Other sites are doing this, so why not us? Vote away: who ruled this year's E3?
PGD ''Who Won E3 2013?'' Poll
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Sony
The only reason Sony is getting attention is because their marketing people capitalized on the fact a large group of gamers feel entitled to used games, which are arguably worse than piracy.Shiftfallout
lol such bullsh!t
Hermits tell themselves bs like this so they can sleep calmly at night I see
Sony won, if only for the $399 pricetag. Wasnt really expecting. Also, even though it showed less exclusives than the x1, they were still more interesting to me
There is only one logical and plausible answer to this question. Any other answer is laughable.
You know something else? These forums are a goddamn embarrassment. 360 days a year you could wipe your ass with this place and no one would really notice or care, but the one fvcking week we really count on it, it takes a giant, steaming shlt right on our foreheads.Â
[QUOTE="Shiftfallout"] The only reason Sony is getting attention is because their marketing people capitalized on the fact a large group of gamers feel entitled to used games, which are arguably worse than piracy.Vatusus
lol such bullsh!t
Hermits tell themselves bs like this so they can sleep calmly at night I see
Sony won, if only for the $399 pricetag. Wasnt really expecting. Also, even though it showed less exclusives than the x1, they were still more interesting to me
No you tell yourself that so you can feel good when you do something thats harmful to the industry. In the behavioral sciences its called a confirmation bias.
Buying and selling used games IS worse than piracy. This isn not an opinion, its a fact. There is a reason many very well known game developers and those who employ developers have come out to oppose the used game industry. Dont forget games are software and software has a license agreement. You accept that EULA (license agreement) upon running the said software. Most license agreements do not allow the trade or sale of the license without express permission from the license giver.
That said, piracy is made up of non consumers who are mostly in regions where the game is either not sold or insanely overpriced (new zealand for example). North America actually has some of the least amount of game pricy compared to certain parts of Europe, Asia and south america. Now the problem with used games is that they are sold in a localized region. This means the option to buy new exists for that area. The consumer then does exist and is willing to give money to someone who had nothing to do with the development or production of the software. Retailers (and this is a fact you can easily look up) will not restock new titles when they have used on hand. Used games bring them more money. By not restocking or focusing on new titles, the publishers and developers dont get paid, where as the retailer can get paid 5-10 times for one game alone. As a result, some games are more risky than others. Single player titles are not as popular with publishers because they end up on teh used game shelf faster. More mulitplayer games are made to decrease chances of being resold or traded. DLC is created from the beginning as a means to offset the losses faced by used games, and often that DLC content already exists on the game disc you buy. So you have already developed content thats locked until you pay much more for it. Is that pro consumer? I think not. Heavy Rain developers took a huge hit when over a million players bought and or were traded t heir game without paying for it. It was all over used game shelves very quickly. What message does that send to them? That they have to have smaller teams and that they shouldnt make those single player narrative driven stories that can be beaten in a day or two.
Here is a fact. Game retailers fill up more retail space with used games than they do with new and or PC titles. It used to be when you went to a game retailer like BestBuy or GameStop (EB games), you would have a small bin for used games and the rest of the store was all new titles and PC games. Now you are lucky if you see even 20% of the store dedicated to displaying and selling new games, much less PC games. You can barely find PC games new anymore. You have to buy from Steam or online sources.
So in short, you have no idea what you are talking about. If you think used games are good for the industry, and if you think publishers and developers are over reacting, then you are the problem. You cant have games without the people who make it. People who work 10 plus hours a day after learning a highly technical skill set and rarely get quality family time to make the products you feel entitled to. They are hurting the most. Maybe you want them all to go to Singapore or China where the cost of living is lower? Used games are far far worse than piracy and the cannibalizing of games via this recently developed industry is a serious problem. It is why the xbox one focused on limiting used games. Publishers and developers needed the used game exploitation to stop and for sony to turn around and embrace the used game market at E3 says they were thinking in terms of marketing potential, not financial potential. It will hurt them in the end, and it will hurt you the consumer when they have to find ways to off set their losses.
-Sincerely a game artist.
Sony 'won' but I dislike their approach. And E3 hasn't always been a great indicator of anything.
