Everybody that complained about the Xbone shot themselves in the foot and all...

...because of their stupid loyalty to an intangible brand.

Let me explain why: 

The Xbone was trying to move the console market in a new direction.  The focus wasn't going to be all about games but TV, multimedia and kinect in equal measure.  They were going to push people to an always online system with much more DD, cloud integration and new ways to store/share/buy digital content as well as new ways to control the interface.

The PS4 meanwhile was focusing much more on being a traditional games machine with secondary multimedia features.  No always online, cloud as an afterthought and more disk based media than DD. A safe bet with broad appeal (not a bad thing just a safe thing).

Considering that, approximately, 98% + of all games released this generation on console will be multi-platform, purchasers of either an Xbone or a PS4 are going to be playing almost identical games in an almost identical way almost all of the time.

Now before MS made their 180 you would have had a choice of two quite different consoles to buy.  Both would have basically the same games but one would have a very different set of non-game features to the other.  You can also do some quite interesting things with the few exclusive games you do get if the developers know beforehand that everyone playing will, for certain, be connected to the internet and have full voice and gesture recognition.

There may have been a point to owning both of them.

Now you have the SameBoxOne and the PlaySametion 4 (bad names but you get the point).  They literally are the same damn console.  You buy one, you play basically the same games, in the same way with similar controllers in a similar fashion.  You get no new features from being always online and you get no new features from an always on kinect.

People want exclusives for consoles, this was the point in owning one vs the other.  Microsoft tried to bring in features that devs could have used to show people the benefits of always online or gesture control etc.  Sony went for more graphical grunt with less restriction on who will be able to use it, at the cost of being able to add a raft of new features to games.

Now you just have the choice of a logo and a name.  If no one would have complained then Sony would have their style of console and Microsoft would have theirs, people would either have adapted and loved the Xbone features or hated and reviled them but they would have been different and you still would have had the choice to buy the one that suited you the best.

I'm mostly a PC gamer so I suppose it doesn't matter much to me in the end.  It just seems a shame that instead of an interesting gen, the crossover between always online and not (which WILL happen), with two consoles fighting over a common and yet somewhat different ground, we will have two sameboxes with the odd exclusive with limited new features. Homogenisation is not a good thing in the games industry.

This thread doesnt work without a TL;DR version.campzor

Even if it doesn't he's got some great points and he's right. Now They're basically the same consoles with a different brand attached to it. They were very unique compared to each other, and even compared to the WiiU before MS back peddled. 

I REALLY WISH that things had gone your way TC. Then Xbone would have been a complete failure instead of hanging on by a thread like it is now.

98% of all next gen games are going to be multiplatform?

You just made that up.

That's where I stopped reading.

I REALLY WISH that things had gone your way TC. Then Xbone would have been a complete failure instead of hanging on by a thread like it is now.

Videodogg

That's what I was hoping for as well. No hate for M$ or Xbox but just the idea of what it was trying to do.

...because of their stupid loyalty to an intangible brand.

Let me explain why: 

The Xbone was trying to move the console market in a new direction.  The focus wasn't going to be all about games but TV, multimedia and kinect in equal measure.  They were going to push people to an always online system with much more DD, cloud integration and new ways to store/share/buy digital content as well as new ways to control the interface.

The PS4 meanwhile was focusing much more on being a traditional games machine with secondary multimedia features.  No always online, cloud as an afterthought and more disk based media than DD. A safe bet with broad appeal (not a bad thing just a safe thing).

Considering that, approximately, 98% + of all games released this generation on console will be multi-platform, purchasers of either an Xbone or a PS4 are going to be playing almost identical games in an almost identical way almost all of the time.

Now before MS made their 180 you would have had a choice of two quite different consoles to buy.  Both would have basically the same games but one would have a very different set of non-game features to the other.  You can also do some quite interesting things with the few exclusive games you do get if the developers know beforehand that everyone playing will, for certain, be connected to the internet and have full voice and gesture recognition.

There may have been a point to owning both of them.

Now you have the SameBoxOne and the PlaySametion 4 (bad names but you get the point).  They literally are the same damn console.  You buy one, you play basically the same games, in the same way with similar controllers in a similar fashion.  You get no new features from being always online and you get no new features from an always on kinect.

People want exclusives for consoles, this was the point in owning one vs the other.  Microsoft tried to bring in features that devs could have used to show people the benefits of always online or gesture control etc.  Sony went for more graphical grunt with less restriction on who will be able to use it, at the cost of being able to add a raft of new features to games.

