Poll: Who IS buying the Xbox One?

[JetFury]

I can't wait for Microsoft to drop online support for the xbox1. It may take a few years but it'll be a glorious thing when all those games people have bought will be lost. And then they'll say it doesn't affect them because they have the xbox2

 

[Peps]

There's no implied insult if you have no intention of calling me biased. If you're not going to resort to calling others biased for being objective and speculative and for saying something positive, then you have my utmost respect. Other people are reading my posts, not just you. It's a pre-emptive strike against those who plan to be disrespectful to me. If you're not one of them, great, let's debate.

I agree that Microsoft probably can be flexible on the 24 hours system. As a consumer I do understand why it's annoying, but it's never going to affect me in the least. However, do note that Steam do have a similar mechanism in place, something like two weeks I believe last I checked. Even then, each time you install a game you have to verify the content. But in order to provide all of these cloud based features, including being able to sell your games to others, they probably have a good reason for selecting 24 hours. If they allowed you to not install the disc to avoid the 24 hours, their whole strategy is destroyed, and it would not be appealing to developers.

Steam has defeated piracy on the PC, by offering a far better service. As Gabe Newell has constantly said before, you view piracy as a competitor, not as criminals. You can either have a crippled copy of a game for free, or a fully functional version of the game with Steam features for say ?10. Steam has converted many people from piracy to legitimate customers, simply because of the cheap prices, and the great cloud-based system it offers. Because of Steam, publishers are no longer scared of developing for the PC, and you have a significant boost of indie developers. You're still going to have a minor portion of the market who are so resistant to paying money, but otherwise, piracy is a very insignificant factor on the PC these days. Indie developers as well, just by talking to pirates, have converted them to paying customers. Used games is a far bigger problem because it's more far appealing than the original product. There's no wear and tear for used games, and you're still able to access all of the features, just like the original product. Pirated products usually have severe disadvantages, and that's why piracy is easier to defeat.

You're using a multi-million dollar company who owns very big IP that sell out day one, as evidence that used games are not a problem. Really? Here's a random article to support my claim: http://www.teleread.com/chris-meadows/used-games-killing-game-industry-game-developer-claims-what-about-used-books/ It's common sense really. Seriously, watch the video I linked in the previous post. It explains it perfectly and it's very logically. There is no business incentive for developers to want to allow used games. Give me one reason why a developer should want to support used games. Why on earth would an indie developer, who needs all of the sales they can get, should support used games?

Again, you're arguing that Netflixs is competing with itself because House of Cards is a Netflix exclusive, even though there are other competitive streaming platforms. Steam similarly also has exclusive titles such as Arma 3, same with Origin. Microsoft need to offer a ridiculous amount of incentives at the moment, and reducing prices of games just like Steam does would help that. If they don't need to reduce their prices, then damn, that's clearly one attractive console Microsoft have and fair play to them for being able to charge high prices on their console despite used games being blocked. That's basically what you're saying.

Might be an idea not to include that under a direct quote next time, sends out the wrong message. I have no intention of calling anyone biased unless they say something that is blatantly biased.

I'm not suggesting they should offer the option for every single game, but there is absolutely no reason for the option to not exist. If a game has cloud based features, then fine (it's likely going to require a constant connection anyway, depending on what the features are exactly), but surely not every game is going to have cloud features. It makes no sense to force people online to play those games. As for needing to have it to sell your game to others, surely they could have made it so that you have to go online for that transaction and then once it's done, you're free to go offline again. Believe me, I absolutely understand that online is needing for certain features, I just don't see why we had to have it completely forced on us when it would have made far more sense to make it optional (even if it ultimately isn't much of an option because of cloud or whatever). If anything, making it optional would have actually made this whole thing a positive for the Xbox One instead of being used as a negative. If they had come out and said 'You can install your games to the hard drive and then play them completely offline. Naturally, you're going to need to connect for certain features, but if a game doesn't require it, you're free to stay offline', I can guarantee you would have had people praising them for it.