One company will offer a big mac and one will offer a whopper, so to speak, but there's a reason both are around.
Sony, easily.
PC gaming. The only reason Sony is getting attention is because their marketing people capitalized on the fact a large group of gamers feel entitled to used games, which are arguably worse than piracy. Sony has not only chosen to take a bigger hit on selling their consoles (for a loss) but also for hurting their own game profits and development studios. Third party publishers will not be happy with Sony since they hurt the most from the used game problem. Sony on the other hand can try to milk back lost profit via services and other market place sales (movies, tv and music). So PC gaming won this round and it many of you will feel it even more when steam starts hitting that tv screen gaming market with their console.ShiftfalloutNo it's not. Consumers have the right when they bought a copy for a console. It's been this way for over 30 years. It's bs to block it
Sony. They killed it. They murdered MS. MS are officially shooting themselves in the foot over everything now. I don't care how impressive some of those games on XBox One looked, Sony has everything else handled correctly. To tell me that MS is doing good is to live in a world of denial. They need to clean up their act now or they are screwed for a long time.
They really are. If they don't come out and scrap the 24-hour check-in, or the used game situation they're screwed BIG time. Especially with their focus on shoving cloud gaming down our throats.Sony. They killed it. They murdered MS. MS are officially shooting themselves in the foot over everything now. I don't care how impressive some of those games on XBox One looked, Sony has everything else handled correctly. To tell me that MS is doing good is to live in a world of denial. They need to clean up their act now or they are screwed for a long time.
Metamania
PC gaming. The only reason Sony is getting attention is because their marketing people capitalized on the fact a large group of gamers feel entitled to used games, which are arguably worse than piracy. Sony has not only chosen to take a bigger hit on selling their consoles (for a loss) but also for hurting their own game profits and development studios. Third party publishers will not be happy with Sony since they hurt the most from the used game problem. Sony on the other hand can try to milk back lost profit via services and other market place sales (movies, tv and music). So PC gaming won this round and it many of you will feel it even more when steam starts hitting that tv screen gaming market with their console.ShiftfalloutThe mass amount of BS you passionately spewed is amazing. Such rare a talent. Please stay away from nonsensical comments like used games worse than piracy.
[QUOTE="Shiftfallout"]PC gaming. The only reason Sony is getting attention is because their marketing people capitalized on the fact a large group of gamers feel entitled to used games, which are arguably worse than piracy. Sony has not only chosen to take a bigger hit on selling their consoles (for a loss) but also for hurting their own game profits and development studios. Third party publishers will not be happy with Sony since they hurt the most from the used game problem. Sony on the other hand can try to milk back lost profit via services and other market place sales (movies, tv and music). So PC gaming won this round and it many of you will feel it even more when steam starts hitting that tv screen gaming market with their console.The_Last_RideNo it's not. Consumers have the right when they bought a copy for a console. It's been this way for over 30 years. It's bs to block it No its not the same as it has been over the last 20+ years. Whats changed is both consumer buying habits and retailers building their primary revenue stream around used games. Where before you were lucky to find a retailer selling used games, now used games take up over 70% of the retail space in a store. Games cost more to make than they did previously as well. So you would be fool if you think its even remotely the same as it was years ago. Buying, selling and trading used games is factually worse than piracy. It not only damages the industry but has what some would consider severe anti-consumer effects, such as missing content in the form of DLC, nickle and diming of services, and less interest in developing games single player games and those with artistic undertones such as Heavy Rain (which took a huge hit due to used games). Games are not cinema where you watch it once and then toss it off to someone else... games are software. If you know the difference you will understand why software is based around license agreements, not ownership. You will never own a game, only the right to run it as software. But hey, if you want to keep damaging the industry and hurting the developers who make games while pretending you are doing something good, then go for it. It just means that you are the greedy one, not the publishers.
[QUOTE="Shiftfallout"]PC gaming. The only reason Sony is getting attention is because their marketing people capitalized on the fact a large group of gamers feel entitled to used games, which are arguably worse than piracy. Sony has not only chosen to take a bigger hit on selling their consoles (for a loss) but also for hurting their own game profits and development studios. Third party publishers will not be happy with Sony since they hurt the most from the used game problem. Sony on the other hand can try to milk back lost profit via services and other market place sales (movies, tv and music). So PC gaming won this round and it many of you will feel it even more when steam starts hitting that tv screen gaming market with their console.PedroThe mass amount of BS you passionately spewed is amazing. Such rare a talent. Please stay away from nonsensical comments like used games worse than piracy.
