Cliffy B has been unemployed for quite a while now, but he has always been a complete tool.
It was the customers that made Sony not do what Microsoft was in the first place, you twit.
Gizmodo believes DRM will magically make games cheaper, that's pretty much all you need to know about them.
CliffyB talking out of his ass as usual. I was kind of hoping that would have stopped when he left Epic. There aren't many individuals as outspoken as he is that are quite as full of trout in the industry.Originally Posted by Shauna
This is the same guy who wrote an article entitled "You don't hate the Xbox One, you're just jealous". (I'm not posting the link, because it doesn't deserve the clicks)
Even IF what he says is true, that games will magically become cheaper that way and that it will pave the way for the "digital revolution", the consumers have spoken loud and clear, and Microsoft has backtracked as soon as it saw it not going their way.
Clearly their "vision" wasn't very strong to begin with. Their "vision" wasn't even as strong as the guy writing this idiotic article.
A company like that wouldn't have changed ANYTHING for the better.
Heck, the only reason Microsoft got into the console business in the first place was to make sure Sony would not have a monopoly on it, because THEY wanted that monopoly.
Let digital distribution happen naturally. The future won't be what Microsoft envisioned it would be.
Honestly, the best thing for the industry would probably be NEW companies coming into the console business and gain traction.
Last edited by Croyles; 06-20-2013 at 12:42 PM.
Haha, that's the same guy that said that there's NO POSSIBLE WAY POOR DEVELOPERS CAN POSSIBLY MAKE MONEY WITH USED GAMES CONTINUING TO EXIST! on Twitter last week.
What an idiot.
Also an idiot.
Last edited by DMKA; 06-20-2013 at 04:29 PM.
I like Kung-Fu.
I don't think Microsoft was embracing the digital future as much as they were utterly terrified of it and refuse to let it happen unless they control exactly how it operates. The embracing hug seemed more like a strangling chokehold. None of my all-digital devices have those kinds of restrictions and I assume none really ever will. I originally thought MS had a next-generational Xbox Live whose features wouldn't be possible w/o an Internet connection but as time went on it seemed they had no such benefits to educate about and combined with the military slam there was no easy way out of this.
Unfortunately they still need to work on their first party infrastructure. They opened last Gen with Molyneaux and Sakaguchi under one roof and exclusives from Bioware and Square Enix. They simply can't compete with Sony and Nintendo with timed DLC anymore.
Great news that these awful features have been removed. Still not getting one, though. Drop the price and perma kinect and then the decision will be a difficult one.
I've read the Gizmodo article just because my only friend on Facebook who was a staunch supporter of the Xbone linked it, saying "This sucks. You Playstation people suck. You're all whiners. I hope all of your consoles break." I think it's funny that he blames Playstation fans when it is just as much 360 fans that responded negatively to it.
I agree with the notion that Microsoft is more scared of a digital future than anything. The game sharing and such didn't need those restrictions. Even if they did, they could have implemented those restrictions just when games are being shared. But no, they decided if they couldn't have complete control, they were going to lose one of the few cool features the Xbone had.
I think they should have just stuck to their guns. I know in my mind I will always think "Well, what if they try to implement this again in the future?" They should have just played up the good features of the Xbone and not dwell so much on the restrictions. Sony didn't force their hand. The fans didn't either in the long run. Microsoft did it to themselves.
I think it's funny he blames Playstation fans since the sort of die hard Playstation fans he's referring to probably didn't give a trout what Microsoft did with the Xbone. The only people affected were those interested in a new Xbox to begin with.
Yep. I bet there are some idiotic Playstation fanboys that wanted Microsoft to keep their policies just so that Sony could sell more consoles = winning this gen (apparently), not realising it would poison the whole industry. Fanboys are short-sighted, not matter for what console.I think it's funny he blames Playstation fans since the sort of die hard Playstation fans he's referring to probably didn't give a trout what Microsoft did with the Xbone. The only people affected were those interested in a new Xbox to begin with.
Well this is something at least.
EA Won't Bring Back Online Passes After Xbox 180 - IGN
In England, tuition fees for university tripled pretty much overnight. The law allowing this was made under the assumption that only certain courses would require additional funds from students, for the extra resources needed. Why anyone would assume that game developers would lower their prices because they know they'll get money from used sales is beyond me. Obviously, they'll continue to raise the price in addition to earning from used sales, dumbass.
More like Mild Wanger, amirite?
Yeah, I have no idea why people assume companies would lower game prices. Prices are not set by companies trying to find the lowest possible price where they still make some profit; they're set at the price where companies make the most profit, which is generally as high as possible without significantly lowering demand. From the Gizmodo article:
If Microsoft both could and would have significantly lowered new game prices, don't these people think M$ would have been throwing that in our faces from day one? Why did they open with regional locks and mandatory online and built-in kinect, instead of < $50 new games? Why was this inevitable result never made a big selling point by Microsoft for the original Xbone? Because these theories are nothing but bulltrout fabrications.Here is how this makes sense for YOU: New games could then be cheaper. Why? Publishers KNOW that they will not make money on resold games, so they charge more to you, the first buyer. You are paying for others' rights to use your game in the future. If the old system had gone into place, you would likely have seen game prices drop. Or, at the very least, it could have staved off price increases.
Game prices are set by supply and demand and profit maximization just like every other thing in the universe.
Proud to be the Unofficial Secret Illegal Enforcer of Eyes on Final Fantasy!
When I grow up, I want to go toBovineTrump University! - Ralph Wiggum
Pretty sure that Microsoft were ready to get Xbone games being sold at $60. ~Cheaper~
Or maybe that was PS4 games. Eh. I forget.
...isn't $60 normal? Dunno. £40 is normal over here, despite the odd game selling for £50.
EDIT: And regardless, it seems that it's the retailers that tend to decide such things, not the manufacturers. The prices vary dramatically between retailers, so surely it must be true...
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
