A Possible Solution to the Hard Drive Problem?

[pc999]

None of the games you listed require a hard drive to play. They make use of it to decrease load times. So would you be happy if the devs came out and said, "You know, the 12x DVD plus the extra RAM really negates the need for caching to the hard drive."?

Also, I COMPLETELY disagree with your sig. I find it offensively bordering on outright FUD.

.Sis

If you you speak of BC the 12XDVD more more RAM I suposse you could run it, but next gen the same could be said and it could stream from both DVD and HDD, I think(?). Anyway yes you may be able to play e.g. Halo with a lot of loads each level, yes probably, but what would you prefer(about RC2 they said they couldnt do it without one, I supose as it is and if it is in the same way than halo or much lower tex rex, no thanks)

About my sig, they killed the possibiity of being that way, and that is inded completely correct , anyway I really think that if they had put HDD as standart there would be map(...)editors and would be great if we get a new official map each week and the etc...(the things I posted)
I had supossed that everyone woud take it as a possibility of, not as a concret reality or as a concret future reality already determinated.
I think that after explained you dont take that as ofensive, anyway I am sorry for that.

 

[Inane_Dork]

why Xbox?

from: http://ps2.ign.com/articles/500/500717p1.html

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is a concession for MMO games on the X360. I would really like MS to step up and clarify the issue, though.

Besides, it should be pretty obvious from the fact that FF XI is on the X360 that there must be mitigating circumstances.

 

[Sis]

About my sig, they killed the possibiity of being that way, and that is inded completely correct , anyway I really think that if they had put HDD as standart there would be map(...)editors and would be great if we get a new official map each week and the etc...(the things I posted)
I had supossed that everyone woud take it as a possibility of, not as a concret reality or as a concret future reality already determinated.
I think that after explained you dont take that as ofensive, anyway I am sorry for that.

Hmm, I think I get your point pc999. However, I think developers will be able to treat the HDD and the memory card seamlessly. So, map editors would just save to a memory card. It's large enough that I hope devs do it. The same holds true for downloadable content. Though it's not like the Xbox had an abundance of editors, even though it had a standard HDD from day one.

Also, I think this will be the first time that a peripheral such as the hard drive is available at launch, so I'm not sure that it will be ignored. If 5 million hdd are sold--especially around launch--surely devs won't ignore it? I mean, look at Xbox Live. It wasn't released till way after Xbox launch, and only now has 2 million subscribers--out of 20 million!-- online as of today. Yet developers certainly don't ignore it.

.Sis

 

[pc999]

I really hope so, but I am not so sure anyway I will hold till buy a XB360.

About map editors on XB I think it is only because only after XBL3.0 (~6 months ago), that you can trade the maps online, so only recent do offer more posibilitys. About of them fit in a MC, if they are made of only premade stuff (TS/PGR3 like), but I had hoped for better/open ones (like the descriptions from Allard and info from market place). The same for DC in a MC, a brand new level that could use 470-480mg(ok only the level by itself would less but I guess at least 100+mg) in a 64 mg MC, I dont think so.

But you are right about Live, so you may be right about thre rest, maybe they force their studios to use it...

 

[Mr_Puffy]

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is a concession for MMO games on the X360. I would really like MS to step up and clarify the issue, though.

Besides, it should be pretty obvious from the fact that FF XI is on the X360 that there must be mitigating circumstances.

Yes I understand that; but the question is, will this still be true in the “2 SKUâ€￾ future? We shale see if the x360 “coreâ€￾ takes off and see if developers are still willing to pour money into a game like an HDD dependent Final Fantasy despite the “coreâ€￾ going big. Hence my waiting to see what happens.

 

[pharmer100]

Wow - the option to let people buy the MC card instead of making the hard disk standard is getting better and better:-

Can't play xbox 1 games - check
longer load times - check
Cant download some content because its too big - check (pontentiallly)
Cant play certain games - check (if the ff XI thing is true)
Have to spend lots more money in the future for new memory cards or the hard drive +accessories - check

I am sure the people that op for the core option are going to be really happy that Microsoft gave them the option of not buying the HDD.

Options are only good if they are good options. This isn't.

 

[Sis]

Wow - the option to let people buy the MC card instead of making the hard disk standard is getting better and better:-

Can't play xbox 1 games - check
longer load times - check
Cant download some content because its too big - check (pontentiallly)
Cant play certain games - check (if the ff XI thing is true)
Have to spend lots more money in the future for new memory cards or the hard drive +accessories - check

I am sure the people that op for the core option are going to be really happy that Microsoft gave them the option of not buying the HDD.