Â
Its BS because you dont want to believe it? Quite a confirmation bias you have there. Just because theres inconvenient information doesnt make it false.
It is a fact, the used game industry is worse than piracy. The numbers show this, the developers continuously state this, logic should make it self evident. Pirates are not consumers and most piracy occurs in where? Regions in which the games are not readily available for purchase. So no serious losses occur. ON the flip side, used games exist in regions where games ARE readily available for purchase, and by puchasing a used game you are making the statement that you are a consumer. So by giving money to someone else who has nothing to do with the games development, a third party, you making the statement that you are willing to spend money but not give it to the people who made it or contributing to their success. It is far worse to be buying used than it is to pirate, because you also send the message that the third parties can get away with it and build up the industry that cannibalizes and exploits games put out by developers and or their publishers. You have no moral ground, none at all. It may be inconvenient to you because its never occured to you how bad it is, but that doesnt change any of the objective information taking place.
The mass amount of BS you passionately spewed is amazing. Such rare a talent. Please stay away from nonsensical comments like used games worse than piracy.[QUOTE="Pedro"][QUOTE="Shiftfallout"]PC gaming. The only reason Sony is getting attention is because their marketing people capitalized on the fact a large group of gamers feel entitled to used games, which are arguably worse than piracy. Sony has not only chosen to take a bigger hit on selling their consoles (for a loss) but also for hurting their own game profits and development studios. Third party publishers will not be happy with Sony since they hurt the most from the used game problem. Sony on the other hand can try to milk back lost profit via services and other market place sales (movies, tv and music). So PC gaming won this round and it many of you will feel it even more when steam starts hitting that tv screen gaming market with their console.Shiftfallout
Â
Its BS because you dont want to believe it? Quite a confirmation bias you have there. Just because theres inconvenient information doesnt make it false.
It is a fact, the used game industry is worse than piracy. The numbers show this, the developers continuously state this, logic should make it self evident. Pirates are not consumers and most piracy occurs in where? Regions in which the games are not readily available for purchase. So no serious losses occur. ON the flip side, used games exist in regions where games ARE readily available for purchase, and by puchasing a used game you are making the statement that you are a consumer. So by giving money to someone else who has nothing to do with the games development, a third party, you making the statement that you are willing to spend money but not give it to the people who made it or contributing to their success. It is far worse to be buying used than it is to pirate, because you also send the message that the third parties can get away with it and build up the industry that cannibalizes and exploits games put out by developers and or their publishers. You have no moral ground, none at all. It may be inconvenient to you because its never occured to you how bad it is, but that doesnt change any of the objective information taking place.
ÂIts BS because you dont want to believe it? Quite a confirmation bias you have there. Just because theres inconvenient information doesnt make it false.
It is a fact, the used game industry is worse than piracy. The numbers show this, the developers continuously state this, logic should make it self evident. Pirates are not consumers and most piracy occurs in where? Regions in which the games are not readily available for purchase. So no serious losses occur. ON the flip side, used games exist in regions where games ARE readily available for purchase, and by puchasing a used game you are making the statement that you are a consumer. So by giving money to someone else who has nothing to do with the games development, a third party, you making the statement that you are willing to spend money but not give it to the people who made it or contributing to their success. It is far worse to be buying used than it is to pirate, because you also send the message that the third parties can get away with it and build up the industry that cannibalizes and exploits games put out by developers and or their publishers. You have no moral ground, none at all. It may be inconvenient to you because its never occured to you how bad it is, but that doesnt change any of the objective information taking place.Shiftfallout
Its not a fact because you state or make the claim. So stop stating it as one. Here are some facts. Used games are ONLY possible because of the purchase of new games. Used games are ONLY available when the gamer resells the game which is LEGAL. Used games ALWAYS limits usage to one person piracy does not. The amount of illegal copies that can be made with piracy is infinite. Used games are not unlimited because the game is limited by its physical use. Used games don't exist until a game has run its course. If any developer is making a game in which the consumer DOES NOT want to keep it is the DEVELOPERS faults not the consumer. The consumer has the LEGAL right to sell/transfer the license of a game just like any other medium. Games are not special in that regards. No one owns copyright content unless you are the creator or purchasee of that content and the purchase of games, movies and music etc. does not facilitate such. The dev/publisher was already paid for the game. There is not further transactional benefit that is needed or their side. Â The consumer has the rite to transfer or sell license to play or use the game to anyone. I don't owe the devs or publisher anything if I decide to give a game to a friend or sell it to a friend. Such entitlement is absurd and DOES NOT EXIST in any other medium.Â
If anything devs/publishers are mis-managing their resources with bloated budgets with no realistic or logical return on investment and is now blaming gamers and used games for their severe mis-management. Its terribly unfortunate but they are to blame not the consumer or used games.
