@brunorr: One of the big problems is that we've been stuck in an age that defined the success of a game by how many millions of sales it has made. This definition is reverting as of late, since there are plenty of well made, profitable games out there that have sold significantly less. Not that sales make a good game, but it's proportionate profitability is typically what defines it's success. The larger and costlier the game, the more sales you need to make.
Considering the size and scope I would argue that MMORPG's are probably one of the most expensive games to make. The only thing more expensive is some of these publishers marketing costs. The problem with these costly games is that now you have to increase their sales figures. The simplest way is to broaden the audience. Broadening the audience means including things that people like while reducing what others hate. A good example of this is the rise of the mayonnaise based dips. Take a flavor that one person may like but the next person doesn't, dilute it in mayonnaise and everyone is - - happy? Maybe not, but they'll all eat it because they don't hate it, it's what's available, and it's what everyone else is eating.
Don't look down on the devs too much, remember it's the publishers that typically hold the funds and so wield the power. You can thank them for always trying to cram that mayonnaise in there.
Indie dev titles are at an all time high right now. If you look under each and every rock you will quickly realize that they handily dominate the bulk of the release titles. The problem is that without them Activision marketing dollars, most will never be seen.
PS. You can also thank china for MMORPG stagnation and the boom of the micro-transaction.
@vxxjordanxxv: Always online served a purpose that was going to be awesome, kinect was included with every machine again to serve a purpose that unfortunately due to the backlash and subsequent removal never came came to fruition.
Having the word micro in the name doesn't make it synonymous with Microsoft. Microtransactions are not Microsoft exclusive.
I'm sorry I can't comment on your whole 4 day delay conspiracy theory. I just don't know what your talking about.
The Xbox one launch was horrendous but that was less about what they were offering and more about a horrifying lack of communication. I hate to play the, "that guy doesn't work here anymore" card but, that guy doesn't work there anymore. If after all this time you don't understand what was being offered and the benefits of it, I recommend you stop using it as a reference. The reality is that within the next decade the concept they had come up with, will likely be what we use anyway.
@sleepingdawg: Yes, that's what I think. It may not be with every setting maxed but it should be doable with software that has been properly coded and some of the worst rendering offenders altered. I can't count the times that a single almost superfluous rendering option has tanked my PC games. Disable it and move on. I don't care if the shadow looks 20% less realistic.
@gamersince78: The Xbox One is running Windows 10. It's just been stripped of all the hardware compatibility stuff and programs that we will never use. Otherwise it's Windows 10. They did this to ensure cross compatibility on all of their devices. Make one app, run it on multiple platforms.
@geesus: lol that was a nice rant and if I hadn't been building PC's since Compaq introduced their IBM knockoffs maybe you would have found someone who bends to your opinion. On top of that I'm sitting in my living room with 3 PC's playing split screen sharing a 100" screen. Anyone can feel free to load up that forth quadrant of the screen with one of over a dozen aged consoles that people still scramble for today. Remind me how well those tiny NES consoles sold? Tell me how many people would even consider buying a PC from 1983?
Now to start here properly I would like to remind you that this article already stated that it would cost about $900 for the equivalent PC. This doesn't even include the overhead that a PC needs to compare with the optimized infrastructure of the consoles realm. Your $800 PC build is already lacking.
I could place 3 Xbones side by side and still have it take up less space than one of my PC's and it would probably chew up just as much power. Sure you can get a compact PC but the case price goes up, the parts get more specific, and it still can't come close to size of the Xbox One S or PS4 S. Let's not forget that most good compact cases cost almost half the price of those consoles.
Yes PC's don't use CD/DVD anymore but then again that's not the limit of what's included. Current consoles are more than just consoles they are media centers and that is another thing that the PC will have to match. 4K streaming is not going to beat 4k Blu-ray anytime soon, let alone the fact that 4k streaming doesn't offer us the opportunity to play 3d movies. But then you seem like an, if I don't have it then it doesn't apply, kind of person.
Just because you're work hands you a free $100 OS that the majority of the population has to pay for, doesn't mean it gets excluded as a cost. We all know by now the OS still costs money when you buy a prebuilt, even if we don't see it.
The console has lan and wifi so it is relevant regardless of how you view it, and the dongle still costs money, again relevant regardless of how you view it.
Ignoring that the intent is to be more apples to apples, making the controller the same cost no matter what system you're looking at, in apples to oranges the two things still must be of a similar quality. Nobody's buying a piece of shit M&K for their $1000+ gaming rig. At the very least it would be a $60 combo pack. PS. You don't need a mouse and keyboard for entering usernames. Game dev's figured that shit out back in the 70's. Nobody wants to type on a console, they have headsets that often come bundled for chatting.
