I stopped posting regularly here due to real life etc. but have started reading more regularly again, the amount of shitting on the One is pretty disgraceful actually, there isn't even a dedicated thread because the same geese just couldn't behave themselves and just kept whining on and on with endless negativity, dispute the fact they obviously weren't interested in buying the machine at launch. I fully expect someone to say my opinion is bollocks and the One is a pile of crap and Microsoft deserve all the shit they have reaped but I don't care, I'm genuinely excited for the machine. That there isn't a thread to share that enthusiasm with others here, many of which I've gamed with for years on 360, is a sad reflection of this community.
It was pretty hilarious though--it conjured up images of the self-sufficient hate torrent that surrounded the original Xbox launch back in 2001. It went from "How would they possibly sell more than 20,000 Kinects?" to "GAARBARGAL." pretty quickly, though there were some people genuinely trying to make reasoned arguments rather, they just got overwhelmed.
Given the cross-platform situation (which seems a long time coming), I think that's enough to justify someone's console choice right off the bat for the overall audience. We know there's no BC either way (not until Sony starts streaming PS3 titles, and doesn't drop the service), and gamerscore/trophies will hold exactly the same on either new platform (as far as I know--trophy count will remain on the PS4, right?). The emphasis on the ecosystem will be shared by both companies (see Sony's shared GUI on everything but the Vita, assuming their other divisions remain in lock-step). Forza isn't coming to the PS4, Gran Turismo isn't coming to the Xbox One. The much smaller number of exclusives may be offset by the fact that launch lineups tend to be weaker and the sheer magnitude of the titles there are (and their huge promotions certainly).
Honestly, the One thread got pretty bad. There were people doing excessive shitting, and then there were people doing Sony Microsoft Defense Force. I'm happy that Microsoft rolled back all the horrible decisions and the console as it stands now looks fine, but, well, there were bales and bales of horrible decisions.
Speaking of Microsoft, I've got good news and bad news concerning Rare. The good news: they're thinking about returning to their old franchises! The bad news:
Speaking with The Official Xbox Magazine UK at Gamescom, Rare's Simon Woodroffe talked about making use of Kinect in "ways that actually really enhance the game," rather than in "gimmicky ways." He said Rare has "some ideas for how to use it in the right way," including an idea for a Perfect Dark game.
"Maybe! We've got an idea for that. It would be controller plus Kinect," he explained. "We've got ideas for most older Rare IP, you won't be surprised to hear. There's quite a lot of desire to do that, and Viva Piñata, Conker... Banjo's very popular internally, a lot of people want to do stuff with Banjo. So if we can find the right -- we're all about giving people new experiences, that's what we want to do."
He later talked about leveraging Kinect in ways that make new genres possible. "We want to find that thing that nobody's ever done before and make a game out of it," he said. "We should be inventing new genres, inventing new ways to play. And this sensor gives us new opportunities to do it, with the fidelity it has now."
Kinect Sports Rivals was originally planned to be a launch title for Xbox One, but was delayed until spring 2014 last month. Woodroffe said that, following its completion, Rare will begin working on multiple games, although he didn't offer any assurances that these games would be new entries in any of the company's older franchises. All we know for now is that, based on what Woodroffe had to say, those games seem likely to make use of Kinect in some way.
I'm all for someone FINALLY using Kinect in new and interesting ways, but I hate that we won't see any of these old IPs again unless Rare figures out how to make them work with Kinect.
I stopped posting regularly here due to real life etc. but have started reading more regularly again, the amount of shitting on the One is pretty disgraceful actually, there isn't even a dedicated thread because the same geese just couldn't behave themselves and just kept whining on and on with endless negativity, dispute the fact they obviously weren't interested in buying the machine at launch. I fully expect someone to say my opinion is bollocks and the One is a pile of crap and Microsoft deserve all the shit they have reaped but I don't care, I'm genuinely excited for the machine. That there isn't a thread to share that enthusiasm with others here, many of which I've gamed with for years on 360, is a sad reflection of this community.
