they are hoping will get it noticed by people who aren't typically in their available markets.
Well... that's a pretty stupid approach if that's true. No one that's interested in watching TV needs an XBox to do it. It seems like a large portion of their audience is more interested in cord cutting (getting rid of cable) than being excited about it. A Roku is like 30 bucks if you really need a simple to use streaming device for your TV.
It sounds more like they're jacking the price up with extraneous functionality no one wants. That's an approach that would actively work against getting a large install base (which pretty much is the name of the game for consoles).
People interested in those extra functions will already have them, or be able to get them for hundreds of dollars cheaper.
Exactly. Why would non-gamers shell out 500 [insert currency here] for a device that doesn't really do all that many revolutionary new things to justify that price tag?
Not after the fact. During e3. Which is a ballsy move. Sony will probably stream them next year.
Eh, maybe. Publishers and the people organizing E3 want gamers to come to their event, and a huge incentive for gamers to do that currently are demos of upcoming games. If they can just stay at home to do that, why visit E3?
Add me on Switch: 7795-5541-4699
0
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
E3 is for investors. Pax is for gamers now. Different crowds.
It was a bad press event from any standpoint. All it did was bring up uncomfortable questions that will last from now until E3. They somehow managed to show the console (Something Sony didnt do) and then follow it up by not really showing anything for it other than some TV options and pre-rendered video. I think it was a major miscalculation to not show any games running on the actual machine and wait for E3. You cant tell me that in the midst of that hour, you couldnt have just shown 5 minutes of gameplay. Was the FIFA video really the best you could do?
Microsoft will have to spend E3 making up ground after this press event while Sony can just roll out games and show off the tech. Pretty much the main question now for Sony is the Used game question. Microsoft has a ton of questions to answer now.
Yes, E3 is about the games, but now Microsoft has to spend at least part of the conference either backtracking on or clarifying all of their informational clusterfuck from this week.
EDIT: As Athenor stated, Price is a big question for both now. I think Sony has a bit more understanding of how badly price can hurt your system. I think the Xbone is going to have a price issue with the Kinect being part of the system.
evilive72 on
Nintendo Network ID: Strummer72
XBL Gamertag: evilive7
Playstation ID: evilive7
3DS: 4699-7349-0534
+1
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Both machines also have the looming question of price floating out there.
I don't think there's going to be another option. I think that Sony is going to try to pull some variation of the same thing - maybe pass the buck by saying, "we're leaving it up to the developers", all of whom naturally unite under the banner of "we like money!"
This is the future. This is how it's going to be from now on, and your only option is going to be to opt out and not buy anything from this generation or those that follow. Obviously, the companies are gambling that you won't cut off your **** to spite their profits. And for the majority of consumers, they are probably right.
We don't have rights. We don't have power. The product is provided as-is, with these rules and conditions; buy it, or don't. That is the extent of your choice.
Even ignoring the alternatives (*coughSteamboxcoughWiiUcough*) it's not as though successive consoles are guaranteed to catch on. Which one wound up being the dominant console between the Atari 5200, Colecovision, and Intellivision? Answer: None of them!
So, basically, we have to hope that every video game company fails, and some new company rises from the ashes? That's what it's come to?
The last time that happened, we got the NES. I'd be okay with that.
Nobody makes me bleed my own blood...nobody.
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
I don't think there's going to be another option. I think that Sony is going to try to pull some variation of the same thing - maybe pass the buck by saying, "we're leaving it up to the developers", all of whom naturally unite under the banner of "we like money!"
This is the future. This is how it's going to be from now on, and your only option is going to be to opt out and not buy anything from this generation or those that follow. Obviously, the companies are gambling that you won't cut off your **** to spite their profits. And for the majority of consumers, they are probably right.
We don't have rights. We don't have power. The product is provided as-is, with these rules and conditions; buy it, or don't. That is the extent of your choice.
Even ignoring the alternatives (*coughSteamboxcoughWiiUcough*) it's not as though successive consoles are guaranteed to catch on. Which one wound up being the dominant console between the Atari 5200, Colecovision, and Intellivision? Answer: None of them!
So, basically, we have to hope that every video game company fails, and some new company rises from the ashes? That's what it's come to?
The last time that happened, we got the NES. I'd be okay with that.