Just because Sony knifed MS in the kidneys doesn't automatically mean they won. Aside from the "we're not scumbags like MS" argument, I still think Xbox put on a better show, showed better games.Sony. They killed it. They murdered MS. MS are officially shooting themselves in the foot over everything now. I don't care how impressive some of those games on XBox One looked, Sony has everything else handled correctly. To tell me that MS is doing good is to live in a world of denial. They need to clean up their act now or they are screwed for a long time.
Metamania
[QUOTE="The_Last_Ride"][QUOTE="Shiftfallout"]PC gaming. The only reason Sony is getting attention is because their marketing people capitalized on the fact a large group of gamers feel entitled to used games, which are arguably worse than piracy. Sony has not only chosen to take a bigger hit on selling their consoles (for a loss) but also for hurting their own game profits and development studios. Third party publishers will not be happy with Sony since they hurt the most from the used game problem. Sony on the other hand can try to milk back lost profit via services and other market place sales (movies, tv and music). So PC gaming won this round and it many of you will feel it even more when steam starts hitting that tv screen gaming market with their console.ShiftfalloutNo it's not. Consumers have the right when they bought a copy for a console. It's been this way for over 30 years. It's bs to block it No its not the same as it has been over the last 20+ years. Whats changed is both consumer buying habits and retailers building their primary revenue stream around used games. Where before you were lucky to find a retailer selling used games, now used games take up over 70% of the retail space in a store. Games cost more to make than they did previously as well. So you would be fool if you think its even remotely the same as it was years ago. Buying, selling and trading used games is factually worse than piracy. It not only damages the industry but has what some would consider severe anti-consumer effects, such as missing content in the form of DLC, nickle and diming of services, and less interest in developing games single player games and those with artistic undertones such as Heavy Rain (which took a huge hit due to used games). Games are not cinema where you watch it once and then toss it off to someone else... games are software. If you know the difference you will understand why software is based around license agreements, not ownership. You will never own a game, only the right to run it as software. But hey, if you want to keep damaging the industry and hurting the developers who make games while pretending you are doing something good, then go for it. It just means that you are the greedy one, not the publishers. I'm sorry, but my rights as a consumer are more important to me that a BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY's bottom line. And besides, how many people take advantage of Gamestop promotions like '+50% trade in value when you apply your trades to a preorder for X upcoming game'? How many people just sit and wait for Gamestop to throw out a deal like that since their trade values are naturally so low? I know I do. I may buy a used game here or there, but more often I set up a preorder for a game I know I'm going to buy and pay it off piecemeal until launch. I only trade in used games once or twice a year when I can stack trade in bonuses to get upwards of +70%, and that usually involves waiting for one of those preorder deals. tl,dr: Used game trade ins help drive new game sales.
