Redmask wrote on Jun 14, 2013, 07:27:

Dev wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 22:10:

Golwar wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 08:56:

Dev wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 00:26:
In the past couple generations there's not really been a clear winner in the console wars. Will there be this time?

Uh? What would you consider the PS2 to be, if not the clear winner for its generation?
Or is your "past couple generations" limited to just the very last generation?

No, I never really saw ps2 being a clear winner over xbox 1. Just my opinion. Like I said, I dislike consoles in general, it would have to be a heck of a difference (such as now) for me to notice or care about and decide one is a winner.

The PS2 sold over 150 million systems, the Xbox 1 sold less than 21 million. How much clearer does it need to be?

The PS3 and Xbox 360 were more equally split but the PS2 trounced the Xbox.

I'll simply assume that Dev was either joking or absolutely clueless about the real numbers.

But maybe he is one of those freaks who always pull that "it's my opinion" card, when simple facts leave them no real option to argue, who knows.

Dev wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 22:10:

Golwar wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 08:56:

Dev wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 00:26:
In the past couple generations there's not really been a clear winner in the console wars. Will there be this time?

Uh? What would you consider the PS2 to be, if not the clear winner for its generation?
Or is your "past couple generations" limited to just the very last generation?

No, I never really saw ps2 being a clear winner over xbox 1. Just my opinion. Like I said, I dislike consoles in general, it would have to be a heck of a difference (such as now) for me to notice or care about and decide one is a winner.

The PS2 sold over 150 million systems, the Xbox 1 sold less than 21 million. How much clearer does it need to be?

The PS3 and Xbox 360 were more equally split but the PS2 trounced the Xbox.

Dev wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 22:10:

Golwar wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 08:56:

Dev wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 00:26:
In the past couple generations there's not really been a clear winner in the console wars. Will there be this time?

Uh? What would you consider the PS2 to be, if not the clear winner for its generation?
Or is your "past couple generations" limited to just the very last generation?

No, I never really saw ps2 being a clear winner over xbox 1. Just my opinion. Like I said, I dislike consoles in general, it would have to be a heck of a difference (such as now) for me to notice or care about and decide one is a winner.

I don't really care one way or the other, but I think the PS2 was probably a clear winner over the Xbox. I think just in sales numbers, not opinion. I could be mistaken though.

EDIT: Looking at Wikipedia it would seem I am not. It lists the PS2 with 155 million sold vs the Xbox's 24 million. I would qualify that as a heck of a difference.

This comment was edited on Jun 13, 2013, 07:48.

Golwar wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 08:56:

Dev wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 00:26:
In the past couple generations there's not really been a clear winner in the console wars. Will there be this time?

Uh? What would you consider the PS2 to be, if not the clear winner for its generation?
Or is your "past couple generations" limited to just the very last generation?

No, I never really saw ps2 being a clear winner over xbox 1. Just my opinion. Like I said, I dislike consoles in general, it would have to be a heck of a difference (such as now) for me to notice or care about and decide one is a winner.

Mr. Tact wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 14:26:
Well, I was assuming it would be in every game, making no difference. :D

Mr. Tact wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 14:14:
Why is there any difference between them doing it in a game or on the OS? There is no reason for either.

/facepalm

NegaDeath wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 14:30:

Beamer wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 14:06:
They really haven't been. They ousted the head of Windows, but he needed to go. Xbox hasn't had huge losses.

Sure there have. This article goes through 33 people who left from 2010-2011, this one is more recent and includes Sinofsky whom you mentioned.

J Allard is the only one that had a true impact on E&D, and I apologize, I really thought he left closer to 2008 than 2010.

The others? This board is typically convinced that "suits" like that only mess things up, right, and that the people below them know things? You're proposing the opposite - that these people alone could have saved Microsoft. Keep in mind, of course, that Microsoft is what it is under their watch, and that someone that left in 2011 still has impact on things announced today.

Truthfully, a company as large as Microsoft losing VPs isn't surprising.

Beamer wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 14:06:
They really haven't been. They ousted the head of Windows, but he needed to go. Xbox hasn't had huge losses.

Sure there have. This article goes through 33 people who left from 2010-2011, this one is more recent and includes Sinofsky whom you mentioned.

Verno wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 14:22:

Why is there any difference between them doing it in a game or on the OS? There is no reason for either

I think there's a big difference, one is forced on you in every game without any choice on your part. The other is a choice you get to make in purchasing individual games. Huge difference.

Well, I was assuming it would be in every game, making no difference.

q[They aren't interested in getting respect from you. They are interested in DRM, an annual $60 subscription fee, and micro transactions.

Well in my case they can't get one without the other Unfortunately for us, there are plenty of others willing to part with their cash much more easily.

Why is there any difference between them doing it in a game or on the OS? There is no reason for either

I think there's a big difference, one is forced on you in every game without any choice on your part. The other is a choice you get to make in purchasing individual games. Huge difference.

q[They aren't interested in getting respect from you. They are interested in DRM, an annual $60 subscription fee, and micro transactions.
Well in my case they can't get one without the other

Verno wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 13:14:

In the case of the cell phone, the cell tower is required for functionality. In the case of XBone, is the internet required for functionality? While we might disagree Microsoft is saying, "Yes, internet connectivity is required for functionality."

*shrug*

I get what you mean but this is flawed logic. Let's say you buy Metal Gear Whatever on both consoles and you disconnect your internet. One system boots you out of the game if you can't reauth, the other does not. They are functionally identical in every respect except one has arbitrary DRM that serves no purpose for the consumer, the other does not.

My logic isn't flawed, Microsoft's approach is. You are preaching to the choir. Yeah, it is stupid. So is the on-line requirement for D3.
*shrug* What is a sane person supposed to do?

