Xbox Exec: No Internet? Get An Xbox 360

I'd disagree on one point, the used feature is still pretty important for the casual market. It may not be the most important aspect, but it will certainly be in favor of Wii U if casuals are still trying to make a decision at this point. That, and the ridiculously high price point for the console.

Keep in mind people who are casual are less into their console, and therefore may not want to spend as much.

Also it looks to me like MS is trying to capture the "everything" space. They're trying to capture the casual market with the media center approach, while making the hardware competitive with the PS4 and keeping the big publishers and developers for the gamer audience. I think they might end up shooting themselves in the foot doing it.

Which might be why the price is so high. With bringing in the casual market they could no longer justify selling the consoles at such a large loss to bring in game sales, because with the casual market they won't make as much off game sales.

for some reason~ I still think xbox will outsell ps4

I have friends in the military and their connections are not the most reliable. Having a game console with them is one of many ways these servicemen/women relax out there. Requiring an online connection just to use the game console, especially if the game has to check/authenticate itself every 24 hours is in my own opinion a disservice to them.

I have friends who work and live on the road and they don't have the most reliable connection out there. One friend who lives in Arkansas is on the road 6 days a week going to places as far as Tennessee for his job. A $50 to $60 a month mobile broadband service, prepaid or not, just to use something like a 3G WiFi router is an added expense for him he cannot afford.

And, you have people who bring their game consoles during road trips. Do you expect them to have a broadband connection in the middle of Yosemite National Park or Grand Teton National Park? Starband Nova 500 starts at $49.99 a month and Hughes Net Gen4 satellite internet starts at $39.99 a month. These are, again, additional expenses.

Let's not forget natural disasters and severe weather that can knock out power for days or weeks. There is no way you'll get internet connection when the power cuts out on a central switching station in your area, and all you have is power from a backup generator.

Microsoft is catering a console that is nothing more than a gateway to online services and media center capabilities that does gaming on the side to a very small market of people. However, if that small niche of consumers also bring their consoles with them overseas due to military deployments or places where internet connection is not reliable or not available, then it's completely showing how little Microsoft is in touch with the realities of broadband internet. Not everyone lives off of $50,000 a year income, has no kids or other expenses, and has the ability to afford ISP monthly fees, Xbox Live yearly, on top of bills, food and gas. These consoles are going to still end up in the hands of low income earners (less than $20k/year) to servicemen deployed overseas to campers in the middle of Wyoming.

xboxone = media center pc with tv. imo

I think that's what they are aiming for and it boggles me to be honest. Actually I'm like 99% positive that is exactly what they are aiming for and they are shooting themselves in the foot doing it. It actually might of been a decent idea maybe 3~4 years ago, but technology has started to evolve and accept digital media as the norm.

Most newer TVs are starting to do the whole Smart TV thing anyway so you can watch netflix and ***on your TV via wifi any how. And pretty much any PC/laptop you can buy now have HDMI outs so you can just run a cable to your receiver if you want to use your home entertainment system as well.

Honestly, most big titles are starting to include PC in the multi platform release anyway. I really don't think it will take more then one or two more generations of gaming consoles before they just disappear entirely and developers just embrace PCs.

To be fair all the consoles are moving in that direction. Even the Wii has netflix and a web browser. The computing power is coming to a point where it makes sense to include more features as selling points as theyre not hard to make and can bring in more people.

I just think Xbox One is striking the wrong balance, and they're not doing themselves any favors by alienating themselves further by having all these anti-consumer features in one generation.

Well I meant them trying to take the whole social and "It's a PC you hook up to your TV" to the nth degree they are pushing so hard as the main selling point.

While used may be important to customers on a budget, MS bet that people would just grumble and eat their bowl of DRM in exchange for all the features the console would provide. Considering the success of XBL, the decision to move forward with further restrictions on what you can do with your console is justified by their previous success and potential profits.

Wii-U doesn't cater to the FPS obsessed audience which brings the decision down to PS4 and XBO for that segment of people. WiiU will survive on first-party Nintendo games, children and people interested in the innovations that console brings to the table. Nintendo's problem lay in attracting 3rd party developers to pick up their device and sufficiently marketing their console.

MS still has Halo and loyalists but it seems they really wanted to tap the market of people who would pick up their console not as a gaming device but an all-in-one product. Will this strategy work? Outside the gamer camp that has rallied behind Ps4, we'll see.

The price point is high but considering smartphone prices it isn't egregious for a "media center" to borrow Volkoms term.

A lot of people are going to have to make a choice between a console and a smartphone if the combined total approaches 1k though. I guess at that point though a PS4 isn't that different. But the savings from used games do add up.

It comes down to exclusive games if you ask me.

I never would have owned an xbox if it wasn't for halo.