I don't know if MS thought the XBO was a pile of crap, but they did change almost all the terrible policies that people were complaining about. Perhaps you should thank the complainers. Maybe start with famousmortimer.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I'm probably in the minority - but I found Viva Pinata to be really great. It oozed personality and the graphic style was awesome. Kinect support wouldn't be terrible either, I'm sure they could do something clever. One thing to keep in mind is in today's world of all the biggest titles being M rated, it's always good to have some bright and colorful family friendly offerings out there. Showing games that are not blood and guns and actually get kids off the couch does help sell systems too, despite what many people think of the Kinect hardware.
I'm probably in the minority - but I found Viva Pinata to be really great. It oozed personality and the graphic style was awesome. Kinect support wouldn't be terrible either, I'm sure they could do something clever. One thing to keep in mind is in today's world of all the biggest titles being M rated, it's always good to have some bright and colorful family friendly offerings out there. Showing games that are not blood and guns and actually get kids off the couch does help sell systems too, despite what many people think of the Kinect hardware.
Oh, definitely. After unending oceans of brown shooty things I'm always longing for more lighthearted and less grim stuff. But of course all that could be done without Kinect.
Isn't Rare in the same situation that Atari was? Just a wholly unrelated company that's wearing the name like some sort of skin, and nobody working there has any connection at all to the old company?
Or put another way, it's the business version of that... shit I don't know the actual name for it. That thought experiment where if you replace a boat plank by plank, once you eventually replace 100% of the boat, can you really call it the same boat anymore?
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Isn't Rare in the same situation that Atari was? Just a wholly unrelated company that's wearing the name like some sort of skin, and nobody working there has any connection at all to the old company?
Or put another way, it's the business version of that... shit I don't know the actual name for it. That thought experiment where if you replace a boat plank by plank, once you eventually replace 100% of the boat, can you really call it the same boat anymore?
I don't really think that's nearly "massive" enough to make any kind of statement other than "people don't buy games they've never heard of."
How about: "In regards to games without established reputations, iOS users are 10x as likely to pay for content, while Android users are somewhere between 10x and 400x as likely to pirate it, depending on market."
I don't really think that's nearly "massive" enough to make any kind of statement other than "people don't buy games they've never heard of."
How about: "In regards to games without established reputations, iOS users are 10x as likely to pay for content, while Android users are somewhere between 10x and 400x as likely to pirate it, depending on market."
No, I still think you need a bigger sample size to make that argument. In addition, as the article and developer stated, most of the pirated copies were in places where there is no way for them to get the game legally anyway.
1) Nintendo refuses to play the bleeding edge game, because they can't afford to. Unlike Sony/MS, if they take more than a moderate loss on hardware (and before 2 years ago, I would've said any loss), they run the risk of imploding the company. With Sony/MS, poor performance can be bouyed temporarily with other divisions -- though with Ballmer stepping down and some of MS's stockholders calling for the dissolving of the Xbox division, this may be a tough one in the future.
2) Nintendo has stuck to the same internal architecture since 1994. Let that one sink in -- from the development of the Ultra 64 till now, a DIRECT LINE can be drawn in how the chips function. Now granted, that functionality has helped fuel a lot of advances for ATI, but basically they stick to what they know because all their tools have nearly 20 years of refinement on it... and HD graphics are still straining their capabilities.
However, as a result of #1 and #2, Nintendo's architecture is drastically different than any of their competitors. More powerful than 360/PS3, less powerful than XBO/PS4, and with a unique architecture that few houses have the tools to exploit. So this drastically reduces 3rd party output, as it is just damned tough for them to make games for the system. Throw in whatever other little nitpicks you want, like the online infrastructure, the confusing controls, the fact that Nintendo's games are juggernauts that everyone buys and thus you have to dodge around them in release schedule.. all of it for 3rd parties comes down to the Cost to Benefit ratio for Nintendo development not being worth it...
3) ... And that causes Nintendo's absolute refusal to money hat to be all the more pronounced. Again, this comes back to not being able to afford to play ball. Nintendo can't money hat developers for timed exclusives, because it would break them... and further, development for Nintendo's systems are such a unique beast that the cost of money hatting is extremely expensive. Basically, the only way Nintendo's been able to pull it off is by directly financing the games themselves. Hell, even Tekken Tag Tournament and Scribblenauts Unlimited, both games with exclusive Nintendo flavoring around the edges, didn't get any special bonuses from Nintendo to the dev teams.
