Originally posted August 15th 2013
This one guy got angry at me when I compared the Wii motion controls to the kinect and said "history will repeat itself, all the kinect will bread is shovelware and tacked on motion controls." He was all "no the kinect has much better tracking and has voice recognition." I was ready to comment but someone beat me to it. Here's what I would have said if they didn't create a big conversation, "it doesn't matter how good the screw driver is, they're all kind of equally useless when trying to drive a nail." lol
Originally posted August 13th 2013
Now about kinect costing as much to manufacture as the xbox one, basically saying microsoft is selling the bundle at a loss, and then the countless millions of dollars spent in R&D. Then here's a kicker. I heard that kinect for PC costs $500 USD, so at that price, kinect for xbox would probably also cost $500, so you're buying a kinect and getting an xbox for free. eye roll
Now I really do feel kind of bad for them, wouldn't you after spending probably over a billion dollars on something people don't want, but then again, anyone could have told them the kinect wouldn't be well received. Microsoft do a little consumer research next time, and maybe see WHY people bought the Wii in droves, and notice that after 1 year, NO ONE was buying one for the motion controls. You would have also noticed that no one was buying the play station move. You could have been like both Sony and Nintendo and just let home motion controls die and then people wouldn't hate you to much, but no, let's shove motion controls down your throat because "that's what you want right?"
Originally posted August 8th 2013 with this article Every XBOX ONE includes a chat headset
Well what do you know, Microsoft decided that maybe we should screw the customer less than what they were doing. For those of you who don't know, microsoft was origionally not going to include a headset with the xbox one because "you could use the kinect because the kinect is such an amazing piece of technology and we don't see any reason why anyone would rather have private conversations with people instead of having everything come through the TV speakers." Everyday Microsoft changes their tune just a little bit. Next step, GET RID OF THE KINECT REQUIREMENT!!!! Honestly. I couldn't care less about specks, advanced technology, cloud gaming, and even being pro-indy. I don't need a headset because I don't talk to people anyways. But what is keeping me from buying your console is the requirement to use a stupid peripheral that I will never use, no good games will be made for it and utilize it, and will likely be unresponsive unless you're in this one sweet spot. I'll buy a wii before I buy an xbox one, cause at least with a wii I could play gamecube games, trauma center, and hulu plus without having to pay nintendo for the privilege of being able to access the app. And if you want to know why I hate the wii, just ask zeldamaster93. He knows all my arguments. And many of the arguments carry over to the kinect.
Originally uploaded August 3rd 2013, there was an article called "Microsoft to let game makers self publish on XBOX ONE," but the article is dead now.
So looks like microsoft changed their tune again, making it closer to the PS4. Every time I hear about that, I think about that dorkly picture where they talk about "giving gamers options." Every time I think about that, I think, "well if the option is a giant turd with some gold scraps in it or a block of silver just sitting there, well most everyone is going to chose the block of silver instead of digging through the turd to get some gold." Now all they need to do is get rid of the required kinect. Not only are you losing customers by requiring it, I will never buy an XBOX ONE so long as that stupid thing is required, but I've also heard that you lose money because the kinect 2.0 costs as much to make as an XBOX ONE, and I'm not talking R&D, that might be, but in raw parts.
Originally posted August 2nd 2013
Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but I find it funny when people compare the old xbox one to steam because of the DRM. If there are PC gamers out there, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the reason people do PC gaming because of the ability to have the most up to date hardware on the market, the ability to output the frame rate at insanely high numbers, like close to the refresh rate of the monitor or projector, the ability to mod your games, and lastly the steam summer sales, and with all those features, you put up with the DRM found in steam. Sure, the XBOX ONE had all the DRM, but they would surely lack every other feature PC gamers love. Update the hardware; the XBOX ONE doesn't even have a removable hard drive, so you wouldn't be able to upgrade the video cards, ram, hard drive, video out, etc. without modding the console and then getting banned from xbox live. Output at insanely high frame rates; max I heard was 60 fps from xbox one, and if this was the days of CRT TVs, that would be the refresh rate of the TV, but now we have TVs with 120, 240, even 600 frame refresh rate TVs, so sorry, lost out again on frame rate. MOD your games, you have just been banned from xbox live, you're screwed. Sales, ehhhh yeah right. Since I don't PC game, I'll need some fact checks on this one, but I'd imagine that most of the games in the sale are made by Valve and there aren't many 3rd party games. Microsoft, what do you have to bring to the table in the form of 1st party games? Halo, every kinect game ever made, I don't think that people are going to be biting at the bit to buy either of them sale or no sale. Sure, maybe halo, but everyone who will want to play it will likely have already bought it new for $60. I highly doubt EA or Activision would participate in a 75% off sale. Again, I might be wrong on the sales thing so don't take that as fact unless I get someone backing it up in the comments, but I highly doubt that the sales would happen on XBOX LIVE. And last time I checked, steam doesn't require you to have a web cam connected at all time.
And because I buy games to keep, I might have been able to over look the DRM a couple years down the line in case it isn't really all gloom and doom, but the kinect is a deal breaker, and always will be. I hate motion controls, I've done a rant on them. I see absolutely no use for it. Any feature is stupid and any kinect game is bad. But that's a different topic.
And though this has nothing to do with gaming, didn't want to lose this. Originally posted July 25th 2013
On a much brighter note, this actually happened. I'm watching Nicktoons Network, because I like cartoons, and they're doing this promo for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. They're about to show a sneak preview for the upcoming season, and they do a 5 second count down, and right as they're about to show the preview, a test for the emergency broadcast system comes on. At first I thought "this is a joke, it's part of the funny," but then I see my county and city, and being a cable channel, there's no affiliate networks to make custom joke emergency tests. Then I thought "ok something is really happening," but then a lady says "this has been a test of the emergency broadcast system. Had this been a real emergency, further information would have been given." Then as it ends, the guys that were hosting it were all "wow that was amazing, I can't wait for the next season." That really happened. I've never heard of it happening in real life. I'm laughing uncontrollably and for 30 seconds I start talking to the camera's that had to have been there. I went on for a solid 10 minutes.
BR
Originally posted July 13th 2013
Did you know that someone actually complained about sony removing the new playstation camera from the PS4 and made it an optional accessory, saying that "while the kinect is very poorly received for gaming, it did do wonders with robotics when hacked and kinect 2.0 is quite a marvel of tracking capabilities, and now maybe gamers will miss out on multiplat features in some xbox one and ps4 games that utilize kinect." Lets break this down, very poorly received by gamers, so make it optional and lower the price since many gamers won't use it. Did wonders when hacked, well then people can just buy it if they want to hack it, it's an optional accessory. Amazing tracking capabilities, makes no difference if the games are stupid, which they will be. Miss out on features, like what? the ability to yell commands at your game or wave your arms like an idiot? spongebob rainbow nobody cares. If they manage to make it good, I doubt it, but lets assume for the moment that there is a game that utilizes the power of the kinect and move in a way that is fun and engaging, then gamers have the option to buy a move for the one game that utilizes it and isn't required to function instead of being forced to buy it for the console to work. But here's the thing, kinect being useful won't happen. Only tech demo games like just dance will use it. Unfortunately with the kinect being required, we might have another wii on our hands where developers feel compelled to tack on some form of motion controls or voice commands and it actually ends up hindering gameplay. Any wii fan feel compelled to try to tell me otherwise? And this isn't "there were good games for the wii." This is "the motion controls were an asset to the wii and many games utilized them in a way that made sense and immersed me in the game." I don't want someone telling me how great galaxy, monster hunter, metroid, DKCR, or brawl was and you could overlook the tacked on motion controls, I want someone to tell me why those games would have sucked without those "tacked on" motion controls.
Originally posted July 13th 2013
Stop the presses, I am actually having a rational discussion with someone on youtube about if requiring kinect is a good idea. There's no CAPSLOCK and no mention of a promiscuous mother or lack of sexual encounters. We're actually bringing vallid points to the table about if the kinect is a stupid gimmick and microsoft is wasting their time with it or if the mandatory adoption will lead to good games. I think my nail in the coffin was how the Wii required motion controls and only 2 first party games actually gave an in depth experience while fully utalizing the motion, trauma center and skyward sword. Everything else was just a tech demo like wii sports or had tacked on motion controls like DKCR. I'm interested to see what he has to say in response to that.
Originally posted July 11th 2013, not really xbox one specific, but "all digital" was definitely a thing of the pre-launch xbox one days.
I've been hearing a lot of people talking about how "digital distribution of games is the way of the future and the used game market as we know it will be a thing of the past." As a collector, I sure hope that isn't the case. 1: a picture of a full 1 tera hard drive is far less impressive than a wall of games. Another is that, of the 10 consoles I have, only 4 I bought new; the other 6 I bought used, mainly because they're old school and weren't supported anymore when I bought them, and now 2 of the new consoles are last gen and/or old school. So if I want to buy games for 8 of my consoles, and soon all 10, I need to buy used physical copies, because even if I could buy digital games on that console, I can't buy digital after the servers are off line, so all I can do is buy the digital. I could pay through the nose for a factory sealed copy of an old school game, but at that point, I'm just paying the reseller and none of the money is going to the publisher, so to save $200 on a game that's just for the collection, I buy it used. I've even ran into problems with wanting to get the full version of a demo I had on my xbox, mainly the teenage mutant ninja turtles arcade game remake, but it was off the marketplace when I finally had the microsoft points to buy it. It's an xbox arcade game so I can't get a physical copy anywhere, and it sucks because the demo is really fun. I'll make an in depth video on the subject explaining every aspect once I can get access to my nerd cave, but here's a little taste of my full feelings. Since many of you are gamers, what's your take on the matter?
Originally posted July 5th 2013
I know it's kind of died down since they released that xbox one won't be the always on DRM machine that we all hated, but lets look at another glaring problem, and that is the requirement for kinect. Lets get one thing strait, I am not a "they're going to watch us" conspiracy theorist like everyone else that hates this kinect requirement. Why this sucks, is because the kinect is garbage and I laugh every time I see someone with it. Sure, it can track motion much better than all the other motion controllers on the market, or so Microsoft asserts. But here's the problem, HOME MOTION CONTROLS SUCK AND ALMOST EVERY ATTEMPT TO MAKE IT WORK FAILS!!!! Kinect adventures, a couple of lame mini-games that show off what the kinect can do. All the Zumba games, it's just dancing, and while fun for a little while, gets old kind of quickly for me at least. Close to every wii game in existence, tacked on motion controles that add nothing to the game like in DKCR and Galaxy, or stupid mini-games that don't engage me, or racing games where steering controls are far to clunky to give good handling. 2 games are the exception in my experience, skyward sword with the 1:1 motion tracking with the weapons and trauma center with it's precision medical tools. "You can use voice commands to turn it on or go to things," or I could just turn it on with my controller and use my controller to select things. I hate kinect and all home motion controls since no one can consistently do them right and I'm so glad that Nintendo dropped that with the wii u. Microsoft, you still lost me as a customer, not because the sting of DRM always on left a huge scar, but because you still have the kinect knife lodged in my gaming hand. If I were to get an xbox one, I'd hack the kinect to mute the mic and have the kinect always stuck behind the console, and if that doesn't work, I'd hack the camera as well. Sell me a console without the kinect for $100 cheaper than with kinect and then we can talk. Again, I'm sorry Nintendo tricked you into thinking motion controls would catch on and everyone would get it, but get over it, admit they tricked you, and move on and get people back.
Originally posted July 4th 2013
I've heard someone complain that "without xbox one's DRM, I won't be able to play without having the game disk in the console." You want that, go back to PC and leave the good stuff to us console gamers. That or buy the digital copy, which is just about every game available. You want "no disk gaming," go to the DRM machine that is PC or get the digital. You want the ability to get it used, get the physical, that's why we have them.
Originally posted May 26th 2013
I've heard someone complain that "without xbox one's DRM, I won't be able to play without having the game disk in the console." You want that, go back to PC and leave the good stuff to us console gamers. That or buy the digital copy, which is just about every game available. You want "no disk gaming," go to the DRM machine that is PC or get the digital. You want the ability to get it used, get the physical, that's why we have them.
Sunday, February 3, 2019
Saturday, February 2, 2019
The Wii U was a dumb name (Google Plus Reupload, 2013)
Originally posted July 15th 2013, some context, the Wii U was not moving at the time, but Nintendo was into trying to be the next big thing.
So anyone else here think that if nintendo wanted to really move Wii Us, they shouldn't have called it "Wii U" and make it look so much like a Wii? Now I've read articles saying that the Wii U is doing really well in foreign markets and stuff, but not close to the hype of the PS4. I know some of you will say "I don't know what you're talking about, the Wii was amazing and drew circles around PS360," *cough zeldamaster93, but when it came down to it, people preferred PS360 as a gaming console they will play day in and day out over the Wii, primarily because of the motion controls and focus on casual gaming. Now nintendo pulled a complete 180 and with Wii U, they're all "no we changed our ways. We're back to making hardcore games for hardcore gamers." Unfortunately, "but we liked the Wii so much, we're keeping the name and the design, but trust us, this is not a casual game console with strong emphasis on motion controls despite what the name and design says, we made a hardcore machine." I don't hate the Wii U, it's a nice console without DRM, good controls, no fee for online gaming and video services, and no CoD, and I might get one once more games come out for it, but they aren't winning gamers over with the name and cosmetics.
Could you imagine "don't want to deal with DRM or paying a monthly subscription for online gaming and video services, want an experience that rivals nothing you'll experience next generation? Want a console built for the hardcore gamer? Then you need the brand new NStation. It gives you the next generation gaming experience you demand from your next console, in stunning HD. Don't settle for bad business practices. Get an NStation." Sure, they can't call it "NStation" because of Sony PlayStation, but it's not a Wii.
Now for the comments, which continued the rant.
zeldamaster93: Was it a bad marketing idea on their part? Yeah, maybe. Will it matter in the long run? Probably not.
Me: Long run as in next console generation, not next gen but the generation after wii u, ps4, and xbox one? No it won't, it'll be a joke stain like the virtual boy. It might not even matter 3 years into the generation. But right now, with the first release and wii still vivid in every gamer's mind, it was bad on their part. I look forward to the next console name and design, so long as it's not "Wii U 2" with the same wii look. All the nintendo consoles have really differentiated themselves from the last generation or added a name to let you know "it's all you loved about the last gen, but better and super." Nintendo Entertainment System. Super Nintendo Entertainment System. Nintendo 64 Bit. Nintendo Game Cube. Nintendo Wii (still wondering where that name came from). But then we get "The Wii College Edition, or Wii U." It's not a Nintendo, because this one is "Super." It's not a SNES because of the 64 Bit graphics. It's not an N64, it's a next gen cube. It's not a gamecube, it's a wii, no not that kind. It's not a wii, just trust us on this one.
And now for some hindsight in 2019 thoughts. I was right, I was right I was right I was right. The Wii U was a giant flop, worst selling Nintendo console next to the virtual boy. Ultimately it was the "no games," but it was mainly the poor marketing that lead them to not having games and ultimately failing.
So anyone else here think that if nintendo wanted to really move Wii Us, they shouldn't have called it "Wii U" and make it look so much like a Wii? Now I've read articles saying that the Wii U is doing really well in foreign markets and stuff, but not close to the hype of the PS4. I know some of you will say "I don't know what you're talking about, the Wii was amazing and drew circles around PS360," *cough zeldamaster93, but when it came down to it, people preferred PS360 as a gaming console they will play day in and day out over the Wii, primarily because of the motion controls and focus on casual gaming. Now nintendo pulled a complete 180 and with Wii U, they're all "no we changed our ways. We're back to making hardcore games for hardcore gamers." Unfortunately, "but we liked the Wii so much, we're keeping the name and the design, but trust us, this is not a casual game console with strong emphasis on motion controls despite what the name and design says, we made a hardcore machine." I don't hate the Wii U, it's a nice console without DRM, good controls, no fee for online gaming and video services, and no CoD, and I might get one once more games come out for it, but they aren't winning gamers over with the name and cosmetics.
