The number one platform for cod has always been xbox so the fee hasn't proven a huge barrier. Activision just wants their cut of that fee, that's how they feel.
Well it is the number one platform though PC and PS3 are far from irrelevant, it is quite an assertion to say that because half the gamers were willing to pay a subscription it is going to go down the other half throat easy.
As for Activision having its share of the subscription it won't happen. Imo that fee be it for SOny or MSFT is a stigmata of the fact that they spend money on the UI/front end (I mean it as apps store, media hub) and so far they can't make that investment profitable (vs proper appstores) so they get users to subsidize for it... it is tedious at best as it is more wishful thinking from MSFT and SOny that there is a market willing to pay for that /that there is a sustainable market... hence the fee which is sold based on a lie.
The casuals who got the Wii may be gone, never coming back.
Meanwhile, generations of kids are growing up with touch devices, some toddlers learning to put on their education or kiddie gaming apps on their own, before they can even read.
I think MS might lose some of the traditional "hardcore" early doors, but if they can demonstrate their slick all-in-one functionality effectively enough it could be a mega hit. Logging multiple users in instantly and always being on/ready to find and play whatever content and communicate on the big screen. I'm surprised there wasn't more of Kinect at e3.
If you've got 1 console in the house and it's X1, cross-platform game IQ differences become irrelevant to game sales. See PS2, &3.
I would say that whilst it isn't a game changer it could be important. Essentially it means that parents can buy their kids an iPad, and give them a TV, computer and games console in one. I think it could be quite tempting anyway...
I wonder what the trends are for things like TV's in bedrooms given the fact that TV watching is declining amongst younger people and alternatives such as laptops/tablets are taking over?
I would say that whilst it isn't a game changer it could be important. Essentially it means that parents can buy their kids an iPad, and give them a TV, computer and games console in one. I think it could be quite tempting anyway...
I wonder what the trends are for things like TV's in bedrooms given the fact that TV watching is declining amongst younger people and alternatives such as laptops/tablets are taking over?
Apple is 5 years aways from games being able to see the fidelity and complexity of PS3 and Xbox 360 games, nevermind XB1/PS4.
Nothing Apple does will hurt home consoles. Period.
Portable gaming on phones/tabs is and will always be an additive experience.
Now PC could hurt consoles, but given the company at the helm of the primary PC operating system worldwide, I don't think home consoles have anything to worry about for a long time to come lol
Given the fact that they can use it for a lot more than just playing games it makes sense that parents would buy it for their kids. The problem really with the Xbox One and PS4 isn't really cost: it's value. The iPad gets bought because it combines ease of use, games, movies, music, portability, battery life, internet and a great screen.
You can Youtube videos of toddlers using iPads. They're learning to use the touch interface before they can even read and write.
Other thing is for adults, tablets and phones are something you'll be using all day, every day.
Can't really say that about consoles.
It's kind of like why MP3 and portable audio took off. You can have a better experience playing music on a nice stereo system but you have to block out time to be near that stereo, sit in the sweet spot for best stereo imaging, etc.
Or you can listen to all kinds of audio content throughout the day, at your convenience, whether at home or away.
Apple is 5 years aways from games being able to see the fidelity and complexity of PS3 and Xbox 360 games, nevermind XB1/PS4.
Nothing Apple does will hurt home consoles. Period.
Portable gaming on phones/tabs is and will always be an additive experience.
Now PC could hurt consoles, but given the company at the helm of the primary PC operating system worldwide, I don't think home consoles have anything to worry about for a long time to come lol
Apple isn't that far away. Apple's 1st gen ipad went from a PowerVR SGX535 sporting 2 GFLOPs and 3.2 GBs of LPDDR bandwidth in 2010 to 4th gen ipads with a PowerVR SGX554MP4 sporting 80 GFLOPs and 17 GBs of LPDDR2 bandwidth in 2012.
With Nvidia licensing its IP for all it current and future gpus going forward. Apple might have an avenue to approach 360 and PS3 performance in a very short period of time.
Unlike PCs, smartphones and tabs users spend a significant time gaming on their platforms. And when you are talking annual refreshes and 200+ million in unit sales a year, there is a plenty of motivation to push graphics performance.
No but MP3 let you load dozens of hours worth of music on tiny and convenient portable devices.
People accepted the lower quality of lossy compression in exchange for the sheer capacity and convenience of literally having whole libraries of music in your hands.
The lossy compression was "good enough" given the convenience -- and probably the wide scale piracy that was going on.
Games on iPads and phones may be "good enough" for a lot of casual gamers. Even some core gamers may find that not having to buy dedicated gaming devices and $60 games may be a worthwhile tradeoff for "good enough" mobile games.
No but MP3 let you load dozens of hours worth of music on tiny and convenient portable devices.
People accepted the lower quality of lossy compression in exchange for the sheer capacity and convenience of literally having whole libraries of music in your hands.
The lossy compression was "good enough" given the convenience -- and probably the wide scale piracy that was going on.