I was under the impression that Nintendo is much, much richer than you seem to be implying here.
The difference is that Nintendo doesn't other divisions that could prop them up in lean times. If Microsoft's entertainment division takes a huge loss, they will still be okay for a while on core product licensing. If Sony happens to dump years of R&D and fails to capture an audience, they can fall back on the giant profits from their music/movie licensing operation.
0
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Nintendo has a very large war chest, built heavily on currency exchanges like many large corps. But compare how much Nintendo spends on R&D versus its competitors. Now imagine them doing that for a bleeding edge console. Now imagine doing that with exclusivity deals and heavy loss leaders in the equation.
Nintendo won't disappear overnight, but it would cripple them for next gen, and then people would complain about them not being cutting edge anymore. And that would be a hell of a downward spiral.
Keep in mind that Nintendo is the most conservative of all 3 companies, by far.
Nintendo certainly does t want a loss leader console; that doesn't mean they have to run a full generation behind with funky hardware. There's still cost in their machines; the WiiU gamepad is an obvious example, but they also really push for small form factors,low power usage, and so on. Could they have built a physically larger unit with higher consumption parts, dropped the gamepad, and put out a WiiU for $350 that would have been 'next gen' lowest common denominator? I think they could have.
For better or worse though, their larger strategy seems to be to distance themselves as much as possible from the competing consoles in the market, and doing so is the are they seem willing to incur cost rather than in beefy console components. I'm not sure if that's a great long term move the way the market seems to be unifying, though.
Agreed - Nintendo has a good chunk of change available. I wouldn't equate their non-bleeding edge hardware and lack of money hatting to them being too poor to do so, I'd say it's their business plan. Their goal seems simple, put out hardware families can afford, that can play the games their internal teams want to make, and can do so at a profit quickly.
One thing to remember is that despite highs and lows in the marketplace, Nintendo's adherence to profitability and NOT taking huge financial risks has allowed them to outlast Atari, NEC, Sega, Panasonic, Tiger, Nokia, and I'm sure others in the console and handheld market. While the Wii U is slumping, as long as they keep their steady course, I'm sure they'll end up making a profit on the console and god knows the 3DS has reached printing money status pretty well.
The difference is that Nintendo doesn't other divisions that could prop them up in lean times. If Microsoft's entertainment division takes a huge loss, they will still be okay for a while on core product licensing. If Sony happens to dump years of R&D and fails to capture an audience, they can fall back on the giant profits from their music/movie licensing operation.
How much of this even applies nowadays? For Microsoft, the Surface is a dud, and everybody hates Windows 8's guts. For Sony, they're desperately selling off real estate, and their TV division is getting a bailout/push from the Japanese government. The one common link they can share is how the rest of the world won't even look up from their iPhones to give their mobile offerings the time of day.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Agreed - Nintendo has a good chunk of change available. I wouldn't equate their non-bleeding edge hardware and lack of money hatting to them being too poor to do so, I'd say it's their business plan. Their goal seems simple, put out hardware families can afford, that can play the games their internal teams want to make, and can do so at a profit quickly.
One thing to remember is that despite highs and lows in the marketplace, Nintendo's adherence to profitability and NOT taking huge financial risks has allowed them to outlast Atari, NEC, Sega, Panasonic, Tiger, Nokia, and I'm sure others in the console and handheld market. While the Wii U is slumping, as long as they keep their steady course, I'm sure they'll end up making a profit on the console and god knows the 3DS has reached printing money status pretty well.
Actually, a post up thread showed the 3DS has so far failed to turn a profit...
Agreed - Nintendo has a good chunk of change available. I wouldn't equate their non-bleeding edge hardware and lack of money hatting to them being too poor to do so, I'd say it's their business plan. Their goal seems simple, put out hardware families can afford, that can play the games their internal teams want to make, and can do so at a profit quickly.
One thing to remember is that despite highs and lows in the marketplace, Nintendo's adherence to profitability and NOT taking huge financial risks has allowed them to outlast Atari, NEC, Sega, Panasonic, Tiger, Nokia, and I'm sure others in the console and handheld market. While the Wii U is slumping, as long as they keep their steady course, I'm sure they'll end up making a profit on the console and god knows the 3DS has reached printing money status pretty well.