Now you just have the choice of a logo and a name.  If no one would have complained then Sony would have their style of console and Microsoft would have theirs, people would either have adapted and loved the Xbone features or hated and reviled them but they would have been different and you still would have had the choice to buy the one that suited you the best.

I'm mostly a PC gamer so I suppose it doesn't matter much to me in the end.  It just seems a shame that instead of an interesting gen, the crossover between always online and not (which WILL happen), with two consoles fighting over a common and yet somewhat different ground, we will have two sameboxes with the odd exclusive with limited new features. Homogenisation is not a good thing in the games industry.

 

 

1080pOnly

They were going to alienate a good margin of their consumer base with that policy. Innovation at the cost accessability? Nah.

Your first affirmation destroys your whole argument:

You said people complained because of loyalty to a brand.

Yet, the immense backlash came from gamers of all niches. Even loyal 360 players were very sound about the subject.

MS didn't have a visionary ambition. It had economical ambitions, to increase profitability per user. People forget family share wasn't the original plan, and was the first compromise on their initial restrictive policies to try and diminish damages. But you can be sure that, if people bought into that plan, the sharing limit would be constantly decreased until the initial proposed policy was achieved. It was just a soft implementation of the same DRM.

The proof that that's the truth is that they still can implement family share while maintaining all current gen policies. Not that "same console sharing", but the actual E3 announced "family share" up to 10 accounts.

If they're visionary, and wants us to have a different and better gaming experience, why don't they just implement that already? It would certainly help compensate the $100 price gap.

I'll tell you why: because then, without all the other restrictive policies (mandatory online checks, restrictive resale system of physical games (only allowed with "partnered retailers"), etc) it won't serve as DRM.

Gamers complained, it wasn't just cows, just sheep or hermits. Almost everyone complained, lemmings as well, because the policies were obviously anti-consumer.

Your first affirmation destroys your whole argument:

You said people complained because of loyalty to a brand.

Yet, the immense backlash came from gamers of all niches. Even loyal 360 players were very sound about the subject.

MS didn't have a visionary ambition. It had economical ambitions, to increase profitability per user. People forget family share wasn't the original plan, and was the first compromise on their initial restrictive policies to try and diminish damages. But you can be sure that, if people bought into that plan, the sharing limit would be constantly decreased until the initial proposed policy was achieved. It was just a soft implementation of the same DRM.

The proof that that's the truth is that they still can implement family share while maintaining all current gen policies. Not that "same console sharing", but the actual E3 announced "family share" up to 10 accounts.

If they're visionary, and wants us to have a different and better gaming experience, why don't they just implement that already? It would certainly help compensate the $100 price gap.

I'll tell you why: because then, without all the other restrictive policies (mandatory online checks, restrictive resale system of physical games (only allowed with "partnered retailers"), etc) it won't serve as DRM.

Gamers complained, it wasn't just cows, just sheep or hermits. Almost everyone complained, lemmings as well, because the policies were obviously anti-consumer.

SambaLele

Well they did, the loyal xbots complained about used games, always online 'drm' and the PSFans then just helped re-inforced the idea.  Both did it out of brand loyalty.  One did it because they didn't want to see it fail and the other just to ridicule a company and try to throw them off course.

The problem is that no one has actually used or lived with the features.  They don't yet understand the benefits, they only see the negatives.  I think MS will lose exactly because they bowed to pressure and because their console is now just a PS4 but not quite as powerful.  Sometimes you have to go against public pressure in order to progress, the masses don't always know what is good for them.

This thread doesnt work without a TL;DR version.campzor

Sorry but sometimes an argument needs a little framing.  I can understand that you don't have the patience to read it but equally the thread probably won't suffer from the lack of your comments

The Xbone was trying to move the console market in a new direction.  The focus wasn't going to be all about games but TV, multimedia and kinect in equal measure.  They were going to push people to an always online system with much more DD, cloud integration and new ways to store/share/buy digital content as well as new ways to control the interface.1080pOnly

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

Your first affirmation destroys your whole argument:

You said people complained because of loyalty to a brand.

Yet, the immense backlash came from gamers of all niches. Even loyal 360 players were very sound about the subject.

