or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › Xbox Area › Microsoft fires the first shot in the "NEXT" generation....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Microsoft fires the first shot in the "NEXT" generation.... - Page 122  

post #3631 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder696969 View Post

Piracy. Someone like myself couldn't possibly be less interested. Games are cheap enough that I don't mind buying them and supporting the devs. However...
I bought Borderlands on launch day. Played it. Sold it. No problem. I bought the family Borderlands GotY for $20 recently, as the wife and kid were interested in it. Since they don't have (nor are interested in) Live, I just give them the discs and they put them in their own consoles and play. Simple. Now, if I were to have to purchase this game digitally with all the DLC packs for all 3 of us, it would be well over $200. $20 or $200? Hmmm.
You can bet your ass that if DD were my ONLY option at 10X the cost, a Jolly Roger flag would fly at our house.
I don't think there is any reason to believe that game prices will suddenly become fixed cost on a mediumless format when that isn't the case today.

And to be perfectly clear, I think the notion of a console without physical media is absurd right now. We're hardly ready to go whole hog down that path, there will be many years of transitional stages before we get there.
post #3632 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by c.kingsley View Post

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The real disconnect comes from the fact that because you had a piece of physical media in your hot little hands, you thought you owned it. You only own the physical media, not the content contained therein. That concept has largely stayed the same although the media has changed. You never had a right to broadcast your personal vinyl on a pirate radio station. You never had a right to show your VHS to a public audience. You never had a right to copy content and distribute it to other people. The sky isn't falling. The media has changed but the rights of the content provider are largely still the same. The content provider owns the content, plain and simple. You own limited personal usage rights for content contained on a piece of plastic, nothing more.

The biggest difference is that when I own a physical disc the copyright owners can't change their minds at some time in the future and stop me from playing it.
post #3633 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by pds3 View Post

The biggest difference is that when I own a physical disc the copyright owners can't change their minds at some time in the future and stop me from playing it.
Theoretically they could already do this regardless of whether you had a disc or not, when it comes to software. The real question is why would a content provider do this on a large scale to consumers? I think the non-tinfoil hat answer is that they wouldn't. DRM does allow content providers to revoke licenses, but I'd love to see an example when they did so without cause.

If such a thing were to happen, consumers would be free to flock to other providers in droves and I think they would (I know I would).
post #3634 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by c.kingsley View Post

I don't think there is any reason to believe that game prices will suddenly become fixed cost on a mediumless format when that isn't the case today...

Not "fixed cost" per se, but look at MS' DD prices compared to actual discs, particularly on older games. By the time MS reduces it's prices to what they say is supposedly "50% off" or even more, I can buy the actual disc for 1/4 of their "sale price" or even less. Hell, ME1 is $15 right now on Xbox, when you could easily pick that up for $5 or less with very little effort. Multiply the DD by 3 so that myself, my wife and kid can all play, and $5 sounds MUCH better than $45. That's just one example, but there are many, many more. Steam is a different story, as they tend to be very competetive, but that's for PC.
post #3635 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder696969 View Post

Not "fixed cost" per se, but look at MS' DD prices compared to actual discs, particularly on older games. By the time MS reduces it's prices to what they say is supposedly "50% off" or even more, I can buy the actual disc for 1/4 of their "sale price" or even less. Hell, ME1 is $15 right now on Xbox, when you could easily pick that up for $5 or less with very little effort. Multiply the DD by 3 so that myself, my wife and kid can all play, and $5 sounds MUCH better than $45. That's just one example, but there are many, many more. Steam is a different story, as they tend to be very competetive, but that's for PC.
That's a reasonable point. The only explanation I can think of is that Steam is already using a media-less format, so they are forced to react to price drops to remain competitive. At this point Microsoft may not have much incentive to aggressively cut prices when they probably get the same cut regardless of how / where the item is sold. Total speculation on my part. eek.gif
post #3636 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder696969 View Post

Not "fixed cost" per se, but look at MS' DD prices compared to actual discs, particularly on older games. By the time MS reduces it's prices to what they say is supposedly "50% off" or even more, I can buy the actual disc for 1/4 of their "sale price" or even less. Hell, ME1 is $15 right now on Xbox, when you could easily pick that up for $5 or less with very little effort.