Sure buy a cheap case, but anyone who buys a cheap PSU is likely buying another one before that console generation dies out.
You do realize that at near $1000 (missing costs included) the PC build will have similar hardware right? So both are equally outdated? After 5 years of PC gaming I've either already bought an upgrade or I'm seriously looking at a couple. If you want better than the Scorpio solution in reality you are looking at spending $1300+ to get a build that will last longer. So 3 Console gen's later I still have fairly current tech at your initial buy in and you've likely upgraded to keep ahead.
You ask if I already have PC or LT why have a console. Do I need any other reason than because I want one? I'm not 15, I have money. If saving money is the number one concern, then again the console is the best answer.
Let's be honest, the basic PC functions have been rendered unnecessary by cell phones for the average person. You certainly don't need anything that powerful for schooling. Unless you are using the PC professionally there is little point in owning one. If you really want to save money just buy a premium console for gaming and use your cell phone for everything else.
Not only do I speak from a an impartial place but I'm old enough to have the decades of past experience building PC's and buying consoles to back it up. PC's have been and likely will be continue to be 3 to 1 cost to consoles. That is until even the latest games are cloud driven and streamed through the TV so we don't need a console. Something that will take a little while longer because of Sony. #Onlive
@opus153: I'm assuming that you're making two separate statements here, since sometime soon is used by everyone and is often a longer wait than implied. The rest of your statement is too trolly for me.
Based off of what's been shown here, and given that the test rig isn't a dedicated system, with an optimized OS, with optimized hardware, running optimized games, I would say that Microsoft has built a system that will easily meet it's expectations.
It's nice to see Microsoft building a system that quells the PC users that always come running in to say how they can build a better rig for less. Which honestly is almost never true anyway. They almost always start by omitting the Case, PSU, OS, and controller. That reminds me, you forgot the controller, 4K Bluray player, and Wifi capable Board. ;) Of course a good wifi dongle is only about $15 but then that all adds up.
@brunorr: The problem is this whole mentality that exists out there that sequel = bad and innovation = good. I'm all for new things but unless it's truly worthy I'm not interested in a game built around it.
Indie devs seem to be put on a pedestal as the voice of the people, and our desire for change. Let's clear this up right now, the main reason indie devs are innovating is because it's almost impossible for them to compete against a AAA in the same arena. "But indie devs aren't in it for the money" Indie devs are not above making money. If they're lucky enough to make notable profit off of a title, and they see a demand for more and room to grow it, they will likely make a sequel.
I've also been around since the glory days of FPS and for me the interest lies in game mechanics and story. Those old multiplayer titles were always best played with friends, something less available to me now and so my interest wains. In lieu of that I expect a story worth following or a task that tests my skills. The past segmented approach of COD and Battlefield hasn't really appealed to me, but COD Advanced Warfighter on the other hand, I enjoyed because I got to follow the story of one character throughout the entire game.
I personally would like to see less new titles and more sequels. Actually to be more specific I would like to see more proper expansions and less sequels. I don't need the latest sequel desperately trying to give new features to shut up the whiners who complain that the sequel is just more of the same. Of course it's more of the same, it's a bloody sequel. The benefit of an expansion is that it has the ability to give us more of the same while leaving little room to complain about it. You know, unless it's like the current slew of overpriced content deprived DLC. What I want is the real expansions where it's a bare minimum 30% new content.
When I get a new IP I want it to be new and interesting and if everyone is putting out a new IP with every game then the differences between games will become less and less apparent. Kind of like how the bulk of anime are all cookie cutter versions of each other. When there are less IP's and more sequels the differences between IP's can be more apparent while still offering gamers what they typically want most, more of the thing they love.
In summary, I'm not saying that new innovative IP's are bad and sequels are good, I just want everyone to realize that a balance between these two things need to happen, or the result is either too much of one or the dilution of both.
@brunorr: Why are sequels the problem? People like sequels because they like to live in that universe for longer. I can see why people feel that sequels to games that exist for a specific moment are dumb, but something like Halo, Star Wars, Uncharted, Killzone, Tomb Raider, Grand Theft Auto, Zelda . . . have either built characters who's adventures we want to live through, or universes we want to further explore.
Why should they stop at just one game when the fans crave more? Why should they create a whole new game when people want to play in the same style as they have been playing IE. Call of Duty, or Mario Cart.
preacher001's comments