Sony just mocked Xbox One again

[radnomguywfq3]

How are they bashing MS? They're just stating why their product is the best. They didn't say anything that makes it implied targeting of MS.

Yeyeye okay.

I don't know how you guys expect to get games cheaper than $80 when you are forcing developers to give you every license in the book, distribution and CD when all you want is a license to play the game.

This is how steam heavily reduced the prices of their games.

[Auxilium]

Yeyeye okay.

I don't know how you guys expect to get games cheaper than $80 when you are forcing developers to give you every license in the book, distribution and CD when all you want is a license to play the game.

This is how steam heavily reduced the prices of their games.

Oh, sort of like how they've been doing it since the start of games?

Developers had to pay for distribution and cartridge and optical disc later.
Don't remember any Wii game being more than $50 USD. Don't remember any of my PS3 games costing $80.

[cucuYeL]

Sony has sold me already, and it's $100 cheaper too.

[Joshcarr2006]

I don't understand though

PS4 is superior compared to Xbox One

But there is barely any true difference(except for quality) that is really worth the price.. idk man, did I miss out on something?

MS only cares about money now they made a shit console that has to be online once ever 24 hours or it wont work. Have to have internet or it wont work. Can't play used games. If you buy a used game have to pay 60$ after you played it for 24 hours to keep playing it. Now that xbox is online only to play you have to buy xbox live. You even have to have xbox live to use your cable skype netflix download aps movies even tho you already pay for that stuff. MS has said they don't care if you have no internet don't buy the xbox one go buy a 360.





PS4 on the other hand made a console for gamers. You don't have to be online or even have internet for it to work. Used games work and are not blocked/have to pay to play them. Yes PS went pay to play online but it's only for MP games you don't have to buy PS+ to use netflix or anything els just MP games. But PS+ is nice as hell it's only 5$ a month comes with 4 free games and a lot of other shit.

[[MPGH]arunforce]

Yeyeye okay.

I don't know how you guys expect to get games cheaper than $80 when you are forcing developers to give you every license in the book, distribution and CD when all you want is a license to play the game.

This is how steam heavily reduced the prices of their games.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL, you're so fucking delusional. They sell them for $60 dollars here, and FYI Steam sells games cheap because the power of internet distribution and full pricing control allows companies to have 3 days sales at the click of a button. How long do you think it would take Wal-Mart to update all their games pricing for a 24 hour sale? Oh, you mean the hundreds of store have to sync the pricing and timing? Sounds easy, not to mention they have a contract from the publisher, so they don't have an incentive to really sell it lower. Hence why companies offer rebates, everyone loves rebates, right?

Every used game sale is not a loss of revenue, it's just like the piracy argument bullshit. I wouldn't have never picked up some games I got when I was a kid, had it not been for the used game prices, I'd have picked up the AAA game if it was $20 lower. Has nothing to do with licensing, D3 had full license control, and so did a bunch of PS3 and XBOX 360 games who had online passes and other things like that, and guess what, STILL $60 dollars! Steam pricing is based on the fact that people don't buy games after 6 months after release at full price, if they wanted it, they would have bought it already. So they drop the price, and bring the barrier of entry lower, so more people can enjoy it for a cheaper price. Simple fucking economics, you know?

I swear you're such a dumb sheep, I literally lost all respect I had for you because you're just a delusional fan boy that can't think with his brain. Religious leaders love people like you, they make good religious sheep out of people like you.

But go on, ignore this like every other stupid statement from you I ripped to shreds and pull up some other bullshit.

[radnomguywfq3]

They sell them for $60 dollars here, and FYI Steam sells games cheap because the power of internet distribution and full pricing control allows companies to have 3 days sales at the click of a button. How long do you think it would take Wal-Mart to update all their games pricing for a 24 hour sale? Oh, you mean the hundreds of store have to sync the pricing and timing? Sounds easy, not to mention they have a contract from the publisher, so they don't have an incentive to really sell it lower. Hence why companies offer rebates, everyone loves rebates, right?

Yeah, that's the obstacle, that's it exactly. They're just too stupid and clumsy to organize a sale. I think that is disgustingly over simplifying things. Distribution, licensing, that has nothing to do with it at all. Further, how isn't the difficulty of organizing a sale not categorized under distribution?

Every used game sale is not a loss of revenue, it's just like the piracy argument bullshit. I wouldn't have never picked up some games I got when I was a kid, had it not been for the used game prices, I'd have picked up the AAA game if it was $20 lower. Has nothing to do with licensing, D3 had full license control, and so did a bunch of PS3 and XBOX 360 games who had online passes and other things like that

What is full licensing control? Is that EA hosting and managing their own server so they can implement one-time use serial keys. Sounds like a really flexible and scalable solution to me. Don't you think so? Rather than centralizing it all on one server that allows for more complex marketing strategy like the trade once (keeping retail out of the equation and getting money in the hands of the people who should have it - the reseller and the developers) Intercommunicating with Microsoft databases that control the USER ACCOUNTS and THEIR CONTENT?