Could you imagine "don't want to deal with DRM or paying a monthly subscription for online gaming and video services, want an experience that rivals nothing you'll experience next generation? Want a console built for the hardcore gamer? Then you need the brand new NStation. It gives you the next generation gaming experience you demand from your next console, in stunning HD. Don't settle for bad business practices. Get an NStation." Sure, they can't call it "NStation" because of Sony PlayStation, but it's not a Wii.
Now for the comments, which continued the rant.
zeldamaster93: Was it a bad marketing idea on their part? Yeah, maybe. Will it matter in the long run? Probably not.
Me: Long run as in next console generation, not next gen but the generation after wii u, ps4, and xbox one? No it won't, it'll be a joke stain like the virtual boy. It might not even matter 3 years into the generation. But right now, with the first release and wii still vivid in every gamer's mind, it was bad on their part. I look forward to the next console name and design, so long as it's not "Wii U 2" with the same wii look. All the nintendo consoles have really differentiated themselves from the last generation or added a name to let you know "it's all you loved about the last gen, but better and super." Nintendo Entertainment System. Super Nintendo Entertainment System. Nintendo 64 Bit. Nintendo Game Cube. Nintendo Wii (still wondering where that name came from). But then we get "The Wii College Edition, or Wii U." It's not a Nintendo, because this one is "Super." It's not a SNES because of the 64 Bit graphics. It's not an N64, it's a next gen cube. It's not a gamecube, it's a wii, no not that kind. It's not a wii, just trust us on this one.
And now for some hindsight in 2019 thoughts. I was right, I was right I was right I was right. The Wii U was a giant flop, worst selling Nintendo console next to the virtual boy. Ultimately it was the "no games," but it was mainly the poor marketing that lead them to not having games and ultimately failing.
If the 8th Generation were girlfriends (Google Plus Reupload 2013)
Originally posted August 8th 2013.
This was in response to this unboxing video made by XBOX.
Gamers, this is worth the read. And it also gives you a little idea into my thoughts of each company.
All I have to say is, how dare he call the kinect beautiful?
The kinect is pretty at best, like a 7/10 would still bang, sort of deal.
However, the kinect is super ugly on the inside. It's overly attached, puts meaning into every little thing you say, won't let you have any fun unless it's their, and watches you constantly, with the possibility of telling her parents every thing you do. I'm not to worried about her parents actually listening, but she still has everything else I just mentioned.
And worst of all, she isn't even the one you have a relationship with, it's her fraternal twin sister. And it's not like with the parents, kinect tells everything to XBOX and XBOX takes it all to heart.
Now XBOX was always an expensive girl. If you wanted to play with friends, she asked for shopping money. Then when she had a makeover, she wanted even more shopping money for the things she could do in addition to letting you play with friends. Now, in her 3rd make over, even more things that she boasts about costs shopping money. She was a fun bad girl that you had fun fighting aliens with back in high school, but nothing to build a relationship off of.
Now on the other hand, we have play station and Nintendo. We've known Nintendo the longest, and even though she went through many different phases, she's still a lovely girl. She's mostly over her fitness kick and realizes that not everyone likes jumping around and swinging their arms like crazy. Though she's might still hold many of the fitness tendencies, she decided to lay off bugging you and forcing you to do all sorts of crazy work outs in order to have a little fun. A nice girl, and some people are in a nice relationship, but others have friend zoned her saying "it was fun, but I want more, but I'll still hang with you when I'm with your fitness friends."
Now last we have the new girl next door, the playstation. Nintendo initially introduced you to her, but she started competing for your affections, and not to far after, they were bitter rivals. Nintendo always offered you a good time, but playstation could do many of the same things. After a make over montage and the adaption of a 2, she became super sexy while keeping all the things you loved about her before. She became a little demanding after her second make over, asking you to spend $600 for her beauty shop bill, but soon she found a cheaper shop and offered so many other features.
OK, enough console fan fiction for tonight.
This was in response to this unboxing video made by XBOX.
Gamers, this is worth the read. And it also gives you a little idea into my thoughts of each company.
All I have to say is, how dare he call the kinect beautiful?
The kinect is pretty at best, like a 7/10 would still bang, sort of deal.
However, the kinect is super ugly on the inside. It's overly attached, puts meaning into every little thing you say, won't let you have any fun unless it's their, and watches you constantly, with the possibility of telling her parents every thing you do. I'm not to worried about her parents actually listening, but she still has everything else I just mentioned.
And worst of all, she isn't even the one you have a relationship with, it's her fraternal twin sister. And it's not like with the parents, kinect tells everything to XBOX and XBOX takes it all to heart.
Now XBOX was always an expensive girl. If you wanted to play with friends, she asked for shopping money. Then when she had a makeover, she wanted even more shopping money for the things she could do in addition to letting you play with friends. Now, in her 3rd make over, even more things that she boasts about costs shopping money. She was a fun bad girl that you had fun fighting aliens with back in high school, but nothing to build a relationship off of.
Now on the other hand, we have play station and Nintendo. We've known Nintendo the longest, and even though she went through many different phases, she's still a lovely girl. She's mostly over her fitness kick and realizes that not everyone likes jumping around and swinging their arms like crazy. Though she's might still hold many of the fitness tendencies, she decided to lay off bugging you and forcing you to do all sorts of crazy work outs in order to have a little fun. A nice girl, and some people are in a nice relationship, but others have friend zoned her saying "it was fun, but I want more, but I'll still hang with you when I'm with your fitness friends."
Now last we have the new girl next door, the playstation. Nintendo initially introduced you to her, but she started competing for your affections, and not to far after, they were bitter rivals. Nintendo always offered you a good time, but playstation could do many of the same things. After a make over montage and the adaption of a 2, she became super sexy while keeping all the things you loved about her before. She became a little demanding after her second make over, asking you to spend $600 for her beauty shop bill, but soon she found a cheaper shop and offered so many other features.
OK, enough console fan fiction for tonight.
The Most Popular Arguments for XBOX ONE's DRM and My Response To Them (google plus reupload 2013)
Originally posted August 9th 2013.
I found this article on the most popular arguments for XBOX ONE'S DRM. Here are my responses.
post
Anyone looking for a good laugh? Well you'll probably get more of a chuckle, but still rich. Google "xbox one drm arguments" and you will read some of the stupidest reasons ever that you can't help but laugh at. Here's one article, and quick reasons why it's wrong.
"Xbox One would have solved the problem of buying a game on disc and then not being able to store it digitally or download it from the cloud."
1. I don't trust the cloud in the long run, especially long after the console has lost support from the developers. Also, it's not a problem. We've been swapping physical media for years and aside from super lazy lard butts, no one actually thinks it's a problem. And there is a reason why we buy physical. If we didn't want to swap the cartridge or disk, we'd buy the digital.
2019 thoughts, cloud gaming and digital only is a problem. The wii shop channel closed down, and now there are many games that can no longer be purchased.
"Publishers could charge less for games."
2. Uhhhh, yeah right. Physical and digital copies of the same game on the same console cost EXACTLY THE SAME, despite how there isn't the middle man and physical production costs.
"You could make more money from your trade-ins."
3. Or you could make even more selling it yourself through eBay. I sell things all the time on eBay, and things in DVD cases or cartridges are one of the easiest things to ship since all you need to do is put it in a bubble wrap shipping envelope. Never sell your games to gamestop or any other retailer. Digital licenses probably wouldn't be much better.
"Everyone used to hate Steam, but everyone loves it now. Xbox One could have been the same."
4. HAHAHAHAH Now that's rich. PC gamers like steam because of the sales, the ability to MOD the game, have the best hardware available, and output at maximum possible frame rate. Price, see #2, MOD the game, you've been banned from XBOX Live, best hardware available, you can't even remove the hard drive on the xbox one, so upgrading would count as modding, and then get banned from xbox live, max possible frame rate, no they boasted 60 fps at E3 and PC can get up to 100+ fps.
"Sharing games with your 10-person family plan would have been so much better than the total lack of digital sharing we have now."
5. Yes that's cool, if your family has more than 2 XBOX ONEs. My has one shared console between the entire family. Now what if 11+ people use the XBOX? Without the DRM, there's no problem, just 11+ profiles on the console, but everyone could use it, physical or digital. With the DRM, well then only 10 people could use it, meaning 1+ people are out of luck.
"The 24-hour online check-in was a necessary evil because it allows games to run entirely off the hard disk and be shared digitally."
6. Are you stupid? Like really stupid? We didn't need 24-hour check-ins with the physical or digital games before. We didn't need them to share our physical games before. It's been convention that you don't share digital games or DLC, but always share your physical, and physical is superior because it's unlimited storage limited only to your available shelf space.
"DRM makes stuff more affordable." 7. Since when? DRM only means you CAN'T buy affordable used games that you want only for a dust collector in your collection. Yes, I do buy games to further increase my collection and don't have much intention of playing much. I can get them for cheap at garage sales and through ebay and amazon. Can't do that any more with DRM.
"Now all we have is Xbox 360 2.0. How is this progress?"
8. And screwing the customer IS? Yes, people tend to generally not like change, but sometimes that change is just a bad idea, like deciding you're going to "improve" your life by "changing" your daily intake of cigarettes from 0 (not smoking) to a pack a day. The xbox 360 is a nice console. Sure the PS3 is better, but it's still good. Why take a step backwards?
I found this article on the most popular arguments for XBOX ONE'S DRM. Here are my responses.
post
Anyone looking for a good laugh? Well you'll probably get more of a chuckle, but still rich. Google "xbox one drm arguments" and you will read some of the stupidest reasons ever that you can't help but laugh at. Here's one article, and quick reasons why it's wrong.
"Xbox One would have solved the problem of buying a game on disc and then not being able to store it digitally or download it from the cloud."
1. I don't trust the cloud in the long run, especially long after the console has lost support from the developers. Also, it's not a problem. We've been swapping physical media for years and aside from super lazy lard butts, no one actually thinks it's a problem. And there is a reason why we buy physical. If we didn't want to swap the cartridge or disk, we'd buy the digital.
2019 thoughts, cloud gaming and digital only is a problem. The wii shop channel closed down, and now there are many games that can no longer be purchased.
"Publishers could charge less for games."
2. Uhhhh, yeah right. Physical and digital copies of the same game on the same console cost EXACTLY THE SAME, despite how there isn't the middle man and physical production costs.
"You could make more money from your trade-ins."
3. Or you could make even more selling it yourself through eBay. I sell things all the time on eBay, and things in DVD cases or cartridges are one of the easiest things to ship since all you need to do is put it in a bubble wrap shipping envelope. Never sell your games to gamestop or any other retailer. Digital licenses probably wouldn't be much better.
"Everyone used to hate Steam, but everyone loves it now. Xbox One could have been the same."
4. HAHAHAHAH Now that's rich. PC gamers like steam because of the sales, the ability to MOD the game, have the best hardware available, and output at maximum possible frame rate. Price, see #2, MOD the game, you've been banned from XBOX Live, best hardware available, you can't even remove the hard drive on the xbox one, so upgrading would count as modding, and then get banned from xbox live, max possible frame rate, no they boasted 60 fps at E3 and PC can get up to 100+ fps.
"Sharing games with your 10-person family plan would have been so much better than the total lack of digital sharing we have now."
5. Yes that's cool, if your family has more than 2 XBOX ONEs. My has one shared console between the entire family. Now what if 11+ people use the XBOX? Without the DRM, there's no problem, just 11+ profiles on the console, but everyone could use it, physical or digital. With the DRM, well then only 10 people could use it, meaning 1+ people are out of luck.
"The 24-hour online check-in was a necessary evil because it allows games to run entirely off the hard disk and be shared digitally."
6. Are you stupid? Like really stupid? We didn't need 24-hour check-ins with the physical or digital games before. We didn't need them to share our physical games before. It's been convention that you don't share digital games or DLC, but always share your physical, and physical is superior because it's unlimited storage limited only to your available shelf space.
"DRM makes stuff more affordable." 7. Since when? DRM only means you CAN'T buy affordable used games that you want only for a dust collector in your collection. Yes, I do buy games to further increase my collection and don't have much intention of playing much. I can get them for cheap at garage sales and through ebay and amazon. Can't do that any more with DRM.
"Now all we have is Xbox 360 2.0. How is this progress?"
8. And screwing the customer IS? Yes, people tend to generally not like change, but sometimes that change is just a bad idea, like deciding you're going to "improve" your life by "changing" your daily intake of cigarettes from 0 (not smoking) to a pack a day. The xbox 360 is a nice console. Sure the PS3 is better, but it's still good. Why take a step backwards?
My Reaction when Kinect was No Longer Mandatory (Reupload from Google Plus 2013)
(Originally posted August 12th 2013)
Look who might have my business now. The kinect was the only thing keeping me from getting an XBOX ONE. I would have looked into the modding community to see how I could manually remove the parts so that it wouldn't work but would trick the XBOX into thinking it was working. Now if I do end up getting an XBOX ONE and they don't make a bundle that doesn't have it, I can just throw the thing into my controller milk crate. Here's the article if you want to read the source.
http://kotaku.com/xbox-one-wont-actually-need-kinect-plugged-in-microso-1113142909?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Facebook&utm_source=Kotaku_Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow
Oh man, you have to read the comments. So many people are saying "but that was the only thing differentiating it from the PS4." Yes, that giant turd on the lawn was the only thing differentiating it from the PS4, but who in their right mind would be proud of a giant turd on their lawn. I would never use it, even for IR blasting and skype. I hate motion controls, like REALLY HATE THEM. I passed on a $50 Wii at a garage sale because I just don't believe in them and hate them with a passion, and as such would never play the kinect games. And as the guy in the video says, "if it's no longer required to make it run, why would you still require me to buy it?" Also the thing with the whole "the more I used it the more I loved it" thing, yeah no. I played many games that used motion controls, and only twice were they good and I thought "I would play this on a regular basis because the motion controls add to the experience." Skyward Sword and Trauma Center. Just get rid of the thing.
/post
And for an update, I have an XBOX ONE S. They ended up winning me over. And then they completely discontinued the Kinect.
Look who might have my business now. The kinect was the only thing keeping me from getting an XBOX ONE. I would have looked into the modding community to see how I could manually remove the parts so that it wouldn't work but would trick the XBOX into thinking it was working. Now if I do end up getting an XBOX ONE and they don't make a bundle that doesn't have it, I can just throw the thing into my controller milk crate. Here's the article if you want to read the source.
http://kotaku.com/xbox-one-wont-actually-need-kinect-plugged-in-microso-1113142909?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Facebook&utm_source=Kotaku_Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow
Oh man, you have to read the comments. So many people are saying "but that was the only thing differentiating it from the PS4." Yes, that giant turd on the lawn was the only thing differentiating it from the PS4, but who in their right mind would be proud of a giant turd on their lawn. I would never use it, even for IR blasting and skype. I hate motion controls, like REALLY HATE THEM. I passed on a $50 Wii at a garage sale because I just don't believe in them and hate them with a passion, and as such would never play the kinect games. And as the guy in the video says, "if it's no longer required to make it run, why would you still require me to buy it?" Also the thing with the whole "the more I used it the more I loved it" thing, yeah no. I played many games that used motion controls, and only twice were they good and I thought "I would play this on a regular basis because the motion controls add to the experience." Skyward Sword and Trauma Center. Just get rid of the thing.
/post
And for an update, I have an XBOX ONE S. They ended up winning me over. And then they completely discontinued the Kinect.
XBOX ONE's Policy Changes, a Tale of 3 Neighbors (google plus reupload from 2013)
Originally posted August 12th 2013
With the latest 180 by Microsoft with the kinect no longer being required to run the XBOX ONE, and all the fanboys complaining about how "we no longer have the future and now there's nothing separating the xbox one from the PS4," let me tell you a little story.
Once there were 3 houses on a street. One was the oldest there and the owners had many kids, and the owner didn't care too much about what the other houses were doing. Well, he cared a little after people didn't care for him exercising outside infront of everyone. But this house isn't what the story is about. So lets go to the other 2 houses.
