Debug Mode Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 I spent the day contemplating the stupidity I had witnessed last night.. And I'm now hoping the industry crash is fast approaching. I don't care who fares best this generation, I'm more inclined to hope Sony gets dominance again on the home console front, but this industry needs a swift kick to the ass.
flameboy Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-spec-analysis-xbox-one I found this interesting because i'd not considered it, the 3d TV in the living room has freeview HD built in so how will that work on xbox one I spent the day contemplating the stupidity I had witnessed last night.. And I'm now hoping the industry crash is fast approaching. I don't care who fares best this generation, I'm more inclined to hope Sony gets dominance again on the home console front, but this industry needs a swift kick to the ass. But what is the kick up the arse? Gamers want big better games that costs more money, in order to facilitate this games need to make more money either via other revenue methods that people find some abhorrent or they need to enter the mainstream....so for now they see all these "revolutionary" features as the way into the living room. Look back in time one of the most successful consoles the PS2 had that in to the home as a DVD player too. I just don't get people hoping for a crash look back at what happened the last time... Anyway I came in here to post; Is it just me or that the power socket on the right hand side? It makes it even wider than it already is...hoping it's not and it's just some design thing, just the shape.
Serebii Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 We are months away from the launch of #XboxOne & policy decisions are still being finalized. When they are, we will let you know. Hopefully, they're taking on these complaints and will fix them by launch
Sheikah Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 Honestly I don't understand how people can complain about XBL sub costs. It's about £25/year, that's £2/mo. I spend £40/mo on my cable package. If I got ADSL, I could save £10 there straight away. I spent £2 today on my lunch alone. I might spend £20-£40 on a (cheap) night out. One day I might buy a game for £30, and then 2 weeks later the price has dropped to £25. £25-30 per year is just not worth mentioning... I never buy second hand games, my Xbox 360 has been connected to the internet every day for four years. Yeah, I'm still interested. I don't know for sure if I'm going to buy it, but all I really took away from this event was "you're going to have to show me more than that", not "I do not want this console". I think you may be the only person in the world left arguing in defence of XBL costs. It's fucking ridiculous compared to PSN and plus.
Fierce_LiNk Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 I think you may be the only person in the world left arguing in defence of XBL costs. It's fucking ridiculous compared to PSN and plus. I've never owned a 360 or a PS3 and I don't know an awful lot about the online services myself (because I've never used them), but PSN seems to obliterate XBL from an outsider's point of view. I'm seeing PlaystationPlus deals on here all the time, as well. Sony have really done well to reward their customers in that regard. I would've thought MS would have dropped the XBL fees by now. Surprised they're still going with that. Whether it's 25 quid or 250 quid, money is money. That money could be spent on another game. But, I'm still bitter about paying for the DVD dongle on the original Xbox to unlock the DVD functions...
Shorty Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 I have both services, and I'm happy with both. I just don't see the issue. It's such a tiny amount of money. I spend more every single week on petrol.
Sheikah Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 The thing is, Sony shows online can be done without costing the consumer anything. So any money spent on a similar service is money down the drain, no matter how small. It's also easy to rationalise the cost XBL as '£2 a month' but that's a totally arbitrary amount of time. You're not going to use the service for just a month, are you? More sensible and realistic for a core gamer is to look at how much they can expect to pay over the life of the console. Assuming you got the 360 in the first year and have played it since (which is pretty realistic for someone who games often), at an average of £30 a year for gold (if you factor early XBL costs of >£35) then that's 8*30 = £240. Well, it will be 8 years soon anyway. That's a lot of money, and expect to pay similar again with the next box.
Shorty Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 And what if a game costs me more on one console than the other? Or one has more intensive power requirements? What about data caps on ISPs? Lots of things impact the cost of the "life of a console", again this adds very little in the big picture. I bought a second dual shock a few years ago for over £40 and have barely used it. I bought my first month of PS+ at full price not knowing how much prices would plummet over the years. I had to support my PS+ purchases with an extraordinarily expensive Vita memory card.