Options are only good if they are good options. This isn't.

Eh. You assume everyone needs that. Let's say I'm a recreational gamer. I buy the Xbox 360 core and a memory card and a game (Madden 2006). I just paid the exact same price as I did for the PS2 and for Xbox, so no big deal, right?

Ok, now let's address your issues:

Can't play xbox 1 games Don't care.
longer load times You don't know this and it certainly didn't help all games last gen.
Cant download some content because its too big Don't care.
Cant play certain games Didn't want to play them anyway.
Have to spend lots more money in the future for new memory cards or the hard drive +accessories I only need one memory card for the handful of games I play.

So, you are making the error that all consumers of the Xbox 360 have your exact buying habits and needs. I think MS is positioning the Xbox 360 against that model.

.Sis

 

[pharmer100]

Sis - No - I am not assuming all gamers have my needs - but I am just assuming that very few gamers are going to pay 299 just to play one or two games. Also, are you really saying you wouldn't rather pay an extra $10 just in case you change your mind in the future?

More importantly, from Microsofts perspective, gamers who do buy the 360 to play one or two games are not the people Microsoft are interested in. Why? Because they make no or very little profit from you (maybe even a loss). Most consoles are sold for a loss. The makers profits come from the software. I don't know how much if any microsoft are losing on the 360 but I doubt they are making any profit. So, out of the $400 you spend to play one game (core +mc+1 game) microsoft at they most are going to make about $10 dollars and maybe actually be making a loss. You are def. not the consumer they are after.

 

[Sis]

Sis - No - I am not assuming all gamers have my needs - but I am just assuming that very few gamers are going to pay 299 just to play one or two games. Also, are you really saying you wouldn't rather pay an extra $10 just in case you change your mind in the future?

More importantly, from Microsofts perspective, gamers who do buy the 360 to play one or two games are not the people Microsoft are interested in. Why? Because they make no or very little profit from you (maybe even a loss). Most consoles are sold for a loss. The makers profits come from the software. I don't know how much if any microsoft are losing on the 360 but I doubt they are making any profit. So, out of the $400 you spend to play one game (core +mc+1 game) microsoft at they most are going to make about $10 dollars and maybe actually be making a loss. You are def. not the consumer they are after.

From a market penetration perspective, I have to disagree. Everything I'm seeing from the MS camp seems to imply that they are much more interested in a large user base than they are in courting the hard core gamer.

In fact, this seems completely logical to me. They bent over backwards last gen for the hard core gamer and all it did was get them a distant second and several billion in losses. Targetting a more "varied" consumer this gen, specifically the recreational gamer, seems to be their approach this time. Add in the tie-in with Media Center, Xbox Live, etc, and I think MS sees this system as being more than just a vehicle to receive license revenue.

Of course, their peripheral markup indicates that they plan on making money off the console, even if you don't buy many games

Also, one last thing: i'm under the impression that gamers fall into two camps. The majority buy only a few games over the lifetime of a system. These are the recreational gamers, more likely to rent than impulse buy. The other side buys a LOT of games. this is more your hard core gamer. Myself, I have 60-70+ xbox games, 20-30 PS2 games (and only about 12 GC games--but that's becuase there ain't much to buy).

So while a system might have an attach rate of 8, I believe it's because of the core audience buy a crapload of games.

And the way you make the core buy lots of games is by offering a huge lineup of games.

And the way you ensure that a system has a huge lineup of games is by having a huge market share.

And the way you ensure a huge market share is, well, debatable to no ends.
.Sis

 

[pharmer100]

Hi sis - thanks for the reply - not sure how to answer your point as I was referring to your hypothetically gamer that only brought the 360 for one or two games and was not interested in anything else. Not the average gamer. So that’s look at it like this:

Thats say the market place is made up of 3 types of Gamers:

Group A - low buyers (10%): Buys very few games and has no interest in live. Low profits for MS from this group, very little impact on their market strategy.

Group B - Average consumer (80%): Will buy the AAA titles and some other game types he is interested in (i.e. racing). Some of the group isgoing to be into live, some aren't. This is the biggest market for Microsoft and is who most of their business decisions and market strategy is aimed at. This group is probably the reason for the 299 core system pricing and the push to make live more about "lifestyle choices"

Group C - Harcore gamer/Tech addict - (10%) - A relatively small group in size but disproportionately important in terms of profit potential for MS. These are the people that will buy a huge number of games, most are likely to be on line and these are the guys that are going to purchase the most accessories as well. So why thy aren't as important to Microsoft as group B they are still important and Microsoft would like to keep them happy if they can. For instance, its probably the backlash from this group about B/C that made MS go to all the effort of including it at the last minute. Which does show this group can make a difference.