I am not an Xbox fan boy. I _NEVER_ play console games, I am nowhere even near a casual gamer.

[bigbommalaw]

I thing sony made a bad choise on letting gamers pay for gaming online. thats how they lost me so Im staying with a PS3

[[MPGH]Ethereal]

You're late OP.

---------- Post added at 06:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 PM ----------

Yeyeye okay.

I don't know how you guys expect to get games cheaper than $80 when you are forcing developers to give you every license in the book, distribution and CD when all you want is a license to play the game.

This is how steam heavily reduced the prices of their games.

Worked fine in the past. I like the fact that PS4 has given devs the ultimatum.
Either it's business as usual or they can stick to one platform and lose sales.

[[MPGH]arunforce]

Nice selective cherry picking.

Yeah, that's the obstacle, that's it exactly. They're just too stupid and clumsy to organize a sale. I think that is disgustingly over simplifying things. Distribution, licensing, that has nothing to do with it at all. Further, how isn't the difficulty of organizing a sale not categorized under distribution?

LOL, you're saying I'm disgustingly oversimplifying things, then imply that I think distribution and licensing has nothing to do with it? Right on, captain. Licensing is just a gimmick, if you purchase something physically, you have full CONTROL to do what you want to it, buy it, sell it, destroy it, eat it, it's your fucking property. Licensing is just another form of DRM.

What is full licensing control? Is that EA hosting and managing their own server so they can implement one-time use serial keys. Sounds like a really flexible and scalable solution to me. Don't you think so? Rather than centralizing it all on one server that allows for more complex marketing strategy like the trade once (keeping retail out of the equation and getting money in the hands of the people who should have it - the reseller and the developers) Intercommunicating with Microsoft databases that control the USER ACCOUNTS and THEIR CONTENT?

Hosting and managing their own servers is a completely flexible solution, they have complete control over it and how it works. How is it not? They can implement trade once on their own, it's a simple concept with accessing users accounts under an API, they can be restrictive as they want and non-restrictive as they want instead of a one size fits all Microsoft Glove. Oh wait, that only applies to games, when you were crying on MSN about cheap used books or free ebooks, you didn't give a damn about the writers or publishers. But the moment Microsoft says WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET YOU CONTROL YOUR OWN PROPERTY, you're bending over sucking their dick crying about how you're hurting the developers, you hypocrite.

Despite the fact that even when games have implemented licensing controls, prices have remained the same and even gone upward, you still bullshit about how Microsoft is the savior of the gaming industry. The fact is, gaming has been this way since the beginning, and now Microsoft wants to come in and say, no you can't do that, no you can't play your console here, no you can't play without connecting to the internet, no you can't play a used game. Even now, with the internet, thanks to DLC, companies can leave out stuff from release, and drop a day 1 DLC with restrictive DRM licensing that is non-transferrable, and milk out the consumer. Look, they're still not dropping the price![/FONT]

[radnomguywfq3]

Nice selective cherry picking.

I just thought everything else was irrelevant\bullshit after I address the core of each argument.

CONTROL to do what you want to it, buy it, sell it, destroy it, eat it, it's your fucking property. Licensing is just another form of DRM.

Which is exactly the problem. If developers can be more selective on what they sell to you, they can sell for cheaper. How doesn't that make sense to you?

Hosting and managing their own servers is a completely flexible solution, they have complete control over it and how it works. How is it not? They can implement trade once on their own, it's a simple concept with accessing users accounts under an API, they can be restrictive as they want and non-restrictive as they want instead of a one size fits all Microsoft Glove.

It is unarguably a shit solution compared to what Microsoft can offer to developers. You seriously think 100+ publishers should all maintain their own servers to keep their games functional for an undetermined period of time outside of the Microsoft service? With varrying interface APIs that their games use to communicate with it? You are suggesting hundreds of publishers and indie developers re-implement the SAME THING slightly differently, and that is optimal to you? I honestly can't see how you figure this is a good solution.

But the moment Microsoft says WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET YOU CONTROL YOUR OWN PROPERTY

Microsoft is being selective regarding WHAT THEY SELL YOU. It allows developers and users alike a more financially beneficial route.

Despite the fact that even when games have implemented licensing controls, prices have remained the same and even gone upward, you still bullshit about how Microsoft is the savior of the gaming industry.

Except that doesn't make any sense at all. The games library hasn't been developed at all and arguing on the grounds of prices for the current games makes no sense since the distribution model is based on what you argued earlier regarding sales with steam among other more things such as one time trading to detour the retailer.

