Microsoft exec: XBOX ONE focus is "very much on profitability"

#41Juzten76Posted 9/11/2013 8:30:18 AM
I'm certainly not going with the PS4 now if Sony has no interest in making a profit. Any company that has no interest in a profit is going to make horrible choices.
#42EllesarienPosted 9/11/2013 8:34:25 AM
Profitability is an odd tactic indeed for a FOR-PROFIT company.

Who is running that ship with such horrid concepts!!!
---
I will try and see it from your point of view, but I doubt we'll be able to fit both our heads up there.
#43BlueJester007Posted 9/11/2013 10:16:11 AM
CapnStanky posted...
I once farted so hard that it blew the doors off the TC's mobile home.


Why aren't there more posts like this?

Seriously, this board is in dire need of some good fart jokes.
---
Deus Ex: Human Revelation OST Title: I Never Asked For Discs
#44NewMoonShadowPosted 9/11/2013 10:24:15 AM
DesperateMonkey posted...
What is this childish reasoning? Games have always been made with sales in mind. Have you even been in an earlier era of gaming? Soon as Mario became popular, people flooded the market with "me too" side scrollers. After double dragon, everyone wanted to make their own beat em ups. It was in fact worse, because back then these games were little marketed towards stupid children who bought games based on licenses hence we had a crapload of cartoon license games that played extremely similarly. Standards were so low back then and that trend continued into the SNES era.


there are a few differences.

A lot of those licensed games were actually quite GOOD. Duck Tales? Darkwing Duck? Even games like Tiny Tunes or Rescue Rangers? All decent platformers in their own right. Derivative, but still with their own appeal.

Besides, making a new game/franchise intentionally to try to build off of someone else's ideas is not a bad thing. What is bad is being forced to alter your vision to fit into the Producer's concept of what is profitable. I.E. Dead Space 3 and Fuse.

PSX era rolls around and all the REAL innovative games were swept under the rug by everyones desire for FMVs. After FFVII, we just had FMV after FMV after FMV. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon.


... Seriously? FMV's were the downfall of gameplay? You..... you just said this in a serious tone. The prevalence of FMV's had nothing to do with the nature of the gameplay of the era.

I hate people pretending there was ever an era where people didn't actually focus on maximum profit when making games. The only fun developers cared for was that it was fun so people wanted to BUY IT which is the same as it is today.


But there's still a difference. Are you making it FUN so people want to buy it? Or are you making it like the games that are currently selling well so people will want to buy it?

I'm not saying there were no "me-too!" games back in the day, but it seems like there's a lot more of them now, and they're a Hell of a lot more visible now.

Stuff like the "Fuse" situation didn't happen as much back then, where they would preview a game to look one way, and then its final version had basically nothing that defined its preview in the first place.
#45DesperateMonkeyPosted 9/11/2013 10:51:53 AM
there are a few differences.

A lot of those licensed games were actually quite GOOD. Duck Tales? Darkwing Duck? Even games like Tiny Tunes or Rescue Rangers? All decent platformers in their own right. Derivative, but still with their own appeal.


This is completely false. Licensed games have the same amount of quality as they ever had. The only thing that has changed is RELATIVE quality. Games back then were a joke. They were literally considered kids toys or for nerds. Hence budgets were tiny and standards were low. Now licensed games are actually better but the problem is, gaming isn't for the 4-15 year old crowd anymore and run on astronomical budgets that deliver much more. However, even the indie seen demonstrates to us how little of their potential the NES and SNES generation truly lived up to. These indie developers are not using any fancy technology or graphics and have idea far more unique and interesting compared to those generations. One only needs to look at a Zelda commercial to see what kind of audience gaming use to be for.

Besides, making a new game/franchise intentionally to try to build off of someone else's ideas is not a bad thing. What is bad is being forced to alter your vision to fit into the Producer's concept of what is profitable. I.E. Dead Space 3 and Fuse.


