Originally posted by Smasandian
How would you know why it's essential?We really don't know what MS has got yet. We know its part of the system and we know that it CAN be used to navigate the menus.
What happens if Kinect is a much easier way to navigate? And search for things?
I would love the ability to send messages by dictating my voice instead of using the controller. Also, supposedly it's a much better device and because all of the systems have one, it's not out of left field to suggest that developers will make an effort to create content for it.
Also, Kinect is a huge advantage for skyping. Plonk your family or friends in front of it and skype away. Much more convenient than a laptop or tablet.
Meaning they shouldn't make the kinect essential to the "one" experience. And c'mon. There's no way that waving through menus is faster than what you can do with a controller.
The skype feature was cool, though.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Meaning they shouldn't make the kinect essential to the "one" experience. And c'mon. There's no way that waving through menus is faster than what you can do with a controller.The skype feature was cool, though.
I'm talking about asking the Kinect to find a game, movie or music. While watching TV, you can ask the XBOX One to find Breaking Bad and it will find the show you are looking for. If it works and it's quick, that's awesome. No more leafing through the TV guide to find something your looking for.
Considering this is meant to be one stop shop for anything entertainment, having voice controls and gestures could be a big deal.
IGN Poll Result: 75% Disappointed with Xbox One Reveal
76,000 people voted, and the lion's share weren't impressed.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/23/ign-poll-result-75-disappointed-with-xbox-one-reveal
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
lol, gamestop is a ripoff. They offered my cousin $20 for his good xbox 360 elite a couple of years ago and it was the last time he did business with them. He said he felt so disrespected.I couldn't believe it. Like I knew they were bad but that was crazy.
I can tell you right now that that story is bullshit, unless it was broken and you were looking for cash...and even then it still sounds like a gross exaggeration to me 😛
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well...it directly costs them money (more so than piracy)...so
It does not cost them money, though. Every other form of media has second-hand sales and they've all survived just fine; second hand game sales do not harm publishers in any way, as they've already made their money from the sale.
The legality of second hand sales actually was heard by the courts in the US not long ago (as in within the past year or two). Once you buy an item, so long as what you do with it is not illegal, you can do what you wish with it. Which includes reselling it if you want. The original seller is not entitled to any money other than what they originally made from it.
Originally posted by Peach
I can tell you right now that that story is bullshit, unless it was broken and you were looking for cash...and even then it still sounds like a gross exaggeration to me 😛
You know what's not exaggerated? There's a game Gamestop sells for $30 new and I have a copy with zero scratches and smudges and how much do they offer me in trade for something that's as good as new? $8.
Originally posted by Peach
It does not cost them money, though. Every other form of media has second-hand sales and they've all survived just fine; second hand game sales do not harm publishers in any way, as they've already made their money from the sale.The legality of second hand sales actually was heard by the courts in the US not long ago (as in within the past year or two). Once you buy an item, so long as what you do with it is not illegal, you can do what you wish with it. Which includes reselling it if you want. The original seller is not entitled to any money other than what they originally made from it.
I don't mean to say that it costs them money they are entitled to. Or that reselling games is illegal or even morally wrong.
I'm just saying that it costs them money in the sense that there are people willing to pay for their game out there, that do buy it, but it doesn't funnel any money to the publishers.
So from their perspective. If they can tweak their business model somehow to get these people to pay the money to them, instead of a reseller or private person that's a win.
And of course the pricing structure is important, cause if they screw it up they could easily "lose" potential money by alienating both customers willing to pay the full price as well as those willing to pay a lower "used" price (maybe even increasing piracy).
For example the coupon route seems to piss off both of these types of customers. The full price one cause they are bothered and have to put in a code before they can enjoy the full experience and the person buying the used game has to pay again for a new coupon, which feels scummy.
However publishers are fully entitled to do it, neither their behaviour nor the reselling behaviour is illegal.
With media going more and more digital it can put a lot of the power in the publishers hand. They themselves could for example create a "used" market. Where people can buy previously owned games for cheaper. All the proceeds going to them instead of the reseller.
Another model could be more standard price discrimination, either algorithmically (if you have enough info to offer that), tier pricing based or through in-app purchases.
Xbox One's Poor Reception blasts Wii U sales up by 875% on Amazon UK.