MS didn't have a visionary ambition. It had economical ambitions, to increase profitability per user. People forget family share wasn't the original plan, and was the first compromise on their initial restrictive policies to try and diminish damages. But you can be sure that, if people bought into that plan, the sharing limit would be constantly decreased until the initial proposed policy was achieved. It was just a soft implementation of the same DRM.

The proof that that's the truth is that they still can implement family share while maintaining all current gen policies. Not that "same console sharing", but the actual E3 announced "family share" up to 10 accounts.

If they're visionary, and wants us to have a different and better gaming experience, why don't they just implement that already? It would certainly help compensate the $100 price gap.

I'll tell you why: because then, without all the other restrictive policies (mandatory online checks, restrictive resale system of physical games (only allowed with "partnered retailers"), etc) it won't serve as DRM.

Gamers complained, it wasn't just cows, just sheep or hermits. Almost everyone complained, lemmings as well, because the policies were obviously anti-consumer.

1080pOnly

Well they did, the loyal xbots complained about used games, always online 'drm' and the PSFans then just helped re-inforced the idea.  Both did it out of brand loyalty.  One did it because they didn't want to see it fail and the other just to ridicule a company and try to throw them off course.

The problem is that no one has actually used or lived with the features.  They don't yet understand the benefits, they only see the negatives.  I think MS will lose exactly because they bowed to pressure and because their console is now just a PS4 but not quite as powerful.  Sometimes you have to go against public pressure in order to progress, the masses don't always know what is good for them.

That's an absolutely absurd assumption from your part.

You're over-simplifying the biggest consumer backlash in gaming by blaming fanboys for it ("xbots", "PSFans"), and giving them a hive-mind objective, which still can't reasonably be enough to justify a 4 to 1 difference in pre-orders (and these numbers are after the backtracking on the worst policies).

Not only that, but you still gave no answer to the main point I made:

If MS is a visionary and wants gaming to go in a new direction, why not implement the good sides of their policies, without the part that's draconian?

Are you implying that they can't implement family share while still having a healthy used games market?

Or is that kind of practice only good if you take a numbers of rights from people?

Also, if the masses don't always know what is good for them (which is a known Stalinist argument), why didn't they face the pressure and insist with the product? They wouldn't be the first to do so.

Given these answers to what you said, don't avoid my arguments in your next response.

I can see where you're shooting, but there is much more fundamental issue. They were only superficially different before and those superficial things were very undesirable by the majority of people. The grand majority of their primary features have not changed at all. About the only good thing MS removed was the family sharing which really only made sharing a game with someone remote more convenient, but it came at the cost of easy sharing and selling the rest of the time. One still has the same gameplay and media features it had before. Likewise for PS4. DerekLoffin

This is where i think people have missed a trick.  The majority of their features completely revolved around being always online and always having kinect.  These are features that developers leverage to bring us better game experiences (in theory heh).  Now that some consoles will be and some won't not a single developer for any game can really integrate any features that take advantage of those facts.

Do you remember the error MS made by releasing a product SKU that didn't contain a HDD? This is much worse really, all that money they spent on kinect is wasted.  The 'cloud' that people laugh at is actually an amazing tool that could be used to compliment and improve on many if not all features of gaming. 

None of it is relevent now, it's just another game box and probably not as good as the PS4.

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

Your first affirmation destroys your whole argument:

You said people complained because of loyalty to a brand.

Yet, the immense backlash came from gamers of all niches. Even loyal 360 players were very sound about the subject.

MS didn't have a visionary ambition. It had economical ambitions, to increase profitability per user. People forget family share wasn't the original plan, and was the first compromise on their initial restrictive policies to try and diminish damages. But you can be sure that, if people bought into that plan, the sharing limit would be constantly decreased until the initial proposed policy was achieved. It was just a soft implementation of the same DRM.

The proof that that's the truth is that they still can implement family share while maintaining all current gen policies. Not that "same console sharing", but the actual E3 announced "family share" up to 10 accounts.

If they're visionary, and wants us to have a different and better gaming experience, why don't they just implement that already? It would certainly help compensate the $100 price gap.

I'll tell you why: because then, without all the other restrictive policies (mandatory online checks, restrictive resale system of physical games (only allowed with "partnered retailers"), etc) it won't serve as DRM.

Gamers complained, it wasn't just cows, just sheep or hermits. Almost everyone complained, lemmings as well, because the policies were obviously anti-consumer.