Now the 2nd house came a while later after the first house, and the owner competed some with the first house, but it was nothing when compared to the competition once a third house was built. The neighbors would admire both houses, and people would argue over who was better, especially the owners of the 2 houses. They would constantly try to out do each other with flashier lawn ornaments, new paint, and all sorts of things.
Well one day, after admiring the beauty of a farm, the owner of the 3rd house said he wanted to make his house look more like a farm, and to make it look more like a farm, he dumped hundreds of pounds of manure and cow pies on his lawn and said he's making a future farm. There was one problem, this was a residential neighborhood; no one wanted to live next to a wanna be farm, especially one where the "farmer" thought that hundreds of pounds of manure and cow pies would make his house a farm. Well, except for the next door neighbor who used his neighbor's screw-up to showcase how nice his house was.
The everyone said they didn't like the farm look, and hated the smell, but the owner of the 3rd house said "oh just wait till I get some crops and live stock in here, and you'll be really happy." Even after getting some crops and live stock, people still preferred the non-farm house. Even if he offered them farm fresh food, they just couldn't get over the smell and eye sore of a mini-farm in a residential neighborhood, plus the animals made noise at night.
After losing almost every admirer he had, the owner of the 3rd house decided that maybe he should change some things. He got rid of the animals, crops, and a fair amount of manure. However, there was still one section of the lawn that was covered in manure and it still made the house and lawn stink. Some people called that pile and stink a defining feature, but the owner got wise and removed that last pile. The lawn still stinks, but that might go away at some point.
Now you might think that everyone would see that the farm in a residential neighborhood would see that it was a bad idea. You may think that, but you'd be wrong. There were some people who actually wanted the farm. They thought that the farm was the best thing in the world. They even put all sorts of flyers on the 3rd house saying "bring back the farm." Though everyone in the neighborhood told them "if you want that, move out to the country and let us have our nice neighborhood."
Can you guess who the houses are? Oh, and though both the first and second house didn't have any of the farm crap, the first house still had a bunch of exercise equipment lying around and didn't have much in the way of lawn decorations. It will likely get some lawn ornaments, but right now it's pretty plain.
With the latest 180 by Microsoft with the kinect no longer being required to run the XBOX ONE, and all the fanboys complaining about how "we no longer have the future and now there's nothing separating the xbox one from the PS4," let me tell you a little story.
Once there were 3 houses on a street. One was the oldest there and the owners had many kids, and the owner didn't care too much about what the other houses were doing. Well, he cared a little after people didn't care for him exercising outside infront of everyone. But this house isn't what the story is about. So lets go to the other 2 houses.
Now the 2nd house came a while later after the first house, and the owner competed some with the first house, but it was nothing when compared to the competition once a third house was built. The neighbors would admire both houses, and people would argue over who was better, especially the owners of the 2 houses. They would constantly try to out do each other with flashier lawn ornaments, new paint, and all sorts of things.
Well one day, after admiring the beauty of a farm, the owner of the 3rd house said he wanted to make his house look more like a farm, and to make it look more like a farm, he dumped hundreds of pounds of manure and cow pies on his lawn and said he's making a future farm. There was one problem, this was a residential neighborhood; no one wanted to live next to a wanna be farm, especially one where the "farmer" thought that hundreds of pounds of manure and cow pies would make his house a farm. Well, except for the next door neighbor who used his neighbor's screw-up to showcase how nice his house was.
The everyone said they didn't like the farm look, and hated the smell, but the owner of the 3rd house said "oh just wait till I get some crops and live stock in here, and you'll be really happy." Even after getting some crops and live stock, people still preferred the non-farm house. Even if he offered them farm fresh food, they just couldn't get over the smell and eye sore of a mini-farm in a residential neighborhood, plus the animals made noise at night.
After losing almost every admirer he had, the owner of the 3rd house decided that maybe he should change some things. He got rid of the animals, crops, and a fair amount of manure. However, there was still one section of the lawn that was covered in manure and it still made the house and lawn stink. Some people called that pile and stink a defining feature, but the owner got wise and removed that last pile. The lawn still stinks, but that might go away at some point.
Now you might think that everyone would see that the farm in a residential neighborhood would see that it was a bad idea. You may think that, but you'd be wrong. There were some people who actually wanted the farm. They thought that the farm was the best thing in the world. They even put all sorts of flyers on the 3rd house saying "bring back the farm." Though everyone in the neighborhood told them "if you want that, move out to the country and let us have our nice neighborhood."
Can you guess who the houses are? Oh, and though both the first and second house didn't have any of the farm crap, the first house still had a bunch of exercise equipment lying around and didn't have much in the way of lawn decorations. It will likely get some lawn ornaments, but right now it's pretty plain.
XBOX ONE Kinect will fail like Wii motion controls (gogle plus reupload 2013)
Originally posted August 13th 2013.
The short, "full market adaptation of the kinect" will only bread shovelware and stupid tacked on kinect controls. The long, well read.
A message to all the Microsoft fan boys saying that Microsoft is moving in the wrong direction by not making the kinect required and developers will develop amazing titles and uses for it because of full market adaptation. All you need to do is look back 1 generation, and I'm not talking about Kinect 1.0, I'm talking about the Nintendo Wii.
Now all you Wii fans out there, I am NOT talking about the wii as a whole and am only talking about the motion controls. With that in mind, continue reading.
Let's look at the Wii. By design of the freaking controller, every consumer had 100% market adaptation of the motion controls. By your logic, every game would have either used the gamecube controllers or utilized the wiimote in a revolutionary, immersive way that completely revolutionized gaming. Unfortunately, that is far from the truth. I can count the number of worthwhile games that fully utalized the motion controls of the wiimote or just used gamecube controls. Now I am not, I repeat, NOT, talking about if a game was good or not, just if the motion controls of the wiimote were fully utilized or if they just said "screw the motion controls, let's use the gamecube controller." And if someone can produce a list of over 6 games that are actually worth while, not a collection of mini games, that fully utilize the motion controls or just say no, I highly doubt you can produce a list of games that is larger than 31, and with counting in binary, I can get up to 31 on one hand.
But back to the subject of motion controls, aside from maybe 4 games, every other game had tacked on motion controls because developers felt they needed to put some kind of motion controls into their games, and this includes good games like Mario Galaxy and DK Country Returns. That, or they did utilize the motion controls but were not worth while and only fun for 30 minutes, like wario ware.
Now here's now I see the kinect. First, most developers are probably going to go the rout of "screw that, let's use gamecube controllers." If developers do decide to include some kinect controls into their game, it will likely be the "whack-a-mole" like controls we found in so Wii games. Sure, they won't be literal "whack-a-mole" like controls like with wii games, at least I hope developers won't make you suddenly put down your controller and start flailing your arms mid-game, but they won't be super useful and wanted by gamers and they'll just wish that it wasn't there and now you're shovel ware. There might be a hand number of games that fully utilize the kinect and are worthwhile, but for most people, that doesn't warrant an extra $100 to be "included" with the console.
Originally posted August 16th 2013
I decided to torture/laugh today by looking at articles about the kinect no longer being required and I cringe laughing at people saying "but the kinect 2.0 is awesome. Sure the original kinect didn't go over well, and neither did wii motion controls, playstation 2 eyetoy, playstation 3 move, and the PS4 isn't including the eye because people don't want it, but we know that full market adaptation will encourage developers to utilize the kinect in a great way." OK, it's more the just the thing about full market adaptation and then the comments bring up the other failed attempts, but really, it won't go over well. I heard one developer say it's like trying to program for a mouse with no click button. I wish people would realize that it doesn't matter how good the screwdriver is, they're all equally useless when trying to drive a nail and you're better off just using a hammer. That's how I see home motion controls. Home gaming is trying to drive a nail. I don't care how good your motion tracking hardware is, all I foresee is shovelware and tacked on motion controls.
You can use the thing about screwdriver driving a nail, just give me credit. It's a great analogy.
The short, "full market adaptation of the kinect" will only bread shovelware and stupid tacked on kinect controls. The long, well read.
A message to all the Microsoft fan boys saying that Microsoft is moving in the wrong direction by not making the kinect required and developers will develop amazing titles and uses for it because of full market adaptation. All you need to do is look back 1 generation, and I'm not talking about Kinect 1.0, I'm talking about the Nintendo Wii.
Now all you Wii fans out there, I am NOT talking about the wii as a whole and am only talking about the motion controls. With that in mind, continue reading.
Let's look at the Wii. By design of the freaking controller, every consumer had 100% market adaptation of the motion controls. By your logic, every game would have either used the gamecube controllers or utilized the wiimote in a revolutionary, immersive way that completely revolutionized gaming. Unfortunately, that is far from the truth. I can count the number of worthwhile games that fully utalized the motion controls of the wiimote or just used gamecube controls. Now I am not, I repeat, NOT, talking about if a game was good or not, just if the motion controls of the wiimote were fully utilized or if they just said "screw the motion controls, let's use the gamecube controller." And if someone can produce a list of over 6 games that are actually worth while, not a collection of mini games, that fully utilize the motion controls or just say no, I highly doubt you can produce a list of games that is larger than 31, and with counting in binary, I can get up to 31 on one hand.
But back to the subject of motion controls, aside from maybe 4 games, every other game had tacked on motion controls because developers felt they needed to put some kind of motion controls into their games, and this includes good games like Mario Galaxy and DK Country Returns. That, or they did utilize the motion controls but were not worth while and only fun for 30 minutes, like wario ware.
Now here's now I see the kinect. First, most developers are probably going to go the rout of "screw that, let's use gamecube controllers." If developers do decide to include some kinect controls into their game, it will likely be the "whack-a-mole" like controls we found in so Wii games. Sure, they won't be literal "whack-a-mole" like controls like with wii games, at least I hope developers won't make you suddenly put down your controller and start flailing your arms mid-game, but they won't be super useful and wanted by gamers and they'll just wish that it wasn't there and now you're shovel ware. There might be a hand number of games that fully utilize the kinect and are worthwhile, but for most people, that doesn't warrant an extra $100 to be "included" with the console.
Originally posted August 16th 2013
I decided to torture/laugh today by looking at articles about the kinect no longer being required and I cringe laughing at people saying "but the kinect 2.0 is awesome. Sure the original kinect didn't go over well, and neither did wii motion controls, playstation 2 eyetoy, playstation 3 move, and the PS4 isn't including the eye because people don't want it, but we know that full market adaptation will encourage developers to utilize the kinect in a great way." OK, it's more the just the thing about full market adaptation and then the comments bring up the other failed attempts, but really, it won't go over well. I heard one developer say it's like trying to program for a mouse with no click button. I wish people would realize that it doesn't matter how good the screwdriver is, they're all equally useless when trying to drive a nail and you're better off just using a hammer. That's how I see home motion controls. Home gaming is trying to drive a nail. I don't care how good your motion tracking hardware is, all I foresee is shovelware and tacked on motion controls.
You can use the thing about screwdriver driving a nail, just give me credit. It's a great analogy.
Used Games Are Not Piracy, Just Make your Games Better (google plus reupload from 2013)
Originally uploaded September 15th 2013. For context, this is a time when there was a big discussion over xbox one DRM and many discussions over why used games are killing the market, and DLC was the big thing people were angry about. Now adays it's all about microtransactions.
I really hate it when people compare used games to piracy. Their argument, "developers don't make money on used sales just like how they don't make money on pirated games."
OK, piracy and used games are not on the same level. The main reason is because, unlike piracy where an infinite amount of people can enjoy 1 once legal copy at 1 time, only 1 person can enjoy a used game at 1 time, up to 4 if it has split screen multi-player. The person who sold the used copy forfeited his rights to play that copy. He can no longer play the game he sold to someone else. If a pirate seeds his torrent, an unlimited number of people can enjoy that copy while the seeder also enjoys his copy. Even if he doesn't seed, the original torrent is still up for an unlimited number of people to get.
Another reason used games are not on the same level is because, unlike seeding a torrent, a fair amount of weighing of positives and negatives must happen before a consumer sells his copy of a game. As mentioned earlier, the first owner loses his ability to play the game once it's sold, therefor, he must be sure he doesn't want this game anymore or that the positives of selling the game outweigh the potential future enjoyment. I assume most people don't seed their torrents because they're lazy or don't like the thought of people getting stuff off their computer, or something like that, but it doesn't have the same choices that must be made like with selling a used game.
Now to address the lack of developer compensation. It is true that developers don't make money off of the sales of used games and they don't make money off of the download of pirated games, and as such it does make sense that developers would want to lower the instance of both. I don't know how to curb piracy. People seem to like steam sales and apparently that significantly lowered piracy in Russia, but I'm not going to try to come up with ideas on how to lower that; I have no ideas how to lower piracy, and since this rant isn't about ethics of piracy, I'll just stop it here.
WARNING: Explanation of basic economic concepts ahead. Please proceed to the next paragraph if you already understand the basics of free market capitalism and new game prices.
The main difference between the new and used game market is the new game market operates on a fixed price model with the price set by the developers and the used game market operates at fair market price as dictated by the consumer, aka, free market forces. In a capitalist economic society, consumers as a whole decide what they are willing to pay for a product which matches what sellers as a whole decide they wish to sell the product for. For a used game, there is a set supply as determined by the number of people wishing to sell their game and a set demand as determined by the number of people wishing to buy that game. Then based on supply and demand, the price for that game is determined by how much the seller is willing to accept based on how badly they wish to sell the game and how much the buyer is willing to depart with in order to get that game. It's basic econ. Now with the new game market, there is theoretically an unlimited supply because the production companies can print off as many copies as they want. To keep these games from being sold for nothing as would be dictated by a free market system for an item with an unlimited supply, the publishers specify what the price is going to be. There will be people willing to pay that price if they see that as being a fair price, but it's not always the same as there would be if an equilibrium supply and demand was found.
ECONOMICS OVER NOW.
Here's a way to lower used game sales though. It's a really simple concept, make games that people won't want to sell. If a game is really good and offers great gameplay and replay value, people won't be so quick to sell. This then lowers the supply in the used game market. Also if the game is really good and offers great gameplay and replay value, that increases the demand for the game. In a free market system such as the used game market, the price is directly related to supply and demand, and if you can get the price of a used game higher than a new game, people will buy the new game over the used game, because people generally go with the cheapest version. If the difference is $5-$10 dollars, it could go either way. The ability to have a game that's never been touched by anyone is worth $5-$10 to some people, others it's not. However, when the difference is $40, the consumer will go with the much cheaper version almost all of the time. Games such as the EA sports titles come to mind when thinking about the price difference between new and used. Stores might still have copies of Madden 2k-whatever, and as required by their agreement with EA, they must still sell that at whatever the standard retail price is, let's say $40. However, when everyone is selling last year's edition, the fair market price for the used game goes down to $1 because everyone wants to sell it and no one wants to buy it.
Now lets look at another game, Xenoblade Chronicles for the Wii. This game also has a $40 price difference between the new and used copy. Now what sets this apart from madden? It's quite simple, the used version is $40 more expensive than the used version. You heard me right, developer required retail price for a new copy is $40 cheaper than a used copy. If you find a new copy at gamestop, walmart, or anyone else that gets their games from the developers, they have to sell it for $50. If you find a used copy at gamestop or ebay, it's gonna cost you around $90. Gamestop was even involved in a scandal where they got shipments of new copies and they opened them up to call them used so they could sell them for more money. It's not ethical, and I'm not entirely sure if it's legal, but they were just playing to the free market.
Now as a developer, ask yourself, why was the game selling for $90 used when a new copy was cheaper? Well part of that is it was a limited release game with far fewer copies on the market. However there are probably a couple games that had the same number of sales new but now go for $10, so don't think that limited release is the answer. The primary reason, is that supply and demand dictated that $90 price tag. People were not so quick to sell their game because they really liked it, thus there was very little supply. Also, many people wanted to play it, thus there was high demand. Mixing the low supply and high demand gave that game a high price, one larger than that of the new price as dictated by the developer. If this game had a much larger release, the used price would probably be around the new price with that $5-$10 price difference, maybe less.