That is a dumb argument since these two are the SAME THING. TMNT was nothing like a beat em up until it completely changed to jump on the beat em up bandwagon. It was purely for sales. Games back then were designed to be difficult. Do you know why?

a)To make up for their extremely short length, hence difficulty was more about memorization and repetition than skill
b)To make you waste more quarters at the arcade, which is the ultimate milking.

... Seriously? FMV's were the downfall of gameplay? You..... you just said this in a serious tone. The prevalence of FMV's had nothing to do with the nature of the gameplay of the era.


LOL wow, I wish you were actually there. FF style shallow turn based combat was a dime a dozen. In the PS2 era, this translated to hundreds if not more of jRPGs.

Erstwhile, the best gameplay of that generation mostly came from Nintendo who pioneered the modern 3D action games with N64, OoT and so on without any FMVs at all.

But there's still a difference. Are you making it FUN so people want to buy it? Or are you making it like the games that are currently selling well so people will want to buy it?


Games sell well because they are fun... You think Final Fight, Knights of the Round, SoR, Golden Axe and all those games copied double dragon because they wanted to be fun and not because they wanted to be like double dragon? You are talking about the same thing. They jumped on the bandwagon to make money.

I'm not saying there were no "me-too!" games back in the day, but it seems like there's a lot more of them now, and they're a Hell of a lot more visible now.


HELL NO.... please actually learn about those generations before you talk about them. Cloning games was the NORM. These days, developers seem to need something completely wild and different just so they can stand out. Back in the old days, there were a fraction of the genres and people didn't complain like the whiny internet generation.

Stuff like the "Fuse" situation didn't happen as much back then, where they would preview a game to look one way, and then its final version had basically nothing that defined its preview in the first place.

Oh.My.God... you are so clueless............ False advertising had no limiters back then.
---
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H
#46NewMoonShadowPosted 9/11/2013 11:36:43 AM
DesperateMonkey posted...
This is completely false. Licensed games have the same amount of quality as they ever had. The only thing that has changed is RELATIVE quality. Games back then were a joke. They were literally considered kids toys or for nerds. Hence budgets were tiny and standards were low. Now licensed games are actually better but the problem is, gaming isn't for the 4-15 year old crowd anymore and run on astronomical budgets that deliver much more. However, even the indie seen demonstrates to us how little of their potential the NES and SNES generation truly lived up to. These indie developers are not using any fancy technology or graphics and have idea far more unique and interesting compared to those generations. One only needs to look at a Zelda commercial to see what kind of audience gaming use to be for.

1: Indie Developers don't make games that can run on an NES. Just because they look like they use sprites doesn't mean they fall into what the NES was capable of running.

2: Games back then were a "joke"? Really? Yeah, they were considered kiddy. Hell they're STILL considered kiddy, why do you think lawyers every now and then jump out of their seats and whine about violence and sex every couple of years? The only difference between now and then is that the gaming kids of yesterday are the gaming adults of today. That doesn't mean the Developers waved them all off as money-factories.

That is a dumb argument since these two are the SAME THING. TMNT was nothing like a beat em up until it completely changed to jump on the beat em up bandwagon. It was purely for sales. Games back then were designed to be difficult. Do you know why?

a)To make up for their extremely short length, hence difficulty was more about memorization and repetition than skill
b)To make you waste more quarters at the arcade, which is the ultimate milking.


Being inspired by someone else's work and being ordered to copy them for profit are not the same thing. I'm sorry if you're so bitter about life that you can't see the difference.

LOL wow, I wish you were actually there. FF style shallow turn based combat was a dime a dozen. In the PS2 era, this translated to hundreds if not more of jRPGs.

Erstwhile, the best gameplay of that generation mostly came from Nintendo who pioneered the modern 3D action games with N64, OoT and so on without any FMVs at all.


1: The rise of the JRPG in popularity wasn't due to FMV's, but the success of FF VII. I think you're confusing the actual cause here. There were as many JRPG's without loads of FMV's as there were with them.