If you can easily pick up Mass Effect 1 for $5 for the Xbox, please let me know how! Gamestop sells it for $30. GoHastings sells it for $9+3 shipping. Ebay runs about $15. Amazon sells it for around $18.
post #3637 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlysublime View Post

If you can easily pick up Mass Effect 1 for $5 for the Xbox, please let me know how! Gamestop sells it for $30. GoHastings sells it for $9+3 shipping. Ebay runs about $15. Amazon sells it for around $18.

Just checked GS and you're right, prices went up since I rebought the disc a year ago. eek.gif I noticed that L4D 1 and 2 had actually increased in price lately as well. I was also able to get in on the FF7 craze when black labels started going for $60-$80 each on eBay. I had about 20 copies that I'd picked up over the years for $3 each. The price bell curve sure is wonky sometimes.

Regardless of this one-time anomaly, MS' DD prices are nearly always astronomically high compared to physical media for games, particularly older titles, and even if I bought ME1 at typically-overpriced Gamestop, it would be $15 cheaper than buying MS' DD 3 times for my family.
post #3638 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by c.kingsley View Post

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The real disconnect comes from the fact that because you had a piece of physical media in your hot little hands, you thought you owned it. You only own the physical media, not the content contained therein. That concept has largely stayed the same although the media has changed. You never had a right to broadcast your personal vinyl on a pirate radio station. You never had a right to show your VHS to a public audience. You never had a right to copy content and distribute it to other people. The sky isn't falling. The media has changed but the rights of the content provider are largely still the same. The content provider owns the content, plain and simple. You own limited personal usage rights for content contained on a piece of plastic, nothing more.

I understand all of that. I never operated under the illusion that I owned the IP. But the bolded part is the whole nine yards for me. I do own that little pieces of plastic...or vinyl or whatever. And I can do with them privately whatever I want within the law. I can sell it...swap it...give it away...donate it...copy it for my own personal use in more than one format...and so on, so forth. DD only media is nowhere near that flexible. And if the IP, equipment and web host owners goes kaput, it really gets complicated and dicey. The recent changeover in the XBoxLive Forum is instructive about my concern. Even though it was not a DD only content issue.

MS decided to completely kill off huge swatches of valuable user information during its killing of the "old" forum. Example was the "My Forums" area and all of the "Games Discussion" area. The community went Batshyt!...Because volumes of all of their historical information and gaming content was lost forever. They were completely at the mercy of Team XBox as their information from the old forum died and was rendered unrecoverable. While this is not a one for one example of DD only...it does illustrate how information that one deems useful in cyberspace can be rendered useless in the digital world with death of a content party. I have tried to play a few of the DLC games on my XBox 360 without being connected to XBox Live just to test this theory. And some of them will not load unless I am logged into XBox Live. Crysis comes to mine. Heck...it doesn't even show up in my game file unless I am logged in to XBL. It shows up on my HDD under Settings...but my selection choices are very limited. And Play is not one of them. So if XBox ever went Kaput...Crysis and most of my other DLC from XBL would go kaput with it. Again...that's why I prefer discs for serious stuff like the Halo Collection of Games.
post #3639 of 7006
Here is a better example of DD perils. When Megaupload was shutdown it hurt legit users far more than pirates. Thousands of indie devs and musicians used it to distribute their IP, others used it as a digital backup service and it all went poof and was lost. I refuse to pay money for something that can be lost permanently to a flip of the switch.
post #3640 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by PENDRAG0ON View Post

Here is a better example of DD perils. When Megaupload was shutdown it hurt legit users far more than pirates. Thousands of indie devs and musicians used it to distribute their IP, others used it as a digital backup service and it all went poof and was lost. I refuse to pay money for something that can be lost permanently to a flip of the switch.