1080pOnly

Well they did, the loyal xbots complained about used games, always online 'drm' and the PSFans then just helped re-inforced the idea.  Both did it out of brand loyalty.  One did it because they didn't want to see it fail and the other just to ridicule a company and try to throw them off course.

The problem is that no one has actually used or lived with the features.  They don't yet understand the benefits, they only see the negatives.  I think MS will lose exactly because they bowed to pressure and because their console is now just a PS4 but not quite as powerful.  Sometimes you have to go against public pressure in order to progress, the masses don't always know what is good for them.

This is why you buy a Wii U.charizard1605

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]I can see where you're shooting, but there is much more fundamental issue. They were only superficially different before and those superficial things were very undesirable by the majority of people. The grand majority of their primary features have not changed at all. About the only good thing MS removed was the family sharing which really only made sharing a game with someone remote more convenient, but it came at the cost of easy sharing and selling the rest of the time. One still has the same gameplay and media features it had before. Likewise for PS4. 1080pOnly

This is where i think people have missed a trick.  The majority of their features completely revolved around being always online and always having kinect.  These are features that developers leverage to bring us better game experiences (in theory heh).  Now that some consoles will be and some won't not a single developer for any game can really integrate any features that take advantage of those facts.

Do you remember the error MS made by releasing a product SKU that didn't contain a HDD? This is much worse really, all that money they spent on kinect is wasted.  The 'cloud' that people laugh at is actually an amazing tool that could be used to compliment and improve on many if not all features of gaming. 

None of it is relevent now, it's just another game box and probably not as good as the PS4.

I'm fond of Sony only because they accept anything as a game with no discrimination of what's popular to sell the most and try different projects. Games such as heavy rain, flower and even demon souls might not have stood a chance at all in being released by Nintendo or M$... other wise as home consoles the PS3 and the xbox360 are pretty much the same... but you can expect different variety in games on the PS ones you might or might not like. I think playstation all-stars sucks incredibly bad.. but someone migth like it for example.

M$ = Is mostly releasing and focusing on shooters

Nintendo = I is still trying to cling into mario sales because mario is one of the top selling games.. it's sacrificing itself as a company at that cash.

This is why you buy a Wii U.charizard1605

That's an absolutely absurd assumption from your part.

You're over-simplify the biggest consumer backlash in gaming by blaming fanboys for it ("xbots", "PSFans"), and giving them a hive-mind objective, which still can't reasonably be enough to justify a 4 to 1 difference in pre-orders (and these numbers are after the backtracking).

Not only that, but you still gave no answer to the main point I made:

1. If MS is a visionary and wants gaming to go in a new direction, why not implement the good sides of their policies, without the part that's draconian?

Are you implying that they can't implement family share while still having a healthy used games market?

Or is that kind of practice only good if you take a numbers of rights from people?

2. Also, if the masses don't always know what is good for them (which is a known Stalinist argument), why didn't they face the pressure and insist with the product? They wouldn't be the first to do so.

3. Given these answers to what you said, don't avoid my arguments in your next response.

SambaLele

1. OK I will but first define which policies were 'draconian'.  If you mean always online then that is not a 'draconian' policy but rather an essential part of moving the whole way we game and interact with our console forward (yes this meant they could also stop much piracy AND block used games).  If you mean the used games policy then something needs to be done, it does lose developers a huge chunk of their revenue and many are struggling. If you mean kinect then again, it's about it always being there and always available for the game you are playing.  If it is an option then developers won't use it, this has been proven so many times before.

2. They didn't because they understood that making the public realise the benefits at this point is impossible.  They decided that the public would just never buy it because of percieved draconian measures that in reality aren't.  So they decided just to try and compete in the current market that people understand.  It does show a lack of backbone and a health dose of risk aversion.

3. Don't try and act like the big I AM.  It doesn't suit you and doesn't wash.  I'm just putting my ppoints across, it's not even trying to inflame anyone so get those jimmies unrustled.

This thread doesnt work without a TL;DR version.campzor

They wouldn't have integrated them anyway, or they still will. If you want a constantly online game, you can still get a constantly online game. If you want to use the cloud, you can still use the cloud. Thing is, now you aren't forced too. So, no, they didn't take anything substantial away. Those things still exist. They are still possible. The only thing that has changed is that devs aren't forced into those restrictions unless they want them.DerekLoffin

Sorry but I wholey disagree. 

Developers aim for the lowest common denominator so they can sell the most games.  If half of the userbase isn't online then they won't make an online only game.  If half of the userbase has switched kinect off then they won't design from the ground up for that either.