Damn, Microsoft. What were you thinking? haermm
Originally posted by Nemesis X
Xbox One's Poor Reception blasts Wii U sales up by 875% on Amazon UK.Damn, Microsoft. What were you thinking? haermm
Wow, that's some misleading bullshit.
At most these people can claim an increase in Amazon rank (and I personally wouldn't express that in percentage unless I was an incompetent hack or wanted to mislead), they have no information about the sales.
The Amazon rank itself is likely, very strongly influenced by short term acceleration, rather than overall sales, so an increase from rank 390 to 40 may be a difference of them selling 10 units instead of 5 usually 😐
Amazon rank is a pointless metric generally, we don't know what it means.
Blimey, Microsoft seem bullish about next generation console sales.
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/05/24/microsoft-over-1-billion-next-gen-consoles-will-be-sold
Seems they still want to push the 360 for a few years yet as well.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Blimey, Microsoft seem bullish about next generation console sales.http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/05/24/microsoft-over-1-billion-next-gen-consoles-will-be-sold
Seems they still want to push the 360 for a few years yet as well.
I don't see what makes Microsoft think that the next generation (from the ones we've seen so far) will sell over 100% (even more if you just take non-portable consoles) more than the last. Especially cause it doesn't look like the 3DS or the Wii U will outsell their predecessors currently.
Nor do I personally see what the Xbox One will do to sell that much more.
Maybe they are hoping for the rumored SteamBox, the Ouya and an app-enabled Apple TV to pull their weight? 😐
I do somewhat agree with the assessment though that TV/Gaming boxes can be a much bigger business, but I don't think the Xbox One will be that.
Indeed, so, though it still seems they are shooting for about 400 million. That's 'bold'. I know I said I thought there was a market, but I meant enough of a market to validate the idea, not re-define the entire concept of how consoles function in society.
Mind you, it's just one guy talking about possibilities, not an official sales target.
Originally posted by Nemesis X
You know what's not exaggerated? There's a game Gamestop sells for $30 new and I have a copy with zero scratches and smudges and how much do they offer me in trade for something that's as good as new? $8.
Yeah, that sounds about right.
You do know that next to no money from new sales actually goes to the retailer, right? On systems it's 0% (seriously, retailers make nothing on new system sales), and on games it's between 7% and 20% on average. Accessories are the only new items that are really profitable to a retailer, and on those it's usually around 30-40%.
That's not to say that I agree with the amounts given - I very much do not and that's why I never get rid of my games, they're worth more to me to keep - but it is simply not feasible for a retailer to only sell new items and expect to be able to stay afloat. Big box stores like Walmart, Best Buy, etc. can get away with it because they sell so many other high profit items that it makes up for the money they aren't making off the games they're selling.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't mean to say that it costs them money they are entitled to. Or that reselling games is illegal or even morally wrong.I'm just saying that it costs them money in the sense that there are people willing to pay for their game out there, that do buy it, but it doesn't funnel any money to the publishers.
So from their perspective. If they can tweak their business model somehow to get these people to pay the money to them, instead of a reseller or private person that's a win.
And of course the pricing structure is important, cause if they screw it up they could easily "lose" potential money by alienating both customers willing to pay the full price as well as those willing to pay a lower "used" price (maybe even increasing piracy).
For example the coupon route seems to piss off both of these types of customers. The full price one cause they are bothered and have to put in a code before they can enjoy the full experience and the person buying the used game has to pay again for a new coupon, which feels scummy.
However publishers are fully entitled to do it, neither their behaviour nor the reselling behaviour is illegal.
With media going more and more digital it can put a lot of the power in the publishers hand. They themselves could for example create a "used" market. Where people can buy previously owned games for cheaper. All the proceeds going to them instead of the reseller.
Another model could be more standard price discrimination, either algorithmically (if you have enough info to offer that), tier pricing based or through in-app purchases.
But, again, it doesn't actually cost them any money. A lost sale is not money cost by the publisher; it's simply a lost sale. There are a huge number of reasons as to why someone wouldn't go for a new copy; ranging from it simply not being available (new copies of games are not printed forever, after all), to it being too expensive, to not wanting to be stuck with a game that was shit.
Game publishers do not need more power. If anything they need less, because it's publishers like EA and Activision that are strangling the industry and has caused gaming to stagnate so much in recent years.