In terms of price, I'm actually wondering if they're gonna try to nudge game retail prices up another $10. Unfortunately, that may be something we don't hear about until near the launch.
In terms of price, I'm actually wondering if they're gonna try to nudge game retail prices up another $10. Unfortunately, that may be something we don't hear about until near the launch.
80€ PS4 games would be just great.
Add me on Switch: 7795-5541-4699
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
EA have already talked about raising prices next gen in fact.
The reveal wasn't aimed at gamers, and I think that was intentional. They're trying to differentiate themselves from the PS4 as a full-service entertainment system, and appeal to people outside the typical gaming community. They've seen the sweet, sweet monies being pulled down by tablets and such, and they want to expand their market.
I figure they're waiting until E3 to actually drop the gamer stuff hardcore. This reveal got them talked about as an option for enhanced tv, video conferencing and such which they are hoping will get it noticed by people who aren't typically in their available markets.
Well... that's a pretty stupid approach if that's true. No one that's interested in watching TV needs an XBox to do it. It seems like a large portion of their audience is more interested in cord cutting (getting rid of cable) than being excited about it. A Roku is like 30 bucks if you really need a simple to use streaming device for your TV.
It sounds more like they're jacking the price up with extraneous functionality no one wants. That's an approach that would actively work against getting a large install base (which pretty much is the name of the game for consoles).
People interested in those extra functions will already have them, or be able to get them for hundreds of dollars cheaper.
I'm guessing they looked at the NetFlix streaming numbers on 360, said "Holy shit," and then tried to make features that would appeal to people who spend five hours a day watching Netflix.
I totally get that doing a bunch of crazy shit with your TV and being an entertainment device is what some people want out of new consoles, but most people are just trying to play good exclusive video games. I will always buy a console as long as it has exclusive games on it that I want to play. I play most of my games on PC, but I usually own a Nintendo console for Zelda, Smash Bros, Mario, etc. I've always owned a Playstation for Final Fantasy and other JRPGs. Hell, I bought a Wii U specifically for the new Xeno game, and the other ones like Monster Hunter, Mario, etc. are just the stuff I play on it while I wait.
I used to be friends with a guy who was like addicted to early adopting and tech that did shit just for the sake of doing it. He once bought a $120 TV remote that he could program to turn on and off the lights in his bedroom and control all his devices. He's the kind of guy who's probably excited about all this dumb shit they showed with the Xbox One.
Microsoft permanently lost my console business when my 360 RROD'ed, and they took 3 months replacing it because "It's summer time and lots of kids are out of school so we have a big backlog." If you can't be better to your customers than that, you're never getting my money again, regardless of what games you have, so I can't say I'm surprised or really care about how awful this thing looks.
The reveal wasn't aimed at gamers, and I think that was intentional. They're trying to differentiate themselves from the PS4 as a full-service entertainment system, and appeal to people outside the typical gaming community. They've seen the sweet, sweet monies being pulled down by tablets and such, and they want to expand their market.
I figure they're waiting until E3 to actually drop the gamer stuff hardcore. This reveal got them talked about as an option for enhanced tv, video conferencing and such which they are hoping will get it noticed by people who aren't typically in their available markets.
Well... that's a pretty stupid approach if that's true. No one that's interested in watching TV needs an XBox to do it. It seems like a large portion of their audience is more interested in cord cutting (getting rid of cable) than being excited about it. A Roku is like 30 bucks if you really need a simple to use streaming device for your TV.
It sounds more like they're jacking the price up with extraneous functionality no one wants. That's an approach that would actively work against getting a large install base (which pretty much is the name of the game for consoles).
People interested in those extra functions will already have them, or be able to get them for hundreds of dollars cheaper.
I'm guessing they looked at the NetFlix streaming numbers on 360, said "Holy shit," and then tried to make features that would appeal to people who spend five hours a day watching Netflix.
EA have already talked about raising prices next gen in fact.
At least Australians won't be whining about our games being more expensive than America's any more, right?
I can't wait for them to price these consoles at over $900+ over here.
But we will see. I do know I am really pissed off about this console having all this secondary crap for watching tv and similar, that will be of absolute no worth here in Australia. They will still be charging for it of course.