Actually, a post up thread showed the 3DS has so far failed to turn a profit...
That's surprising, since it was only after the nintendogs/NSMB spike in the DS chart where the 3DS stopped beating it in a launch aligned comparison
The difference is that Nintendo doesn't other divisions that could prop them up in lean times. If Microsoft's entertainment division takes a huge loss, they will still be okay for a while on core product licensing. If Sony happens to dump years of R&D and fails to capture an audience, they can fall back on the giant profits from their music/movie licensing operation.
How much of this even applies nowadays? For Microsoft, the Surface is a dud, and everybody hates Windows 8's guts. For Sony, they're desperately selling off real estate, and their TV division is getting a bailout/push from the Japanese government. The one common link they can share is how the rest of the world won't even look up from their iPhones to give their mobile offerings the time of day.
Microsoft has been far more profitable under Ballmer than Gates. They make a shit ton out of enterprise licensing. Plus, while people may complain about Windows 8, it's still being sold with every new PC.
The consumer side of Microsoft has been a mixed bag for a decade+. But that's not what pumps in money.
Agreed - Nintendo has a good chunk of change available. I wouldn't equate their non-bleeding edge hardware and lack of money hatting to them being too poor to do so, I'd say it's their business plan. Their goal seems simple, put out hardware families can afford, that can play the games their internal teams want to make, and can do so at a profit quickly.
One thing to remember is that despite highs and lows in the marketplace, Nintendo's adherence to profitability and NOT taking huge financial risks has allowed them to outlast Atari, NEC, Sega, Panasonic, Tiger, Nokia, and I'm sure others in the console and handheld market. While the Wii U is slumping, as long as they keep their steady course, I'm sure they'll end up making a profit on the console and god knows the 3DS has reached printing money status pretty well.
Actually, a post up thread showed the 3DS has so far failed to turn a profit...
That's surprising, since it was only after the nintendogs/NSMB spike in the DS chart where the 3DS stopped beating it in a launch aligned comparison
I think the DS was profitable per piece of hardware though and the 3DS had to drop in price a bit before Nintendo wanted to, so I wouldn't surprise me if it's not that profitable yet in terms of hardware. However, their 3DS software is certainly flying off the shelves. I would say as an overall platform the 3DS is printing money even if the hardware piece of the puzzle isn't.
+1
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
The difference is that Nintendo doesn't other divisions that could prop them up in lean times. If Microsoft's entertainment division takes a huge loss, they will still be okay for a while on core product licensing. If Sony happens to dump years of R&D and fails to capture an audience, they can fall back on the giant profits from their music/movie licensing operation.
How much of this even applies nowadays? For Microsoft, the Surface is a dud, and everybody hates Windows 8's guts. For Sony, they're desperately selling off real estate, and their TV division is getting a bailout/push from the Japanese government. The one common link they can share is how the rest of the world won't even look up from their iPhones to give their mobile offerings the time of day.
Microsoft has been far more profitable under Ballmer than Gates. They make a shit ton out of enterprise licensing. Plus, while people may complain about Windows 8, it's still being sold with every new PC.
The consumer side of Microsoft has been a mixed bag for a decade+. But that's not what pumps in money.
Ehhh.. sort of.
You know how Sony touts Shipped numbers versus Sold numbers? Microsoft does the same thing. Basically, Microsoft has sold a ton of OEM licenses to the various manufacturers (which nets Microsoft money). However, if those new PC sales are slumping, then the OEM vendors aren't going to buy new licenses until the current batch they have is used up. This is how Microsoft was able to front-load the Win8 numbers to make them look good, even as actual sell-through and adoption rates have been slower.
Also the fact that they sold Win8 upgrades for much, much cheaper than usual likely hurt them as well.
Agreed - Nintendo has a good chunk of change available. I wouldn't equate their non-bleeding edge hardware and lack of money hatting to them being too poor to do so, I'd say it's their business plan. Their goal seems simple, put out hardware families can afford, that can play the games their internal teams want to make, and can do so at a profit quickly.
One thing to remember is that despite highs and lows in the marketplace, Nintendo's adherence to profitability and NOT taking huge financial risks has allowed them to outlast Atari, NEC, Sega, Panasonic, Tiger, Nokia, and I'm sure others in the console and handheld market. While the Wii U is slumping, as long as they keep their steady course, I'm sure they'll end up making a profit on the console and god knows the 3DS has reached printing money status pretty well.
Actually, a post up thread showed the 3DS has so far failed to turn a profit...
That's surprising, since it was only after the nintendogs/NSMB spike in the DS chart where the 3DS stopped beating it in a launch aligned comparison
That "failed to turn a profit" was from a court case regarding a patent for the way the 3DS displays 3D. The profit here is probably referring to the 3DS hardware itself, software not included, failing to cover R&D on the thing so far. Probably. Maybe.
EDIT: and I think they're now making a profit on each system sold but they got hurt by the price drop.
Agreed - Nintendo has a good chunk of change available. I wouldn't equate their non-bleeding edge hardware and lack of money hatting to them being too poor to do so, I'd say it's their business plan. Their goal seems simple, put out hardware families can afford, that can play the games their internal teams want to make, and can do so at a profit quickly.
One thing to remember is that despite highs and lows in the marketplace, Nintendo's adherence to profitability and NOT taking huge financial risks has allowed them to outlast Atari, NEC, Sega, Panasonic, Tiger, Nokia, and I'm sure others in the console and handheld market. While the Wii U is slumping, as long as they keep their steady course, I'm sure they'll end up making a profit on the console and god knows the 3DS has reached printing money status pretty well.
Actually, a post up thread showed the 3DS has so far failed to turn a profit...
That's surprising, since it was only after the nintendogs/NSMB spike in the DS chart where the 3DS stopped beating it in a launch aligned comparison
That "failed to turn a profit" was from a court case regarding a patent for the way the 3DS displays 3D. The profit here is probably referring to the 3DS hardware itself, software not included, failing to cover R&D on the thing so far. Probably. Maybe.
EDIT: and I think they're now making a profit on each system sold but they got hurt by the price drop.
Exactly. The court was assessing damages for the 3DS console infringing on a patent, but since the court simultaneously concluded that no games infringed on the patent, the only profit they were looking at was for the hardware itself.
Not too hard to imagine that without factoring in game sales or licensing, and including R&D, the 3DS hasn't been making much. Hell, under those conditions I doubt the 360 could even be considered profitable.
The difference is that Nintendo doesn't other divisions that could prop them up in lean times. If Microsoft's entertainment division takes a huge loss, they will still be okay for a while on core product licensing. If Sony happens to dump years of R&D and fails to capture an audience, they can fall back on the giant profits from their music/movie licensing operation.
How much of this even applies nowadays? For Microsoft, the Surface is a dud, and everybody hates Windows 8's guts. For Sony, they're desperately selling off real estate, and their TV division is getting a bailout/push from the Japanese government. The one common link they can share is how the rest of the world won't even look up from their iPhones to give their mobile offerings the time of day.
I think the Microsoft side of things has been pretty well covered, here's [url=http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/13q1_sony.pdfSony's Q1 2013 earnings[/url]. See for yourself. Their most profitable division (+464M USD) is insurance. Their second most profitable (+110M USD) is raw semiconductor/battery sales. The third? Music licensing (+109M USD)
Agreed - Nintendo has a good chunk of change available. I wouldn't equate their non-bleeding edge hardware and lack of money hatting to them being too poor to do so, I'd say it's their business plan. Their goal seems simple, put out hardware families can afford, that can play the games their internal teams want to make, and can do so at a profit quickly.
One thing to remember is that despite highs and lows in the marketplace, Nintendo's adherence to profitability and NOT taking huge financial risks has allowed them to outlast Atari, NEC, Sega, Panasonic, Tiger, Nokia, and I'm sure others in the console and handheld market. While the Wii U is slumping, as long as they keep their steady course, I'm sure they'll end up making a profit on the console and god knows the 3DS has reached printing money status pretty well.
Actually, a post up thread showed the 3DS has so far failed to turn a profit...
That's surprising, since it was only after the nintendogs/NSMB spike in the DS chart where the 3DS stopped beating it in a launch aligned comparison
That "failed to turn a profit" was from a court case regarding a patent for the way the 3DS displays 3D. The profit here is probably referring to the 3DS hardware itself, software not included, failing to cover R&D on the thing so far. Probably. Maybe.
EDIT: and I think they're now making a profit on each system sold but they got hurt by the price drop.
Exactly. The court was assessing damages for the 3DS console infringing on a patent, but since the court simultaneously concluded that no games infringed on the patent, the only profit they were looking at was for the hardware itself.
Not too hard to imagine that without factoring in game sales or licensing, and including R&D, the 3DS hasn't been making much. Hell, under those conditions I doubt the 360 could even be considered profitable.
Ah right, forgot about R&D costs, and taking the hit on the console itself after the price drop
And now you how I felt when Steel Battalion Heavy Armor was announced.
Fuck the Kinect for it is the destroyer of IPs.
Hopefully Kinect:Kinect 2 as Powerglove:Wii Remote. The initial poor design doesn't mean the concept is hopeless. Like, I'm really glad the Oculus Rift guys didn't have this attitude. "Welp, VR has been done poorly before, let's NEVER try."
What they're doing hasn't been attempted before really. The last real attempt was what, the VirtuaBoy? Besides, the TrackIR is quite successful and is their real competition.
The Kinect, however, has the same problem any other non-immersion motion control has and that it doesn't really mesh with just sitting on the couch with a beer and a controller. I guarantee that the K2 will be just as pointless as the K1 because devs just inherently don't know what to do with these things. The games invariably end up up being either a rhythm game or the end round of Legends of the Hidden Temple.
+1
Options
Dusdais ashamed of this postSLC, UTRegistered Userregular
And now you how I felt when Steel Battalion Heavy Armor was announced.
Fuck the Kinect for it is the destroyer of IPs.
Hopefully Kinect:Kinect 2 as Powerglove:Wii Remote. The initial poor design doesn't mean the concept is hopeless. Like, I'm really glad the Oculus Rift guys didn't have this attitude. "Welp, VR has been done poorly before, let's NEVER try."
Not that I disagree, but there is a key difference in how these technologies have been presented. VR never got far beyond some air show demos and arcade installations (I think); there was never a large consumer investment in it. The Kinect was paraded around by Microsoft as the next big thing, people bought it, and the results were largely disappointing. The Oculus Rift's infectious rise, I feel, comes largely from the simple notion that it is finally delivering on that weird science fiction fever dream people remember from 20 years ago. The Kinect's reputation at this point has more in common with Beanie Babies.
At least you got what you paid for with Beanie Babies. With the Kinect you got Star Wars Kinect.
The Occulis Rift is a very focused device that has no room for interpretation as to its potential. The Kinect relies on other people to figure out what the hell to do with it. The comparison doesn't really work, especially since the aforementioned TrackIR is a thing that works well and sold nicely. The Rift is basically that on steroids and fairy dust. Meanwhile the Kinect's forerunner is the Sony Eye thing.
Part of the problem is that MS has done little to produce first party games that show people what the Kinect can do for gaming in an innovative way. A mistake they seem to he repeating for the K2.
At least you got what you paid for with Beanie Babies. With the Kinect you got Star Wars Kinect.
The Occulis Rift is a very focused device that has no room for interpretation as to its potential. The Kinect relies on other people to figure out what the hell to do with it. The comparison doesn't really work, especially since the aforementioned TrackIR is a thing that works well and sold nicely. The Rift is basically that on steroids and fairy dust. Meanwhile the Kinect's forerunner is the Sony Eye thing.
Part of the problem is that MS has done little to produce first party games that show people what the Kinect can do for gaming in an innovative way. A mistake they seem to he repeating for the K2.
And the other part of the problem is that most third-parties have made it abundantly clear by now they have zero interest in developing for stuff with controls or configurations that aren't part of the industry standard.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
+1
Options
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
At least you got what you paid for with Beanie Babies. With the Kinect you got Star Wars Kinect.
The Occulis Rift is a very focused device that has no room for interpretation as to its potential. The Kinect relies on other people to figure out what the hell to do with it. The comparison doesn't really work, especially since the aforementioned TrackIR is a thing that works well and sold nicely. The Rift is basically that on steroids and fairy dust. Meanwhile the Kinect's forerunner is the Sony Eye thing.