Now what sets a pirate apart from a buyer of used games? Simple, a pirate is not willing to pay for the content, but a used buyer willing to pay for it so long as the price matches what they are willing to pay for it. If they don't think the game is worth $50 but it is worth $20 and lower, and they can get it for $20 or lower, they will buy it for $20 or lower, compensating the developer or not so long as it was once bought legally and the previous owner can't use it anymore. Now you can remedy this by dropping the price to fair market value or lower and get some money for it, like the steam sales, or you could keep it at $50 and wonder why people would sell their games for $20; 5% of that $20 if they use a middleman like gamestop. But price drops might not seem like a good idea the year it was released because then the guys who already bought it feel like chumps and won't buy early again. So what's a developer to do?
I already said it, make games people aren't so willing to resell. If someone buys a $50 game and finds out it's only $20 worth of fun, there's a good chance they will cut their losses and sell for $20, probably then buying a better game with that money. Make a game that's $90 worth of fun and charge $50, people won't be so quick to resell for anything under original purchase price; maybe even a little over original purchase price. If you want to undercut used games, sell at or under fair market value.
Yes, it typically takes thousands if not millions of dollars to develop and make a game. Video games are a form of art, but not all art is created equal. I know I'm terrible at drawing and painting. I could spend the same amount of time and money on resources as Da Vinci did when painting the Mona Lisa. Thing is, if I managed to sell it, I would be lucky if I recouped the money I spent on paint. What makes my work of art worth $1 but Da Vinci's worth billions? They both took the same amount of time resources and there's the same number of copies in the world. Well his looks great and defines a generation of artistic creation, whereas mine is probably a lopsided circle that no one cares about. Don't invest millions of dollars in lopsided circles and expect to make a lot of money. Make the games that define a generation of games, and see how many used copies are out on the market. Just look at Earthbound. That game defined RPGs on the SNES, and loose carts are going for $150. When a virtual console release for the Wii U was produced, it was the top selling virtual console game, and it wouldn't surprise me if it outsells games like Mario U. It was that good. Now if you look at a game like NCAA Basketball, fair market value is under $1, and if a virtual console game was released, it probably wouldn't sell at all, because it's a lopsided circle. It probably cost a couple thousand dollars to make, but it's not worth the $2 of silicone, plastic, and other guts within it. Why, because it's a lopsided circle.
What's the moral of this story? Pirates are not the same as people who buy used games. Pirates aren't going to pay fair market value, new or used, because they would rather get it for free. Used game buyers will pay what they deem to be a fair price. If they feel a game is worth the $50 price tag for a new game, they will pay that $50. If not, they will wait until they can get it for the price they feel is fair, new or used. If you want to compete with the used game market, drop the price to used fair market value price, or make a game that is worth the $50, or make it worth more than $50 but charge that, that'll really screw the used game market.
Now don't get me wrong, I despise piracy. Arguments such as "avoiding DRM and the company sucks" I call Bull. Everyone who uses those arguments that I've met ultimately does it because they want free stuff. The only time I can understand piracy is if there's no legal way to get the content, like with Star Fox 2 for the SNES. Unlike the used game market that shows what fair market value is, piracy is just free stuff from an unlimited source. Piracy is bad, don't do it.
I really hate it when people compare used games to piracy. Their argument, "developers don't make money on used sales just like how they don't make money on pirated games."
OK, piracy and used games are not on the same level. The main reason is because, unlike piracy where an infinite amount of people can enjoy 1 once legal copy at 1 time, only 1 person can enjoy a used game at 1 time, up to 4 if it has split screen multi-player. The person who sold the used copy forfeited his rights to play that copy. He can no longer play the game he sold to someone else. If a pirate seeds his torrent, an unlimited number of people can enjoy that copy while the seeder also enjoys his copy. Even if he doesn't seed, the original torrent is still up for an unlimited number of people to get.
Another reason used games are not on the same level is because, unlike seeding a torrent, a fair amount of weighing of positives and negatives must happen before a consumer sells his copy of a game. As mentioned earlier, the first owner loses his ability to play the game once it's sold, therefor, he must be sure he doesn't want this game anymore or that the positives of selling the game outweigh the potential future enjoyment. I assume most people don't seed their torrents because they're lazy or don't like the thought of people getting stuff off their computer, or something like that, but it doesn't have the same choices that must be made like with selling a used game.
Now to address the lack of developer compensation. It is true that developers don't make money off of the sales of used games and they don't make money off of the download of pirated games, and as such it does make sense that developers would want to lower the instance of both. I don't know how to curb piracy. People seem to like steam sales and apparently that significantly lowered piracy in Russia, but I'm not going to try to come up with ideas on how to lower that; I have no ideas how to lower piracy, and since this rant isn't about ethics of piracy, I'll just stop it here.
WARNING: Explanation of basic economic concepts ahead. Please proceed to the next paragraph if you already understand the basics of free market capitalism and new game prices.
The main difference between the new and used game market is the new game market operates on a fixed price model with the price set by the developers and the used game market operates at fair market price as dictated by the consumer, aka, free market forces. In a capitalist economic society, consumers as a whole decide what they are willing to pay for a product which matches what sellers as a whole decide they wish to sell the product for. For a used game, there is a set supply as determined by the number of people wishing to sell their game and a set demand as determined by the number of people wishing to buy that game. Then based on supply and demand, the price for that game is determined by how much the seller is willing to accept based on how badly they wish to sell the game and how much the buyer is willing to depart with in order to get that game. It's basic econ. Now with the new game market, there is theoretically an unlimited supply because the production companies can print off as many copies as they want. To keep these games from being sold for nothing as would be dictated by a free market system for an item with an unlimited supply, the publishers specify what the price is going to be. There will be people willing to pay that price if they see that as being a fair price, but it's not always the same as there would be if an equilibrium supply and demand was found.
ECONOMICS OVER NOW.
Here's a way to lower used game sales though. It's a really simple concept, make games that people won't want to sell. If a game is really good and offers great gameplay and replay value, people won't be so quick to sell. This then lowers the supply in the used game market. Also if the game is really good and offers great gameplay and replay value, that increases the demand for the game. In a free market system such as the used game market, the price is directly related to supply and demand, and if you can get the price of a used game higher than a new game, people will buy the new game over the used game, because people generally go with the cheapest version. If the difference is $5-$10 dollars, it could go either way. The ability to have a game that's never been touched by anyone is worth $5-$10 to some people, others it's not. However, when the difference is $40, the consumer will go with the much cheaper version almost all of the time. Games such as the EA sports titles come to mind when thinking about the price difference between new and used. Stores might still have copies of Madden 2k-whatever, and as required by their agreement with EA, they must still sell that at whatever the standard retail price is, let's say $40. However, when everyone is selling last year's edition, the fair market price for the used game goes down to $1 because everyone wants to sell it and no one wants to buy it.
Now lets look at another game, Xenoblade Chronicles for the Wii. This game also has a $40 price difference between the new and used copy. Now what sets this apart from madden? It's quite simple, the used version is $40 more expensive than the used version. You heard me right, developer required retail price for a new copy is $40 cheaper than a used copy. If you find a new copy at gamestop, walmart, or anyone else that gets their games from the developers, they have to sell it for $50. If you find a used copy at gamestop or ebay, it's gonna cost you around $90. Gamestop was even involved in a scandal where they got shipments of new copies and they opened them up to call them used so they could sell them for more money. It's not ethical, and I'm not entirely sure if it's legal, but they were just playing to the free market.
Now as a developer, ask yourself, why was the game selling for $90 used when a new copy was cheaper? Well part of that is it was a limited release game with far fewer copies on the market. However there are probably a couple games that had the same number of sales new but now go for $10, so don't think that limited release is the answer. The primary reason, is that supply and demand dictated that $90 price tag. People were not so quick to sell their game because they really liked it, thus there was very little supply. Also, many people wanted to play it, thus there was high demand. Mixing the low supply and high demand gave that game a high price, one larger than that of the new price as dictated by the developer. If this game had a much larger release, the used price would probably be around the new price with that $5-$10 price difference, maybe less.
Now what sets a pirate apart from a buyer of used games? Simple, a pirate is not willing to pay for the content, but a used buyer willing to pay for it so long as the price matches what they are willing to pay for it. If they don't think the game is worth $50 but it is worth $20 and lower, and they can get it for $20 or lower, they will buy it for $20 or lower, compensating the developer or not so long as it was once bought legally and the previous owner can't use it anymore. Now you can remedy this by dropping the price to fair market value or lower and get some money for it, like the steam sales, or you could keep it at $50 and wonder why people would sell their games for $20; 5% of that $20 if they use a middleman like gamestop. But price drops might not seem like a good idea the year it was released because then the guys who already bought it feel like chumps and won't buy early again. So what's a developer to do?
I already said it, make games people aren't so willing to resell. If someone buys a $50 game and finds out it's only $20 worth of fun, there's a good chance they will cut their losses and sell for $20, probably then buying a better game with that money. Make a game that's $90 worth of fun and charge $50, people won't be so quick to resell for anything under original purchase price; maybe even a little over original purchase price. If you want to undercut used games, sell at or under fair market value.
Yes, it typically takes thousands if not millions of dollars to develop and make a game. Video games are a form of art, but not all art is created equal. I know I'm terrible at drawing and painting. I could spend the same amount of time and money on resources as Da Vinci did when painting the Mona Lisa. Thing is, if I managed to sell it, I would be lucky if I recouped the money I spent on paint. What makes my work of art worth $1 but Da Vinci's worth billions? They both took the same amount of time resources and there's the same number of copies in the world. Well his looks great and defines a generation of artistic creation, whereas mine is probably a lopsided circle that no one cares about. Don't invest millions of dollars in lopsided circles and expect to make a lot of money. Make the games that define a generation of games, and see how many used copies are out on the market. Just look at Earthbound. That game defined RPGs on the SNES, and loose carts are going for $150. When a virtual console release for the Wii U was produced, it was the top selling virtual console game, and it wouldn't surprise me if it outsells games like Mario U. It was that good. Now if you look at a game like NCAA Basketball, fair market value is under $1, and if a virtual console game was released, it probably wouldn't sell at all, because it's a lopsided circle. It probably cost a couple thousand dollars to make, but it's not worth the $2 of silicone, plastic, and other guts within it. Why, because it's a lopsided circle.
What's the moral of this story? Pirates are not the same as people who buy used games. Pirates aren't going to pay fair market value, new or used, because they would rather get it for free. Used game buyers will pay what they deem to be a fair price. If they feel a game is worth the $50 price tag for a new game, they will pay that $50. If not, they will wait until they can get it for the price they feel is fair, new or used. If you want to compete with the used game market, drop the price to used fair market value price, or make a game that is worth the $50, or make it worth more than $50 but charge that, that'll really screw the used game market.
Now don't get me wrong, I despise piracy. Arguments such as "avoiding DRM and the company sucks" I call Bull. Everyone who uses those arguments that I've met ultimately does it because they want free stuff. The only time I can understand piracy is if there's no legal way to get the content, like with Star Fox 2 for the SNES. Unlike the used game market that shows what fair market value is, piracy is just free stuff from an unlimited source. Piracy is bad, don't do it.
So What if PS4 and XBOX ONE Are Similar with their Camera Features (Google plus reupload from 2013)
Originally posted September 26th 2013. I made in response to this article: PlayStation 4 new camera, an xbox copycat?
Yeah... Thing is though, Sony is playing it cool. They're all "yeah, use it if you want to, but it's whatever." They've been like that since launch. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they dropped the mandatory inclusion, aka every PS4 ships with it, not "you must have this plugged in at all times," even before the xbox one announcement. They knew that gamers didn't really care about it, as shown by the playstation move. They made some games for it, but once they saw that no one was buying it, they were all "ok then, let's not care about it." Microsoft however, "man kinect is amazing. You need to get this for your xbox 360 to really improve your gaming experience. Just look at all these 'awesome' game's were making, like kinect adventures and kinectamals." Problem is, rather poorly received. Sold decently from what I heard, but no one was buying a third kinect game and devs weren't to thrilled to program for something people didn't really care for.
Now with this generation, there are 2 schools of thought with the camera control accessory; make it super technologically advanced and force it onto people, or make it super technologically advanced and say "yeah get it if you want but we don't care."
Initially, Microsoft was all "this is an amazing piece of tech. This IS XBOX ONE. We want to make sure you know that, so we're going to make it so that your XBOX won't work without it connected. But trust us, you'll love it just as much as us." They probably only dropped the required connection after some exec's cat chewed through the wire and said "hey guys, I have mine connected, but it doesn't work. My cat chewed through it. The guys on all the internet were right, this will be a problem if for people with cats and/or children, and since that's our target market, we don't want to lose them over this."
Sony on the other hand, "yeah we thought about including it, but then we remembered that you guys don't really care for motion controls. We'll have it do the whole voice controls and face recognition sign in thing if that's what you're in to, but we really don't care. Buy it if you want."
Sure, both consoles are quite similar as to what they can do, but so was the 360 and PS3, and to an extent, so was the PS2 and XBOX classic.
PS2 and XBOX classic; both could play music, both could play DVDs, both could do online multiplayer. The features were super similar with the only things separating them being exclusives and one having a payment wall for the online and DVD services.
PS360; both could do DVD, both could do HD video disk playback, both could download games through their online store, both could buy movies and TV shows through their online store, both have a web browser (though one got it much later than the other), both have a large number of streaming services, both have online multiplayer, etc. Main differences that separated the 2 consoles, exclusive games, one having a payment wall for services and HD video disk playback, and the same one with the payment wall adopting the failed HD video disk.
Later in their life, they both made motion control accessories, both of which got mixed to negative reviews from developers and consumers. Main difference, one shoehorned their motion control accessory and the other just kind of let it fade to not caring.
Now with PS4 XBOX ONE, there were a million differences. One made you check in every 24 hours and the other didn't, one made you stay online whenever you played it and the other didn't, one let you share games and the other didn't, one made you not only buy a motion control camera, it also made you use it all the time, and the other one didn't even make you buy the motion control camera, like before, one locked close to everything behind a payment wall and the other didn't...the list goes on and on. The only thing that was similar was the multiplats, some streaming services, and both used blu-ray. Thing is, people didn't like the differences. People preferred one to the other 20 to 1. Spoilers, XBOX ONE did all the consumer unfriendly stuff and PS4 didn't. Only thing people didn't like about PS4 was that they made video capture a pain and super complicated while XBOX ONE didn't.
Well, Microsoft then changed their tone once they saw the numbers, releasing what I will call "XBOX 180." They dropped all their consumer unfriendly practices, making it "very similar to the PS4." They still make you buy the motion control camera, but you don't need to have it connected the all the time.
Now there were some things that XBOX got right, like voice commands and face sign in for their motion camera and allowing game capture. To make things better, PS4 allows game capture and motion camera things.
Once again, they're essentially the same, except for exclusives and one locking most of the features behind a payment wall, just like the past 2 generations. I don't get why people act surprised when the consoles are very similar to each other. Don't they know only Nintendo can do things differently?
/post
Looking back, I find it kind of funny how people were going crazy about the motion controls, considering they're now dead 5 and a half years later.
Yeah... Thing is though, Sony is playing it cool. They're all "yeah, use it if you want to, but it's whatever." They've been like that since launch. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they dropped the mandatory inclusion, aka every PS4 ships with it, not "you must have this plugged in at all times," even before the xbox one announcement. They knew that gamers didn't really care about it, as shown by the playstation move. They made some games for it, but once they saw that no one was buying it, they were all "ok then, let's not care about it." Microsoft however, "man kinect is amazing. You need to get this for your xbox 360 to really improve your gaming experience. Just look at all these 'awesome' game's were making, like kinect adventures and kinectamals." Problem is, rather poorly received. Sold decently from what I heard, but no one was buying a third kinect game and devs weren't to thrilled to program for something people didn't really care for.
Now with this generation, there are 2 schools of thought with the camera control accessory; make it super technologically advanced and force it onto people, or make it super technologically advanced and say "yeah get it if you want but we don't care."