Anyone who lost anything through mega upload was foolish. Anyone with any sense would have had a local copy of anything important.

A digital marketplace for a console is an entirely different beast anyway. But if you're that adamant about having physical access to every scrap of data, you'll be increasingly locked out of products and services as we progress.
post #3641 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by c.kingsley View Post

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The real disconnect comes from the fact that because you had a piece of physical media in your hot little hands, you thought you owned it. You only own the physical media, not the content contained therein. That concept has largely stayed the same although the media has changed.
In terms of the law, yes. But not in terms of intent, no. The intent behind those IP protections used to be to prevent selling another person's or company's work as your own, either as a direct copy or as a complete repackaging.

But in the digital era, that intent has changed, and the letter of the law has been extended into areas it was never meant to. So now, for example, legitimate consumers are severely limited in what they can do to or with purchased products. Rather than preventing people from copying with the intent to sell or repackage copyrighted material, the law now prevents people from doing any number of things to content for which they have legally paid. In addition the law now favors IP holders (ie media companies) who enact and impose their own regulations and limitations above the letter of the law in the name of copyright protection and piracy prevention. These are fundamentally new, and they go well beyond the scope of earlier protections.

So, no, ownership is not the same as it was with physical media--even if it looks similar.
post #3642 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by confidenceman View Post

So, no, ownership is not the same as it was with physical media--even if it looks similar.
Content providers are simply getting protections which they have always wanted. Whether that is a good thing or not is obviously open to heavy debate. Paradoxically, content is now easier than ever to obtain through illegitimate means. I do think content providers need protections but with the advent of the Internet, a pandora's box has been opened which I do not think can ever be shut.
post #3643 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by c.kingsley View Post

Content providers are simply getting protections which they have always wanted. Whether that is a good thing or not is obviously open to heavy debate. Paradoxically, content is now easier than ever to obtain through illegitimate means. I do think content providers need protections but with the advent of the Internet, a pandora's box has been opened which I do not think can ever be shut.
It's a chicken-and-egg thing. Content is easier to get illegitimately. I'd argue that has as much to do with the advent of digital media (top-down) as with the advent of the internet (bottom-up). Tomayto, tomahto.

Business types pushed for digital media because it allows for greater direct control, cheaper and faster production/distribution, and overall a lot higher margins. At the same time, it also opens up a larger range of consumer-end control, distribution, manipulation, etc. Business types working with digital goods obviously favor the former over the latter, and IP law has favored them strongly over the past two decades. "Piracy" is a very small part of what is at stake financially.
Edited by confidenceman - 7/18/12 at 1:33pm
post #3644 of 7006
Whats getting lost in this conversation is that consumers overwhelmingly choose the physical option over the digital option when given the choice. Business might favor the digital option for all the reasons you listed above, but consumers know they're getting a raw deal. Its taking time for content providers to start delivering the digital goods in a way that consumers really accept, and its rarely looked anything like the old model.

Digital music is almost fully accepted, and consumers have gained a great deal in the process. Prices have generally gone down, its absolutely DRM free, its now much easier to pick and choose only the songs you want, theres tons of new ways to acquire content, including subscriptions services that never could have existed under the old model. Movies are being rented for a few bucks a pop in immediately streaming high quality, and there's a ton of subscription services like netflix that really give you a ton of value for your dollar. Consumers love netflix, but has selling digital movies piecemeal for $20+ really been that successful?

As long as they're trying to maintain all the benefits without giving consumers a break, its going to continue to be a marginal way of doing business. Retail priced games are just starting to shift in this direction....a few years from now, its going to be more consumer friendly, not less. Because it has to be. Too many players, too much competition. They will go into this kicking and screaming, but its going to happen. You can see a little hint of it in what Sony is beginning to do with PS Plus and their "instant game collection".
post #3645 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Whats getting lost in this conversation is that consumers overwhelmingly choose the physical option over the digital option when given the choice.
Digital music is almost fully accepted, and consumers have gained a great deal in the process.