Shorty Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 Unlike that masterpiece. I just can't grasp peoples continued grievance over a service that is undeniably popular and making Microsoft a lot of money. A cost which is expunged into your gaming expenditure almost imperceptibly. There's no logical reason they would stop offering it, and the masses don't seem to mind. I get that PSN is better value, a better way to do things - what I don't get is why so many people care, and why so many people not even making use of the service can't shut up about it.
Sheikah Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 And what if a game costs me more on one console than the other? Or one has more intensive power requirements? What about data caps on ISPs? Lots of things impact the cost of the "life of a console", again this adds very little in the big picture. I bought a second dual shock a few years ago for over £40 and have barely used it. I bought my first month of PS+ at full price not knowing how much prices would plummet over the years. I had to support my PS+ purchases with an extraordinarily expensive Vita memory card. None of that bears any relevance to anything. Your argument seems to be that 'since random other stuff in life costs me money, what's a bit more going to matter?' That's really not a good attitude to have. Once something has been shown it can be done just as well for free, a good competitor should match. Microsoft are not a good alternative.
Shorty Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 Not really, it's not random other stuff, it's all the costs involved in playing my games online. But whatever, I can see I'm trying to ice skate uphill here. I'mma bow out of this conversation and let you guys continue to shout at the wall about luxury expenses nobody is forcing you to pay.
Sheikah Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 Unlike that masterpiece. I just can't grasp peoples continued grievance over a service that is undeniably popular and making Microsoft a lot of money. A cost which is expunged into your gaming expenditure almost imperceptibly. There's no logical reason they would stop offering it, and the masses don't seem to mind. I get that PSN is better value, a better way to do things - what I don't get is why so many people care, and why so many people not even making use of the service can't shut up about it. It's only expunged because you choose to break it down as '£2 a month'. It's £240 lifetime cost. Surely you can see why Microsoft can be criticised for offering pretty much the same service as Sony, but at the expense of £240?
Ellmeister Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 It's only expunged because you choose to break it down as '£2 a month'. It's £240 lifetime cost. Surely you can see why Microsoft can be criticised for offering pretty much the same service as Sony, but at the expense of £240? Sorry but if you want to be all pedantic about lifetime cost, I think you should consider the drop in value of money to ensure you are looking at present value of money. £2 today is not £2 in a years time. I actually agree with Shorty.
Sheikah Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 (edited) Sorry but if you want to be all pedantic about lifetime cost, I think you should consider the drop in value of money to ensure you are looking at present value of money. £2 today is not £2 in a years time. I actually agree with Shorty. So maybe a revised £200 instead of £240? It's still exorbitant for the ability to play online for the life of the console. It's the cost of the console again! I honestly don't know how people can justify it. Maybe you can say you prefer the games on the 360 or the controller hence why you foot the bill, but let's not pretend that the cost is justified. Edited May 22, 2013 by Sheikah
dwarf Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 I think it's arrogance on Microsoft's part to be perfectly frank. Of course the service is popular and makes money, people want to play games online and there's no alternative if you're on the Xbox. The expense is expected purely because it's been a staple of the brand, which is all levels of wrong. I was close to understanding why Shorty wasn't bothered. Monthly valuations aren't arbitrary because most people get paid monthly (or even weekly) and £2 a month is nothing, right? Having said that, you don't pay for Live via direct debit in that manner. You pay £30 up front at the opportunity cost of a game. And you have to do that every year. So the cost is anything but negligible. You are being robbed. You should be pissed off with it on principle alone.
Charlie Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 So maybe a revised £200 instead of £240? It's still exorbitant for the ability to play online for the life of the console. It's the cost of the console again! I honestly don't know how people can justify it. Maybe you can say you prefer the games on the 360 or the controller hence why you foot the bill, but let's not pretend that the cost is justified. Let's not pretend that we're all paying the £40 each year anyway. Last few years I've paid no more than £25 for it with offers and now being on the family pack. It's a tiny amount of money. My phone contract costs £35 each month. For me, the £2 a month allows me to get so much more out of my console. The console that my friends and family all have as well and therefore I can play with them. I bought the Xbox over the PS3 so I could play the Halo series, at the time my favourite game.