Initially, Microsoft was all "this is an amazing piece of tech. This IS XBOX ONE. We want to make sure you know that, so we're going to make it so that your XBOX won't work without it connected. But trust us, you'll love it just as much as us." They probably only dropped the required connection after some exec's cat chewed through the wire and said "hey guys, I have mine connected, but it doesn't work. My cat chewed through it. The guys on all the internet were right, this will be a problem if for people with cats and/or children, and since that's our target market, we don't want to lose them over this."
Sony on the other hand, "yeah we thought about including it, but then we remembered that you guys don't really care for motion controls. We'll have it do the whole voice controls and face recognition sign in thing if that's what you're in to, but we really don't care. Buy it if you want."
Sure, both consoles are quite similar as to what they can do, but so was the 360 and PS3, and to an extent, so was the PS2 and XBOX classic.
PS2 and XBOX classic; both could play music, both could play DVDs, both could do online multiplayer. The features were super similar with the only things separating them being exclusives and one having a payment wall for the online and DVD services.
PS360; both could do DVD, both could do HD video disk playback, both could download games through their online store, both could buy movies and TV shows through their online store, both have a web browser (though one got it much later than the other), both have a large number of streaming services, both have online multiplayer, etc. Main differences that separated the 2 consoles, exclusive games, one having a payment wall for services and HD video disk playback, and the same one with the payment wall adopting the failed HD video disk.
Later in their life, they both made motion control accessories, both of which got mixed to negative reviews from developers and consumers. Main difference, one shoehorned their motion control accessory and the other just kind of let it fade to not caring.
Now with PS4 XBOX ONE, there were a million differences. One made you check in every 24 hours and the other didn't, one made you stay online whenever you played it and the other didn't, one let you share games and the other didn't, one made you not only buy a motion control camera, it also made you use it all the time, and the other one didn't even make you buy the motion control camera, like before, one locked close to everything behind a payment wall and the other didn't...the list goes on and on. The only thing that was similar was the multiplats, some streaming services, and both used blu-ray. Thing is, people didn't like the differences. People preferred one to the other 20 to 1. Spoilers, XBOX ONE did all the consumer unfriendly stuff and PS4 didn't. Only thing people didn't like about PS4 was that they made video capture a pain and super complicated while XBOX ONE didn't.
Well, Microsoft then changed their tone once they saw the numbers, releasing what I will call "XBOX 180." They dropped all their consumer unfriendly practices, making it "very similar to the PS4." They still make you buy the motion control camera, but you don't need to have it connected the all the time.
Now there were some things that XBOX got right, like voice commands and face sign in for their motion camera and allowing game capture. To make things better, PS4 allows game capture and motion camera things.
Once again, they're essentially the same, except for exclusives and one locking most of the features behind a payment wall, just like the past 2 generations. I don't get why people act surprised when the consoles are very similar to each other. Don't they know only Nintendo can do things differently?
/post
Looking back, I find it kind of funny how people were going crazy about the motion controls, considering they're now dead 5 and a half years later.
I Prefer Single Player and Don't Want to Socialize (Google Plus Repost, and some New Thoguhts)
Originally posted November 9th 2013, originally in response to this article: Single Player with Benefits.
I personally prefer single player. I like the story and, as everyone in the comments points out, not play with the scum of the earth. I also play single player because I game to escape from the real world and just enjoy time to myself. Honestly, the only reason I have my PS3 connected to the internet is so I can use the streaming services.
The article is worthless, but the comments are great.
(Now begins a tangent on "it's all about the social element that makes it fun," specifically about the movies theater comment.)
About the movie theater thing, yeah the only reason I go to the theater is because of the big screen and surround sound. I prefer having empty theaters because then I get to just enjoy the movie and not worry about the idiots. I've been to a "social entertainment experience," and it was absolutely terrible; people kept talking throughout the entire time so I couldn't hear what was going on in the actual play, people kept throwing random things and hitting me with them, and to top it all off, the ACTUAL STORY was terrible based on what I looked up afterwards online, because, well, couldn't hear a damn thing regarding the actual play. Then when I tell fans that their favorite movie/play sucks, they're all "no it's the greatest movie/play of all time," and when I ask the to explain, "oh well it's the stupid things you yell and the throwing of random stuff and dressing up as your favorite character." But when I say "yes, but the story is terrible, the music is on par with modern pop, and I feel like I'm watching a glorified soft-core gay porno," I get "but the experience." Maybe if more time was spent on making a good story and better songs, you wouldn't need to do all the stupid participation to enjoy it. The same can be said about the "social element" in gaming. Maybe if more time was spent on developing the story, you wouldn't have to worry about getting the achievements or if you can find a good online match.
/post
Nor for some follow-up thoughts 6 years later. We are at a point where people don't want online integration. Everyone is fed-up with microtransactions and shared worlds, and the death of single player (with some resurrection). People just want to play games, without having to do all the stupid forced multiplayer.
I personally prefer single player. I like the story and, as everyone in the comments points out, not play with the scum of the earth. I also play single player because I game to escape from the real world and just enjoy time to myself. Honestly, the only reason I have my PS3 connected to the internet is so I can use the streaming services.
The article is worthless, but the comments are great.
(Now begins a tangent on "it's all about the social element that makes it fun," specifically about the movies theater comment.)
About the movie theater thing, yeah the only reason I go to the theater is because of the big screen and surround sound. I prefer having empty theaters because then I get to just enjoy the movie and not worry about the idiots. I've been to a "social entertainment experience," and it was absolutely terrible; people kept talking throughout the entire time so I couldn't hear what was going on in the actual play, people kept throwing random things and hitting me with them, and to top it all off, the ACTUAL STORY was terrible based on what I looked up afterwards online, because, well, couldn't hear a damn thing regarding the actual play. Then when I tell fans that their favorite movie/play sucks, they're all "no it's the greatest movie/play of all time," and when I ask the to explain, "oh well it's the stupid things you yell and the throwing of random stuff and dressing up as your favorite character." But when I say "yes, but the story is terrible, the music is on par with modern pop, and I feel like I'm watching a glorified soft-core gay porno," I get "but the experience." Maybe if more time was spent on making a good story and better songs, you wouldn't need to do all the stupid participation to enjoy it. The same can be said about the "social element" in gaming. Maybe if more time was spent on developing the story, you wouldn't have to worry about getting the achievements or if you can find a good online match.
/post
Nor for some follow-up thoughts 6 years later. We are at a point where people don't want online integration. Everyone is fed-up with microtransactions and shared worlds, and the death of single player (with some resurrection). People just want to play games, without having to do all the stupid forced multiplayer.
Some Posts About OUYA
Originally posted December 16th 2013
Streaming Sword Art Online through my OUYA at the moment. For what it is, this is a really good device. Can it do as much as my PS3? No. Is it less than 1/3 the price I paid for the PS3? Yes. For all the people saying it sucks, you just don't understand it. It's a super budget game console that focuses on indi games. It's more than just emulators. Are the apps lacking, yes. The only good streaming app they have at the moment is crunchyroll. Oh well, I like anime, and crunchyroll doesn't require a subscription like hulu plus or netflix, or for me to buy episodes individually like amazon.
Originally posted December 18th, 2013
Well I just side loaded the amazon app store on my OUYA. This way I can get a bunch of apps from amazon that aren't on OUYA. The hulu plus app crashes every time I try to launch it, so that one's dead. The cartoon network app works well, except that the live streaming doesn't seem to work. Oh well, I can watch episodes and clips no problem. The netflix app seems to work, unfortunately I don't use netflix so I don't know if that works. I like this side loading app thing. The OUYA is really cool guys. If you like computers and design and stuff, you might want to get an OUYA. Whereas other consoles will say "opening your device will void your warranty," OUYA says on initial boot-up, "we encourage you to open up your OUYA and install whatever you want to on your OUYA. This will not void your warranty."
Originally posted December 19th, 2013
Anyone who is considering getting a Roku streaming box or some other streaming box, I recommend getting a OUYA. You can load the major apps like netflix, hulu plus, crackle, crunchyroll, and just about any other video app through side loading, and then it doubles as a game "console" with the wide variety of indi games available. Why compare to Roku, because it's only about $20 more for all the versatility. Plus, side loading is kind of fun if you like computers and are interested in how things work.
(FYI, I don't really recommend it anymore over the Roku, but it's still pretty neat)
Streaming Sword Art Online through my OUYA at the moment. For what it is, this is a really good device. Can it do as much as my PS3? No. Is it less than 1/3 the price I paid for the PS3? Yes. For all the people saying it sucks, you just don't understand it. It's a super budget game console that focuses on indi games. It's more than just emulators. Are the apps lacking, yes. The only good streaming app they have at the moment is crunchyroll. Oh well, I like anime, and crunchyroll doesn't require a subscription like hulu plus or netflix, or for me to buy episodes individually like amazon.
Originally posted December 18th, 2013
Well I just side loaded the amazon app store on my OUYA. This way I can get a bunch of apps from amazon that aren't on OUYA. The hulu plus app crashes every time I try to launch it, so that one's dead. The cartoon network app works well, except that the live streaming doesn't seem to work. Oh well, I can watch episodes and clips no problem. The netflix app seems to work, unfortunately I don't use netflix so I don't know if that works. I like this side loading app thing. The OUYA is really cool guys. If you like computers and design and stuff, you might want to get an OUYA. Whereas other consoles will say "opening your device will void your warranty," OUYA says on initial boot-up, "we encourage you to open up your OUYA and install whatever you want to on your OUYA. This will not void your warranty."
Originally posted December 19th, 2013
Anyone who is considering getting a Roku streaming box or some other streaming box, I recommend getting a OUYA. You can load the major apps like netflix, hulu plus, crackle, crunchyroll, and just about any other video app through side loading, and then it doubles as a game "console" with the wide variety of indi games available. Why compare to Roku, because it's only about $20 more for all the versatility. Plus, side loading is kind of fun if you like computers and are interested in how things work.
(FYI, I don't really recommend it anymore over the Roku, but it's still pretty neat)
Friday, February 1, 2019
Some rants about SNES classic and pre-sells
Originally posted to August 27th 2017 to google plus.
So apparently the SNES Classic sold out of pre-orders in the US in a matter of hours yesterday.
Question. HOW DO YOU SELL OUT OF SOMETHING THAT'S MEANT TO GAUGE INTEREST IN A PRODUCT!!!!????? Nintendo, the point of pre-orders is to estimate how much demand there is for a product. "If X number of people pre-order, then we can estimate the demand will be Y." YOU DON'T LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF DEMAND THAT'S ALLOWED FOR A PRODUCT!!!!! It's business 101. This isn't some stupid "artificial scarcity BS" apologists give me when I talk about Amiibo scarcity. THIS IS LOST SALES!!! Unlike Amiibo where there is a rather limited audience (hardcore fans of current Nintendo that want DLC and figures), a SNES classic appeals to a LARGE demographic of casual people that grew up with the SNES and are saying "$80 to relive my childhood in HD, sure, that sounds like fun." They will NEVER take time off work to wait in line at a store in the hopes of MAYBE getting one. They are the ones who will walk by it in the electronics section and say "I had one as a kid, I think I'll buy it." You are IDIOTS!
And this, in response to this article on Reggie saying they underestimated demand.
Golly gee Reggie, you know how you can make it up to people? Ship. More. Units. How hard is that. And you know what else you could do? How about unlimited pre-orders.
"But we don't want to make more units than we can sell, and just have them sit on store shelves collecting dust." Well guess what, a pre-order is a guaranteed sale. Someone is paying you UP FRONT for the item, probably before the plastic is even molded, or the board is printed. You don't know how many units to make? Well, how about you make a couple thousand more than the number of people saying "here's $80 right now, I'll take my SNES classic in a month."
So apparently the SNES Classic sold out of pre-orders in the US in a matter of hours yesterday.
Question. HOW DO YOU SELL OUT OF SOMETHING THAT'S MEANT TO GAUGE INTEREST IN A PRODUCT!!!!????? Nintendo, the point of pre-orders is to estimate how much demand there is for a product. "If X number of people pre-order, then we can estimate the demand will be Y." YOU DON'T LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF DEMAND THAT'S ALLOWED FOR A PRODUCT!!!!! It's business 101. This isn't some stupid "artificial scarcity BS" apologists give me when I talk about Amiibo scarcity. THIS IS LOST SALES!!! Unlike Amiibo where there is a rather limited audience (hardcore fans of current Nintendo that want DLC and figures), a SNES classic appeals to a LARGE demographic of casual people that grew up with the SNES and are saying "$80 to relive my childhood in HD, sure, that sounds like fun." They will NEVER take time off work to wait in line at a store in the hopes of MAYBE getting one. They are the ones who will walk by it in the electronics section and say "I had one as a kid, I think I'll buy it." You are IDIOTS!
And this, in response to this article on Reggie saying they underestimated demand.
Golly gee Reggie, you know how you can make it up to people? Ship. More. Units. How hard is that. And you know what else you could do? How about unlimited pre-orders.
"But we don't want to make more units than we can sell, and just have them sit on store shelves collecting dust." Well guess what, a pre-order is a guaranteed sale. Someone is paying you UP FRONT for the item, probably before the plastic is even molded, or the board is printed. You don't know how many units to make? Well, how about you make a couple thousand more than the number of people saying "here's $80 right now, I'll take my SNES classic in a month."
Responding to Gamespot's Super Lucky's Tale review (google plus reupload)
(Originally posted to google plus November 3rd 2017)
So I read this review on gamespot, it can be found here. Here is my response to some of the statements.
"Super Lucky's Tale is almost indistinguishable from an N64-era mascot platformer." So you're saying it calls back to the glory days of platformers.
"...and meet cute, if two-dimensional, characters who speak like Sims and need your help." So it's gameplay over story, just how I like my platformers.
"It's never too challenging, always sticking to its safe, time-tested formula as you jump and dodge and collect your way to becoming a hero." You mean like the games I fell in love with as a kid?
"There are technically four kinds of collectibles: coins, gems that function essentially as coins, the letters L, U, C, K, and Y, and clovers. But clovers are the only collectibles that matter." So it's a collectathon? I was hoping for that. I love playing crash for the colectathon.
"But a limited 3D camera that doesn't rotate a full 180 degrees and inconsistent mantling on Lucky's part causes enough hiccups to be frustrating. Most of your deaths will be caused by missing or misjudging jumps due to a weird camera angle or Lucky just not grabbing the edge when it looks like he should have." N64, is that you? Oh please please.
"It never builds upon itself or asks much of you, including the building blocks of a 3D mascot platformer without the feeling of accomplishment you get from learning and applying that knowledge to new challenges." You say that like it's a bad thing. That's EXACTLY what I want.
This has been happy gamer, signing off, and go Super Lucky's Tale.
So I read this review on gamespot, it can be found here. Here is my response to some of the statements.
"Super Lucky's Tale is almost indistinguishable from an N64-era mascot platformer." So you're saying it calls back to the glory days of platformers.
"...and meet cute, if two-dimensional, characters who speak like Sims and need your help." So it's gameplay over story, just how I like my platformers.
"It's never too challenging, always sticking to its safe, time-tested formula as you jump and dodge and collect your way to becoming a hero." You mean like the games I fell in love with as a kid?
"There are technically four kinds of collectibles: coins, gems that function essentially as coins, the letters L, U, C, K, and Y, and clovers. But clovers are the only collectibles that matter." So it's a collectathon? I was hoping for that. I love playing crash for the colectathon.
"But a limited 3D camera that doesn't rotate a full 180 degrees and inconsistent mantling on Lucky's part causes enough hiccups to be frustrating. Most of your deaths will be caused by missing or misjudging jumps due to a weird camera angle or Lucky just not grabbing the edge when it looks like he should have." N64, is that you? Oh please please.
"It never builds upon itself or asks much of you, including the building blocks of a 3D mascot platformer without the feeling of accomplishment you get from learning and applying that knowledge to new challenges." You say that like it's a bad thing. That's EXACTLY what I want.
This has been happy gamer, signing off, and go Super Lucky's Tale.
Thursday, October 26, 2017
Kinect is Officially Dead
"XBOX ONE is Kinect, we are not going to sell them separately." My how the times have changed.