You kind of contradicted yourself...
post #3646 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlysublime View Post

You kind of contradicted yourself...

The transition to digital music has a 5-10 year head start over games. Games, movies, TV....they're still trying to have their cake and eat it too. Won't work forever. People choose the digital option with music because it actually is a better product in most ways IMO.

I don't expect them to learn this lesson in any other way than the hard way. If they're not going to give any ground on pricing or accessibility, all those dire warnings about the digital race to the bottom via $1 app store games and free to play crap are going to come true.

They are already giving ground, slowly.
post #3647 of 7006
actually you are correct that it is a race to the bottom. a ton of iOS people are struggling to make money with such narrow margins and an overcrowded marketplace that makes it difficult for your product to gain footing. Apple always touts the success stories because to them, it's more in their coffers whether the developer is a success or not.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/05/ios-app-success-is-a-lottery-and-60-of-developers-dont-break-even/

"Over the years I have seen visibility of applications I've worked on greatly reduced," developer Pat McCarron told Ars. "Right now your app is likely not going to be found if you never break the Top 100 or Top 200 lists. Users won't navigate forever down the list of top apps to find yours sitting lonely at the bottom."

Rogue Amoeba's Paul Kafasis agreed that the App Store has become more of a lottery, and less a chance for small developers to succeed along with well-established companies.

"The App Store is very much like the lottery, and very few companies are topping the charts," Kafasis told Ars. "It's a hit-based business. Much like music or book sales, there are a few huge winners, a bigger handful of minor successes, and a whole lot of failures."

Some developers even said that App Promo's assertion that 59 percent of apps don't break even is a bit on the generous side. Former NetNewsWire developer Brent Simmons suspects the figure is "more like 85 percent," while Lucius Kwok believes it may "fall in the range of 90 percent or higher."

"Development costs are generally much higher than folks realize," Kafasis said. "Making an app still requires tens of thousands of dollars in development, if not hundreds of thousands. Recouping that kind of money 99 cents—or really, 70 cents—at a time is not easy."

Part of the problem can be attributed to consumer expectations. Whereas $20-30 was not an uncommon price for desktop software created by small developers in the past, the App Store quickly led consumers to expect to pay 99 cents, or maybe $1.99 for most mobile apps. Many more are free, supported with in-app ads or "freemium" in-app purchases.

"Paid apps, despite likely being only $1, is a surprisingly high barrier of entry," McCarron told Ars.

Kafasis agreed. "Users still expect quite a lot, even for 99 cent apps," he said. "Worse, anything over perhaps a couple bucks on iOS is a 'premium' price, and you'll get dinged on the price everywhere, by both users and journalists. That can make it very difficult to recoup costs, let alone turn a profit."

Another part of the problem is that Apple has done little to change how the App Store works since day one over four years ago. Discoverability is a real problem, and the search algorithms have led some developers to try and "game" the system with SEO techniques like overloading titles, descriptions, and other metadata with keywords.

To illustrate the problem, McCarron noted that his company's app, Words Play, isn't even the top result for a search for "words play." Instead, that top result currently belongs to an app called "Words With Cheats for Friends ~ The Best Word Finder For Games You Play With Words And Friends."

"We knew these other results would come up for those words when we chose the name," McCarron said. "But we assumed since our name is an exact match for the search terms that we'd get slotted in at number one no matter what. Instead, we bounce around the top five randomly, it seems; I haven't seen us at number one since the week we launched."
post #3648 of 7006
And despite the fact that developers are struggling, its absolutely fantastic for consumers. I've paid very little money for very high quality apps and games, where the pricing would be exponentially more on a console or boxed app I'd pick up at best buy. I don't blame devs for complaining. It sucks for them. But thats life in a super competitive business.