So back to the problem of what to do when all your group C gamers go ballistic about the HDD being non-standard? I think MS have 2 options:
A - Go on a information campaign/Spin exercise and hope that you can convince them its not a big deal. Hope that while they bitch and moan most will still end up buying the system anyway and not wait to see what the PS3 has to offer(I think this is what is going to happen)
B - Try to find an option that will satisfy Group C without putting off Group B, who are the most important customers to keep happy. (+ hit all the other goals MS want to achieve).

The only way I could think to implement option B was to cut the price of the HD and make it standard.

 

[Sis]

So back to the problem of what to do when all your group C gamers go ballistic about the HDD being non-standard? I think MS have 2 options:
A - Go on a information campaign/Spin exercise and hope that you can convince them its not a big deal. Hope that while they bitch and moan most will still end up buying the system anyway and not wait to see what the PS3 has to offer(I think this is what is going to happen)
B - Try to find an option that will satisfy Group C without putting off Group B, who are the most important customers to keep happy. (+ hit all the other goals MS want to achieve).

The only way I could think to implement option B was to cut the price of the HD and make it standard.

Hey pharmer100, we're pretty close in our initial assumptions, but I had lumped group A and B together. My point is that even if you make group C happy, it may not matter to the bottom line. So it appears to me that MS is saying, "Ok, let's really focus on group A & B, and hope that group C will be there anyway."

In which case, the Xbox 360 core system is a good option. For example, I have the PS2 with many games, so I probably fall in between group B & C in regards to the PS2. Over the lifetime of the system, I've only had to purchase 2 memory cards (one of them very recently). So in my experience, the core system is perfectly fine for group A, probably good for the majority of group B, and definitely not good for group C.

This is why I think the core system is actually a "good option"--which is what I was originally responding to you about, that it wasn't a good option for anybody.

Options are only good if they are good options. This isn't.

I'm arguing that in fact it's a good option for a large chunk of consumers. I don't even consider it an option for the hardcore gamer. Also, anyone wanting to use Xbox Live a lot. Everyone else? Sure.

.Sis

 

[pharmer100]

Hi sis,

Yep I think we do agree on most things - although I hope we are wrong and MS do care about group C - guess we will have to wait and see

However, I still think the MC option is a bad choice for everybody (or the vast majority of people), especially if MS can reduce the price of the HDD.

I don't know about you, but even given the choice of the core system and the MC or the Core system and a HDD at full price (100) without all the nice added extras I would still pick the HDD. I really think anybody who has experience the benefits of the hard drive, even if only in saved MC costs would also pick the HDD. (I also have a GC and have only brought about 5 games for it. I still needed to purchase 2 MC's for it though!).

I think the only people who will pick the MC option are those who don't fully understand what the decision is likely to mean for them a few months down the line (assuming they are going to buy at least a few games or make some use of Live)

Core + MC = 140, a few months later(or 1 year later) your MC is full. So you are faced with the option of buying another one or upgrading to a HDD.

If you buy another MC you have spent $80 on 2 MC, have got none of the benefits of the HDD and are faced with the possibility of buying more in the future or being really careful about what games you buy or stuff you download. Not fun.

Alternatively, you stump up $100 for the HDD. Which means the $40 you spent on the MC is wasted and you don't get any of the accessories that you would have got if you had been a bit more clued up and brought the premium pack to begin with. You are also faced with the purchase of any of the accessories that you actually need. I really can't see the consumer being happy in with their decision to op for the MC option. They are really being made to pay for it down the line if they actually want to experience the full, promised 360 experienced.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Also you have to think about what Microsofts eventual goals are...is it to sell a bunch of games? No. It's to become the central component of your living room, bridging the gap between your MS Windows machine, and the digital living room that is the future.

So to that end I think we will see them push the HDD as much as possible, to further their own ends mainly, however I think the end result will be that group C will be pretty happy.

The Core system is for the gamers who can't afford all the goodies, they can simply buy the system for $299 + MC for $40 and that's it, good to go. You really can't blame MS for this when you look at the stats from XB1, something like 10% of users went on live. So obviously, at this point, most people don't care about that.

So they're giving an amazing console, at a cheap price, it plays all the games and will output fine to the majority that has standard AV outputs. At the same time, their end goal requires a HDD in every machine IMO, lord knows MS need to update it's software on an ongoing basis, so they'll push that and make it a viable/cheap option in the future..hopefully