Steams defeated piracy on the PC? Are you sure about that? Please explain this then,
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2011/11/30/the-witcher-2-was-pirated-over-45-million-times
how about this,
http://www.geek.com/games/ubisoft-chief-claims-pc-game-piracy-rate-as-high-as-95-1510923/
They seem extremely high for something that has been defeated

How is me using EA any worst than you using conjecture and hearsay as evidence? The link you provided is evidence of nothing, there are no hard facts in that, it's just one persons claim that used games are bad. If the used games market is so obviously killing the industry as much as is being claimed then surely there must be some hard evidence of this somewhere. You claim it's common sense, but is it? I can easily claim it's common sense that the used market doesn't hurt the games industry (or at least isn't what's killing it). For a start, as I said earlier, used games have been around for decades. Why has it only now become something that's 'killing the industry'? Wasn't it killing the industry back in the 80's? If it was, why is the industry still around and worth as much as it is? If used games are killing them industry, it's one of the slowest deaths I've ever seen (on par with the death of PC gaming I'd say). Also, from that very article you linked to, gamespot claim the used market is generating $1.2 billion of trade. Would you care to provide figures stating how much the used games market costs the industry? We'll compare them and see just how much it is costing the industry.

BTW, how many indies go physical these days? I'm not seeing that many retail boxes for indie games in my local stores. Seems to me, the vast majority of indies go digital, where used games aren't an issue at all. So it's just the guys who have a physical product, normally the guys who have a publisher behind them, a publisher like EA...who just said used games aren't an issue. How about a smaller company, like CD Projekt Red,
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2013/06/11/cd-projekt-red-dark-microsofts-used-games-management-system-xbox-one#.UbjnYPnrwZo
they don't seem too concerned by used games, stating that they believe in the freedom of choice and that they are looking for the most gamer friendly solution. I doubt that's likely anything that limits the use of used games.

If you can provide actual, indisputable evidence that used games are killing the industry, then great, I'll change my opinion immediately and join the fight to stop them (BTw, just so we're clear, I don't believe they are particularly good for the industry either, I just refuse to accept that they are killing it).

Arma 3 isn't exclusive to Steam, I can buy Arma 3 direct from the developers and when it's released I expect I'll be able to buy it from other sites when it's released. Just because I have to play it through steam does not mean it's exclusive, I am free to buy it from wherever I want and Valve will never see a penny of that money. That's the point, I can buy PC games and Valve will never see a penny, even if it uses steam. Microsoft know that if you buy a game on the xbox, it's going to see a return. That doesn't mean I feel they don't have to offer any incentives to get people on their side (they absolutely do), but I think it does mean they aren't likely to offer the same amount of incentives that Steam does. I'm done arguing this point since it's such a small and insignificant point of my post. If it makes you happy, fine, remove it from the original list since I just feel it's derailing the main point anyway.

I suggest reading over the content carefully next time. Quoting does not necessarily mean you are responding to the person in question. It just means you're quoting them and using it as a reference for your own content. If you took offense, I apologise, but it clearly was not directed at you if you're not the type of person the content is referring to. Simple as, don't jump to conclusions.

Like I said already, if Microsoft gave the option to keep disc-based media, their entire strategy would be ruined because it would be near identical to what we already have. It makes zero sense to have it optional. You're going in circles here and you seem to be missing the critical point. Their entire strategy is clearly about protecting developers, and going with your wishes is not protecting developers because it still enables used games. It's anti-developer to keep disc-based media and to keep used games around, and it's anti-consumer because it maintains high prices. As logic dictates, there's no business value for developers to allow used games, and they lose sales because of used games, as proven in earlier links. Although I am curious as to why you dislike the concept of cheap games, and supporting developers to make more games. I also don't get why you dislike the idea of being able to play your entire library of games from any Xbox One device. I don't get why you dislike the idea of not having to swap discs to play different games and so on. I don't get why you hate all of these features. Sure, we don't need them, but we don't need a mouse either to use PCs.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-28-valve-piracy-a-non-issue-for-steam

Piracy isn't an issue, because of Steam. Obviously you're going to have the exceptions here and there, but that's usually because publishers such as Ubisoft implement mechanisms that don't enhance the product, but merely take away from it. If a product has been pirated a lot, generally that means that they've made the paid product less attractive than the pirated product. But basically, the argument is, is that used games are more appealing than new, and piracy is less appealing than paid. That's why there's an issue. It's logical. Basic economics state that consumers are rational and will always go for the best deal. The best deal is a large majority of the time, used games, because there is no difference between new, and used.