This is what they're up against. Even though I feel like its ultimately DOA, the Ouya is an assault in this vein directly against the consoles. Apple will follow suit. Valve is even making moves towards linux, and potentially eventually freeing themselves from microsoft. In the semi-distant future, they can be a serious console competitor.

The big three are not going to be able to sustain anti-consumer practices and super high prices in the face of this assault. But they're not stupid, and they will adapt. Just like the music industry did. Because they really don't have a choice. No player in the industry is the monopoly they're pretending to be.
post #3649 of 7006
My bottom line on this is the market will never be about DD only. Not this generation...not Durango...not post MS existence. I think it will always be about choice...diverse selection...and proprietary system technology. I use the "shoe" analogy to frame this pov. Meaning the whole world doesn't wear size nine shoes. It's only the ideal sample size that shoemakers use to demo their new products. Just try and make the entire world squeeze into size 9's and a ton of innovative companies will popup making 5-12. The industry can try to cram everyone down the DD only rabbit hole. But they will get innovative blowback from just about every competitive direction.I think there will always be some kind of physical media choice in games, movies, books and music.
post #3650 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrelbelly View Post

My bottom line on this is the market will never be about DD only. Not this generation...not Durango...not post MS existence. I think it will always be about choice...diverse selection...and proprietary system technology. I use the "shoe" analogy to frame this pov. Meaning the whole world doesn't wear size nine shoes. It's only the ideal sample size that shoemakers use to demo their new products. Just try and make the entire world squeeze into size 9's and a ton of innovative companies will popup making 5-12. The industry can try to cram everyone down the DD only rabbit hole. But they will get innovative blowback from just about every competitive direction.I think there will always be some kind of physical media choice in games, movies, books and music.

DD is going to be a huge factor next gen, but no one is saying DD only. I don't think they could cram that down our throats even if they wanted to. There will definitely come a point where its preferable though. Thats when you know they've gotten it right.
post #3651 of 7006
it's an ebb and flow process. developers will always go where there's less competition and a better chance to stand out. when iOS first came out, developers flocked to it with an easy point of entry and an untapped frontier. same with every other platform. Ubisoft was a little company way back when but they are always at the forefront with jumping on a new platform to stand out and develop a solid financial footing. They worked on Xbox1 because they saw a place that was not overloaded with competitors and which had the horsepower to implement some creative ideas. And Xbox1 fans rewarded them with great Splinter Cell and Rainbow Six sales. Ubisoft was among the first to jump on the 360 and then the Kinect. They'll be the first with the Wii U. And they'll probably be the first major 3rd party player with the next Xbox and the PS4 as well.

People jumped to iOS. They'll stay there but the competition means they'll have to branch out to other platforms as well to find their financial niche. And other platforms that offer them a higher safety margin. Established companies can just keep doing what they're doing because they already have the visibility. But the new players with zero visibility have a better shot at exploring other options.
post #3652 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Digital music is almost fully accepted, and consumers have gained a great deal in the process. Prices have generally gone down, its absolutely DRM free, its now much easier to pick and choose only the songs you want, theres tons of new ways to acquire content, including subscriptions services that never could have existed under the old model.
It's also lower quality than CD and vinyl, so there is a definite tradeoff in buying your music digitally instead of ripping CDs to lossless. If you listen on your headphones at the gym that quality difference is irrelevant, but if you want to use that music on even a halfway decent stereo system, the differences are obvious.