They are not restrictions, that is what they are in your mind.  To developers they are tools to use.  This is how development works.

had MS not backed down, the xbox would be a brick to anyone in the army, on vacation, who moves to a new country, or in one of the MANY unsupported countries. handssss

The PS4 is the option though for those people, it's not like the Xbox is so choc full of exclusives its the only choice.  Microsoft thought about that, they just assumed if they could get everyone that actually did have an internet connection available all the time on board then it would be enough.

The problem is those people also starting screaming foul play and so they backed off.  I just think that is actually a loss to us as we could have just bought the PS4 anyway if we didn't like it.

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] They wouldn't have integrated them anyway, or they still will. If you want a constantly online game, you can still get a constantly online game. If you want to use the cloud, you can still use the cloud. Thing is, now you aren't forced too. So, no, they didn't take anything substantial away. Those things still exist. They are still possible. The only thing that has changed is that devs aren't forced into those restrictions unless they want them.1080pOnly

Sorry but I wholey disagree. 

Developers aim for the lowest common denominator so they can sell the most games.  If half of the userbase isn't online then they won't make an online only game.  If half of the userbase has switched kinect off then they won't design from the ground up for that either.

They are not restrictions, that is what they are in your mind.  To developers they are tools to use.  This is how development works.

Ok so if half the people don't want the kinect why should they be forced to use it? or online?  If that is what more of the people wanted where is the problem?

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] They wouldn't have integrated them anyway, or they still will. If you want a constantly online game, you can still get a constantly online game. If you want to use the cloud, you can still use the cloud. Thing is, now you aren't forced too. So, no, they didn't take anything substantial away. Those things still exist. They are still possible. The only thing that has changed is that devs aren't forced into those restrictions unless they want them.1080pOnly

Sorry but I wholey disagree. 

Developers aim for the lowest common denominator so they can sell the most games.  If half of the userbase isn't online then they won't make an online only game.  If half of the userbase has switched kinect off then they won't design from the ground up for that either.

They are not restrictions, that is what they are in your mind.  To developers they are tools to use.  This is how development works.

98% of all next gen games are going to be multiplatform?

You just made that up.

 

That's where I stopped reading.

Born_Lucky

I said approximately. 

Do you really think more than 2 in a 100 games will be exclusive? When I look in a store at the two games section I see well over 90% of the same games for each console now, the cost of games is rising and many developers have already stated that MP is the way to go.  What then, in your opinion, is a more accurate number? Can you back it up with any figures from this generation?

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] They wouldn't have integrated them anyway, or they still will. If you want a constantly online game, you can still get a constantly online game. If you want to use the cloud, you can still use the cloud. Thing is, now you aren't forced too. So, no, they didn't take anything substantial away. Those things still exist. They are still possible. The only thing that has changed is that devs aren't forced into those restrictions unless they want them.1080pOnly

Sorry but I wholey disagree. 

Developers aim for the lowest common denominator so they can sell the most games.  If half of the userbase isn't online then they won't make an online only game.  If half of the userbase has switched kinect off then they won't design from the ground up for that either.

They are not restrictions, that is what they are in your mind.  To developers they are tools to use.  This is how development works.

I REALLY WISH that things had gone your way TC. Then Xbone would have been a complete failure instead of hanging on by a thread like it is now.

Videodogg

Spin it however you want, when devs are given something that they have to work according to those conditions. That is forcing. And wake the hell up, PC doesn't have that always online shit, never, and online games are still there. rjdofu

No, if it is there then devs can choose to use it in a game.  I didn't see MS saying devs would be forced to use kinect or always-online features, can you give me an example of them doing so?

The PC doesn't have generations.  It has a huge online installed base already, that is a known market people tap into and has known quantities involved.  It is not the same thing AT ALL on console.  No one, absolutely no one, knows how many the Xbone or PS4 will sell in a given period and even if you can guess you can't guess accurately at the number of people that will use an optional feature. Developers will not gamble on a small percentage of a small (initial) number of users.