Sheikah Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 These arguments are wank guys, come on. "Well my gas bill costs X per month so by comparison XBL..." Can we really justify the cost of things that should be free by looking at things that cost us more each year? So silly!
dwarf Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 (edited) When finally announced, you can expect the respective prices of the consoles to be compared and a value 'winner' declared, but broadly the media won't factor in the cost of Live subscriptions. Why shouldn't they be? Microsoft also pull the wool over your eyes when it comes to using a points system over a monetary one. They'll disrupt transparency by any means to rinse you of your cash. It's not surprising they have an 'unprecedented relationship' with EA, because they're a pair of contemptuous, contemptible cunts. Edited May 22, 2013 by dwarf
Phube Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 http://kotaku.com/you-will-be-able-to-trade-xbox-one-games-online-micros-509140825 Xbox One games will require a one-time activation code to use, but you'll still be able to trade and sell them online, Microsoft tells Kotaku—although we're not 100% clear on the details. Speaking to us at the big event in Redmond today, Microsoft corporate vice president Phil Harrison clarified a couple of details about the system's used game policy and explained that there will be a solution for people who want to trade games with their friends. Here's how the system works: when you buy an Xbox One game, you'll get a unique code that you enter when you install that game. You'll have to connect to the Internet in order to authorize that code, and the code can only be used once. Once you use it, that game will then be linked to your Xbox Live account. "It sits on your harddrive and you have permission to play that game as long as you’d like," Harrison said. Other users on the console will be able to play that game as well, Harrison said. So you don't need to buy multiple games per family. "With the built-in parental controls of the system it is shared amog the users of the device," he said. But what if you want to bring a game disc to a friend's house and play there? You'll have to pay a fee—and not just some sort of activation fee, but the actual price of that game—in order to use a game's code on a friend's account. Think of it like a new game, Harrison said. "The bits that are on that disc, you can give it to your friend and they can install it on an Xbox One," he said. "They would then have to purchase the right to play that game through Xbox Live." "They would be paying the same price we paid, or less?" we asked. "Let’s assume it’s a new game, so the answer is yes, it will be the same price," Harrison said. But that doesn't mean used games are dead. In fact, Harrison told us, you'll be able to sell your Xbox One games online. "We will have a solution—we’re not talking about it today—for you to be able to trade your previously-played games online," Harrison said. Most depressing statement I've ever heard about gaming...
liger05 Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 There is a simple reason why MS wont reduce the cost of Live or make it free and its simply because they dont have to. Its money on the table and not a chance they are going to live it on the table. People will pay and as long as thats the case it will remain.
Diageo Posted May 22, 2013 Posted May 22, 2013 Anyone that thinks that paying for something, no matter how small, will be in any way comparable to free is just deluded. The word free alone has an disproportionate effect on people. And if something is once free and then people decide to charge for it, that will stop people cold. Consider paid youtube channels, they will never get the same traction as free channels, even if it costs 1 cent for a year's subscription. Free is also much easier. You don't have cognitively calculate if something is worth it, or get annoyed if your xbox breaks when you just paid 30 euro for a year's subscription. You're not required to have a credit card or spend time travelling to a location to buy something. And you don't have to have 30 euro at a very specific point in time that if you don't have, you can't play games online until you do. Not only that, but Xbox live still has ads after payment. That's ridiculous. "I'm a man with a job, a car and bills, 30 euro is nothing to me", you may say to yourself. Well not everyone is like that. 30 euro is a lot to children who can still play video games. I get 400 euro every 3 months as a grant for college. Sure I don't pay for food because I live with my parent. But am I going to spend nearly 10% of my liquid funds for the next 3 months to play online? I don't want to. Or what if I've spent all my grant money by the time my subscription runs out. Then I may have to wait a month or more to play online again. I don't want to have to worry about these scenarios. I thought that giving just 11 euro a month to charity would be nothing. How that fucked me over several times even though I probably gave at most 44 euro since I had no money in my account most of the time when they took their debit.
Recommended Posts