And yes, I agree that they'll make a much bigger attempt at DD this generation. If there is a take home message from digital music, it is that they need to lower the prices of digital media in order for it to be competitive.
post #3653 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

As long as they're trying to maintain all the benefits without giving consumers a break, its going to continue to be a marginal way of doing business. Retail priced games are just starting to shift in this direction....a few years from now, its going to be more consumer friendly, not less. Because it has to be. Too many players, too much competition. They will go into this kicking and screaming, but its going to happen. You can see a little hint of it in what Sony is beginning to do with PS Plus and their "instant game collection".
Exactly. For this reason and others, this is why retail games are struggling against the rise of iOS gaming. Publishers are quickly losing their ability to adapt to what consumers want. They're trying to force consumers into specific "ecosystems" rather than change their ways. So consumers are leaving the traditional gaming industry.

And so are developers. Even though it's tough to make big money in iOS development, it's much easier to eke out a stable living. Without a bunch of middlemen, with shorter development times, with more direct contact with consumers, etc., etc., more development talent is leaving the traditional gaming industry daily. I just saw a few big announcements today for major talent leaving major studios to start small iOS teams.

These folks aren't leaving traditional game studios in order to join a "gold rush." Those days are gone. They're leaving an industry that refuses to adapt. It's an industry that provides little stability or investment for its talent. So they're going off on their own. It might be hard to make a hit, but it's a lot easier to make a living. If the traditional gaming industry can't adapt, it's done.

My hope is that smaller games (XBLA, PSN, indies) become the primary focus for the big three console manufacturers, and that we get a small handful of the huge blockbusters throughout the year. I'd be happy with that.
post #3654 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

DD is going to be a huge factor next gen, but no one is saying DD only. I don't think they could cram that down our throats even if they wanted to. There will definitely come a point where its preferable though. Thats when you know they've gotten it right.

I agree with you on these points BD2003. Except a lot of people did champion DD only earlier in this thread. And openly opined that MS would take such a plunge with Durango. And I thnk your earlier comment about a possible Linux based system with Valve in the future could open up a whole new frontier if it happens.
post #3655 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by confidenceman View Post

My hope is that smaller games (XBLA, PSN, indies) become the primary focus for the big three console manufacturers, and that we get a small handful of the huge blockbusters throughout the year. I'd be happy with that.

This would be the death knell of the console industry. People are already crying that there aren't enough blockbusters as it is. "the dearth of new titles"
post #3656 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlysublime View Post

This would be the death knell of the console industry. People are already crying that there aren't enough blockbusters as it is. "the dearth of new titles"
Not at all. Nintendo consoles have been surviving on just a small handful of AAA titles through the past 3-4 generations. And MS is now chasing media more than games. The only console still dependent on a robust game library is the PS3.
post #3657 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by confidenceman View Post

Not at all. Nintendo consoles have been surviving on just a small handful of AAA titles through the past 3-4 generations. And MS is now chasing media more than games. The only console still dependent on a robust game library is the PS3.

What makes the PS3 library any more robust than the 360? Your saying that the 360 library isn't as strong as the PS3 library. How do you come to that conclusion? You say that all MS is focusing more on media. MS has always focused on media just like Sony did as well. MS is simply doing it better. Both have made claims 10 years ago to be the center of the living room experience and during a time people kept begging to be cut away from cable and come up with plans to offer specific channels they like and pay for only those channels. That happened in a whole other way. You have the option for Hulu, Netflix and Amazon Prime. Didn't Sony just delayed a launch yesterday due to hard drive failures for their DVR PS3 in Japan? Media has been just as much a focus with Sony as MS with Playonminmother countries to the streaming services we see here in the US. The truth is that MS has shown to be more successful with the amount of content they both pushed would be a part of their strategies 10 years ago. MS game content is just as healthy as Sony's and you didn't say exclusives but what else would you be implying about Sony having a robust game library? It seems like when I see comments like that Live arcade gets completely ignored even though the discussion has been about DD here. Live consistently offers new content every Wednesday and has continued succes with the Summer of arcade games that are only available on the 360. Third Party support is where it has been this gen. Even Sony admits that last year they goofed with trying to release so many games that none of them got proper advertisement. I don't know how you or anyone can claim Sony is healthy in this regard just because Sony publishes more games than MS. Games are still selling more on the 360. In the US alone with all the talk of hardware being down it is still the best selling console for 18 months now in this climate. So I don't see how you can say MS is less healthy game wise than Sony. Both seem even in offerings as far as I can tell.
post #3658 of 7006
Not to mention all of MS's media attempts have basically been unsuccessful. Zune was never a huge player in selling music. I haven't heard stories of movies selling or renting like crazy on the xbox either. I actually don't think I've ever seen anyone on my friends list ever watching an Xbox movie.