I never would have owned an xbox360 if it wasn't for minecraft

I never will own an xbox720/one if it isn't for xyz game.

that's how I see it as a guy who holds no real loyalties outside of "ride it til' the wheels fall off"

With more A-list games coming out for PC, I'm willing to grab a Wii-U for the exclusive Nintendo titles and ride out this wave until PS4/XBO drop their prices or improve on the consoles.

The PC has just become very attractive to me in this last generation and I have to echo the sentiment that I could care less about the peripheral bonuses that consoles try to package within themselves. I can upgrade my PC, I can't upgrade a console.

MS may also very well about face the same way Nintendo was forced to after the Wii went to ***.

Full blown Poe's Law going on right here.

This.

Except I bought a X360 for (ironically) JRPGs, Star Ocean, Vesperia, Infinite Undiscovery, Lost Odyssey...

Also, Don Mattrick is a clown.

Seeing as how most of the games I'm interested in are multi platform, and having ads plastered everywhere on my dashboard which aren't removed even if you pay them money for gold... yeah. I have more reasons not to get an XB1 than to get one.

Microsoft has many ways of pissing people off.

My problem with Xbox an exclusives is all the games I wanted for the original Xbox that weren't available for PC or PS ended up coming out of PC down the line. 360 had nothing exclusive that interested me but even if it did believing it would not eventually get a PC release. Basically I just can't justify to my self investing in an Xbox over over using that 500 to upgrade parts of my PC/get a PS4 (or use it for anything else) when I'm sure there will be even less exclusives this time around.

I know of areas near where I live that are still 'dead zones' where it comes to broadband internet access. A friend of mine lives in one of those areas where there is no broadband access (and this is a couple of miles away from a state university as well (that does have broadband access)

The elephant in the room that never seems to go away, and has been presiding for ages would most certainly be a matter of DRM and the market of used games.

The problem at hand as far as used games go, is that retailers (ie: Gamestop) have essentially had a free ride for years and years, using used games as a cash cow, and as a result, constricting the flow of money between the consumer and the publishers/developers.



Unfortunately, the only proposed solutions have always left consumers with the short end of the stick. Account binding, online passes, etc.
And while this is more of a matter between publishers and retailers, it is unfortunate to see manufacturers succumb to such things, despite being extremely counter intuitive.

It is certainly a complicated matter, and without a doubt, users should have the right to play and use their purchased (and thus owned, not leased) games as they please, even if it means sharing or selling it. It just so happens that retailers have more or less direct control over that market, leaving developers and publishers at their mercy for money other than resorting to things like online passes and DLC.

Another thing to consider is that when it comes to games, there are very few avenues of revenue. Unlike movies or music, games don't have theatrical releases, subsequent media releases, concerts, or royalties and licencing agreements between radio stations, or digital distributors like Pandora, Netflix, etc.
Publishers and devs get more or less one shot to make it or break it, as there are little to no alternatives for cutting losses, which is why we see so much sequelitus. Publishers want to play it safe for something they pretty much know will sell enough copies to meet their demands, which as a result is intrusive and limiting for developers that may have fresh, new, interesting ideas, but might be too risky and uncomfortable for those that distribute it. But it's only fair since the price of production for your average triple-A game is beginning if not already rivals that of movies.

The future of distribution is relatively predictable, albeit on what timeline is up for grabs. I foresee physical copies becoming a thing of the past, left only to antique game shops and sold by personal means though auctions, while digital distribution will likely reign king. Assuming there is a degree of user freedom, selection, and hyper-competitive pricing, it wouldn't surprise me if even consoles adopt upon the success of Steam. As for now, it was wise for Sony to play it safe and give power to the users, and stupid of MS to attempt to fix something that is too sensitive to remedy on-the-fly, especially when it alienates and constricts freedom of users.

This was the very reason I got my 360 in the first place as well, $250 got me a couple of free games as well with it, but the main reason at first was due to the (then) exclusivity of Star Ocean the Last Hope

I'm glad they released the International version of it with the JP audio lol

PS4 advertising campaign...

"...That'll have to do."

Microsoft doesn't have short term profits in their lists of priorities at the moment.
But I think Sony's PS4 marketing strategy is going to obliterate Xbox one's sales.

Short of Microsoft buying the top 20 best game production companies and cornering the market on quality, this is probably going to be the last Microsoft console. Probably the shortest lived one too.

Reducing your target market size is counter intuitive.
Ignoring consumer needs/wants is just "full retard"

I think that's kind of why the indie market has increased a fair bit. I mean half the games on Steam are indie and low budget games it seems... most of which honestly rival AAA games in terms of gameplay and story. And if they are lucky enough to get a Greenlight or on the main Steam page they can blow up over night.

I mean look at things like Minecraft and Terreria, simple ideas that took off. And then you have games such as Bastion, Don't Starve, and Dust: An Elysion Tale that kind of take a step back to the platformer days, focusing on gameplay, and have done very well for themselves on a small budget.