1. If they are aiming for the lowest, they wouldn't release on X1 in the first place, because PS4 and WiiU set the lowest bar. 2. No, the only 2. devs that would have used those function are not the ones aiming low, they are actually aiming high, and for them, nothing has changed. The only slight difference is they can't easily compute their potential customers from console sales, and instead have to ask MS for an approximate number of gold users on the X1 (so the number is still available, just not the same number). In fact, their potential audience has likely increased since the change. And yes, THEY ARE RESTRICTIONS, both to users and devs as they restricted the potential audience. They certainly didn't expand it.DerekLoffin

1. That doesn't make sense.

2. Everything has changed, you will not see as many games using those features anymore and virtually NONE that require them.  Mark these words for ownage later if you don't believe me.

3. You didn't address my response to your post after accusing me of doing the same.

They were trying to push a change that noone wants TheKingIAm

Nobody understands the benefits so of course they don't want change.  It's like the people that steadfastly refuse to move from Windows Xp because 'it does everything i need' when they don't even know what features they are missing out on.

[QUOTE="1080pOnly"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] They wouldn't have integrated them anyway, or they still will. If you want a constantly online game, you can still get a constantly online game. If you want to use the cloud, you can still use the cloud. Thing is, now you aren't forced too. So, no, they didn't take anything substantial away. Those things still exist. They are still possible. The only thing that has changed is that devs aren't forced into those restrictions unless they want them.DerekLoffin

Sorry but I wholey disagree. 

Developers aim for the lowest common denominator so they can sell the most games.  If half of the userbase isn't online then they won't make an online only game.  If half of the userbase has switched kinect off then they won't design from the ground up for that either.

They are not restrictions, that is what they are in your mind.  To developers they are tools to use.  This is how development works.

LOL PS4 sets the lowest bar???  Wii U yep, but PS4 :lol:

[QUOTE="MBirdy88"]this is why playstation 4 has already won. Why the hell would I want a X1? when I know it will mostly have the same games as last gen, little to no japanese support and share its games with PC?ShoTTyMcNaDeS

Sounds like you are trying to convince yourself.  ;)

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"]1. If they are aiming for the lowest, they wouldn't release on X1 in the first place, because PS4 and WiiU set the lowest bar. 2. No, the only 2. devs that would have used those function are not the ones aiming low, they are actually aiming high, and for them, nothing has changed. The only slight difference is they can't easily compute their potential customers from console sales, and instead have to ask MS for an approximate number of gold users on the X1 (so the number is still available, just not the same number). In fact, their potential audience has likely increased since the change. And yes, THEY ARE RESTRICTIONS, both to users and devs as they restricted the potential audience. They certainly didn't expand it.1080pOnly

1. That doesn't make sense.

2. Everything has changed, you will not see as many games using those features anymore and virtually NONE that require them.  Mark these words for ownage later if you don't believe me.

3. You didn't address my response to your post after accusing me of doing the same.

 

Ok so if half the people don't want the kinect why should they be forced to use it? or online?  If that is what more of the people wanted where is the problem?

menes777

My point is without something being mandatory then you can't develop the cool features for it.  What is the difference now between the two consoles? It's a couple of exclusives a year which aren't even gaurenteed to be good.

Lets say I don't want to use kinect, what hardship is it for me? I just won't use it.  If it really really bothers me then i'll get a PS4 and play that instead.  The whole thing is that now I don't really care which one I buy, they are basically the same.

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"][QUOTE="1080pOnly"]

Sorry but I wholey disagree. 

Developers aim for the lowest common denominator so they can sell the most games.  If half of the userbase isn't online then they won't make an online only game.  If half of the userbase has switched kinect off then they won't design from the ground up for that either.

They are not restrictions, that is what they are in your mind.  To developers they are tools to use.  This is how development works.

menes777

LOL PS4 sets the lowest bar???  Wii U yep, but PS4 :lol:

1. If you're aiming lowest (in the sense that you aim at what everyone has), then everyone will not be connected. WiiU and PS4 set the low bar on the connection issue. If you're aiming lowest as far as motion goes, again they set the low bar as neither have Kinect. So, no, devs who want to use the cloud, want to use Kinect, wouldn't being aiming lowest as you put it, they would be aiming high, automatically highly restricting their audience down to just those connected and/or using Kinect. Thing is, nothing has changed for these guys in that regard. Those people who were going to buy X1 and use Kinect before as still going to do so. In fact, it is a positive change, as many who weren't may now do so, increasing their potential audience. 2. BS. There is zero reason a dev would develop before that they wouldn't develop now using those features. Their potential audience is equal or greater. It hasn't gone down and they still have all the same ability, so why would they not develop it if they were going to develop it before (which is a big IF as likely given the supreme failure X1 was turning into they probably never would have). 3. What are you even talking about here.DerekLoffin

1. I quite clearly stated this was for exclusives, bringing the other consoles into it makes no sense as that is the whole point of this thread.....  Multi-plats won't use the features obviously.  Now though the exclusives wont use them either.  I would have bought an Xbone for the exclusives that used these features, now I might as well buy a PS4.

