@drocdoc: I don't know I have a feeling when PC and XB1 merge, Sony will easily win the console war, this gen. It's handing them a victory, cause a lot of gamers around the world don't wanna upgrade sht, they just wanna get a system and play some games. That's like pretty much all of China right there. Dude, some places in China still be playing CS on old ass Celeron Systems. That's one country that don't care about upgrading anything.
@troll_elite: Regardless if its upgradeable parts or not, it still divides the console gaming into different segments of low and high performance. So if I wanted that, why wouldn't I just game on PC, a save myself the royalty fee I must pay to MS for each game. I'm paying less for games on PC, and I'm getting the same experience.
@mikemurphy80: Exactly tons of PC game vendors sell PC game CDkeys for far below market value. When you buy steam you are already paying for Steams royalty just like MS or Sony.
The great thing about PC games is if you know where to look, you can bypass the royalty fees period and pay 20-30 bucks less on all new releases compared to console.
@Aleperez75: How can a console with upgradeable parts be less expensive than a PC with the same parts? What do you think MS is running a charity, any consumer part once branded with an MS label must have a price increase for MS to make money.
Why on earth would an upgradeable XB1 be cheaper than an upgradeable PC, when MS has to mark up all the upgrades from SSD, to RAM to CPU, to GPU. Every single piece of upgrade will cost more than their original off the shelf value. You know that piece of cheap Hynix Ram for $15, once that become XB1 Ram it's bumped to $30, that will apply for everything.
Explain to me this. If a console becomes the same as a PC, with upgradeable specs and different performance tiers. Why on earth would anyone buy a console and not a PC? Why are we paying MS the extra royalty fees per game when the same game costs less on PC?
The whole point of paying extra for console games is so MS can get their royalty from software sales based on their hardware. But if their hardware is no different than a PC, why don't we all just get PCs and cut out the middle-man period?
I get that MS wants to make royalty fees of PC game sales and console game sales, but you can't have it both ways. One cannibalizes the other, in the end your back to square one, with everyone doing their own thing, and nobody making money.
@beantownsean: Yeah, but this effectively makes the console exactly the same as a PC. Why wouldn't I just build a PC then? Games are cheaper on PC, and if I need to upgrade my console to get a decent playable game without sacrifices to my experience, why would I not just get a PC? Why am I paying the inflated console gaming prices that go to MS, when I can skip the middle man and just pay for games without the console royalties?
@Utnayan: I agree, since Gates just sided with the FBI over individual privacy. How likely will any sane person be willing to ever purchase an Windows Phone, now, knowing that MS has already built a backdoor in the security.
Dumb moves back to back by big M. I used to like them, but now, I don't know. One thing is certain, I'm sticking with my IPhone and will not be getting an XB1.
@yogibbear: In the history of civilization one statement always holds true. "You can't have your pie and eat it too."
They opted to make money off of console sales as opposed to the traditional method of taking a loss on hardware in return for a long life cycle of software royalties. You cannot try to make money off of cheap low powered consoles and also expect those same cheap low powered consoles to last the same amount of time as their more expensive predecessors. No, you can only have one or the other.
They chose cheap hardware which means low console life cycle. Now they wanna backtrack, but its too late. That's life.
kazeswen's comments