The way I see it, Microsoft has positioned the Xbox One as a device to take over responsibilities from other devices. That's why it is called the One. The features they added to the core Xbox experience are features directly lifted from other types of device, designed to make those other devices superfluous or obsolete. They're trying to unify the modern household under one giant banner, theirs. That's why it has HDMI throughput, why their $400million deal with the NFL is ass-backwards. Instead of making a general purpose overlay that works with all sports, they simply made the NFL come to them. One device. One gateway. The Xbox One.
The way Sony seem to be handling it, which is completely different, is that the Playstation 4 works in-conjunction with those other devices. The features they added to the core Playstation experience are not designed to replace other devices, but to link the console with them. Devices such at the Vita, such as internet streaming, such as your mobile phone and even tablets and PCs.
Sony don't have an app on your phone that turns your phone into a Playstation device. Instead, they allow you to access the Playstation content through it, linking the two systems without consuming one of them.
This is, I think, a crucial difference of strategy. Look at what Sony highlighted most during their presentation. The Playstation 4 doesn't replace your tablet, but enhance it with live streaming, with distributed friends lists, with all the social media you want, linked across all devices but beholden to none. Same is true with their TV solutions. Playstation acts as a hub, linking to other media devices rather than becoming a destination unto itself. It allows you to access Netflix and TV channels through the Playstation rather than in the Playstation. For example: when I load up BBC iPlayer on my PS3, I activate it with my console, sure, but once the player is launched there is no Sony interface, no Sony branding. It's functionally identical to accessing it through Chrome on my netbook.
Nintendo go even further. Their device, the WiiU, is not even trying to step on the shoes of other devices. It is an extremely focused and almost single-purpose console. That's why it is suffering in the sales department right now, because it is bought just for games and little else, and they don't have that content made yet. But should that killer-app come along, it will be a hugely attractive device that will better slot into your life, filling a niche rather than attempting to do it all.
I guess it's just a matter of perspective. First impressions say a lot and highlight a company's priorities. What they show first are the things they think are most important, and set the tone for the entire product. Sony's entire device was built for developers. You say they did nothing else but have a slideshow of technical specs? Well for the thousands of companies around the world who are going to produce games for this thing, that really matters. Not only that, but they have the specs the developers specifically asked for, years ago in consultation. What did Microsoft do? Waffle over their spec and fudge their numbers. Their own PR team didn't understand the difference in RAM types, in transfer speeds and all that. Sony had fucking Mark Cerny on stage for twenty minutes, rambling on about sub-surface scattering and poly-dimensional deformation subroutines. Because for them, games are the core and everything else is window dressing. For Microsoft, it was the other way around.
Nintendo and Sony brought games to show, Microsoft brought their checkbook. Half of their presentation was about things they paid for instead of created themselves. Follow the money, right? $300million on game development, $400million on exclusive NFL rights. That says everything, I think.
Does it matter overall? It's a small difference, and fundamentally inconsequential if all you want to do is play Call of Duty with your friends. But just like the struggles of the PS3, and the monumental success of the Wii for Nintendo, I think it's more about the snowball effect. Once the balance shifts, even in a small way, years down the line the difference is huge.
The reveal wasn't aimed at gamers, and I think that was intentional. They're trying to differentiate themselves from the PS4 as a full-service entertainment system, and appeal to people outside the typical gaming community. They've seen the sweet, sweet monies being pulled down by tablets and such, and they want to expand their market.
I figure they're waiting until E3 to actually drop the gamer stuff hardcore. This reveal got them talked about as an option for enhanced tv, video conferencing and such which they are hoping will get it noticed by people who aren't typically in their available markets.
Well... that's a pretty stupid approach if that's true. No one that's interested in watching TV needs an XBox to do it. It seems like a large portion of their audience is more interested in cord cutting (getting rid of cable) than being excited about it. A Roku is like 30 bucks if you really need a simple to use streaming device for your TV.
It sounds more like they're jacking the price up with extraneous functionality no one wants. That's an approach that would actively work against getting a large install base (which pretty much is the name of the game for consoles).
People interested in those extra functions will already have them, or be able to get them for hundreds of dollars cheaper.
In theory that's what the $99 360 is for. But they won't be able to add in Kinect at $99. In any case, all this TV stuff shouldn't add too much to the cost of each Xbone since the power needed to play games is much more than whatever other features they can think to add. The bigger problem is Kinect which will either raise the price of their console or if it's optional won't really be supported.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I can't see any logical reason why they would drop Silver (unless they're actively trying to piss off consumers). Maybe rename/rebrand it, but I can't see a good reason for them to drop it.