 There are more games in the store because there are more games. People's habbits haven't changed at all. Just look at Tomb Raider, it sold 5 million and that wasn't enough. There are more games than ever. Publishers are doing online passes, microtransactions and dlc to get more money. It's supply and demand like any other business. THQ went under because they couldn't find an audience. It's as simple as that. Publisher can't just make bigger and bigger games. They need to do great games and spend moneywisely. Don't freaking blame used games
Just because Sony knifed MS in the kidneys doesn't automatically mean they won. Aside from the "we're not scumbags like MS" argument, I still think Xbox put on a better show, showed better games.El_Zo1212o
Listen they could have at the very least romantically kiss and caress me while stabbing me in the kidneys. Is that too much to ask? :D
[QUOTE="Metamania"]Just because Sony knifed MS in the kidneys doesn't automatically mean they won. Aside from the "we're not scumbags like MS" argument, I still think Xbox put on a better show, showed better games.Sony. They killed it. They murdered MS. MS are officially shooting themselves in the foot over everything now. I don't care how impressive some of those games on XBox One looked, Sony has everything else handled correctly. To tell me that MS is doing good is to live in a world of denial. They need to clean up their act now or they are screwed for a long time.
El_Zo1212o
I'm not sure about better games, but I think they won the gaming aspect of it in showing more games. But when it comes to everything else, Sony DID win there and it's bringing a lot of people over to the Sony side now and also making people wait to get an XBox One sometime down the road after a year or two, like me. Sure, games like Titanfall and Killer Instinct 3 would have been possibly enough for me to say "Yeah, I could easily get those two games on launch with the XBox One (Ryse would have been a third title to pick up as well on launch)," but it just isn't enough at this point. BTW, Titanfall needs to land on the PS4. That's the only way I'll be able to play that one. :P
Just because Sony knifed MS in the kidneys doesn't automatically mean they won. Aside from the "we're not scumbags like MS" argument, I still think Xbox put on a better show, showed better games.[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="Metamania"]
Sony. They killed it. They murdered MS. MS are officially shooting themselves in the foot over everything now. I don't care how impressive some of those games on XBox One looked, Sony has everything else handled correctly. To tell me that MS is doing good is to live in a world of denial. They need to clean up their act now or they are screwed for a long time.
Metamania
I'm not sure about better games, but I think they won the gaming aspect of it in showing more games. But when it comes to everything else, Sony DID win there and it's bringing a lot of people over to the Sony side now and also making people wait to get an XBox One sometime down the road after a year or two, like me. Sure, games like Titanfall and Killer Instinct 3 would have been possibly enough for me to say "Yeah, I could easily get those two games on launch with the XBox One (Ryse would have been a third title to pick up as well on launch)," but it just isn't enough at this point. BTW, Titanfall needs to land on the PS4. That's the only way I'll be able to play that one. :P
the biggest two games at the MS conference were, I thought, Ryse and that smartglass world creator game. Ryse looked like Arkham combat crossed with massive battles and roman soldiers. As a melee action game, I can't imagine anything better. That other game(project spark, I think it was called) just looked like Little Big Planet, except awesome.[the biggest two games at the MS conference were, I thought, Ryse and that smartglass world creator game. Ryse looked like Arkham combat crossed with massive battles and roman soldiers. As a melee action game, I can't imagine anything better. That other game(project spark, I think it was called) just looked like Little Big Planet, except awesome.El_Zo1212o
Ryse certainly looked great, but the combat looked boring as fvck. I don't think it compared favorably to Arkham at all.
Project Spark looked really amazing. It reminded me a lot of Dark Cloud, but reimagined.
StuffShiftfallout
Defending developers' interests on a gaming forum is heresy. Something something, billion dollar industry, something something, the customer is the only one that matters, something something publishers are just greedy ;)
We should definitely not worry about the health of the industry. It's not like a bunch of studios close shop every year! And anyway, we don't want a healthy game industry. Only those evil, greedy publishers would benefit from that.
[QUOTE="Shiftfallout"]StuffReddestSkies
Defending developers' interests on a gaming forum is heresy. Something something, billion dollar industry, something something, the customer is the only one that matters, something something publishers are just greedy ;)
We should definitely not worry about the health of the industry. It's not like a bunch of studios close shop every year! And anyway, we don't want a healthy game industry. Only those evil, greedy publishers would benefit from that.