People forget that it's a gaming console, not a telephone. If games want to require internet for functionality inside of them fair enough but implementing it in the OS for no reason isn't the same thing. They aren't really doing anyone any favors by being upfront by the way, it would be a huge legal matter if they lied about this stuff or were deceptive about it.

Why is there any difference between them doing it in a game or on the OS? There is no reason for either.

I would respect them more if they said "ok you the customer spoke and we listened, here is our compromise" instead of "go buy a 360". I don't give them a pass for being upfront when their message and design is still retarded.

They aren't interested in getting respect from you. They are interested in DRM, an annual $60 subscription fee, and micro transactions.

NegaDeath wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 13:58:
At the rate MS has been shedding high level employees the last few years there won't be much talent left if they keep it up. I think its fair to say some of their recent, obvious mistakes could be attributed to a brain drain.

Indeed, many of the original creators of the Xbox brand and it's driving success are long gone, the change in direction is pretty apparent and started back in 2010 even.

NegaDeath wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 13:58:

Beamer wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 13:00:
Don Mattrick just saw his MS star severely tarnished. I'm thinking he has a year left there after this.

At the rate MS has been shedding high level employees the last few years there won't be much talent left if they keep it up. I think its fair to say some of their recent, obvious mistakes could be attributed to a brain drain.

They really haven't been. They ousted the head of Windows, but he needed to go.
Xbox hasn't had huge losses.

Beamer wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 13:00:
Don Mattrick just saw his MS star severely tarnished. I'm thinking he has a year left there after this.

At the rate MS has been shedding high level employees the last few years there won't be much talent left if they keep it up. I think its fair to say some of their recent, obvious mistakes could be attributed to a brain drain.

MattyC wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 12:53:

nin wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 09:20:
I would love to have been in on their meetings leading up to and including this week.

While these two polls are totally unscientific (think it was Lorcin who linked that first one?), the fact that both are so totally lopsided, and have been all day yesterday, is a serious red flag for the XBOne. If the public opinion is truly that split, this could very well be an utter disaster of billions of dollars for MS.

This is just an individual example, but I was firmly in the Sony camp until the 360. Most of my friends had a 360 and Sony wasn't really doing anything to keep me so I ended up with a Xbox and was pretty happy with it. This time? I either see myself passing totally on this generation or getting a PS4. I didn't feel that way until the details dropped.

Microsoft really messed up with the Xbox one in my opinion.

I've not owned a PS since the original scratched up my discs and stopped working. Had to send it back twice for service.

This last gen, I've had a 360 for at least 5 years...going PS4 the next (already locked in @ amazon). No desire to go along with MS' horseshit...

In the case of the cell phone, the cell tower is required for functionality. In the case of XBone, is the internet required for functionality? While we might disagree Microsoft is saying, "Yes, internet connectivity is required for functionality."

*shrug*

I get what you mean but this is flawed logic. Let's say you buy Metal Gear Whatever on both consoles and you disconnect your internet. One system boots you out of the game if you can't reauth, the other does not. They are functionally identical in every respect except one has arbitrary DRM that serves no purpose for the consumer, the other does not.

People forget that it's a gaming console, not a telephone. If games want to require internet for functionality inside of them fair enough but implementing it in the OS for no reason isn't the same thing. They aren't really doing anyone any favors by being upfront by the way, it would be a huge legal matter if they lied about this stuff or were deceptive about it.

I would respect them more if they said "ok you the customer spoke and we listened, here is our compromise" instead of "go buy a 360". I don't give them a pass for being upfront when their message and design is still retarded.

This comment was edited on Jun 12, 2013, 13:32.

Verno wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 09:02:
PS1 and PS2 were clear winners. PS3 is where Sony fell into the sort of arrogance and hubris that Microsoft is exhibiting now. Sony appears to have finally learned from their mistakes in most respects, Microsoft is still in the "huh whaddya mean they wont buy whatever we throw at them?!" denial phase.

MS may be beyond what the PS3 was. It's less "this is awesome so you'll pay $600 for it and buy a bigger apartment for it!" and more "we're just going to do things we expect you to accept, and you'll pay $500 for it."

I don't know what they'll do. Cut price? Regroup, change, and delay? Regroup, change, not delay, and release something rushed?

Don Mattrick just saw his MS star severely tarnished. I'm thinking he has a year left there after this.

nin wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 09:20:
I would love to have been in on their meetings leading up to and including this week.

While these two polls are totally unscientific (think it was Lorcin who linked that first one?), the fact that both are so totally lopsided, and have been all day yesterday, is a serious red flag for the XBOne. If the public opinion is truly that split, this could very well be an utter disaster of billions of dollars for MS.

This is just an individual example, but I was firmly in the Sony camp until the 360. Most of my friends had a 360 and Sony wasn't really doing anything to keep me so I ended up with a Xbox and was pretty happy with it. This time? I either see myself passing totally on this generation or getting a PS4. I didn't feel that way until the details dropped.

Microsoft really messed up with the Xbox one in my opinion.

Gamefaqs has done far better polls imho.
http://www.gamefaqs.com/poll/index.html

Since the 8th of June there have been some very interesting polls and results. And I consider Gamefaqs to be rather neutral.

MattyC wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 07:46:

Sepharo wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 00:32:
These are being kicked off youtube left and right by "Viacom"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiUzaqOU06M

Wow... MS seems impossibly unprepared for this announcement. I wonder if they somehow thought Sony was going to do something similar?

I would love to have been in on their meetings leading up to and including this week.

While these two polls are totally unscientific (think it was Lorcin who linked that first one?), the fact that both are so totally lopsided, and have been all day yesterday, is a serious red flag for the XBOne. If the public opinion is truly that split, this could very well be an utter disaster of billions of dollars for MS.