The fact is, gaming has been this way since the beginning, and now Microsoft wants to come in and say, no you can't do that, no you can't play your console here, no you can't play without connecting to the internet, no you can't play a used game. Even now, with the internet, thanks to DLC, companies can leave out stuff from release, and drop a day 1 DLC with restrictive DRM licensing that is non-transferrable, and milk out the consumer. Look, they're still not dropping the price!

If you don't have a fucking internet connection then the next-gen console isn't for you. Go out an get an xbox 360 or a PS4 if you're away on a business trip. The whole idea of the Xbox was for it to capture the living room, it it isn't a fucking laptop for fat neckbeards to carry around with them.

If all you want to do is play video games, then buys the PS4, but the Xbox One is aiming to be a lot more than just a gaming console. If you don't like that, don't buy it.

*edit*

I KNOW this argument isn't going anywhere. Especially after you suggested publishers maintaining their own servers is more optimal than the console maintaining the DRM for them. This isn't worth my time.

[Drake]

Yeyeye okay.

I don't know how you guys expect to get games cheaper than $80 when you are forcing developers to give you every license in the book, distribution and CD when all you want is a license to play the game.

This is how steam heavily reduced the prices of their games.

That's just plain BS . If they want they can just sell the cheaper "account binding" game copies through their webshop (which would be like steam). and sell the higher priced and reuseable/tradeable copies in game stores like it is now .

[[MPGH]Dave84311]

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

[Auxilium]

Jetamay just loves Microsoft, simple as that.

No company can stay at the top forever. I mean, in 1998, the Sega Dreamcast was the shit. Nothing could compare to it. But they made a mistake which destroyed them, which was there was no DVD drive, like the PS2. And then people bought more PS2 when it came out.

Microsoft has made a mistake that will probably hurt them in a similar way.

[[MPGH]arunforce]

Which is exactly the problem. If developers can be more selective on what they sell to you, they can sell for cheaper. How doesn't that make sense to you?

Yet they haven't. Why is that?

It is unarguably a shit solution compared to what Microsoft can offer to developers. You seriously think 100+ publishers should all maintain their own servers to keep their games functional for an undetermined period of time outside of the Microsoft service? With varrying interface APIs that their games use to communicate with it? You are suggesting hundreds of publishers and indie developers re-implement the SAME THING slightly differently, and that is optimal to you? I honestly can't see how you figure this is a good solution.

They have before, why is it such a sudden problem now? Because Microsoft wants to make 10x easier to shove DRM down our throats so they can make more money? SIGN ME UP, MY ASS IS READY.

Microsoft is being selective regarding WHAT THEY SELL YOU. It allows developers and users alike a more financially beneficial route.

No it doesn't. Everyone (theoretically) in my family has to buy a D3 copy, instead of just one for the entire family, WOOH, so financially beneficial.

Except that doesn't make any sense at all. The games library hasn't been developed at all and arguing on the grounds of prices for the current games makes no sense since the distribution model is based on what you argued earlier regarding sales with steam among other more things such as one time trading to detour the retailer.

Wow.... WOW. It's fucking simple, PS1 Generation, games released around $40, PS2 Gen, $50 dollar games, PS3 Gen, $60 dollar games (DRM fully possible). D3, DRM fully possible, started off at $60 dollars. GAMES RELEASED DAY PRICES HAVE INCREASED EVERY GENERATION, AND STEAM SALES AREN'T RELEASE DAY PRICING.

If you don't have a fucking internet connection then the next-gen console isn't for you. Go out an get an xbox 360 or a PS4 if you're away on a business trip. The whole idea of the Xbox was for it to capture the living room, it it isn't a fucking laptop for fat neckbeards to carry around with them.

If all you want to do is play video games, then buys the PS4, but the Xbox One is aiming to be a lot more than just a gaming console. If you don't like that, don't buy it.

You can have an internet connection, doesn't fucking matter because it only works in 20/200 countries. Next gen consoles are, Xbox isn't. Why get an Xbox at all? Oh yeah, revolutionary, that's why everyone is bashing it. I get to watch the NFL interactively!

No one wants to buy it, yet you keep trying to convince everyone to give up their rights so they can take it up the ass like you do by a company who gives no shits about you.

*edit*

I KNOW this argument isn't going anywhere. Especially after you suggested publishers maintaining their own servers is more optimal than the console maintaining the DRM for them. This isn't worth my time.

LOL, you suggested maintaining your own server is not scalable or flexible, yet now the argument isn't going anywhere? Do you even know what you're saying, obviously not because after I countered you're bullshit you dropped the point and try to imply different things. I have responded to every point you delivered, you just run off and try to bullshit something else when you're slapped in the face... It is more optimal, companies can "fine tune" all the profits they are going to earn by shafting you in the ass and "pass all the savings to consumers" like throughout time, LOL. Many gloves > one glove.

[The amazing]

xbox dosent care