Developers will still make a ton of money, provided their game is decent in quality. The customer really IS the only one that matters at the end of the day, considering that's exactly where the funding comes from to run their development teams. They know this, and adapt to consumer demands. If you bend over to the whole "DRM is fiiiine, and I don't really care about used games anyway" mentality, you're only going to be voting for that system. However, Sony has proven (and taken an apparent stance) that this ISN'T what consumers want, and they're delivering on that. The health of the industry is fine. As long as there is a demand, there will be development teams there to fill it. In fact, because of services like Greenlight and Kickstarter, I would go as far as saying that the game industry is entering a new age of prosperity; where development teams are going to have complete creative control over their products.[QUOTE="Shiftfallout"]StuffReddestSkies
Defending developers' interests on a gaming forum is heresy. Something something, billion dollar industry, something something, the customer is the only one that matters, something something publishers are just greedy ;)
We should definitely not worry about the health of the industry. It's not like a bunch of studios close shop every year! And anyway, we don't want a healthy game industry. Only those evil, greedy publishers would benefit from that.
Snarky reply noted. But keep in mind that development house closures more often than not are done by publishers who bought out said developers, ran their product into the ground and then closed the shop after two "failed" attempts.[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"][QUOTE="Shiftfallout"]StuffchrisrooR
Defending developers' interests on a gaming forum is heresy. Something something, billion dollar industry, something something, the customer is the only one that matters, something something publishers are just greedy ;)
We should definitely not worry about the health of the industry. It's not like a bunch of studios close shop every year! And anyway, we don't want a healthy game industry. Only those evil, greedy publishers would benefit from that.
Developers will still make a ton of money, provided their game is decent in quality. The customer really IS the only one that matters at the end of the day, considering that's exactly where the funding comes from to run their development teams. They know this, and adapt to consumer demands. If you bend over to the whole "DRM is fiiiine, and I don't really care about used games anyway" mentality, you're only going to be voting for that system. However, Sony has proven (and taken an apparent stance) that this ISN'T what consumers want, and they're delivering on that. The health of the industry is fine. As long as there is a demand, there will be development teams there to fill it. In fact, because of services like Greenlight and Kickstarter, I would go as far as saying that the game industry is entering a new age of prosperity; where development teams are going to have complete creative control over their products.Oh I definitely think that Microsoft is doing it wrong, and that the status quo is better than what they're doing. But this whole "screw developers, I bought this piece of plastic with a game on it, I get to do whatever I want with it! And they have enough money anyway!" mentality that gamers in general have is not very far from pirate mentality.Â
I think that there is room to question the health of the industry. I mean, clearly there won't be a crash or anything major. But when I go to any video game store in my area, and am encouraged to not buy new games (and buy used instead, to save $5, and then trade them back in), I can't help but to think that there is room for improvement, that there is a lot of money that is spent on games that never reaches developers.
[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"][QUOTE="Shiftfallout"]StuffEl_Zo1212o
Defending developers' interests on a gaming forum is heresy. Something something, billion dollar industry, something something, the customer is the only one that matters, something something publishers are just greedy ;)
We should definitely not worry about the health of the industry. It's not like a bunch of studios close shop every year! And anyway, we don't want a healthy game industry. Only those evil, greedy publishers would benefit from that.
Snarky reply noted. But keep in mind that development house closures more often than not are done by publishers who bought out said developers, ran their product into the ground and then closed the shop after two "failed" attempts.Yea, I know, publishers are evil. I was at a restaurant once, and at the table next to mine there were a bunch of Ubisoft executives. They threw a fit when they learned that there were no babies on the menu, and left.
^ And even though MS might have showed off better exclusives Titan is on the PC and Sony is still releasing great games on the PS3, those devs still haven't turned their attention to the PS4 and with their support of indie developers they are sure to end up with much more and better exclusives in the long run.Sony. They killed it. They murdered MS. MS are officially shooting themselves in the foot over everything now. I don't care how impressive some of those games on XBox One looked, Sony has everything else handled correctly. To tell me that MS is doing good is to live in a world of denial. They need to clean up their act now or they are screwed for a long time.
Metamania
[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="ReddestSkies"] Snarky reply noted. But keep in mind that development house closures more often than not are done by publishers who bought out said developers, ran their product into the ground and then closed the shop after two "failed" attempts.ReddestSkies
Yea, I know, publishers are evil. I was at a restaurant once, and at the table next to mine there were a bunch of EA executives. They threw a fit when they learned that there were no babies on the menu, and left.