Part of the problem is that MS has done little to produce first party games that show people what the Kinect can do for gaming in an innovative way. A mistake they seem to he repeating for the K2.
And the other part of the problem is that most third-parties have made it abundantly clear by now they have zero interest in developing for stuff with controls or configurations that aren't part of the industry standard.
Considering that by doing so they automatically limit their established install base, I don't see why they would.
Short of being handed big sacks of money to do so.
GameStop managers will receive PlayStation 4 units and seven games at launch, GameStop has confirmed to Joystiq. The announcement was made at the company's GameStop EXPO, currently taking place in Las Vegas.
A tipster informs us the games to be given with the console include: Killzone: Shadowfall, NBA 2K14, Madden, FIFA 14, Need for Speed: Rivals, Battlefield 4 and Beyond: Two Souls. That final one being a curiosity if we're to assume managers will receive PS4 versions of the listed games, since to the best of our knowledge, and reiterated by Sony in follow-up, Beyond is only for PS3.
Posts
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
It was pretty hilarious though--it conjured up images of the self-sufficient hate torrent that surrounded the original Xbox launch back in 2001. It went from "How would they possibly sell more than 20,000 Kinects?" to "GAARBARGAL." pretty quickly, though there were some people genuinely trying to make reasoned arguments rather, they just got overwhelmed.
Given the cross-platform situation (which seems a long time coming), I think that's enough to justify someone's console choice right off the bat for the overall audience. We know there's no BC either way (not until Sony starts streaming PS3 titles, and doesn't drop the service), and gamerscore/trophies will hold exactly the same on either new platform (as far as I know--trophy count will remain on the PS4, right?). The emphasis on the ecosystem will be shared by both companies (see Sony's shared GUI on everything but the Vita, assuming their other divisions remain in lock-step). Forza isn't coming to the PS4, Gran Turismo isn't coming to the Xbox One. The much smaller number of exclusives may be offset by the fact that launch lineups tend to be weaker and the sheer magnitude of the titles there are (and their huge promotions certainly).
Speaking of Microsoft, I've got good news and bad news concerning Rare. The good news: they're thinking about returning to their old franchises! The bad news:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/08/23/rare-considering-revisiting-classic-franchises-using-kinect
I'm all for someone FINALLY using Kinect in new and interesting ways, but I hate that we won't see any of these old IPs again unless Rare figures out how to make them work with Kinect.
I don't know if MS thought the XBO was a pile of crap, but they did change almost all the terrible policies that people were complaining about. Perhaps you should thank the complainers. Maybe start with famousmortimer.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Oh, definitely. After unending oceans of brown shooty things I'm always longing for more lighthearted and less grim stuff. But of course all that could be done without Kinect.
Kinect is a sometimes accessory. /cookiemonster
Or put another way, it's the business version of that... shit I don't know the actual name for it. That thought experiment where if you replace a boat plank by plank, once you eventually replace 100% of the boat, can you really call it the same boat anymore?
Ship of Theseus.
E: Added link.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
How about: "In regards to games without established reputations, iOS users are 10x as likely to pay for content, while Android users are somewhere between 10x and 400x as likely to pirate it, depending on market."
No, I still think you need a bigger sample size to make that argument. In addition, as the article and developer stated, most of the pirated copies were in places where there is no way for them to get the game legally anyway.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I was under the impression that Nintendo is much, much richer than you seem to be implying here.
Nintendo won't disappear overnight, but it would cripple them for next gen, and then people would complain about them not being cutting edge anymore. And that would be a hell of a downward spiral.
Keep in mind that Nintendo is the most conservative of all 3 companies, by far.
For better or worse though, their larger strategy seems to be to distance themselves as much as possible from the competing consoles in the market, and doing so is the are they seem willing to incur cost rather than in beefy console components. I'm not sure if that's a great long term move the way the market seems to be unifying, though.