[QUOTE="menes777"]

 

Ok so if half the people don't want the kinect why should they be forced to use it? or online?  If that is what more of the people wanted where is the problem?

1080pOnly

My point is without something being mandatory then you can't develop the cool features for it.  What is the difference now between the two consoles? It's a couple of exclusives a year which aren't even gaurenteed to be good.

Lets say I don't want to use kinect, what hardship is it for me? I just won't use it.  If it really really bothers me then i'll get a PS4 and play that instead.  The whole thing is that now I don't really care which one I buy, they are basically the same.

So what's stopping developers from making more use of the kinect and making it optional to use it?  If it is really a good feature then it will catch on and developers will make more use of it.  New features aren't always popular at first before someone takes a chance with them.  Also this isn't the Kinect's first rodeo.  If they did't like it on the 360 why would they like it now?

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] 1. If you're aiming lowest (in the sense that you aim at what everyone has), then everyone will not be connected. WiiU and PS4 set the low bar on the connection issue. If you're aiming lowest as far as motion goes, again they set the low bar as neither have Kinect. So, no, devs who want to use the cloud, want to use Kinect, wouldn't being aiming lowest as you put it, they would be aiming high, automatically highly restricting their audience down to just those connected and/or using Kinect. Thing is, nothing has changed for these guys in that regard. Those people who were going to buy X1 and use Kinect before as still going to do so. In fact, it is a positive change, as many who weren't may now do so, increasing their potential audience. 2. BS. There is zero reason a dev would develop before that they wouldn't develop now using those features. Their potential audience is equal or greater. It hasn't gone down and they still have all the same ability, so why would they not develop it if they were going to develop it before (which is a big IF as likely given the supreme failure X1 was turning into they probably never would have). 3. What are you even talking about here.1080pOnly

1. I quite clearly stated this was for exclusives, bringing the other consoles into it makes no sense as that is the whole point of this thread.....  Multi-plats won't use the features obviously.  Now though the exclusives wont use them either.  I would have bought an Xbone for the exclusives that used these features, now I might as well buy a PS4.

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="DerekLoffin"] If they are aiming for the lowest, they wouldn't release on X1 in the first place, because PS4 and WiiU set the lowest bar. No, the only devs that would have used those function are not the ones aiming low, they are actually aiming high, and for them, nothing has changed. The only slight difference is they can't easily compute their potential customers from console sales, and instead have to ask MS for an approximate number of gold users on the X1 (so the number is still available, just not the same number). In fact, their potential audience has likely increased since the change. And yes, THEY ARE RESTRICTIONS, both to users and devs as they restricted the potential audience. They certainly didn't expand it.DerekLoffin

LOL PS4 sets the lowest bar???  Wii U yep, but PS4 :lol:

Then what you really meant was the most common denominator or baseline equipment, but not necessarily the lowest one? If so that's fair enough I can get on board with that.

100% agree, good OP.

Now we just have two consoles doing exactly what consoles were doing last gen, only with greater fidelity.

I can be pretty critical of Nintendo and how they go about their business, but at least they bring new ways to play to the table and actually try to elevate the experience beyond what you already know.

Which is inherently faulty then. If a dev has already restricted themselves down to exclusive status, they are again not aiming at the widest audience (the purpose of aiming low). No, they are aiming instead at the particular functionality, access to which, and potential user base of such has at worst remained the same or increased.  If they were going to dev before, they still will now.

DerekLoffin

First party games are made to show off the abilities of the console.  You can't make a first party game using the cloud and kinect if most of your userbase isn't able or willing to use those things. 

I can't believe you don't understand the difference between something being a fundamental part of the console and something that isn't. 

Imagine this scenario - The PS3 only came with a BR player if you opted to buy the SKU that contains it for more money.  Half of the people that bought the PS3 decided not to have one.  Now a dev has to think about the media they store their games on.  They COULD make it BR only, store more textures, extra music and so on or they could go for the one that will sell the most even though it has less features.

It is the same for always online and kinect.  If it is not there for everyone it will not get used in the same way as it would if it was.