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here, and it's official, Microsoft has stopped manufacturing the Kinect 2.0 for XBOX ONE. Microsoft has finally admitted that the Kinect was a mistake, and are no longer wasting their time with it. For those of you who forgot (and I don't blame you), the Kinect was a motion control device that allowed you to control games without a controller using cameras and infra-red. It would sense joints, articulation, and interpret it as control inputs; as well as various voice commands. Now I will admit, from a purely technological standpoint, it's pretty cool. It's kind of space age sci-fi. Buuuuuttttt...that didn't make it worth while.
First, a brief history. In 2006 Nintendo released a little console called "Wii." It used motion controls as it's native input, and aided by the pack-in title Wii Sports, it became the second best selling console in history. Microsoft seeing the popularity of the Wii, Microsoft decided to make their own motion control device for the XBOX 360 and in 2010 the Kinect was released. It received generally positive reviews with how innovative of technology it was, but it didn't really latch on to gamers. Despite their best efforts to make Kinect a thing, primarily through the use of Rare, Kinect for XBOX 360 never received that killer app that made everyone want buy one like Wii Sports did for the Wii. This lack of an install base made developers not want to develop for it in fear of their game not selling. Microsoft tried to remedy this by bundling a Kinect 2.0 with every XBOX ONE and integrating it's operating system to utilize the face recognition and voice commands, forcing an install base. Unfortunately this made the XBOX ONE $100 more expensive than the PS4 which didn't have a motion control camera and gave gamers the option as to if they wanted the motion controls or not. The requirement to always have it plugged in also really blew up in Microsoft's face as it made many gamers question why Microsoft would want to do that if not for spying on them. Eventually Microsoft reversed the requirement to always have it plugged in, but didn't sell a Kinectless bundle until about a year later. The downfall of the Kinect was further advanced when the XBOX ONE S didn't come with a port specifically for the Kinect. And on October 25th 2017 Microsoft officially stopped production of the Kinect 2.0. See ya later guys, DFTBA.
OK, so with my foot of a ferret rip-off complete, let's analyze what happened and why I saw this coming 3 years ago. Kinect just wasn't a good input device for videogames, plain and simple. I now have a 360 Kinect I got at gamestop for $20 to play star wars Kinect, and it just isn't good. It's not that the controls aren't responsive, or that you need to be far away from the TV (a luxury I don't really have), while those are problems, they could have fixed those and it still would be a turd. Motion controls are just not a good input for videogames. The Wii controller could be used like a conventional gamepad; not very easily with a lot of input options, but it could be done. But not the Kinect. Almost every Kinect game I know of was Kinect only. Even if you fix the unresponsive problem, holding your hand up to an option for 5 seconds to select the menu was tedious. If you want to play the whole "Kinect in tandem" card, I know it can be done. There was an XBOX 360 game that utilized Kinect for certain control inputs but not all (name escapes me at the moment), and I saw some gameplay. Rather cool, but rather tedious to control. I'd rather just have it mapped to a controller button. It just wasn't going to be a good idea, and forcing people to buy it wasn't going to make it successful.
OK, but what about all the other OS features? You know, turning on your xbox by saying "XBOX on" and automatic sign-in based on who's playing. Well...I've been using my xbox for a while now and I don't feel like I'm missing anything. Lets look at the different features: voice commands to turn on the XBOX and select games, using Cortana, automatic sign-in, QR code reader, and skype. I've never used Cortana, and I have no intention to ever start. I'm the only one that uses my XBOX ONE, there's only 1 profile on it (mine), and it signs me in automatically every time I turn it on. Skype? I don't use skype all that much after I graduated college. The only thing that really sort of interests me are the voice commands, and that's just because some things weren't that easy to use (clip recording comes to mind). However, Microsoft has made it much easier to use these features. Now I can record with just the press of 3 buttons, no longer do I have to suspend the game, open the app, and then record. The QR code reader is pretty useful, I'll admit, since entering a 12 digit code with a "hunt and peck" on-screen keyboard using my controller is a little tedious. But, I honestly don't buy enough digital content to really make an impact, plus, I tend to have a lot of trouble lining up the QR code with the little box, so I really don't know which would be easier.
"But the Wii was the 2nd best selling console because of the motion controls." Yes, because it was a good casual gaming device that came out before mobile gaming really took off. People bought Wii sports, and maybe Wii sports resort, because they were good casual games that were pick up and play in a time when there weren't really any casual games (aka, a killer app for the console). After the casual hype died out, the Wii was able to keep a player base with Nintendo exclusive games. Remember the Wii U and how it failed? Well, Nintendo was trying to live off the hype of the Wii, and failed. People just aren't interested anymore. Luckily, Microsoft had a pretty good base console to keep itself afloat. Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and looks like XBOX ONE ISN'T Kinect.
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here, and it's official, Microsoft has stopped manufacturing the Kinect 2.0 for XBOX ONE. Microsoft has finally admitted that the Kinect was a mistake, and are no longer wasting their time with it. For those of you who forgot (and I don't blame you), the Kinect was a motion control device that allowed you to control games without a controller using cameras and infra-red. It would sense joints, articulation, and interpret it as control inputs; as well as various voice commands. Now I will admit, from a purely technological standpoint, it's pretty cool. It's kind of space age sci-fi. Buuuuuttttt...that didn't make it worth while.
First, a brief history. In 2006 Nintendo released a little console called "Wii." It used motion controls as it's native input, and aided by the pack-in title Wii Sports, it became the second best selling console in history. Microsoft seeing the popularity of the Wii, Microsoft decided to make their own motion control device for the XBOX 360 and in 2010 the Kinect was released. It received generally positive reviews with how innovative of technology it was, but it didn't really latch on to gamers. Despite their best efforts to make Kinect a thing, primarily through the use of Rare, Kinect for XBOX 360 never received that killer app that made everyone want buy one like Wii Sports did for the Wii. This lack of an install base made developers not want to develop for it in fear of their game not selling. Microsoft tried to remedy this by bundling a Kinect 2.0 with every XBOX ONE and integrating it's operating system to utilize the face recognition and voice commands, forcing an install base. Unfortunately this made the XBOX ONE $100 more expensive than the PS4 which didn't have a motion control camera and gave gamers the option as to if they wanted the motion controls or not. The requirement to always have it plugged in also really blew up in Microsoft's face as it made many gamers question why Microsoft would want to do that if not for spying on them. Eventually Microsoft reversed the requirement to always have it plugged in, but didn't sell a Kinectless bundle until about a year later. The downfall of the Kinect was further advanced when the XBOX ONE S didn't come with a port specifically for the Kinect. And on October 25th 2017 Microsoft officially stopped production of the Kinect 2.0. See ya later guys, DFTBA.
OK, so with my foot of a ferret rip-off complete, let's analyze what happened and why I saw this coming 3 years ago. Kinect just wasn't a good input device for videogames, plain and simple. I now have a 360 Kinect I got at gamestop for $20 to play star wars Kinect, and it just isn't good. It's not that the controls aren't responsive, or that you need to be far away from the TV (a luxury I don't really have), while those are problems, they could have fixed those and it still would be a turd. Motion controls are just not a good input for videogames. The Wii controller could be used like a conventional gamepad; not very easily with a lot of input options, but it could be done. But not the Kinect. Almost every Kinect game I know of was Kinect only. Even if you fix the unresponsive problem, holding your hand up to an option for 5 seconds to select the menu was tedious. If you want to play the whole "Kinect in tandem" card, I know it can be done. There was an XBOX 360 game that utilized Kinect for certain control inputs but not all (name escapes me at the moment), and I saw some gameplay. Rather cool, but rather tedious to control. I'd rather just have it mapped to a controller button. It just wasn't going to be a good idea, and forcing people to buy it wasn't going to make it successful.
OK, but what about all the other OS features? You know, turning on your xbox by saying "XBOX on" and automatic sign-in based on who's playing. Well...I've been using my xbox for a while now and I don't feel like I'm missing anything. Lets look at the different features: voice commands to turn on the XBOX and select games, using Cortana, automatic sign-in, QR code reader, and skype. I've never used Cortana, and I have no intention to ever start. I'm the only one that uses my XBOX ONE, there's only 1 profile on it (mine), and it signs me in automatically every time I turn it on. Skype? I don't use skype all that much after I graduated college. The only thing that really sort of interests me are the voice commands, and that's just because some things weren't that easy to use (clip recording comes to mind). However, Microsoft has made it much easier to use these features. Now I can record with just the press of 3 buttons, no longer do I have to suspend the game, open the app, and then record. The QR code reader is pretty useful, I'll admit, since entering a 12 digit code with a "hunt and peck" on-screen keyboard using my controller is a little tedious. But, I honestly don't buy enough digital content to really make an impact, plus, I tend to have a lot of trouble lining up the QR code with the little box, so I really don't know which would be easier.
"But the Wii was the 2nd best selling console because of the motion controls." Yes, because it was a good casual gaming device that came out before mobile gaming really took off. People bought Wii sports, and maybe Wii sports resort, because they were good casual games that were pick up and play in a time when there weren't really any casual games (aka, a killer app for the console). After the casual hype died out, the Wii was able to keep a player base with Nintendo exclusive games. Remember the Wii U and how it failed? Well, Nintendo was trying to live off the hype of the Wii, and failed. People just aren't interested anymore. Luckily, Microsoft had a pretty good base console to keep itself afloat. Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and looks like XBOX ONE ISN'T Kinect.
Friday, August 4, 2017
12 reasons why I don't care for PC gaming
Oh look, yet another "PC Master Race" article, that got some traction with ReviewTechUSA.
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here, and I make it no secret that I'm not a fan of PC gaming. I don't care about all the "benefits," and I'd rather just play my PS4, XBOX ONE, and everything before it. When ReviewTechUSA did a video on this article talking about the benefits, I decided to counter them.
1. "You can play games with better graphics than console - if you have a powerful gaming PC." I don't have a powerful PC, and my PC that costs more than my consoles doesn't provide better graphics than my console. I have to turn down the graphics to below 720 to get a smooth frame rate.
2. "The Steam Game Platform." Steam sucks. It never wants to load on my PC. I also avoid digital as much as I can (even on consoles), because I like physical. I'm a collector, and a digital library will never be a "collection." You say sales "steam sales," I have "store clearance" and "used games." And as a physical gamer, I never have to worry about "this game is off the marketplace, you can never play it now."
3. "You don't have to pay to play multiplayer games on PC, and you save money in the long run." I don't play online games. I play games to avoid people, not interact with the lowest of the low. I actually quite dislike how EVERYTHING has online components now adays.
4. "There are more games for PC than there are for game consoles." Quantity does not equal quality. How many 3rd party exclusive games were there for the Wii? Hundreds probably. How many of them were good? Maybe 10. Most of the good games get console releases, and many exclusives like MMOs and RTSs just aren't my thing. If there's an exclusive like trade winds, I'll get it, but that's not enough to convince me to drop a grand on a PC.
5. "You can download 'mods' for games, which can add fun new content or better graphics." Mods don't interest me. I get the appeal, but I don't care. Next.
6. "You have the freedom to choose how you play on PC." I prefer gamepads, that's all. I don't care if it's a NES, SNES, PlayStation, XBOX ONE, Gamecube, or even the OG XBOX Duke controller. I like gamepads, and I've been using different ones for so many years they all feel natural to me. There are some games that are better with mouse and keyboard, such as roller coaster tycoon or sim city, but otherwise, I'll use my XBOX ONE controller; just like on my console.
7. "You have the choice to play games on feature-packed monitors or your TV." Good for you, but I'm good with my 4:3 CRT or 16:9 LCD. Most games I play have the action that's right in front of you. I don't need this ultra wide field of view.
8. "You're not hogging the TV if you live with someone else." I'm the only one that uses this TV, my parents have their own TVs. This doesn't matter to me. Next.
9. "Building your own PC is fun and satisfying." I don't care how many times you tell me "it's fun," I HAVE ABSOLETELY NO DESIRE TO BUILD A PC! I REALLY hate this argument. You may think it's fun, but I don't. If anything, this is an argument against PC gaming. I hate troubleshooting simple problems that result from expertly built electronics. I REALLY don't want to troubleshoot problems a novice like me created.
10. "And you can decorate it to make it truly yours." Again, not my thing. However, if it is your thing, you can also do that with consoles. I've seen equally cool custom console skins and lights.
11. "And you can go all-out with custom water cooling, too." Even you admit water cooling is tedious. I admit it's a cool novelty, but I prefer to keep my electronic components far away from liquids.
12. "You can upgrade your PC parts to keep up with new games, while console parts become "obsolete" very quickly." And the double edge sword that stings harder than "console obsoleteness" is that you have to worry about your cutting edge capabilities. If I buy a game for my PS4, I know it's going to work on my PS4, plain and simple. I don't have to worry about compatibility and specifications. If the game disk say "xbox one," it's going to work on my xbox one.
At least you didn't bring up the tired "well I can use my PC for all sorts of other things" argument, one I hate just about as much as the "building a PC is fun" argument, but just because it's a straw man in most cases. Yes, your $1500 gaming PC is very capable, and can do lots of things a console can't. But here's the real question, what are you using your PC for? Unless you're doing some serious media rendering or simulation programs, you have ABSOLUTELY NO need for a $1500 PC outside of cutting edge gaming. My dad recently started using a $200 chrome book for all his web browsing and light word processing through google docs. He says "I have no need for a windows based PC, all I need is internet." The only reason I bought a PC instead of a chrome book is because I wanted to do video editing and light gaming. "My PC can stream video," so can my consoles. "My PC can play music, DVDs, and Blu-Rays," so can my console. "My PC can do video chat," so can my console. "My PC can computer can program mods." Are you programing mods? "No, but it can simulate a complex manufacturing environment in 1 hour." Are you doing those simulations? "No, but it can surf the web." So can my console. "Well, my PC can do my taxes." You got me there, but my $300 tower from 8 years ago can do that too.
Look, if you like PC gaming, good for you. It's your opinion. I'm not going to try to convince you to give up your preferred platform. But it's just that, an opinion. It's not "fact" like many try to claim. This has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and console peasant for life. Bye.
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here, and I make it no secret that I'm not a fan of PC gaming. I don't care about all the "benefits," and I'd rather just play my PS4, XBOX ONE, and everything before it. When ReviewTechUSA did a video on this article talking about the benefits, I decided to counter them.
1. "You can play games with better graphics than console - if you have a powerful gaming PC." I don't have a powerful PC, and my PC that costs more than my consoles doesn't provide better graphics than my console. I have to turn down the graphics to below 720 to get a smooth frame rate.
2. "The Steam Game Platform." Steam sucks. It never wants to load on my PC. I also avoid digital as much as I can (even on consoles), because I like physical. I'm a collector, and a digital library will never be a "collection." You say sales "steam sales," I have "store clearance" and "used games." And as a physical gamer, I never have to worry about "this game is off the marketplace, you can never play it now."
3. "You don't have to pay to play multiplayer games on PC, and you save money in the long run." I don't play online games. I play games to avoid people, not interact with the lowest of the low. I actually quite dislike how EVERYTHING has online components now adays.
4. "There are more games for PC than there are for game consoles." Quantity does not equal quality. How many 3rd party exclusive games were there for the Wii? Hundreds probably. How many of them were good? Maybe 10. Most of the good games get console releases, and many exclusives like MMOs and RTSs just aren't my thing. If there's an exclusive like trade winds, I'll get it, but that's not enough to convince me to drop a grand on a PC.
5. "You can download 'mods' for games, which can add fun new content or better graphics." Mods don't interest me. I get the appeal, but I don't care. Next.
6. "You have the freedom to choose how you play on PC." I prefer gamepads, that's all. I don't care if it's a NES, SNES, PlayStation, XBOX ONE, Gamecube, or even the OG XBOX Duke controller. I like gamepads, and I've been using different ones for so many years they all feel natural to me. There are some games that are better with mouse and keyboard, such as roller coaster tycoon or sim city, but otherwise, I'll use my XBOX ONE controller; just like on my console.
7. "You have the choice to play games on feature-packed monitors or your TV." Good for you, but I'm good with my 4:3 CRT or 16:9 LCD. Most games I play have the action that's right in front of you. I don't need this ultra wide field of view.
