2 years ago#31
Well, it could be worse. At least you're not a Prinny.
2 years ago#32
i think this has always really been MS's intentions. i forget when and where i heard it but i remember reading an article about MS's beginnings in the gaming industry. It basically was decided because they has suspected that Sony was working with a goal to make the PS an all-around entertainment console unit. they saw this as a potential threat on the market of PC's and knew that they would have to enter the market, even if at a loss, just to compete. the technology for the plans laid down long ago is just now really becoming a reality.
i think that maybe some of the problems with this now are that:
a) people are just not quite as "ready" for the concept of one company being so invasive and interwoven into so many different aspects of ones 'entertainment' time as MS would have liked, and
b) the 'core' gaming public, which MS admitted initially not being concerned about, who will realistically make up the vast majority of buyers for the first few waves of production units sold, are seemingly beginning to feel that maybe there are some threats to their hobby as they know it, and the goals of the companies managing the futures of this hobby and goals of the enthusiasts are not quite as in line as they ought to be.
2 years ago#33
CyborgTwenty posted...LICKWIDPAlN posted...So basically this thing should sell to the former Wii casual fanbase. Problem solved.
Whoever it's supposed to be for, the high price narrows it down a lot.
(Topic Creator)2 years ago#34
Thanks to all who participated in the discussion. It is good to have mature discussions like this in gamefaqs
The no used games policy was a debatable idea between developers themselves. Not all of them agree on the notion. So MS had pushed it to have more control and to increase its income, IMO.
They could have come up with other alternatives through their achievements system for instance or they could have had open discussion and workshop with the developers who are already putting some incentives to make you keep their game longer.
If MS focus was on having an ultimate gaming experience, such policies would have not been implemented.
Also We would have seen more developers taking positively about he console.
I blame their PR and marketing department for such obvious mistakes.
2 years ago#35
I remember seeing a video of a lady from the xbox division basically saying that they wanted to move towards a media device along time ago.
2 years ago#36
I saw this coming back in 2009. the more I saw of Kinect the more I saw MS's focus going towards being less of a gaming machine and more of the family media box that just can also play games. they wanted every thing , dividing way to much focus in to way to many different area's and not on the most important ones ... GAMES! all we got for the most part in the last 5 years was halo, gears , forza and fable... over and over again.
This is when I switched my focus over more to the PS3.
So when MS came out going TV TV TV SPORTS SPORTS SPORTS CALL OF DUTY!!!
yeah I wasn't that surprised. though them having the guts to go through with the DRM and no used games... woooh
SRPG games...i just love them!
PSN - ArkonBlade XBL - The Wolf Shadow STEAM - ArkonBlade
2 years ago#37
I've also suspected this. I've definitely read similar theories in the past, and it really seems to make sense - Microsoft got into the console business in the first place so they could have a 'back door' into people's living rooms. Build up the Xbox brand and hook in gamers, potentially biting into Sony and Nintendo's market share, then expand it to become a more multimedia-oriented experience. I wish I could find a link - I remember at least 2 or 3 interesting articles over the years which put this idea forward.
It really was a very clever idea. With the amount of cash MS has they could afford to play the long game. It wasn't until 2010 or so when it became obvious that core gaming wasn't their greatest priority. And now with the XB1 we're starting to get an idea of what their endgame was all along. It's just a shame for them that it's not quite worked out as they'd hoped.
Your point b) above is absolutely spot on, by the way. For a few years now it's been quite apparent that games companies have very different priorities and perspectives on the future of the industry than those who actually play and enjoy their games.
http://mikamishead.blogspot.com/ - misanthropic musings on gaming, retro and otherwise.
2 years ago#38
Problem is, the second half of Xbox 360's lifespan barely had any exclusives, and most of them were Kinect games. This is sad, especially compared to PS3, which really picked up on games. It might repeat itself with the next gen, since from the start the focus was on multimedia, and not games.
|More topics from this board...|
|Didn't like Witcher 2, is 3 worth a try?||structural98||15||11/27 6:34AM|
|If I didn't like Destiny when it came out, any chance I'll like it now?||xTheCEOx||7||11/27 4:56PM|
|As someone who didn't like Advaned Warfare or Black Ops 1 and 2 on-line||Hucast9||11||11/26 1:39AM|
|Why didn't Microsoft develop the Xbox One to have interchangeable GPUs?||PraetorianGhost||326||11/30 12:30PM|
|So when is the division coming out||shads3055||5||11/28 4:37PM|