I must have missed all those false claims & fabrications, but then again I don't have an axe to grind & go out of my way to make the competition look bad either. IMHSO(in my humble subjective opinion).
Tommy McClain
Ejected sales thread noise *spawn
- Thread starter zupallinere
- Start date
- Status
I must have missed all those false claims & fabrications, but then again I don't have an axe to grind & go out of my way to make the competition look bad either. IMHSO(in my humble subjective opinion).
Tommy McClain
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Sony and Microsoft don't pay what we pay
iSupply compared the component costs of each consoles and costed the DDR3 at $60 and GDDR5 at $88 so just $28 difference. Microsoft's chassis, optical drive, CPU/GPU and power supply all cost more than Sony's choices. Ignoring Kinect, it's fairly close and the RAM is the biggest cost gap.Here's the full breakdown:
So providing an accurate accounting is "going out of my way to make the competition look bad"? If that's true, you must think really horrible things about those actually misrepresenting the numbers!
Just wonderong. Do F2P games require either XBL Gold or PS+? I am playing some like Warframe on the PS4 but I am not sure if the + is required
djskribbles
Legend
Not sure about Gold, but you don't need PS+.
Yes, MS requires Gold for F2P games.
EDIT: Or it may be case by case because Powerstar Gold does not require Gold, but Killer Instinct does. My assumption is the blanket requirement will apply to F2P games from third parties the same way it applies to MMOs like Elder Scrolls Online.
EDIT: Or it may be case by case because Powerstar Gold does not require Gold, but Killer Instinct does. My assumption is the blanket requirement will apply to F2P games from third parties the same way it applies to MMOs like Elder Scrolls Online.
Not really. You have Gold anyway if you want to play online. F2P means you don't need to buy the game or pay a subscription to pay the game.But isnt Gold requirement like killing the point of F2P games
The only people affected by F2P behind the paywall are those who want to play online games but don't want to pay the online fees both consoles have. I don't know what proportion of console gamers that is. I dare say that those people wouldn't be spending that much on a F2P game anyway so they're probably no loss.
F2P games are outside the paywall for PlayStation 4. Since costs for running the services for those game are built into the monetization strategy that makes a certain amount of sense compared to traditional payment models where servers must be provided in perpetuity (in theory anyway).
Since the paywalls are literally arbitrary in a lot of ways you can make arguments in either direction. I think erring on the side of being more liberal is a better choice. Trying to promote free to play games that require a monthly subscription is just confusing.
Since the paywalls are literally arbitrary in a lot of ways you can make arguments in either direction. I think erring on the side of being more liberal is a better choice. Trying to promote free to play games that require a monthly subscription is just confusing.
I agree, but I wouldn't say access to online games behind the online paywall is intrinsically breaking the F2P concept. F2P means no upfront costs. There are no additional upfront costs assuming one already has Live Gold.
You are probably right. Right now ps4 is riding a wave of positive word of mouth and MS is still riding something fairly negative. That likely has the greatest factor in console selection.
I'm not convinced it has anything to do with library just yet. I have been recently been harassed from some of my more casual gaming friends about how ps4 had won the war and I should switch over. He just started reading biased blogs now and praising them like fact; just last week; as if this hasn't been the messaging online this past whole year.
Messaging, communications, apps and services is likely all MS can do to revert opinions. RRod followed by Online only followed by forced in kinect and paywall apps, and a very poor commentary on "get a xbox360" if you don't have a connection likely broke the camels back coming into this generation.
Too many missteps in a row, gamers remember and are a lot more socially connected this generation.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Nope... online astro-turfing, PR lip service and attempting to use contrivance to control their PR message is most of what what screwed them last year in the first place. That and the content of what they were trying so desperately to control (i.e. their poor Xbone strategy and crummy policies). Gamers aren't idiots, as if as a company you are all talk with nothing of substance to back it up then people will see through your bullshit and call you out on it. That's one of the biggest reason MS got so much sht last year.
They will get back the mindshare only by doing what is good and right in the eyes of the consumers and fans. By emulating Sony over the back half of the last generation, by actually serving the needs and desires of gamers and not trying to nickel-and-dime them at every turn. That's the way they'll win back mindshare. And so far I think they've been making a fairly good go at it.
Sony are just simply so far ahead, and haven't yet made a single misstep.
steveOrino
Regular
You only need to watch the X1 reveal to understand what went wrong. That conference changed Xbox as a brand. The rest of the PR blunders afterwards were just icing on the cake.
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
I watched some of it again earlier this week - it's so bad. Whoever thought it was going to be a good idea?? Mattrick talks about TV and a connected Xbox like he's had some kind of epiphany and he's telling everyone how successful this amazing idea is. Completely cringe-worthy.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
In retrospect I think it's clear that a lot of senior people in Microsoft had been convinced, or convinced themselves, that a living room social device was the future and the Xbox was chosen to be the trojan horse to deliver this.
A question I can see I asked [in these forums] after the initial May 2013 reveal, was why did Microsoft think TV was so important? Cord-cutting and streaming were (and still are) only gaining in popularity, they must have had some research to strongly support this strategy. I'd still love to see it!
I don't know about the UK, but in the USA cord cutting in many ways has been proven to be a myth, with pay tv subscribers actually increasing over the years. I presume that's the market MS were targeting.
EDIT: Link with some data on that: http://www.techspot.com/article/815-cord-cutting-myths/
- Status
Similar threads