8. "You're not hogging the TV if you live with someone else." I'm the only one that uses this TV, my parents have their own TVs. This doesn't matter to me. Next.
9. "Building your own PC is fun and satisfying." I don't care how many times you tell me "it's fun," I HAVE ABSOLETELY NO DESIRE TO BUILD A PC! I REALLY hate this argument. You may think it's fun, but I don't. If anything, this is an argument against PC gaming. I hate troubleshooting simple problems that result from expertly built electronics. I REALLY don't want to troubleshoot problems a novice like me created.
10. "And you can decorate it to make it truly yours." Again, not my thing. However, if it is your thing, you can also do that with consoles. I've seen equally cool custom console skins and lights.
11. "And you can go all-out with custom water cooling, too." Even you admit water cooling is tedious. I admit it's a cool novelty, but I prefer to keep my electronic components far away from liquids.
12. "You can upgrade your PC parts to keep up with new games, while console parts become "obsolete" very quickly." And the double edge sword that stings harder than "console obsoleteness" is that you have to worry about your cutting edge capabilities. If I buy a game for my PS4, I know it's going to work on my PS4, plain and simple. I don't have to worry about compatibility and specifications. If the game disk say "xbox one," it's going to work on my xbox one.
At least you didn't bring up the tired "well I can use my PC for all sorts of other things" argument, one I hate just about as much as the "building a PC is fun" argument, but just because it's a straw man in most cases. Yes, your $1500 gaming PC is very capable, and can do lots of things a console can't. But here's the real question, what are you using your PC for? Unless you're doing some serious media rendering or simulation programs, you have ABSOLUTELY NO need for a $1500 PC outside of cutting edge gaming. My dad recently started using a $200 chrome book for all his web browsing and light word processing through google docs. He says "I have no need for a windows based PC, all I need is internet." The only reason I bought a PC instead of a chrome book is because I wanted to do video editing and light gaming. "My PC can stream video," so can my consoles. "My PC can play music, DVDs, and Blu-Rays," so can my console. "My PC can do video chat," so can my console. "My PC can computer can program mods." Are you programing mods? "No, but it can simulate a complex manufacturing environment in 1 hour." Are you doing those simulations? "No, but it can surf the web." So can my console. "Well, my PC can do my taxes." You got me there, but my $300 tower from 8 years ago can do that too.
Look, if you like PC gaming, good for you. It's your opinion. I'm not going to try to convince you to give up your preferred platform. But it's just that, an opinion. It's not "fact" like many try to claim. This has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and console peasant for life. Bye.
Nintendo may be growing up, but there are some SERIOUS growing pains.
I'm not against Nintendo doing DLC, I'm just against how they do it.
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here, and ReviewTechUSA recently made a video about Nintendo locking content in the upcoming Metroid game behind Amiibos. As is to be expected, people are kind of upset about it, and Rich says "this is just the gaming industry today, companies lock content behind DLC and Nintendo is just joining the party."
Yeah...about that. See, I'm a bit of an Amiibo collector. I try to get all the smash amiibo I can, and some of the others I'm interested in. I'm also pretty sure you said at one point "I don't like Amiibo." So allow me to enlighten you on one complain every Amiibo collector has, NINTENDO DOESN'T KEEP AMIIBO STOCKED!
See, I quite like the idea of Amiibo. They are one time purchases, are compatible with multiple games, and give you something physical. One thing I don't like about DLC is that it's digital (hence the "D" in DLC). I buy my games physical whenever I can so I have something to display. Conventional DLC can't be displayed though, because it's digital. Amiibo on the other hand, can be displayed, and I quite like how my Amiibo look around my TV and on my store display rack. They're also single purchases compatible across multiple games. I can buy 1 figure, and it can work on multiple games. If I guy a call of duty 4 map pack, it only works on call of duty 4. If I buy a Super Mario Amiibo, it works on over 30 games. Even if Nintendo charged $0.50 for each piece of unlockable content on each of those games, it still would be cheaper to just buy a $13 figure, that's going to continue unlocking content in the future. It's actually a really great way to distribute DLC, in concept.
See, here's the Achilles Heel of Amiibo. While conventional DLC doesn't have the benefits of Amiibo, it does have 1 benefit that Nintendo just can't seem to remedy, it's UNLIMITED. If I want to buy that call of duty map pack, I go to the xbox/playstation/steam store, add the DLC to my digital cart, download it, and that's it. I don't have to call 20 gamestops, best buys, toys r us, targets, meijers, and walmarts to see if they have that map pack in stock ultimately to find out they're out of stock. If I want the character skin in street fighter, I just get it from the digital marketplace without any problem. I don't have to buy the DLC months before it's even announced speculating that I'll want the game, just because I know if I don't buy it within the first couple days of release it'll be gone forever. If I want to get the season pass for a game, I just buy the season pass from the unlimited digital reserve. I don't have to pre-order the day pre-orders are announced because the pre-orders are going to sell out the next day. How is that even a thing? Pre-orders are supposed to gauge how much demand there's going to be, and you ship some multiple of the pre-orders to the stores. You don't say "we're only allowing this much demand for this product, consumers be damned." There is an entire sub-reddit dedicated to "how to find amiibo." You don't see that with any other DLC.
Look, I like Amiibo. They are a great concept, as I mentioned above. But if you go to the Amiibo section of the store and it isn't completely empty (as I've seen multiple times), you'll find 1 or 2 common smash series, a booster pack of cards, animal crossing (except villager), and maybe a splatoon. You won't find Kirby series, Zelda series, Mario series, 8-bit series, yarn series, or 80% of the smash series. The Metroid game in the video that uses smash series Samaus and Zero Suit? Good luck finding both full suit and zero suit in stores. Just bought Splatoon 2 and want the unlockable content with the Splatoon 3-pack amiibo? Unless you bought them over 2 years ago, the best you'll be able to do is the Splatoon 2 3-pack, if you're lucky. Little Timmy asks Santa for a Turbo Charged Donkey Kong Amiibo because it can be used in Skylanders, well sorry Timmy, Santa couldn't get you that Amiibo because Santa didn't go to Meijer at midnight because the following morning was the morning of the big presentation. I understand the store's perspective of "I don't want these to sit here for months" (like the Animal Crossing series), but I don't understand why Nintendo won't do more print runs of the really popular ones, especially when new games come out that use them.
In the early days one of the arguments I got frequently from Nintendo apologists was "they're just collectables, like other limited print action figures, it's not like you're missing out on anything if you don't get them." Well, now they're legit DLC, and Nintendo isn't allowing customers to buy it. This has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and instead of Milking us dry, Nintendo is just teasing us. Bye.
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here, and ReviewTechUSA recently made a video about Nintendo locking content in the upcoming Metroid game behind Amiibos. As is to be expected, people are kind of upset about it, and Rich says "this is just the gaming industry today, companies lock content behind DLC and Nintendo is just joining the party."
Yeah...about that. See, I'm a bit of an Amiibo collector. I try to get all the smash amiibo I can, and some of the others I'm interested in. I'm also pretty sure you said at one point "I don't like Amiibo." So allow me to enlighten you on one complain every Amiibo collector has, NINTENDO DOESN'T KEEP AMIIBO STOCKED!
See, I quite like the idea of Amiibo. They are one time purchases, are compatible with multiple games, and give you something physical. One thing I don't like about DLC is that it's digital (hence the "D" in DLC). I buy my games physical whenever I can so I have something to display. Conventional DLC can't be displayed though, because it's digital. Amiibo on the other hand, can be displayed, and I quite like how my Amiibo look around my TV and on my store display rack. They're also single purchases compatible across multiple games. I can buy 1 figure, and it can work on multiple games. If I guy a call of duty 4 map pack, it only works on call of duty 4. If I buy a Super Mario Amiibo, it works on over 30 games. Even if Nintendo charged $0.50 for each piece of unlockable content on each of those games, it still would be cheaper to just buy a $13 figure, that's going to continue unlocking content in the future. It's actually a really great way to distribute DLC, in concept.
See, here's the Achilles Heel of Amiibo. While conventional DLC doesn't have the benefits of Amiibo, it does have 1 benefit that Nintendo just can't seem to remedy, it's UNLIMITED. If I want to buy that call of duty map pack, I go to the xbox/playstation/steam store, add the DLC to my digital cart, download it, and that's it. I don't have to call 20 gamestops, best buys, toys r us, targets, meijers, and walmarts to see if they have that map pack in stock ultimately to find out they're out of stock. If I want the character skin in street fighter, I just get it from the digital marketplace without any problem. I don't have to buy the DLC months before it's even announced speculating that I'll want the game, just because I know if I don't buy it within the first couple days of release it'll be gone forever. If I want to get the season pass for a game, I just buy the season pass from the unlimited digital reserve. I don't have to pre-order the day pre-orders are announced because the pre-orders are going to sell out the next day. How is that even a thing? Pre-orders are supposed to gauge how much demand there's going to be, and you ship some multiple of the pre-orders to the stores. You don't say "we're only allowing this much demand for this product, consumers be damned." There is an entire sub-reddit dedicated to "how to find amiibo." You don't see that with any other DLC.
Look, I like Amiibo. They are a great concept, as I mentioned above. But if you go to the Amiibo section of the store and it isn't completely empty (as I've seen multiple times), you'll find 1 or 2 common smash series, a booster pack of cards, animal crossing (except villager), and maybe a splatoon. You won't find Kirby series, Zelda series, Mario series, 8-bit series, yarn series, or 80% of the smash series. The Metroid game in the video that uses smash series Samaus and Zero Suit? Good luck finding both full suit and zero suit in stores. Just bought Splatoon 2 and want the unlockable content with the Splatoon 3-pack amiibo? Unless you bought them over 2 years ago, the best you'll be able to do is the Splatoon 2 3-pack, if you're lucky. Little Timmy asks Santa for a Turbo Charged Donkey Kong Amiibo because it can be used in Skylanders, well sorry Timmy, Santa couldn't get you that Amiibo because Santa didn't go to Meijer at midnight because the following morning was the morning of the big presentation. I understand the store's perspective of "I don't want these to sit here for months" (like the Animal Crossing series), but I don't understand why Nintendo won't do more print runs of the really popular ones, especially when new games come out that use them.
In the early days one of the arguments I got frequently from Nintendo apologists was "they're just collectables, like other limited print action figures, it's not like you're missing out on anything if you don't get them." Well, now they're legit DLC, and Nintendo isn't allowing customers to buy it. This has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and instead of Milking us dry, Nintendo is just teasing us. Bye.
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Why Nintendo Shouldn't Charge for Online
"Everyone else does it, so why shouldn't Nintendo?"
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here and Nintendo is finally joining Sony and Microsoft in the "pay for online" game. I'm sure I'm with the majority here when I say "Nintendo, this is NOT what we meant when we said 'you need to be more like your competitors'." Paying to play online is the largest scam in the gaming industry (well, one of the largest). By and large it doesn't add anything. The servers are hosted by the developers (they don't get any of the membership money) and the paid experience normally isn't enhanced at all compared to the free counterpart if there is one (see PC, PS2, PS3, Wii, and Wii U compared to XBOX, XBOX 360, XBOX ONE, and PS4). They now "give you a game or 10 with your subscription" (games with gold, ps plus, and now switch online), and you no longer NEED premium to use online apps (old 360 days), but it's still not really an excuse. I estimate that 99.99999% of gamers don't like paying a monthly fee to play online. I know I sure don't.
I have never paid for a console's premium online service, and I have no intention to start. First off, I don't really care for playing online. The only game I do that with is splatoon, but by and large I prefer to play single player. I know I'm the minority in today's internet connected and competitive gaming world, but I like to play by myself, because I'm generally a-social. I wouldn't go so far as to say "introverted" (I make goofy internet videos, wear florescent yellow as a normal staple of my wardrobe, and have worn a blue morph suit in public on various occasions), but when I want to relax, I like to do things by myself. But even if I did like online, I don't play videogames enough to justify the subscription. When I pay for something, I feel the need to use it. I subscribe to hulu plus, and I watch a lot of hulu on my devices as a result. I have amazon prime, and I made sure I bought enough things with free shipping to justify the subscription. If I were to subscribe to one of these premium online services, I don't think I would play enough to justify the subscription, and as such would stop subscribing, and would probably get into PC gaming since that's free.
"But Microsoft and Sony do it, why shouldn't Nintendo. If console gamers are willing to pay for online, then Nintendo is selling themselves short." That's a largely reasonable argument I've heard from defenders. They aren't exactly happy with it, but they argue that it's just smart business. And I would agree, if it wouldn't be a major selling point. See, Nintendo says "no, seriously, we're getting the 3rd party games this time around; the Nintendo Switch is going to be your one stop shop for videogames." There's a lot of speculation that the Switch isn't going to be as powerful as base XBOX ONE and PS4, and it's known that Nintendo is shipping it with only 32 gigs of internal storage (though with flash memory for the games I don't know how big of a problem that will be if data can be written to the games), and many people are still salty about the Wii U. However, if Nintendo offers free online, that's a major selling point.
"Hmm, the game looks nicer but I need to pay $10 a month to play online on PS4/XBOX, or the game looks worse but I can play FOR FREE on the Switch." Personally, I would go with free. That could be a major selling point. "Play for free on Nintendo Switch." That would make the decision to buy a Switch easier (or the decision to not buy a switch harder to make). Or if you have multiple consoles (like me), the option of buying for the Switch that much more appealing.
Hopefully Nintendo decides against pay for online. This has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and this could have been your slogan; "Play for free on the Switch, Nintendoes what the others don't."
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here and Nintendo is finally joining Sony and Microsoft in the "pay for online" game. I'm sure I'm with the majority here when I say "Nintendo, this is NOT what we meant when we said 'you need to be more like your competitors'." Paying to play online is the largest scam in the gaming industry (well, one of the largest). By and large it doesn't add anything. The servers are hosted by the developers (they don't get any of the membership money) and the paid experience normally isn't enhanced at all compared to the free counterpart if there is one (see PC, PS2, PS3, Wii, and Wii U compared to XBOX, XBOX 360, XBOX ONE, and PS4). They now "give you a game or 10 with your subscription" (games with gold, ps plus, and now switch online), and you no longer NEED premium to use online apps (old 360 days), but it's still not really an excuse. I estimate that 99.99999% of gamers don't like paying a monthly fee to play online. I know I sure don't.
I have never paid for a console's premium online service, and I have no intention to start. First off, I don't really care for playing online. The only game I do that with is splatoon, but by and large I prefer to play single player. I know I'm the minority in today's internet connected and competitive gaming world, but I like to play by myself, because I'm generally a-social. I wouldn't go so far as to say "introverted" (I make goofy internet videos, wear florescent yellow as a normal staple of my wardrobe, and have worn a blue morph suit in public on various occasions), but when I want to relax, I like to do things by myself. But even if I did like online, I don't play videogames enough to justify the subscription. When I pay for something, I feel the need to use it. I subscribe to hulu plus, and I watch a lot of hulu on my devices as a result. I have amazon prime, and I made sure I bought enough things with free shipping to justify the subscription. If I were to subscribe to one of these premium online services, I don't think I would play enough to justify the subscription, and as such would stop subscribing, and would probably get into PC gaming since that's free.
"But Microsoft and Sony do it, why shouldn't Nintendo. If console gamers are willing to pay for online, then Nintendo is selling themselves short." That's a largely reasonable argument I've heard from defenders. They aren't exactly happy with it, but they argue that it's just smart business. And I would agree, if it wouldn't be a major selling point. See, Nintendo says "no, seriously, we're getting the 3rd party games this time around; the Nintendo Switch is going to be your one stop shop for videogames." There's a lot of speculation that the Switch isn't going to be as powerful as base XBOX ONE and PS4, and it's known that Nintendo is shipping it with only 32 gigs of internal storage (though with flash memory for the games I don't know how big of a problem that will be if data can be written to the games), and many people are still salty about the Wii U. However, if Nintendo offers free online, that's a major selling point.