Logically used games won't affect EA as much, because like I said, they make their money back in a single day because of their brand. Weaker companies don't have such brand power, and as a result, used games are killing them. Not to mention, no company wants to be associated with the bad reaction to used games blocking at the moment, so I'm sure big publishers would be saying anything at the moment to stay on the gamer's good side. Also you do realise what you just said about GameStop right? GameStop is stealing $1.2 billion of new game sales away from developers. There's your figure. The cost difference between used and new is generally very small, and as TotalBiscuit video has stated, GameStop employees frequently turn new game buyers into used game buyers. It's fact. The reason this is only a recent issue, is because used games haven't been as aggressively pushed as they are these days. When I was working in Smyths Toys (Ireland's biggest toy store chain with a huge games department), I've constantly heard managers talking about pushing pre-owned games. They don't want new games to sell, they want their employees to "upsell". It's a fact.

Now of course, to counteract used sales, publishers have to charge high prices for games, resort to online passes, or downloadable content, or pre-order bonuses, and so on and so forth. Hence, if used games are gone, you'll see a drastic drop in price, and you'll stop seeing stuff like online passes. Now the question is, do you like expensive games with online passes, or do you like cheap games which don't have online passes, and provide additional cloud features? The choice is yours, but the latter is far more appealing to me personally. I love Steam sales, and I'd love to see Steam sales on consoles. Based on basic economics, it will happen if Microsoft is smart.

Obviously indie developers go digital because it gives them protection. It's far too risky for them to go with disc-based media. They like protection, as I stated. That's why the Xbox One is developer friendly because it offers that protection and there's far less of a risk should indie developers wish to use disc-based distribution. You've already been provided with plenty of links from non-AAA people that used games are killing them. If you don't agree that they are good for the industry, then you should be supporting Microsoft's stance on used games. Again, the consumer side of me would rather not have some of these restrictions, but the software developer side of me thinks it's absolutely genius.

Some extra links:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20022957-17.html
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-04-12-the-real-cost-of-used-games

But anyway, let's try summarise all of this into questions, as I feel that's the best way to try understand each others argument:

- Do you agree that blocking used games will significantly reduce the cost of new games?
- Do you agree that it's logical for Microsoft to drop the price of new games to appeal to gamers?
- Do you agree that the Xbox One is far more appealing to developers than the PS4, simply because of built-in DRM?
- Do you agree that it's anti-developer for Sony to tell developers that they're giving them zero protection?

 

[Cabisco]

I think I will yeah and as much as the internet wants me to feel dirty and disgusting for this it won't change my mind. It has what I feel are better games and my friends want it (and I play with them 90% of the time).

 

[jim1398]

snip

/sigh. I never said it means that, I said it sends that message. Come on, you can't seriously be arguing that a line directly after a quote is not likely to be seen as a response to said quote. Regardless, it's a non-issue, let's just drop it.

You're assuming quite a lot here, aren't you? Where did I say I hate all of those features? Asking for a console to not require me to check in every 24 hours/1 hour is not saying I hate those features at all. What I said was that they could have it so you only have to go online to perform certain actions, such as if you want to sell a game or access your games without the disk. Just because I'm asking for options does not mean I hate the features we are getting. Frankly, I'm not sure how you even came to that conclusion.

So Steam don't view piracy as an issue, how exactly does that prove it's less of an issue than used games? As I already showed, EA don't consider the used games market to be an issue. You're asking that one thing be taken for granted because someone just said it's the case, while being completely unwilling to do the same yourself.

