sony already tried microsoft's xbox one strategy with the ps3

#51jastenPosted 11/3/2013 2:16:18 PM
DesperateMonkey posted...
I admitted what? I said the Kinect was more useful to gamers. You suddenly changed it to "it can only be useful if it adds something that has not existed in gaming before". You argument is that new consoles like the PS4 are useless because it does nothing except render games in budget PC graphics...


Adding to gaming... that was the whole argument But just to play nice... the argument still stands. THe controller is objectively more useful than the Kinect in every way. The kinect is admittedly spotty and imprecise for motion controlling and why speak at your box when you can simply push a button. Most players have rejected the kinect because it doesn't add anything useful that can't already be done and done better with a nomral controller.

Funny how you try to deflect only to run smack into a wall in your desperation yet again. Now are you going to stop? Cause this is starting to be less funny and more sad whatching how far you'll plummet in desperation.
---
We are not merely the sum of our parts
#52SAMCROftwPosted 11/3/2013 2:17:22 PM
DesperateMonkey posted...
Yeah, editing peoples quotes. That works!


So why not respond to the Opie and Anthony Pest?
---
Xbox fan since 2003. Tired of Microsoft's bull. LOLXbone.
Mass Effect TaliShep.... still a better love story than Twilight.
#53TheCyborgNinjaPosted 11/3/2013 2:19:18 PM
The biggest similarity I'm seeing right now is that everyone loved to hate on the PS3 before (and for a year or two after) its launch.
---
Jack Thompson is so disbarred, he's not even allowed to practice the law of gravity. - Kotomo
#54billsfanno1Posted 11/3/2013 2:28:39 PM
PS3 moved many units the first few years because it was the cheapest blu-ray player. Sony sold units at a loss and profited very little from meager Blu-ray sales (compared with DVD). MS is providing multimedia integration and multiple services with X1 -- e.g., Live, voice control, fitness, fantasy football, etc. The difference is that MS will profit from this model, even if it ultimately moves fewer units than PS3. Games simply are not that profitable. High investments, high risk, relatively few successes. Sony may put itself out of business with PS4 regardless of whether it is a commercial success. MS is expanding the audience for X1 while Sony is contracting the market for PS4.
#55DesperateMonkeyPosted 11/3/2013 2:38:57 PM(edited)
jasten posted...
DesperateMonkey posted...
I admitted what? I said the Kinect was more useful to gamers. You suddenly changed it to "it can only be useful if it adds something that has not existed in gaming before". You argument is that new consoles like the PS4 are useless because it does nothing except render games in budget PC graphics...


Adding to gaming... that was the whole argument But just to play nice... the argument still stands. THe controller is objectively more useful than the Kinect in every way. The kinect is admittedly spotty and imprecise for motion controlling and why speak at your box when you can simply push a button. Most players have rejected the kinect because it doesn't add anything useful that can't already be done and done better with a nomral controller.

Funny how you try to deflect only to run smack into a wall in your desperation yet again. Now are you going to stop? Cause this is starting to be less funny and more sad whatching how far you'll plummet in desperation.


Adding to gaming does not mean adding something that has never been done before. This is a silly qualification you added later on. Kinect added to the experience whereas the BD did nothing and created issues. Whether Voice controls were invented before, it doesn't change the fact that Skyrim was better with it than without and that people had tons of fun with games like Kinect Sports and Dance Central or that some people liked voice commands to control their console.

Keep trying to move that goal post.
---
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
#56jastenPosted 11/3/2013 2:46:38 PM
DesperateMonkey posted...
jasten posted...
DesperateMonkey posted...
I admitted what? I said the Kinect was more useful to gamers. You suddenly changed it to "it can only be useful if it adds something that has not existed in gaming before". You argument is that new consoles like the PS4 are useless because it does nothing except render games in budget PC graphics...


Adding to gaming... that was the whole argument But just to play nice... the argument still stands. THe controller is objectively more useful than the Kinect in every way. The kinect is admittedly spotty and imprecise for motion controlling and why speak at your box when you can simply push a button. Most players have rejected the kinect because it doesn't add anything useful that can't already be done and done better with a nomral controller.

Funny how you try to deflect only to run smack into a wall in your desperation yet again. Now are you going to stop? Cause this is starting to be less funny and more sad whatching how far you'll plummet in desperation.


Adding to gaming does not mean adding something that has never been done before. This is a silly qualification you added later on. Kinect added to the experience whereas the BD did nothing and created issues. Whether Voice controls were invented before, it doesn't change the fact that Skyrim was better with it than without and that people had tons of fun with games like Kinect Sports and Dance Central or that some people liked voice commands to control their console.

Keep trying to move that goal post.


I'd have to find that post... you've moved it around so much you've probably forgotten where it is by now. If the kinect added anything or made gaming better, it wouldn't have been relegated to the shelf by fans and forced MS to bundle it in and make everyone buy it. People would have bought it by choice... that wasn't going to happen so MS is trying to save its dead gimmick by forcing its purchase.
---
We are not merely the sum of our parts
#57MasteroftheArtsPosted 11/3/2013 6:21:36 PM
jasten posted...
If the kinect added anything or made gaming better, it wouldn't have been relegated to the shelf by fans and forced MS to bundle it in and make everyone buy it. People would have bought it by choice... that wasn't going to happen so MS is trying to save its dead gimmick by forcing its purchase.