Fixed.It was a tie. Microsoft won it with the games while Sony won it with the PR. Nintendo had some good games which I'll no doubt enjoy but nothing really new and nothing that really jumped out and grabbed. Also no Wii U price-cut was disappointing.Archangel3371Agreed on Sony vs MS. The only thing about the e3 N Direct was that the 3rd parties hardly got more than a montage. I suppose it is NINTENDO Direct, but still- if I don't get some Arkham Blackgate gameplay soon, my head may just explode.
Nintendo were at E3? :p
Seriously though Sony won by a country mile.
[QUOTE="Metamania"]Just because Sony knifed MS in the kidneys doesn't automatically mean they won...Sony. They killed it. They murdered MS. MS are officially shooting themselves in the foot over everything now. I don't care how impressive some of those games on XBox One looked, Sony has everything else handled correctly. To tell me that MS is doing good is to live in a world of denial. They need to clean up their act now or they are screwed for a long time.
El_Zo1212o
Agreed. All the stuff that we on forums like this think is a big deal? How many average consumers will know or care about it? How many of them will walk right into walmart and get themselves an X1 for no other reason than it's MS's new console? I remember way back when N64 was announced, a guy coming into EB and mistaking an SNES for an N64 and trying to buy it. People hear about the new console and just decide to buy it because it's the new console, not even knowing what it looks like, let alone anything about DRM policies, etc.
The only real victory Sony had here was the pricepoint. But even that, how many will just assume they're getting more with the X1? It helps that Sony's going to be able to use KZ to sell PS4's right out of the gate.
Just because Sony knifed MS in the kidneys doesn't automatically mean they won. Aside from the "we're not scumbags like MS" argument, I still think Xbox put on a better show, showed better games.[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="Metamania"]
Sony. They killed it. They murdered MS. MS are officially shooting themselves in the foot over everything now. I don't care how impressive some of those games on XBox One looked, Sony has everything else handled correctly. To tell me that MS is doing good is to live in a world of denial. They need to clean up their act now or they are screwed for a long time.
Metamania
I'm not sure about better games, but I think they won the gaming aspect of it in showing more games. But when it comes to everything else, Sony DID win there and it's bringing a lot of people over to the Sony side now and also making people wait to get an XBox One sometime down the road after a year or two, like me. Sure, games like Titanfall and Killer Instinct 3 would have been possibly enough for me to say "Yeah, I could easily get those two games on launch with the XBox One (Ryse would have been a third title to pick up as well on launch)," but it just isn't enough at this point. BTW, Titanfall needs to land on the PS4. That's the only way I'll be able to play that one. :P
Destiny, Kingdom Hearts 3, Final Fantasy 15, Watch Dogs gameplay, etc made it better alone. With them revealing used games and no DRM is just icing on the cakeEasy to say,
SONY!
Just because Sony knifed MS in the kidneys doesn't automatically mean they won...[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="Metamania"]
Sony. They killed it. They murdered MS. MS are officially shooting themselves in the foot over everything now. I don't care how impressive some of those games on XBox One looked, Sony has everything else handled correctly. To tell me that MS is doing good is to live in a world of denial. They need to clean up their act now or they are screwed for a long time.
Ish_basic
Â
Agreed. All the stuff that we on forums like this think is a big deal? How many average consumers will know or care about it? How many of them will walk right into walmart and get themselves an X1 for no other reason than it's MS's new console? I remember way back when N64 was announced, a guy coming into EB and mistaking an SNES for an N64 and trying to buy it. People hear about the new console and just decide to buy it because it's the new console, not even knowing what it looks like, let alone anything about DRM policies, etc.
They may not care about the DRM, but there are a few things even the most ignorant consumer cares about. Things like a $500 price-tag when there's a $400 and $350 system also on the market. Things like taking their Xbox One back to the store because they discovered they can't even play the console due to having crappy/no home internet.Name-brand recognition isn't the end-all be-all determining factor of sales. If it was, the Wii-U would be flying off store shelves right now, and the PS3 wouldn't have struggled to sell as bad as it did in the first half of the generation. Right now, what Microsoft has been saying and acting about the Xbox One is eerily similar to Sony before the PS3 launch, and we all know how that turned out. If things keep going the same way for them, not even the average consumers will be there to bail them out.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment