@arkham_89 The dumbing down of games has been happening for years: In order to make games more accessible, they all end up looking and playing like CoD. The first game in a franchise kinda-sorta manages to evade this effect somewhat, as it's more of a gamble and more free. Once the big publishers get ahold of it, it's game over for gamers.
I don't like over-milking of game franchises. Once every few years is OK, but back-to-back-to-back gets tiring very quickly. I think Zelda/Nintendo gets the balance about right.
I wouldn't want console vs PC with cross-platform play because PC users would have a huge advantage, but I see no reason why 360, PS3, XB1, PS4 couldn't all play together reasonably fairly, if the game developer made the versions more or less identical.
That said, even then, I guess there are a lot of variables involved, so I'd understand if they didn't.
(Yes, I realise this isn't announced for PS, but just in general).
Laughs aside, the price is very reasonable for the package IMO. Purely from a pricing standpoint, I think Sony will have an edge in early marketshare, but I don't think it will be the end of the world for XB1. I'm thinking 1.5:1 PS4:XB1 respectively. What happens in the long run is harder to say.
I think there is a lot of value in their offering as a gaming+ package. But the real dealbreaker will be the forced online functionality. That WILL be a dealbreaker for a lot of people that may not have reliable internet access (farmers, rural communities, hospitals(?) etc are going to have difficulty with that). I know for sure, especially where I live, there are lower socio-economic groups that don't have computers and internet access, but that enjoy console gaming; and they are the types of people more likely to share/trade-in games, too. It's those people that will lose out, and all together, they're not a small bunch.
I like what MS is offering. I just don't see a reason why they need to FORCE online connectivity (other than to benefit advertising partners, of course).
Slagar's comments