I disagree with the idea that people mainly pirate games because it offers a better service than new games, if that were the case, DRM free games like The Witcher 2 and Game dev Tycoon wouldn't be in a position where the majority of people playing it are playing pirated copies.

You keep saying it's killing them, but I'm still waiting for that hard proof. You can't rely on conjecture with this, it's a serious accusation and simply saying 'it's common sense' and posting a handful of links to publishers and developers saying it is nowhere near enough, especially when there are publishers and developers willing to say otherwise.

Also, maybe you should read your own link instead of relying on what i said, that $1.2 billion figure is trade credit, i.e money that is going to be spent on games. Now yes, some of that is going to be spent on used games, but some is going to be spent on new games, new games that might not have been bought if those people didn't have trade credit. That's money being put back into the industry because of the used market. Again though,k this is why it's important to get actual figures, so we can see how much is being taken out and compare it to how much is being put back in.


As for your questions,
1. No I don't agree. It should do, if the used industry is actually as harmful as some claim it is, however I am not willing for a second to believe that publishers would actually go ahead and do it (or at least not the majority). They simply have given me no reason to believe they can be trusted, if they think they can get away with it, they'll try it.
2. Again, I do, but I'm not betting on Microsoft doing it.
3. Developers? No. From what I've seen, the PS4 has far more indie support than the Xbox One has. Publishers? Maybe. I think they are going to go with whichever console has the biggest market share.
4. No, I think it's pro-consumer. (Do you think the current consoles are anti-developer?)


Look, this is very, very simple. Post actual evidence that the used market is killing the industry. Stop claiming it's common sense (if it was, it wouldn't be as debated anywhere near as much as it is) and stop posting links to articles that are nothing more than conjecture as if it's proof, because it's not. I want hard facts and until you provide them, this is pointless because we're just going to go around in circles.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Well, I'm not getting it because my PC can still run most games on max settings. It makes more sense to stick with the PC instead of shelling out the money to get the next of any of the consoles.

I might eventually get the WiiU for the new Smash Bros or the next Zelda, but probably not.

 

[AuronFtw]

I will certainly pay $100 extra dollars for pointless inconvenience and forced DRM and big brother's eyeball and a weaker system.

Oh... wait.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

I am. At least 1, possibly 2.
From the UK.

And yes, I do have very good reasons for picking this over the PS4. It's not just blind loyalty - it's legitimately the better choice for me.

If I may make a suggestion. Buy it used or from any other source in which none of the money will go to Microsoft. That way, you get the console but won't be supporting Microsoft.

 

[LT Cannibal 68]

Hi everyone! So... Everyone seems to hate everything about the xbox one so far (myself included) and there are a lot of posts around the forum of people who will NOT buy the next xbox. But MS expects to make SOME money so... Aside from MS employees is there anyone here who is considering buying an xbox? Any one is going to preorder it? More important... Is anyone excited about it? If so please tell me what's making you so interested.

This isn't supposed to be a flame trap... I'm just really curious. I've got such a bad opinion about it I'm curious if there is ANYONE who doesn't care about DRM, used games policy, lack of developer support (specially independent developers) and a general lack of focus on gaming. Or maybe you just think my opinions are skewed...

VERY IMPORTANT: If you don't mind, please add your nationality (only because I really don't think most of it's features will work outside its major markets like US/UK and I want to see if that bothers you).

I am lol and when and if my internet goes out ill have my ps4 sitting right next to it to play offline lol.

 

[LT Cannibal 68]

No real reason to buy the Xbox One. For one, they aren't going to have any support from the japanese studios. Second, the disc installation is pointless because if I want a game on the system hard drive I can just pay and download it off the PS network. Third, the PS4 has pretty much all the streaming services that I'd be using. Fourth, it doesn't require an internet connection or 24 hour check, so when I travel and get stuck in a place with a spotty connection I can still play the games I have on disc and on the hard drive. Fifth, I don't have to carry around a ridiculous eye toy that is always at least passively on.