I really don't see many publishers limiting themselves to exclusives any more because they can make more money from Steam, PSN, and Amazon downloads while cutting costs of making physical copies and marketing them. I really only see Halo as being the biggest exclusive title for the One.

I understand what MS is saying about internet connectivity, a large amount of people do have access to broadband. However, there are people who don't...like some examples are given, an approach like "get a 360" seems quite improper, especially considering how quickly it can can take for most developers will shift gears to work on projects for the new systems and abandon the 360 and PS3. MS seems to reminds me of the scene in Little Nicky when the devil shoves a pineapple up Hitler's ***...but this time Hitler is the consumer with no reliable broadband connection...

It isn't guaranteed money, but they're in a better position than they've ever been to profit from used game sales due to DLC and online passes.

I'm sure deep down auto manufacturers would love to be able to snuff out the used car market, but even if those sales cut into the sales of new cars there's potential money to be made from the sale of service and parts. Also, trade-ins and used sales help keep the dealerships in business, and that's clearly good for the manufacturers too. Compare that to Gamestop who, love them or hate them, move a lot of new product for the game companies even if they do sell used games too.

In the end it's just a cost of doing business that the game companies need to accept.

While its a decent example, I can't help but find this to be a false equivalency. Other than re-purchased DLC and Online Passes (which no longer exist), what avenues for revenue do publishers/devs have from used game sales?

Almost every given approach has been met with great resistance by users, despite being perfectly fair since it is the users that opt for not paying the proposed price for whatever it is they wish to have.

It's a tug of war and the used market has survived because of how steep prices have been on games as long as I've been a gamer. All games aren't created equal and when almost all but the most ***-tier are asking for 59.99 USD it's no surprise when players decide to pay half price for a game that's only 10 hours long with zero replay ability and a shitty multiplayer tack on.

The other option - renting - has all but dried up leaving the consumer more keen on plunking down a sizable sum of money for games that may not be worth the sticker price. A game like Skyrim with hundreds of hours of gameplay costs the same price as a shitty movie cashin like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and it's hilarious such a thing has been made to carry on for the last two decades.


The movie industry has numerous avenues for reselling their product and yet that industry is mired in endless sequels, reboots and reimagninings. This has everything to do with risk and the desire of shareholders to make a spectacular profit on their investment. If it comes down to another Mass Effect title or some new game that is completely untested you bet your *** that the company will greenlight what they know will sell versus what might bomb and waste millions of dollars.

Further, gaming houses are now spending tons of cash on creating games that are graphically appealing and comparable to movies which is great but it's not the only avenue to marketing a product and it bloats costs. Too many games have fallen into the quicksand of spending so much time on the looks rather than the actual substance that makes a game leaving you with gameplay mechanics that are quirky, unfinished or flat out ignored. I love as much as the next guy to be immersed in a futuristic space environment where the monsters are realistic enough that they could jump out of the screen and decapitate me but when this comes at 10 hours that then directs me to buy DLC, something is off.

DLC is here to stay and its an avenue for developers to make extra cash by milking a title (like the aforementioned Skyrim) but give me a choice and don't take the Capcom approach of nickle and diming me for ***that's already on the disc.

The problem with that mind set, is like pretty much anything that is made into a copy/mass produced, after initial sale the artist/publisher/whatever no longer owns that individual copy. You sell a book you owned, the publisher nor author receive any royalties. Same goes for a work of art, you buy a statue, decide you want to turn it into liquid funds, the person who forged the creation of that work holds no ownership of that piece outside of the fact that they made it.

I remember when they released the 360, companies pretty much abandoned the original Xbox the next day to begin developing on the 360, so the whole "get a 360" would be mostly moot. And with 90% of the games nowadays being FPS, not having internet basically limits you to half a game tops (since most people buy FPS for the Multiplayer (and not the story/campaign, don't give me that BS that you do just for the 'story').

Unless they plan on supporting the 360 past the release of the Xbox One, I'd avoid the 360 like the plague. At least Sony does it right and continues support of their previous system(s) a few years after the launch of a new console

Totally forgot the passive sentiment of shareholders and investors. Ultimately a company or manufacturer is going to have their profit MOs revolve heavily around them more so than the consumer.

And it is most certainly agreed that DLC has had some rather negative impact when it is imposed in an alienating and predatory manner, especially when it is only done to finish up an unfinished product, pushed at full price, thus extending the cost to the users.

Luckily there are still plenty of positive avenues for DLC that are content rich additions to a great product, more so than a missing puzzle piece.
What would be neat is for developers to include things they have on file, but could potentially sell to consumers that might be interested in finer details of the game, such as purchasable soundtracks, art books, etc.

Nothing wrong with making fun of your competition's flaws. In fact it helps educate the consumer base assuming you're not making things up.