Do we know if the Silver membership will still exist?
We don't, but I'm sure someone has some riveting speculation on the subject anyway!
Just think if the advantage of the Silver membership is that I can ONLY play games... I might be tempted to let my Gold lapse (which I might as well now).
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Do we know if the Silver membership will still exist?
probably $50/year, gold is now $100/year because of all the cool new things!
That is what I worry about and that the "cool new things" part is all shit unavailable where I live. Though I suspect that gold isn't likely to double in price like this except in a worst case scenario.
But what would Silver even be at this point? I mean, it seems just about every feature they are touting is something that needs to be paywalled for them. Even Netflix is Gold only.
I do wonder if prices are going to go up $10ish, or maybe $10 at retail, stay at $60 for digital. Controllers really concern me too - I could see with all these features having those get more and more expensive. I know I like to have a full set of 4 controllers in case the kid/niece/nephew/friends/etc want to play a round of Castle Crashers or Scott Pilgrim and if they're an extra $20 each or something, it would be a pretty big hike in overall console ownership.
Posts
It'd be a weird move. Microsoft let the cat out of the bag on Tuesday. Surely Sony has the design of their new console finalised ~6 months before its launch? Assuming they do, there's really no reason to hold it back anymore.
Well... that's a pretty stupid approach if that's true. No one that's interested in watching TV needs an XBox to do it. It seems like a large portion of their audience is more interested in cord cutting (getting rid of cable) than being excited about it. A Roku is like 30 bucks if you really need a simple to use streaming device for your TV.
It sounds more like they're jacking the price up with extraneous functionality no one wants. That's an approach that would actively work against getting a large install base (which pretty much is the name of the game for consoles).
People interested in those extra functions will already have them, or be able to get them for hundreds of dollars cheaper.
That PS4 reveal showed how to add to the experience of GAMING.
The leap from xbox > xbox 360 totally added to the experience with xbox live. And hell I don't even like XBL since I'm mainly a PC gamer, but I can't deny it was huge improvement in the console world.
It will be pretty bad if E3 is simply game announcements for Xbone.
I know a lot of xbox fans who are already looking at making the PC switch.... and well well, valve is working a fancy "steambox" to make that console > PC switch less jarring for those who don't care about the tech savvy shit. I swear Gabe is a future telling wizard or something.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Waggle controls and a screen in your controller.
If you're talking about streaming content, then I feel like an ass because you're right. I concede the point. Sorry Scarab and everyone.
Exactly. Why would non-gamers shell out 500 [insert currency here] for a device that doesn't really do all that many revolutionary new things to justify that price tag?
In general, this whole e3 is gonna be one to watch.
Right, no one has any questions about the system now, everything was covered.
Eh, maybe. Publishers and the people organizing E3 want gamers to come to their event, and a huge incentive for gamers to do that currently are demos of upcoming games. If they can just stay at home to do that, why visit E3?
Microsoft will have to spend E3 making up ground after this press event while Sony can just roll out games and show off the tech. Pretty much the main question now for Sony is the Used game question. Microsoft has a ton of questions to answer now.
Yes, E3 is about the games, but now Microsoft has to spend at least part of the conference either backtracking on or clarifying all of their informational clusterfuck from this week.
EDIT: As Athenor stated, Price is a big question for both now. I think Sony has a bit more understanding of how badly price can hurt your system. I think the Xbone is going to have a price issue with the Kinect being part of the system.
XBL Gamertag: evilive7
Playstation ID: evilive7
3DS: 4699-7349-0534
That's like the last bar Sony has to clear to avoid fucking up an easy advantage.
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
Steambox!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
80€ PS4 games would be just great.
I'm guessing they looked at the NetFlix streaming numbers on 360, said "Holy shit," and then tried to make features that would appeal to people who spend five hours a day watching Netflix.
I used to be friends with a guy who was like addicted to early adopting and tech that did shit just for the sake of doing it. He once bought a $120 TV remote that he could program to turn on and off the lights in his bedroom and control all his devices. He's the kind of guy who's probably excited about all this dumb shit they showed with the Xbox One.
Microsoft permanently lost my console business when my 360 RROD'ed, and they took 3 months replacing it because "It's summer time and lots of kids are out of school so we have a big backlog." If you can't be better to your customers than that, you're never getting my money again, regardless of what games you have, so I can't say I'm surprised or really care about how awful this thing looks.