If you travel and have a spotty connection it's ok because you only need to check in every 24 hours so i don't see the point, and from the game sharing thing i've seen it works better than ps4 because you can share games digitally which in my book is a huge plus.

 

[Patathatapon]

I think i'll just say fuck that all together and spend my $500 upgrading my CPU next year. In fact, I probably won't even need that much with graphics technology being what it is already.

 

[ElTigreSantiago]

I guess maybe if you are rich enough to only get brand new games, don't have any friends to borrow games from, and have government-quality internet, the Xbox One might seem like a good choice.

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

Not purchasing ANY of the new systems and as much as I despise the term "should" as it implies a certain superiority, in this case, I'm using it, neither SHOULD anyone else. Everything these companies are doing wrong, the DRM crap, the forced acceptance of social networking, the connectivity issues, the pre-owned games mafioso bullying- if you buy these systems, you are passively enforcing these things, like it or not, it's a fact. You're empowering the system that uses you for surplus cash.

Don't buy any of these sub-par invasions of privacy. Just don't. It's the only way to see some improvement in the industry. It's the only voice you really have, kids, your money. Don't give it to the companies that continue to provide you with features you don't want, lackluster games and increasing hidden costs for inferior quality.

Will the companies suffer? Hell yes, they'll suffer. And they damned well should. Maybe they'll have to close up shop. GOOD. They should. That's the way the system works. Maybe they'll fire everyone from the C.E.O. to the coffee guy and hire on some people with actually fresh and interesting ideas to bring back some much-needed value for the gamer dollar. If they don't, in the immortal words of Cap'n Kirk "let them die". Other companies will fill the gap, it's the nature of economics to supply what is demanded. There were once more deals in town than "the big three" and to a degree there still are. With the vacuum created by the sinking of a ship as bloated as the S.S.Sony or The Microsoftania, a good half-dozen of them could easily step up to the plate and show us all what they've got.

 

[Thommo]

I probably will. mostly cos Microsoft has me by the balls with Halo. I know there are plenty of reasons why Halo is not as good as it was but it the game that got me into gaming and I am not about to let it go.

Also I have no idea how to shut off XBL Gold auto renew

 

[jpoon]

Pretty hilarious this "poll" doesn't have a NO or a FUCKING HELL NO, I didn't vote quite obviously but I can definitely mention that I won't be buying the spybox.

 

[taciturnCandid]

Eventually I will get one, but for now I have my PC and 360 and I'm happy with that.

None of the DRM things really bother me and most of the issues that people complain about don't affect me.

If they integrate stuff like smartglass to a higher level, then I will certainly get it as soon as possible. IF there is a higher integration with the PC, then I can use it as a full media center.

I actually like Kinect and think the intelliroom looks cool. It would fit well with my living room.

Overall, i'll wait for prices to drop or get something like the subsidized xbox thing. Sure I would pay more in the long run, but it'd fit into my budget more. If the ps4 did the same thing that microsoft did with the 360 i'd do that.

 

[Peps]

snip

/sigh. I never said it means that, I said it sends that message. Come on, you can't seriously be arguing that a line directly after a quote is not likely to be seen as a response to said quote. Regardless, it's a non-issue, let's just drop it.

You're assuming quite a lot here, aren't you? Where did I say I hate all of those features? Asking for a console to not require me to check in every 24 hours/1 hour is not saying I hate those features at all. What I said was that they could have it so you only have to go online to perform certain actions, such as if you want to sell a game or access your games without the disk. Just because I'm asking for options does not mean I hate the features we are getting. Frankly, I'm not sure how you even came to that conclusion.

So Steam don't view piracy as an issue, how exactly does that prove it's less of an issue than used games? As I already showed, EA don't consider the used games market to be an issue. You're asking that one thing be taken for granted because someone just said it's the case, while being completely unwilling to do the same yourself.

I disagree with the idea that people mainly pirate games because it offers a better service than new games, if that were the case, DRM free games like The Witcher 2 and Game dev Tycoon wouldn't be in a position where the majority of people playing it are playing pirated copies.