One thing to remember is that despite highs and lows in the marketplace, Nintendo's adherence to profitability and NOT taking huge financial risks has allowed them to outlast Atari, NEC, Sega, Panasonic, Tiger, Nokia, and I'm sure others in the console and handheld market. While the Wii U is slumping, as long as they keep their steady course, I'm sure they'll end up making a profit on the console and god knows the 3DS has reached printing money status pretty well.
How much of this even applies nowadays? For Microsoft, the Surface is a dud, and everybody hates Windows 8's guts. For Sony, they're desperately selling off real estate, and their TV division is getting a bailout/push from the Japanese government. The one common link they can share is how the rest of the world won't even look up from their iPhones to give their mobile offerings the time of day.
Actually, a post up thread showed the 3DS has so far failed to turn a profit...
Steam: adamjnet
Microsoft has been far more profitable under Ballmer than Gates. They make a shit ton out of enterprise licensing. Plus, while people may complain about Windows 8, it's still being sold with every new PC.
The consumer side of Microsoft has been a mixed bag for a decade+. But that's not what pumps in money.
Ehhh.. sort of.
You know how Sony touts Shipped numbers versus Sold numbers? Microsoft does the same thing. Basically, Microsoft has sold a ton of OEM licenses to the various manufacturers (which nets Microsoft money). However, if those new PC sales are slumping, then the OEM vendors aren't going to buy new licenses until the current batch they have is used up. This is how Microsoft was able to front-load the Win8 numbers to make them look good, even as actual sell-through and adoption rates have been slower.
Also the fact that they sold Win8 upgrades for much, much cheaper than usual likely hurt them as well.
That "failed to turn a profit" was from a court case regarding a patent for the way the 3DS displays 3D. The profit here is probably referring to the 3DS hardware itself, software not included, failing to cover R&D on the thing so far. Probably. Maybe.
EDIT: and I think they're now making a profit on each system sold but they got hurt by the price drop.
3DS: 2019-9671-8106 NNID: RamblinMushroom
Twitter/Tumblr
Exactly. The court was assessing damages for the 3DS console infringing on a patent, but since the court simultaneously concluded that no games infringed on the patent, the only profit they were looking at was for the hardware itself.
Not too hard to imagine that without factoring in game sales or licensing, and including R&D, the 3DS hasn't been making much. Hell, under those conditions I doubt the 360 could even be considered profitable.
I think the Microsoft side of things has been pretty well covered, here's [url=http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/13q1_sony.pdfSony's Q1 2013 earnings[/url]. See for yourself. Their most profitable division (+464M USD) is insurance. Their second most profitable (+110M USD) is raw semiconductor/battery sales. The third? Music licensing (+109M USD)
Their video games? -149M USD in the same period.
And now you how I felt when Steel Battalion Heavy Armor was announced.
Fuck the Kinect for it is the destroyer of IPs.
Hopefully Kinect:Kinect 2 as Powerglove:Wii Remote. The initial poor design doesn't mean the concept is hopeless. Like, I'm really glad the Oculus Rift guys didn't have this attitude. "Welp, VR has been done poorly before, let's NEVER try."
The Kinect, however, has the same problem any other non-immersion motion control has and that it doesn't really mesh with just sitting on the couch with a beer and a controller. I guarantee that the K2 will be just as pointless as the K1 because devs just inherently don't know what to do with these things. The games invariably end up up being either a rhythm game or the end round of Legends of the Hidden Temple.
Steel Battalion: HA was a game that needed Smartglass far more than Kinect. If only they tried again with the Xbox One.
The Occulis Rift is a very focused device that has no room for interpretation as to its potential. The Kinect relies on other people to figure out what the hell to do with it. The comparison doesn't really work, especially since the aforementioned TrackIR is a thing that works well and sold nicely. The Rift is basically that on steroids and fairy dust. Meanwhile the Kinect's forerunner is the Sony Eye thing.
Part of the problem is that MS has done little to produce first party games that show people what the Kinect can do for gaming in an innovative way. A mistake they seem to he repeating for the K2.
And the other part of the problem is that most third-parties have made it abundantly clear by now they have zero interest in developing for stuff with controls or configurations that aren't part of the industry standard.
Considering that by doing so they automatically limit their established install base, I don't see why they would.
Short of being handed big sacks of money to do so.
Why not WiiU?
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Sony is really going all out, smart move really.