All Ive ever seen is a lot of people watching Netflix and Hulu, which you can do practically anywhere nowadays. Just about everything else they're doing media wise is some adjunct that requires people to have a cable subscription or yet another free service like YouTube. I doubt any of this is generating a lot of money.They're trying really hard to win on media because theyre not even close to living up to their potential. They desperately want to be the one box for everything, but people just dont care to pay for any of it. The whole venture may just be a giant waste of money in the end, the only silver lining being that they somehow convinced people to pay for Xbox live every month to subsidize it all.

Their bread and butter is still gaming. MS has a litany of failures in media, and Sony has Blu-ray, which is still doing well. The competition isn't even close.
post #3659 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Not to mention all of MS's media attempts have basically been unsuccessful. Zune was never a huge player in selling music. I haven't heard stories of movies selling or renting like crazy on the xbox either. I actually don't think I've ever seen anyone on my friends list ever watching an Xbox movie.
All Ive ever seen is a lot of people watching Netflix and Hulu, which you can do practically anywhere nowadays. Just about everything else they're doing media wise is some adjunct that requires people to have a cable subscription or yet another free service like YouTube. I doubt any of this is generating a lot of money.They're trying really hard to win on media because theyre not even close to living up to their potential. They desperately want to be the one box for everything, but people just dont care to pay for any of it. The whole venture may just be a giant waste of money in the end, the only silver lining being that they somehow convinced people to pay for Xbox live every month to subsidize it all.
Their bread and butter is still gaming. MS has a litany of failures in media, and Sony has Blu-ray, which is still doing well. The competition isn't even close.

I don't see why using your friends list means no one is using the service but I don't know how many you have on your friends list that is active. Right now I have a total of 78 friends and families on my account. Currently at lunch and 27 of those 78 are online. 7 are playing modern Warfare 3 and out of that 7 3 are playing Spec Ops mode, 3 in multiplayer and 1 campaign. 10 are playing Zune Video, Zune Music, Last FM(my wife in the living room). 4 playing NCAA 2013 and the rest other random games. I along with my family members use those services and MS has been successful through the 360 with these services. Outside the 360 is as you mentioned the failures have come with those services that MS has tried to push.

The reason that brought us together as a friends list was the games and most of my friends and family are all from 2002 and today games is the primary reason why I and they still use the service and prefer it. . The rest is just added convienience.
post #3660 of 7006
Quote:
Originally Posted by mboojigga View Post

What makes the PS3 library any more robust than the 360? Your saying that the 360 library isn't as strong as the PS3 library. How do you come to that conclusion?
Reread what I wrote. You completely misread what I said. I didn't say the PS3 has a more robust library; I said it is more dependent on one (that's a very different thing). What that means is that the majority of the system's health comes from its games, while according to the latest data, the 360's health is more diverse (games and media, with more than half of all use now coming from media). And unlike the Wii, the PS3 doesn't rely on just a few standout titles; without a large library, it would crumble. That says nothing about the respective sizes of the other two consoles' game libraries. It's simply a description of what continues to keep each console financially afloat this late in the cycle.

Not sure why you feel defensive. Each console has its strengths and weaknesses. I thought we were all way past the days of stupid console wars BS. My mistake. rolleyes.gif
Edited by confidenceman - 7/19/12 at 11:00am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Xbox Area
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › Xbox Area › Microsoft fires the first shot in the "NEXT" generation....