You keep saying it's killing them, but I'm still waiting for that hard proof. You can't rely on conjecture with this, it's a serious accusation and simply saying 'it's common sense' and posting a handful of links to publishers and developers saying it is nowhere near enough, especially when there are publishers and developers willing to say otherwise.

Also, maybe you should read your own link instead of relying on what i said, that $1.2 billion figure is trade credit, i.e money that is going to be spent on games. Now yes, some of that is going to be spent on used games, but some is going to be spent on new games, new games that might not have been bought if those people didn't have trade credit. That's money being put back into the industry because of the used market. Again though,k this is why it's important to get actual figures, so we can see how much is being taken out and compare it to how much is being put back in.


As for your questions,
1. No I don't agree. It should do, if the used industry is actually as harmful as some claim it is, however I am not willing for a second to believe that publishers would actually go ahead and do it (or at least not the majority). They simply have given me no reason to believe they can be trusted, if they think they can get away with it, they'll try it.
2. Again, I do, but I'm not betting on Microsoft doing it.
3. Developers? No. From what I've seen, the PS4 has far more indie support than the Xbox One has. Publishers? Maybe. I think they are going to go with whichever console has the biggest market share.
4. No, I think it's pro-consumer. (Do you think the current consoles are anti-developer?)


Look, this is very, very simple. Post actual evidence that the used market is killing the industry. Stop claiming it's common sense (if it was, it wouldn't be as debated anywhere near as much as it is) and stop posting links to articles that are nothing more than conjecture as if it's proof, because it's not. I want hard facts and until you provide them, this is pointless because we're just going to go around in circles.

If the links I've posted aren't satisfying you, then fair enough. But do note that you have not posted any hard evidence here either. In fact, you haven't provided any logical reasoning as to why blocking used games is bad for the industry. You've only just stated that you dislike it. Actually no wait, you said that you don't dislike it. That's about it. We can keep going in circles here arguing about who said what, but if you want to trust EA over random developers, be my guest. I find it quite laughable you're trying to support the small developers, yet you're ignoring them when they say that used games are killing them.

On a side note, I would argue DRM free games are not superior to pirated goods. As a consumer, since the pirated version is identical, but free, it makes logical sense for me to go with the pirated version. Can you provide a logical reason why a consumer would behave irrationally and go with the legal version? Again, that's why Steam has defeated piracy, because it's offering a better service, and actually understands that consumers behave rationally. Basic economics.

Actually provide me a logical thread of reasoning. Put yourself in a business's shoes, where you're trying to be innovative, and you're trying to come up with a strategy to defeat other companies this generation. What would you do? Are you honestly going to shoot yourself in the foot, and ignore basic economic concepts such as price and demand, and elasticity of demand? You yourself just said they should do. Well of course they have to, otherwise they won't get your money right? Why on earth would they not? Of course if they think they can get away with it and if they think it's the best way to maximise their turnover, fair enough. But logically, it won't, because the demand is going to shoot up drastically, and there's just no way they can satisfy all of that demand by maintaining current prices. It's basic economic laws. If you're going to depend on the evidence you have, then you're going to fail as a business. Business is all about taking risks without any evidence, but merely logical trails of thoughts.

Just incase people don't understand these concepts or never studied economics:

http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/demand-elasticity.asp

This is course, is all very much pro-consumer, because they are offering great prices and functionality in exchange for losing some functionality. It's a trade-off. You're losing something, but you're gaining something better. Similarly, developers are gaining something very useful as well, and no longer have to set up their own servers to implement copyright protection. DRM free as you've proven, fails. Invasive DRM also fails. The answer lies somewhere in the middle, and that's exactly what Microsoft are offering with their slightly superior version of Steam.

If the concept of cheap games that support the developers and not GameStop doesn't appeal to you, great, keep stealing from developers with "legal piracy" each time you purchase a used game. The current generation of consoles and the PS4 are very much anti-developer, because just like the Dreamcast, it's not offering them any protection against their problem.