2: Also there were also gameplay pioneers on the PlayStation that used FMV's. Resident Evil, Metal Gear, Tomb Raider, Silent Hill, Devil May Cry, all sorts of different gameplay styles from all companies were coming out at the time.

Games sell well because they are fun... You think Final Fight, Knights of the Round, SoR, Golden Axe and all those games copied double dragon because they wanted to be fun and not because they wanted to be like double dragon? You are talking about the same thing. They jumped on the bandwagon to make money.

As I said before, taking inspiration from someone else's work is not the same thing as being ordered to emulate them for profit.

HELL NO.... please actually learn about those generations before you talk about them. Cloning games was the NORM. These days, developers seem to need something completely wild and different just so they can stand out. Back in the old days, there were a fraction of the genres and people didn't complain like the whiny internet generation.

Cloning happened but I don't know if I'd call it the "norm". Even the worst of clones usually did SOMETHING to set themselves apart.
#47DesperateMonkeyPosted 9/11/2013 3:26:54 PM
1: Indie Developers don't make games that can run on an NES. Just because they look like they use sprites doesn't mean they fall into what the NES was capable of running.


Yes it could have. There is nothing special about a lot of these games technically. They are simple as hell. People back then just weren't using any creativity. They see one game that works and they all copy it. The 2D sidescrolling genre had a fraction of the interesting ideas that have come about today.

2: Games back then were a "joke"? Really? Yeah, they were considered kiddy. Hell they're STILL considered kiddy, why do you think lawyers every now and then jump out of their seats and whine about violence and sex every couple of years? The only difference between now and then is that the gaming kids of yesterday are the gaming adults of today. That doesn't mean the Developers waved them all off as money-factories.


This is the most confused argument ever...

Being inspired by someone else's work and being ordered to copy them for profit are not the same thing. I'm sorry if you're so bitter about life that you can't see the difference.


LOL so RE6 is for profit but Final Fight, Captain Commando, X Men, etc are just copying because they want to be fun? This is so delusional I don't know what to say.

Your arguments really need more thought in them. So far, your arguments have absolutely nothing of worth, just an extremely naive memory of your childhood experiences. Which shouldn't be a surprise considering how young you probably were back then.
---
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H
#48NewMoonShadowPosted 9/11/2013 5:21:02 PM
DesperateMonkey posted...
1: Indie Developers don't make games that can run on an NES. Just because they look like they use sprites doesn't mean they fall into what the NES was capable of running.


Yes it could have. There is nothing special about a lot of these games technically. They are simple as hell. People back then just weren't using any creativity. They see one game that works and they all copy it. The 2D sidescrolling genre had a fraction of the interesting ideas that have come about today.


Yeah, no. The NES wasn't capable of running modern indie games from a strictly technical hardware perspective. They're not "flashy" by today's standards but they still require more powerful hardware than an NES can provide.

This is the most confused argument ever...


Okay. Let me simplify it. The statement "Games back then were a joke" is full of opinionated bulls***. Clear enough?

They were the best the industry could provide at the time.

LOL so RE6 is for profit but Final Fight, Captain Commando, X Men, etc are just copying because they want to be fun? This is so delusional I don't know what to say.


Paying attention fail.

Your arguments really need more thought in them. So far, your arguments have absolutely nothing of worth, just an extremely naive memory of your childhood experiences. Which shouldn't be a surprise considering how young you probably were back then.


So you ARE a bitter old man who assumes the worst at all times. Duly noted.
#49R_JackalPosted 9/11/2013 7:49:05 PM
Profitability, ads, it's like their PR division is trying to crucify their company.
#50Sin_Angelus_Posted 9/11/2013 9:08:28 PM
LICKWIDPAlN posted...
I give the Xbone about 2 years as far as the amount of times we will see some pretty good games. After that, same situation as the 360.


360 exclusives have received better ratings over the past 3 years, on average, than PS3 exclusives. Try again.