Why are people so mad about the $100 price difference?

#121Kosmo240985Posted 7/31/2013 1:59:15 PM
needcaw231 posted...
Maybe its cause you think $400.00 is to much and you thought you would spent is like $350.00, but you feel like maybe you can bite the bullet and buy it cause you really want a system. And then you hear Xbox is $500.00 which is $200.00 dollars more then you want to spend, and if you think $200.00 dollars isn't huge then you don't pay for your own things. Plus its not just $500.00, about $50.00 for a year of Xbox live, $60.00 for a game, but lets face it one game is not gonna be enough so you would probably purchase about 3 games at-least. That's around $800 with tax just for 3 games with Live for a year. So if you can cut back $100 from that and don't necessarily find launch exclusives that appealing well then most people are going for the $100.00 price cut. Its the reason 3ds sold so well after the price cuts, cause middle class care about saving $100.00.


or you can you know.....not buy 3 games....one should be enough for a while. and if your buying a game, beating it in 12 hour and looking for the next game...you have other issues.
---
GT: Kozzie85
#122Viet0nePosted 7/31/2013 2:02:19 PM
Kosmo240985 posted...
GeneralFox posted...
The only real thing I dislike is that I wish the Kinect 2.0 was optional. If they made it not required it could have been the same price of the PS4 more then likely. If I get an XBox One right off the bat I will probably never use the thing as I feel it really isn't needed. Well, at least I haven't seen any real need for it as we speak at least.

It kind of feels forced on the consumer to buy the Kinect more or less.


You realize the reason it is forced, is because the biggest problem with the first kinect was no developer support.

developers don't want to use assets for a game mechanic that uses kinect, if poeple dont have kinect.

this way, the kkinect becomes an essential part of the xbox and gaurentees developers that everyone will have one, meaning developer support for kinect 2.0 should and mmost likely will sky rocket compared to first gen.

the only thing i hate, is being forced to have it connected all the time.


Wrong. Kinect 2 support is going to depend entirely if Microsoft makes a significant claim on the marketshare this generation.

All PS3 controllers had the motion sensor in them but it wasn't utilized because it simply wasn't worth the extra development resources to make exclusives features for one console.

This is going to happen to the Xbox One and Kinect. Even more so if the pre-order numbers stay this way. With the PS4 in a significant lead, what incentive do developers have to include Kinect features when they can't be used on the PS4.

Kinect2 features are going to primarily come from Xbox One Exclusives much like how Kinect Features were primarily included in Xbox 360 exclusives.

For the majority of Multi-plat games, The Kinect 2 is rarely going to offer any significant features because there would be little point in allocating dev resources for a feature only capable for half the userbase and of that userbase, majority of them don't want it.
---
Currently Playing: Civ5
PSN/XBL : VietOne
#123monegamesPosted 7/31/2013 2:05:00 PM
Kosmo240985 posted...
GeneralFox posted...
The only real thing I dislike is that I wish the Kinect 2.0 was optional. If they made it not required it could have been the same price of the PS4 more then likely. If I get an XBox One right off the bat I will probably never use the thing as I feel it really isn't needed. Well, at least I haven't seen any real need for it as we speak at least.

It kind of feels forced on the consumer to buy the Kinect more or less.


You realize the reason it is forced, is because the biggest problem with the first kinect was no developer support.

developers don't want to use assets for a game mechanic that uses kinect, if poeple dont have kinect.

this way, the kkinect becomes an essential part of the xbox and gaurentees developers that everyone will have one, meaning developer support for kinect 2.0 should and mmost likely will sky rocket compared to first gen.

the only thing i hate, is being forced to have it connected all the time.


and this situation has not changed if you really look at it. first party devs for MS(how many of those are there?) will be able to take advantage of the kinect 2.0, but 3rd party are almost always multiplats and will still not waste assets on kinect since ps4, wii u, and PC will not have access to it.
#124needcaw231Posted 8/1/2013 2:46:59 PM
Kosmo240985 posted...
needcaw231 posted...
Maybe its cause you think $400.00 is to much and you thought you would spent is like $350.00, but you feel like maybe you can bite the bullet and buy it cause you really want a system. And then you hear Xbox is $500.00 which is $200.00 dollars more then you want to spend, and if you think $200.00 dollars isn't huge then you don't pay for your own things. Plus its not just $500.00, about $50.00 for a year of Xbox live, $60.00 for a game, but lets face it one game is not gonna be enough so you would probably purchase about 3 games at-least. That's around $800 with tax just for 3 games with Live for a year. So if you can cut back $100 from that and don't necessarily find launch exclusives that appealing well then most people are going for the $100.00 price cut. Its the reason 3ds sold so well after the price cuts, cause middle class care about saving $100.00.


or you can you know.....not buy 3 games....one should be enough for a while. and if your buying a game, beating it in 12 hour and looking for the next game...you have other issues.


Who said anything about beating a game in 12 hours? How about instead of buying 1 game and Xbox live, which will cost you well over $600 with tax, you get a ps4 with 3 games for about the same price? If you think its OK to spend 500 for just one game that you will get bored by within 2 weeks MAX, you have even bigger problems that you and your psychologist should discuss in your next visit. Please close your account and never post again thanks.
#125NateRose89Posted 8/2/2013 2:27:10 AM
Dev445 posted...
Everyone isn't mad, its just the same posters posting the same Troll posts and topics everyday.

I'll say this to any gamer though, if a $100 make it or break it for you then you are in the wrong hobby.


I agree. I mean hell, I just bought a copy of Earthbound for $600 and it won't even play in my region.
---
"I am no knight. I spit on them and their vows." Sandor Clegane, 1996.
#126SSJ3Goku222Posted 8/2/2013 8:38:51 AM
Bet you wasn't making this kind of topic about the PS3 when it launched.
---
Sage as of 08/09/2011
X-Box Live GT: YoungReezy1337
#127A_Someone_ElsePosted 8/2/2013 8:51:37 AM
Because they require you to pay for motion camera gaming for everyone, whether you like those gimmick controls or not.

Also because they are doing so mainly to aggressively push targeted advertising, and then trying to paint it like it's for "gamers" whether we like motion camera features or not.

Rather than tailoring it to what gamers ACTUALLY like, they're trying to CONVINCE gamers to like what rakes in advertisement money, and pay extra for the "benefit" of being told what to enjoy.