Just on the topic of indie developers, again speaking as a software developer, we don't know the full story for either the PS4 or the Xbox One. We haven't been given details about costs or anything of the sort. We haven't been given details about restrictions, whether there's some sort of peer process, nothing. Sure Microsoft say that you can't self-publish, but what on earth does that mean precisely? Will Microsoft publish your game for a tiny fee? What percentages are both Sony and Microsoft offering when it comes to sales? What is their digital store like for indie developers? Will it be horrible like Android and Xbox Live Indie games? Or will it be awesome like Steam? As someone who intends on starting a proper game project in the near future, neither platform have provided me the information that I need.

Overall, wait and see. Logic dictates that Microsoft will fully embrace the Steam model, because it's logically the path we're heading towards. Other industries have already adopted similar models and they have proven that it's a far superior business model, so why shouldn't games move towards that direction, when it's clearly pro-consumer and pro-developer? Honestly, I swear I'm like the only person in the world sometimes who understands how consumers behave any how businesses work.

 

[Peps]

Honestly, I swear I'm like the only person in the world sometimes who understands how consumers behave any how businesses work.

http://youtu.be/wd4YgudTcnM

Haha, yeah. That's pretty much it.

It took me a good while to understand the economic concepts I've listed when I was first learning them. It really one of those things you just have to "get". Once you "get it", the rest just flows logically, and a lot of business behaviour around you just begins to make so much sense. It's really a pity that game journalists are writing sensationalist headlines, and aren't bothered to write objective and unbiased material that use basic economic concepts. If they were to be less biased and more objective, then I'm sure consumers would be more well aware of the positive aspects.

And to re-iterate to readers, I have no intention of buying any new console, because they don't appeal to me that much in the least. But I do understand why the businesses in question feel like their strategy is going to dominate, and it makes perfect sense. I can't wait to see if this strategy is going to work for Microsoft. Logic dictates that it will, but the consumer reaction will make things very interesting. Personally I think consumers are going to give in and purchase the console. It's a long-term strategy for sure, but I can actually see it working very well. If Microsoft pull this off successfully, then they're definitely one of the smartest companies in the world.

 

[redhatman]

This might sound pretentious, but for me it's almost more about what the console represents than what it is. I don't want to support a company that tries to get away with placing anti-consumer policies on it's base, it's not the direction I want gaming to go in so I don't want to see the Xbox One succeed.

I am probably going to get it but for the games only, not the console.

Sounds exactly like Yahtzee's 'games being held hostage' metaphor. It's sad that this is the best reason for buying the damn thing. I'd hold out if I were you since a console nobody buys will probably get less exclusives over time.

I am planning on holding out until Halo 5, Destiny and Star wars battlefront 3 come out. In the mean time i will stick with my PC and 360.

 

[jim1398]

Why do I have to provide evidence? I'm not the one trying to claim anything, you are. You're the one claiming used games are killing the industry and frankly, I find it astonishing you feel able to make a claim as severe as that without a single piece of actual evidence.

Everything you have provided is nothing more than conjecture and hearsay (in fact, one of the links you provided clearly stated that, financially, the used games market does not hurt the industry at all). Now I'm sorry, but is it wrong to expect that someone, somewhere would have actual data to back up this claim? Surely the indie developers you linked to must have data, otherwise how do they know used is killing the industry? Why haven't they provided this evidence to back up their claim?

One last question, if used is killing the industry and specifically smaller, indie devs (because let's be honest, that's what you've now changed your claim to after I provided that link about EA), why hasn't the Xbox One got more indie support? If it's such a shining oasis in a sea of terrible used games, why does the PS4 have just as much, if not more, indie support as the Xbox One has?

 

[Riku'sTwilight]

Everything Sony showed was multiplat...

- Infamous: Second Son
- Knack
- killzone: shadowfall
- Drive Club
- The Order: 1886
- Deep Down (might not be exclusive, it's not confirmed for Xbox One though)
Pretty sure some of the indie games are exclusive as well (but being indie, they could end up on other platforms later so I'm not counting them in the above list)

Sorry that was actually my bad. I tried to remember everything and could only really remember the last hour or so of their conference.