BogusMeatFactory wrote:
I personally won't be happy with whatever they do
Seems like a lot of this in this thread. Everyone is in an uproar due to their console features, so they change these features and people think that Microsoft is now untrustworthy anf fickle?
Sure, it would have been nice if they announced the ultimate console ever from the get-go, but I think they are going in the right direction.
Maybe Microsoft will buy CAVE so they don't go out of business. Then I will definitely get an Xbox One.
A lot of gamers here seem pretty biased against Microsoft regardless of their policies. Or maybe it's just the very vocal minority.
If you think about it, Microsoft took Sega's place in the console triumvirate... that should explain things.
ZenErik wrote:
Maybe Microsoft will buy CAVE so they don't go out of business. Then I will definitely get an Xbox One.
Its pretty unlikely that I'll pick up an XboxOne before a WiiU or ps4 (Although I'm sure I'll end up with one eventually), but if Cave somehow stays alive long enough to make more games, and those games come out on the XboxOne, I'll buy one for sure. Especially considering the console is region free.
BurningDoom wrote:
I'd MUCH rather have a company that listens to it's customers and acts accordingly. That's a great thing. They never "pulled a fast one" on anyone, that would imply trickery or lying of some sort. Which they never did. They made a bad decision, and when called out on that bad decision, changed that decision.
I wouldn't call it a 'fast one', but they were sending mixed messages about 24 hour check in being needed, then not, then needed again and they were wishy washy on other things too. At the very least it seemed like the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing. That also doesn't engender trust.
MrPopo wrote:
I only shop from companies run by Mother Teresa.
Arrogance, maybe, but I don't understand the whole "breaking trust" thing. I wasn't thrilled when they first announced their policies, however, Microsoft described what they were doing. They didn't hide it and spring it on people as the console was launching. They didn't just announce the good features and then leave us to speculate about the down side. They were pretty upfront about it. Clearly the 24 hour check was needed to allow for their licensing model which allowed cloud access to disc-based games. Their biggest problem was that they did a poor job selling it.
Which is the more questionable behavior?
Microsoft: Attempts new software licensing strategy for consoles that is similar to that employed by PCs, but more restrictive in some ways, less in others. Lays out what that strategy is for users and then tries to sell it as a positive (which... of course they would). Ultimately, there was good and bad, but people focused on the bad.
Sony: Announces that they are staying with status quo for disc-based software. They portray themselves as champions of the consumer because they're keeping things the way they are. During this announcement, they slip in a slide showing that they're going to start charging for multiplayer (which they've been against in the past) but choose not to mention it because it doesn't fit with their message. Ultimately there was good and bad, but people focused on the good.
AppleQueso wrote:If you think about it, Microsoft took Sega's place in the console triumvirate... that should explain things.
I find this comparison to be deeply offensive. Microsoft will never be what Sega was. Not even in their wildest dreams. Not to mention, Microsoft doesn't even have an inkling of the devotion to the medium that Sega did (and still does, to a certain extent).
Microsoft has always been bad for the console video game. I've been hoping they would bail out of the industry since the original Xbox, but the current state of the market is geared too heavily in their favor. If we're lucky, people will not realize that Microsoft reversed their stance on DRM and used games, but I for one am prepared for them to thwart progress in the medium for several more years.
pierrot wrote:[I find this comparison to be deeply offensive. Microsoft will never be what Sega was. Not even in their wildest dreams.
I don't think he was making an actual comparison between Microsoft and Sega, but just saying that Microsoft kind of replaced Sega as one of the big three brands. Thus many long time gamers don't really care for their presence (in addition to the reasons you mentioned).
I suppose. I still find it slightly disingenuous, and it would then insinuate that Sega broke into console video games as an outsider, even though they were creating cartridge-based hardware before Nintendo. (edit: Or, same day, that is. I'm not sure of the development schedules.)
AppleQueso wrote:If you think about it, Microsoft took Sega's place in the console triumvirate... that should explain things.
I find this comparison to be deeply offensive. Microsoft will never be what Sega was. Not even in their wildest dreams. Not to mention, Microsoft doesn't even have an inkling of the devotion to the medium that Sega did (and still does, to a certain extent).
Microsoft has always been bad for the console video game. I've been hoping they would bail out of the industry since the original Xbox, but the current state of the market is geared too heavily in their favor. If we're lucky, people will not realize that Microsoft reversed their stance on DRM and used games, but I for one am prepared for them to thwart progress in the medium for several more years.
It would be a bit sad it there is only two consoles to pick in the future if MS leaves... well there is also PC.
noiseredux wrote:I don't lend shit and I don't borrow shit.
The reason Microsoft won't end up like Sega is because Microsoft is not in it for money or games. Microsoft has a ton of money and they can make money from other sources to cover up for any console financial issues .
I think Microsoft is in it for the same reason Google is doing business , Google is not about search. They do not make money out of search. They make it out of ads. Microsoft is probably not in it for the games, they are probably collecting data and looking forward to do ads, and somewhere there get a cut out of subscriptions for Netflix and other services like downloadable music and movies.
Nintendo on the other hand is clearly all about the games . Looking back at console history , almost all console manufacturers and developers end up broke .
Console: Sega , Neo Geo , 3DO, Atari .
Developers: There are just a lot , they almost shutdown on yearly basis or gets bought by a larger corporation.
The only game creator that is breaking this law is Nintendo and some lucky mega large corporations like Activision and EA . I don't think much of publishers/developers or even console manufacturers who were popular in the 80' and early 90's are still around. Many seemed like on the top of their game like Sega actually having more market share than Nintendo at some point.
AppleQueso wrote:If you think about it, Microsoft took Sega's place in the console triumvirate... that should explain things.
I find this comparison to be deeply offensive. Microsoft will never be what Sega was. Not even in their wildest dreams. Not to mention, Microsoft doesn't even have an inkling of the devotion to the medium that Sega did (and still does, to a certain extent).
'Tis a joke, sir. At most, a minor observation that we went from Sega/Nintendo/Sony in 5th Gen to Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony in 6th. That and the Xbox controller bearing a striking similarity to the Dreamcast's. Even has the same button layout.
In other words, you're reading way too much into my comment that ended with a smiley face.
Then I will definitely get an Xbox One.