This betrays a gross ignorance of how new innovations break into the mainstream and how products are sold. It's considered a common maxim that consumers don't know that they want something until they've tried it. It's the entire purpose of advertising and PR, to get the product into people's hands so that they can experience it and ultimately buy it. Virtually all of apple's products were hailed as useless extravagances until consumers bought them and realized how useful they were.

Further, you're conflating Microsoft's decision to bundle the kinect with every system with some notion that they're trying to salvage the kinect brand. It has nothing to do with that and everything to do with ensuring developers that there is a large enough install base for them to justify spending valuable development time and resources into programming interesting features into their games. Because every system will have a kinect, features for the kinect will be available to everyone and the features set the game apart from other games and other ports of games.

Microsoft isn't desperate to do anything. The company is in terrific condition and will remain that way through this next generation, unlike Sony.
---
"I refuse to prove that I exist" says God. "For proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing..."
#58jastenPosted 11/3/2013 6:32:59 PM
MasteroftheArts posted...
jasten posted...
If the kinect added anything or made gaming better, it wouldn't have been relegated to the shelf by fans and forced MS to bundle it in and make everyone buy it. People would have bought it by choice... that wasn't going to happen so MS is trying to save its dead gimmick by forcing its purchase.


This betrays a gross ignorance of how new innovations break into the mainstream and how products are sold. It's considered a common maxim that consumers don't know that they want something until they've tried it. It's the entire purpose of advertising and PR, to get the product into people's hands so that they can experience it and ultimately buy it. Virtually all of apple's products were hailed as useless extravagances until consumers bought them and realized how useful they were.

Further, you're conflating Microsoft's decision to bundle the kinect with every system with some notion that they're trying to salvage the kinect brand. It has nothing to do with that and everything to do with ensuring developers that there is a large enough install base for them to justify spending valuable development time and resources into programming interesting features into their games. Because every system will have a kinect, features for the kinect will be available to everyone and the features set the game apart from other games and other ports of games.

Microsoft isn't desperate to do anything. The company is in terrific condition and will remain that way through this next generation, unlike Sony.


Kinect was on the market... most people rejected it. This isn't a case of "we haven't seen this before so give it a chance." The only reason the kinect is a forced purchase is because it's already proven it isn't important to gamers and they've chosen to no longer buy into it. So they force it.

And that last sentence betrays you... Sony is more likely to stick in the gaming side of things than MS if things don't go perfectly.
---
We are not merely the sum of our parts
#59MasteroftheArtsPosted 11/3/2013 6:55:05 PM
jasten posted...
Kinect was on the market... most people rejected it. This isn't a case of "we haven't seen this before so give it a chance." The only reason the kinect is a forced purchase is because it's already proven it isn't important to gamers and they've chosen to no longer buy into it. So they force it.


The reason the kinect wasn't as popular as Microsoft intended it to is for the exact reason I outlined. There aren't enough games that make use of it to justify the purchase for the consumer, so no one buys it. Because no one buys it, developers continue to avoid developing for it which fuels the skepticism for buying it which is why they're bundling it with every system. It solves the catch 22.

I also noticed how your response is nothing more than a restatement of your original point which I already responded to.


jasten posted...
And that last sentence betrays you... Sony is more likely to stick in the gaming side of things than MS if things don't go perfectly.


This is nothing more than an assumption on your part. Microsoft sold a system that was prone to failure, lost a format war, and had virtually no 1st party titles, yet capitalized on their strengths and still managed to beat sony with regard to market share. Sony made gigantic mistakes and is paying for them. Of those mistakes is bothering to stay in consumer electronics because they have been bleeding money there for half a decade.
---
"I refuse to prove that I exist" says God. "For proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing..."
#60jastenPosted 11/3/2013 6:59:43 PM
MasteroftheArts posted...
jasten posted...
Kinect was on the market... most people rejected it. This isn't a case of "we haven't seen this before so give it a chance." The only reason the kinect is a forced purchase is because it's already proven it isn't important to gamers and they've chosen to no longer buy into it. So they force it.


The reason the kinect wasn't as popular as Microsoft intended it to is for the exact reason I outlined. There aren't enough games that make use of it to justify the purchase for the consumer, so no one buys it. Because no one buys it, developers continue to avoid developing for it which fuels the skepticism for buying it which is why they're bundling it with every system. It solves the catch 22.

I also noticed how your response is nothing more than a restatement of your original point which I already responded to.


jasten posted...
And that last sentence betrays you... Sony is more likely to stick in the gaming side of things than MS if things don't go perfectly.


This is nothing more than an assumption on your part. Microsoft sold a system that was prone to failure, lost a format war, and had virtually no 1st party titles, yet capitalized on their strengths and still managed to beat sony with regard to market share. Sony made gigantic mistakes and is paying for them. Of those mistakes is bothering to stay in consumer electronics because they have been bleeding money there for half a decade.


Sony has actually improved lately, oops.

And the original point is that the Kinect had it's opportunity, it failed. IF people bloody wanted the gimmicky piece of crap and the games it gets, they would have SUPPORTED IT. But o right, it came out, disappeared, wasn't that big of a deal.... o, it's because people were just too stupid the first time.

You are starting to sound like Microsoft now. People weren't too stupid, they chose not to use the kinect in numbers that warranted any dev wasting money on a failed gimmick.
---
We are not merely the sum of our parts