At least Australians won't be whining about our games being more expensive than America's any more, right?
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
I can't wait for them to price these consoles at over $900+ over here.
But we will see. I do know I am really pissed off about this console having all this secondary crap for watching tv and similar, that will be of absolute no worth here in Australia. They will still be charging for it of course.
The way Sony seem to be handling it, which is completely different, is that the Playstation 4 works in-conjunction with those other devices. The features they added to the core Playstation experience are not designed to replace other devices, but to link the console with them. Devices such at the Vita, such as internet streaming, such as your mobile phone and even tablets and PCs.
Sony don't have an app on your phone that turns your phone into a Playstation device. Instead, they allow you to access the Playstation content through it, linking the two systems without consuming one of them.
This is, I think, a crucial difference of strategy. Look at what Sony highlighted most during their presentation. The Playstation 4 doesn't replace your tablet, but enhance it with live streaming, with distributed friends lists, with all the social media you want, linked across all devices but beholden to none. Same is true with their TV solutions. Playstation acts as a hub, linking to other media devices rather than becoming a destination unto itself. It allows you to access Netflix and TV channels through the Playstation rather than in the Playstation. For example: when I load up BBC iPlayer on my PS3, I activate it with my console, sure, but once the player is launched there is no Sony interface, no Sony branding. It's functionally identical to accessing it through Chrome on my netbook.
Nintendo go even further. Their device, the WiiU, is not even trying to step on the shoes of other devices. It is an extremely focused and almost single-purpose console. That's why it is suffering in the sales department right now, because it is bought just for games and little else, and they don't have that content made yet. But should that killer-app come along, it will be a hugely attractive device that will better slot into your life, filling a niche rather than attempting to do it all.
I guess it's just a matter of perspective. First impressions say a lot and highlight a company's priorities. What they show first are the things they think are most important, and set the tone for the entire product. Sony's entire device was built for developers. You say they did nothing else but have a slideshow of technical specs? Well for the thousands of companies around the world who are going to produce games for this thing, that really matters. Not only that, but they have the specs the developers specifically asked for, years ago in consultation. What did Microsoft do? Waffle over their spec and fudge their numbers. Their own PR team didn't understand the difference in RAM types, in transfer speeds and all that. Sony had fucking Mark Cerny on stage for twenty minutes, rambling on about sub-surface scattering and poly-dimensional deformation subroutines. Because for them, games are the core and everything else is window dressing. For Microsoft, it was the other way around.
Nintendo and Sony brought games to show, Microsoft brought their checkbook. Half of their presentation was about things they paid for instead of created themselves. Follow the money, right? $300million on game development, $400million on exclusive NFL rights. That says everything, I think.
Does it matter overall? It's a small difference, and fundamentally inconsequential if all you want to do is play Call of Duty with your friends. But just like the struggles of the PS3, and the monumental success of the Wii for Nintendo, I think it's more about the snowball effect. Once the balance shifts, even in a small way, years down the line the difference is huge.
In theory that's what the $99 360 is for. But they won't be able to add in Kinect at $99. In any case, all this TV stuff shouldn't add too much to the cost of each Xbone since the power needed to play games is much more than whatever other features they can think to add. The bigger problem is Kinect which will either raise the price of their console or if it's optional won't really be supported.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
We don't, but I'm sure someone has some riveting speculation on the subject anyway!
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
probably $50/year, gold is now $100/year because of all the cool new things!
Just think if the advantage of the Silver membership is that I can ONLY play games... I might be tempted to let my Gold lapse (which I might as well now).
That is what I worry about and that the "cool new things" part is all shit unavailable where I live. Though I suspect that gold isn't likely to double in price like this except in a worst case scenario.
I do wonder if prices are going to go up $10ish, or maybe $10 at retail, stay at $60 for digital. Controllers really concern me too - I could see with all these features having those get more and more expensive. I know I like to have a full set of 4 controllers in case the kid/niece/nephew/friends/etc want to play a round of Castle Crashers or Scott Pilgrim and if they're an extra $20 each or something, it would be a pretty big hike in overall console ownership.
If so that's hilarious.
All over the place its being called that.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hah. So even the freaking name has turned into a PR misfire.