"Hmm, the game looks nicer but I need to pay $10 a month to play online on PS4/XBOX, or the game looks worse but I can play FOR FREE on the Switch." Personally, I would go with free. That could be a major selling point. "Play for free on Nintendo Switch." That would make the decision to buy a Switch easier (or the decision to not buy a switch harder to make). Or if you have multiple consoles (like me), the option of buying for the Switch that much more appealing.
Hopefully Nintendo decides against pay for online. This has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and this could have been your slogan; "Play for free on the Switch, Nintendoes what the others don't."
Thursday, February 9, 2017
Nintendo Switch Won't Have a Browser at Launch, and Why that's a Bad Thing
"Why do you care if the Switch won't have a web browser? Do you use your console web browser at all? The only people harmed will be horny kids who don't have a computer."
When I first heard the news that the Nintendo Switch won't have a web browser, that was basically my first thoughts too. Before I got a computer, I did use the Nintendo DS browser a lot to read wikipedia, but then I got a computer and I barely even open the browsers on my game consoles.
Well...in the comments of the ReviewTechUSA video I heard the news on, I had a major realization on why this is a problem.
"I DO care, how else am I going to login on my university wifi?????"
And this got me thinking, "yes, that is the primary reason I use the web browser on my 3DS."
See, at my old university, to connect your device was more than "enter the router password." After connecting to the wifi, you had to open a web page and log in with your student ID and register your device. If you didn't do that, you wouldn't be able to use hulu, netfix, youtube, or online gaming. If you tried to connect without registering the device by saying "I accept the TOS, register this device to my student account" in the web browser, you couldn't use it.
"OK, that sucks for students and faculty, but that's only...half of the target audience. But I'm not a student, so it's not a problem for me."
Yeah I had that thought as well, but then I remembered when I go places with public wifi, such as fast food restaurants and hotels, especially hotels. I could live without restaurants since I'm normally not there for extended periods of time. But when I go to hotels, I want to connect my device to the internet to use internet apps. At hotels, I like to watch hulu on my 3DS while I surf the web on my laptop. And when I go to hotels, probably 3/4 times I need to open the web browser and say "I accept the TOS" before I can watch hulu. There's also airport wifi. Almost always, if you want to use their wifi, you NEED to sign in at the browser landing page and purchase credits/enter promotional codes.
I get it, the web browser is an easy back door for hacking consoles, and Nintendo doesn't want people hacking their consoles. Also, most people don't use the web browsers with all the better devices for surfing. But it's kind of important for using the internet in many situations. It's a hybrid semi-portable console that I'm guessing many owners will take with their Switches with them on trips, and a reality of those trips will be "I need to go to the in browser log in page to connect to the wifi so I can do various internet connected activities." Plus, it's very tablet like, so people may want to use it for tablet browsing.
Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and hopefully Nintendo has a solution for "I need a browser to access internet functions."
When I first heard the news that the Nintendo Switch won't have a web browser, that was basically my first thoughts too. Before I got a computer, I did use the Nintendo DS browser a lot to read wikipedia, but then I got a computer and I barely even open the browsers on my game consoles.
Well...in the comments of the ReviewTechUSA video I heard the news on, I had a major realization on why this is a problem.
"I DO care, how else am I going to login on my university wifi?????"
And this got me thinking, "yes, that is the primary reason I use the web browser on my 3DS."
See, at my old university, to connect your device was more than "enter the router password." After connecting to the wifi, you had to open a web page and log in with your student ID and register your device. If you didn't do that, you wouldn't be able to use hulu, netfix, youtube, or online gaming. If you tried to connect without registering the device by saying "I accept the TOS, register this device to my student account" in the web browser, you couldn't use it.
"OK, that sucks for students and faculty, but that's only...half of the target audience. But I'm not a student, so it's not a problem for me."
Yeah I had that thought as well, but then I remembered when I go places with public wifi, such as fast food restaurants and hotels, especially hotels. I could live without restaurants since I'm normally not there for extended periods of time. But when I go to hotels, I want to connect my device to the internet to use internet apps. At hotels, I like to watch hulu on my 3DS while I surf the web on my laptop. And when I go to hotels, probably 3/4 times I need to open the web browser and say "I accept the TOS" before I can watch hulu. There's also airport wifi. Almost always, if you want to use their wifi, you NEED to sign in at the browser landing page and purchase credits/enter promotional codes.
I get it, the web browser is an easy back door for hacking consoles, and Nintendo doesn't want people hacking their consoles. Also, most people don't use the web browsers with all the better devices for surfing. But it's kind of important for using the internet in many situations. It's a hybrid semi-portable console that I'm guessing many owners will take with their Switches with them on trips, and a reality of those trips will be "I need to go to the in browser log in page to connect to the wifi so I can do various internet connected activities." Plus, it's very tablet like, so people may want to use it for tablet browsing.
Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and hopefully Nintendo has a solution for "I need a browser to access internet functions."
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Happy Gamer Tries out HTC Vive
I tried out the HTC Vive at my Microsoft Store today.
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here and I've been a little weary of VR since I tried the Wii and the Occulous Riff. I've already explained why I dislike the Wii, and why it left much to be desired. However, I don't know if I ever really explained why the Occulous Riff disappointed me. Well at my college the computer club had a demo unit and I tried it out when they were showing it off, and they had this roller coaster demo video. After a couple minutes I started feeling disoriented because my eyes were telling me I was moving, but my other senses were telling me I wasn't. It was a cool experience, but a rather negative one (even though when we were talking about it in class I was the only one able to say "I tried one out.")
Well at my local Microsoft store they had a demo unit of the HTC Vive. I got in line, signed a waver, and got to try out 3 demo games. Before the demos started, there was a "get oriented" thing where I inflated balloons and punched them away. The first game was "Deep Blue," I think it's called. It was just a "walk around and look at the fish" game. It was meant to get us used to the way things work. I had some fish fly right into my face. It was all pre-rendered as all the people in front of me had the same video. It was really cool.
Now we get into the actual games. The first game was a bow and arrow tower defense game. That was really fun. You use the 2 controllers to be the bow and arrows. Where you point is where you aim and where they fire. Now this is what I was expecting with the Wii back when that launched. It was really fun. I got quite into it, and I didn't let any of the enemies even hit my fortress door. I did quite well and probably could have kept going but my 3 minutes were up.
Next was the "space pirates" shooter. Now this, this is what the HTC Vive was made for. With the 2 controllers, you get the guns that you aim 1 to 1. I got REALLY into it. I used the 3 shot automatic. I was moving, dodging, crouching on the ground, all of it. When you see VR in cartoons, this is what it is like. Like, even the VR gags you would see in cartoons from 10 years ago on Danny Phantom, this is what it was like.
So now I think I should talk about the hardware. It was really comfortable. The face pads were soft and the headset wasn't really heavy like the Occulous was. It also requires a long cable to be connected to the computer, which wasn't that bad. I didn't find myself tripping over it at all. The controllers were also very comfortable, much better than the Wii and PS Move. The screen was a little pixelated, like if I get less than 1 inch away from the TV, but that is to be expected some, I guess.
So yeah, the HTC Vive is REALLY cool, but I don't think it's 3 grand cool. The HTC Vive headset, controllers, and sensors cost $800 alone. Then you need a PC that is powerful enough to run it. The store was using a $2500 Alienware with like top of the line components. The demo unit assistant said he knew a guy that built one himself for like $1000, but you still need a rather high end gaming PC. My sack of potatoes won't be able to run it, so I would need to buy all new hardware, plus all the games. Plus, I don't know how often I would play it since it is a VERY active experience.
So will I buy one? Definitely not yet. It's a really fun experience, but it's not $3000 fun. I'll wait until the Vive is $100 and the computing hardware I need is standard computer components. Well this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and lets see what comes from the HTC Vive.
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here and I've been a little weary of VR since I tried the Wii and the Occulous Riff. I've already explained why I dislike the Wii, and why it left much to be desired. However, I don't know if I ever really explained why the Occulous Riff disappointed me. Well at my college the computer club had a demo unit and I tried it out when they were showing it off, and they had this roller coaster demo video. After a couple minutes I started feeling disoriented because my eyes were telling me I was moving, but my other senses were telling me I wasn't. It was a cool experience, but a rather negative one (even though when we were talking about it in class I was the only one able to say "I tried one out.")
Well at my local Microsoft store they had a demo unit of the HTC Vive. I got in line, signed a waver, and got to try out 3 demo games. Before the demos started, there was a "get oriented" thing where I inflated balloons and punched them away. The first game was "Deep Blue," I think it's called. It was just a "walk around and look at the fish" game. It was meant to get us used to the way things work. I had some fish fly right into my face. It was all pre-rendered as all the people in front of me had the same video. It was really cool.
Now we get into the actual games. The first game was a bow and arrow tower defense game. That was really fun. You use the 2 controllers to be the bow and arrows. Where you point is where you aim and where they fire. Now this is what I was expecting with the Wii back when that launched. It was really fun. I got quite into it, and I didn't let any of the enemies even hit my fortress door. I did quite well and probably could have kept going but my 3 minutes were up.
Next was the "space pirates" shooter. Now this, this is what the HTC Vive was made for. With the 2 controllers, you get the guns that you aim 1 to 1. I got REALLY into it. I used the 3 shot automatic. I was moving, dodging, crouching on the ground, all of it. When you see VR in cartoons, this is what it is like. Like, even the VR gags you would see in cartoons from 10 years ago on Danny Phantom, this is what it was like.
So now I think I should talk about the hardware. It was really comfortable. The face pads were soft and the headset wasn't really heavy like the Occulous was. It also requires a long cable to be connected to the computer, which wasn't that bad. I didn't find myself tripping over it at all. The controllers were also very comfortable, much better than the Wii and PS Move. The screen was a little pixelated, like if I get less than 1 inch away from the TV, but that is to be expected some, I guess.
So yeah, the HTC Vive is REALLY cool, but I don't think it's 3 grand cool. The HTC Vive headset, controllers, and sensors cost $800 alone. Then you need a PC that is powerful enough to run it. The store was using a $2500 Alienware with like top of the line components. The demo unit assistant said he knew a guy that built one himself for like $1000, but you still need a rather high end gaming PC. My sack of potatoes won't be able to run it, so I would need to buy all new hardware, plus all the games. Plus, I don't know how often I would play it since it is a VERY active experience.
So will I buy one? Definitely not yet. It's a really fun experience, but it's not $3000 fun. I'll wait until the Vive is $100 and the computing hardware I need is standard computer components. Well this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and lets see what comes from the HTC Vive.
Monday, March 14, 2016
Cross Platform Online is Good for Consumers, Bad for Platforms AKA Why I Own an XBOX360
Microsoft wants to do cross platform online with Sony, and that's a bad idea for them.
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer hear and I heard that Microsoft is going to do cross platform online with the XBOX ONE and Windows 10 (not Steam, Windows 10 store), and they are trying to get Sony to do cross platform online with them, so if you have a PS4 and your friend has an XBOX ONE, both of you can play online so long as the game is on both consoles. This is something that online gamers have been dreaming about since online gaming became mainstream. However, this is a REALLY bad idea for Sony and Microsoft, and here's why.
First, lets go back to 2008; the XBOX 360 and PS3 were the current gen consoles. My brother and I were looking to get one of them (the Wii was off the table for reasons explained in numerous different posts). Since we were coming of the PS2, I said "hey let's get a PS3 because we liked the PS2 so much." He said "no let's get an XBOX 360 because that's what all my friends have and I want to play online with them," and while every online game he wanted was also available on PS3, he couldn't play with his friends on the PS3. Online didn't really matter to me since I prefer single player games, and since all I really cared about were multi-plats, we got an XBOX 360. Sure, I wanted the blu-ray and rumored Sly 4, but pretty much every game I wanted on the PS3 I could get on the 360. However, I didn't play it much because the 7th gen didn't do much for me since most games were shooters or sports (2 genres I don't care for). And even though I wanted to use the streaming services like Hulu Plus and Crackle, I couldn't because I needed Xbox Live Gold to do that, and by the time I got into streaming services neither my brother nor I wanted to pay for gold anymore.
Well in 2011 Wreck it Ralph came out and I said "I refuse to get this movie on DVD, I am getting a blu-ray player of some kind so I can watch this movie right." Since there was a killer deal on a black friday PS3, we bought a PS3. From then on, the PS3 was our primary gaming machine. Every multi-plat from then on we bought was for the PS3. We bought multiple exclusives like Last of Us and Sly 4. Once we bought the PS3, it became our primary gaming device with our XBOX 360 collecting dust. We bought maybe 3 XBOX360 games since buying the PS3, and those were exclusives I got for cheap at garage sales. Even after Microsoft dropped the whole "you need XBL Gold for streaming services" we prefer to use the PS3 for streaming. If it wasn't for platform locked online, we probably wouldn't have an XBOX 360. (Well, we wouldn't have an XBOX 360 as our 7th gen console. I'm a collector, I would have bought an XBOX 360 eventually because I want every console, but it wouldn't have been before I got a PS3).
And there you have it. My family wouldn't have bought an XBOX 360 if my brother could have played with his XBOX 360 friends from a PS3. It would have been great for us, but it would have cost Microsoft a sale. If I were an online gamer, I would be really happy about this because it is great for consumers. However, we honestly wouldn't have bought an XBOX 360 as our primary platform and bought all our games and live gold if cross platform online was an option in the 7th gen. Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and if I were Sony I wouldn't agree to cross platform online.
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer hear and I heard that Microsoft is going to do cross platform online with the XBOX ONE and Windows 10 (not Steam, Windows 10 store), and they are trying to get Sony to do cross platform online with them, so if you have a PS4 and your friend has an XBOX ONE, both of you can play online so long as the game is on both consoles. This is something that online gamers have been dreaming about since online gaming became mainstream. However, this is a REALLY bad idea for Sony and Microsoft, and here's why.
First, lets go back to 2008; the XBOX 360 and PS3 were the current gen consoles. My brother and I were looking to get one of them (the Wii was off the table for reasons explained in numerous different posts). Since we were coming of the PS2, I said "hey let's get a PS3 because we liked the PS2 so much." He said "no let's get an XBOX 360 because that's what all my friends have and I want to play online with them," and while every online game he wanted was also available on PS3, he couldn't play with his friends on the PS3. Online didn't really matter to me since I prefer single player games, and since all I really cared about were multi-plats, we got an XBOX 360. Sure, I wanted the blu-ray and rumored Sly 4, but pretty much every game I wanted on the PS3 I could get on the 360. However, I didn't play it much because the 7th gen didn't do much for me since most games were shooters or sports (2 genres I don't care for). And even though I wanted to use the streaming services like Hulu Plus and Crackle, I couldn't because I needed Xbox Live Gold to do that, and by the time I got into streaming services neither my brother nor I wanted to pay for gold anymore.
Well in 2011 Wreck it Ralph came out and I said "I refuse to get this movie on DVD, I am getting a blu-ray player of some kind so I can watch this movie right." Since there was a killer deal on a black friday PS3, we bought a PS3. From then on, the PS3 was our primary gaming machine. Every multi-plat from then on we bought was for the PS3. We bought multiple exclusives like Last of Us and Sly 4. Once we bought the PS3, it became our primary gaming device with our XBOX 360 collecting dust. We bought maybe 3 XBOX360 games since buying the PS3, and those were exclusives I got for cheap at garage sales. Even after Microsoft dropped the whole "you need XBL Gold for streaming services" we prefer to use the PS3 for streaming. If it wasn't for platform locked online, we probably wouldn't have an XBOX 360. (Well, we wouldn't have an XBOX 360 as our 7th gen console. I'm a collector, I would have bought an XBOX 360 eventually because I want every console, but it wouldn't have been before I got a PS3).
And there you have it. My family wouldn't have bought an XBOX 360 if my brother could have played with his XBOX 360 friends from a PS3. It would have been great for us, but it would have cost Microsoft a sale. If I were an online gamer, I would be really happy about this because it is great for consumers. However, we honestly wouldn't have bought an XBOX 360 as our primary platform and bought all our games and live gold if cross platform online was an option in the 7th gen. Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and if I were Sony I wouldn't agree to cross platform online.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)