There's a place for mobile gaming and there's a place for gaming in the living room. I see little changing in that advent. In order to capture the casual market then Sony or MS need apps/games that attract them. MS is going the right way with Kinect, but I don't thin they will have a monopoly on that specific market segment for longer than three years and there's one company out there that could likely enter the market with a serious gaming machine and have instant huge sales from their name alone. MS is playing their cards right and need to get a high enough install base before Apple decides one new market for growth is games.
Sony's got a bigger uphill battle when it comes to the casual gamer. They're now focusing on the core, which may be a bit of a gamble, but if they have enough sales then some casuals will follow. I just wish Sony would finally focus on having a games library that is completely fleshed out and attracts gamers young and old. Sony can add services later and they can make a big push for PS Eye at some point in the future and possibly including it as a pack in later down the line. But not having that functionality out the game could prove a major disadvantage.
And in the end, whoever's able to bring the price of their machine down the fastest has a huge advantage as well. The Wii wouldn't have sold that well if it were launched at $400 as clearly the Wii U is selling like crap. So there's a specific price point that casuals like as well.
I would prefer if their sales are relatively close, +/- million units, so that both machines thrive with quality titles and an ecosystem that makes both Sony and MS money. I can see MS taking the North American market again simply because that's what their entire plans seems to hinge on and the features of X1 definitely cater to this market. Sony's an obvious win in Japan.
But I do think casual gamers will again be enticed to the new systems simply because of the experiences they will provide and bring. I'm not a believer in the mobile gaming market cannibalizing sales of the home console market so don't see that as an area encroaching on MS/Sony territory. The weaker sales of the past few years can really be pinpointed to the Wii's quick downturn and a generation that lasted two years too long.
MS taking a blanket approach that could work out well for them. I mean for smartphones they've got smartglass and WinPhone 7/8, for tablets/PCs they have Windows 8, and for HTPCs/Set-tops they have XB One/360. They're the closest competitor to Apple in almost every way, and they will market the hell out of everything they have to make it work. But still, they're advertisement cash will only help them retain or gain a reasonably small amount of marketshare since they have just as many competitors on those very fronts.
I don't think MS cares about casuals with the Xbox One now, they're still going after them with the 360. This is a fight of ecosystems, and for MS that means making casuals so comfortable with the 360's functionality that they'll be excited by how those same things are enhanced on the One when it's at a reasonable price and they are ready for a transition.
Sony is focused on the core because those are the ones who will buy the newer consoles at launch prices. That means selling to those who actually look forward to new consoles and giving them exactly what they want. But for Sony it's also about taking a few steps back and figure where they went wrong for the PS3 (high pricing, inconsistent marketing messages, ignoring the development community).
Now through the PS4 they're doing the almost exact opposite. I think through indies and first-party efforts they're definitely trying to create a gaming library that appeals to all ages. Maybe not in the same way MS is with fitness games and other Wii-like efforts, but they are diversify their portfolio of titles. Plus the camera technology they have could be adequate enough to deliver similar experiences to the Kinect. Sony can alter their marketing message enough include other forms of entertainment and gaming down the line. But ultimately the problem I see Sony run into is a weaker advertising budget than MS, that could limit their exposure and how educated casual could be to their console.
Casuals are hard to nail down, they're motivations and reasons vary by quite a bit. Rather if it's novelty, pricing, familiarity, ease-of-use, or something that serves multiple purposes. The casual market tends to have a short attention span when it comes to anything, and go for whatever seems like the best thing available at the time.
I think the title of the thread is incorrect. I really consider the casual gamer to be the infrequent gamer. When you consider the sheer amount of money some people spend on in-app purchases on free-to-play games, it's impossible to logically call them "casual".
If anything, one of these consoles needs to grab *mainstream* success. As much as gamers poo-poo Kinect, it is obvious it was a success. You don't sell 24 million units of a $100 peripheral ($150 at launch) if its a gimmick no one wants. That's called the PlayStation Move which few people have ever experienced.
I guarantee you the #1 reason people still use Kinect today is for the following 2 voice commands: "Xbox, pause" and "Xbox, play" when watching Netflix. Simple, hands-free, and responsive. And if the Xbox One actually delivers on its likely future promise of whole home automation, it will do very well.
I would just argue that these aren't pure gaming systems anymore and haven't been so for quite some time. Sony winning does not mean Microsoft losing.
MS did pour quite a lot of marketing dollars into the Kinect as "the next best thing" or motion gaming on steroids, and the product sold well due to a 1-2 combo of functionality and novelty that made the Wii successful. But how was the attachment rate for the Kinect? How many people bought games for it, and continue to do so up to this point? That's what I'd like to know.
Maybe they'll have better results now that it's mandatory for the Xbox One, but again with casuals who knows how well they gravitate to it. A massive marketing campaign will help their gain attention, however the $500 price tag will keep people at a wait-and-see approach, and that approach might give Sony and Nintendo enough time to change the masses' minds and purchasing intent.
It only becomes ominous when iOS games run on the Apple TV, and that would require then to put an actually good SoC in there. The fact that they are using something less than an A5 in there (only single core enabled, and who knows what GPU is in the A5r2) shows they are ready to push that yet, if at all.
Gaming on Apple TV becomes a threat when it's a something you already have, not one you need to go out and buy.
