@ Saigon
Out of curiosity, why should MS buy more studios and have more first party games?
Well, that's certainly interesting. I've never played Dark Souls, so I was unaware. Thanks.
Jade Empire 2 would make me ruin my britches.
I would agree cooperative experiences tend to draw people who aren't virtual scrotum hats.
I just don't understand which part of that was worth an article. Is there something I'm missing that's a new way to discourage trolling or something?
Edit: Why in the world do you have a disagree?
rela82me nailed it.
The pre-orders were a vote of sorts and MS went the way of the majority. Saying "listening to customers" and "reacting to pre-orders" are different concepts shows a distinct lack of understanding as to how democracy works. That a company allowed it's consumers to shape it's decisions based on pre-order "votes" is pretty cool.
...Even if I would have preferred the original policies.
Personally, I feel CynicalKelly nailed it. Gaming is about the games and your enjoyment. I'll support any developer churning out good games.
I really think this video is a waste of time, for anyone who reads this before watching.
I'm not sure I understand. Anyone care to attempt an explanation?
My guess would be in talents or class specific skill bonuses.
A true gamer plays what they want, when they want. A true gamer plays for love of the game, not the love of a company. It's as simple as that.
While I agree with you, the title of the article is technically correct.
Market share is simply the percentage of the market a company holds. If the size of the gaming market increases to encompass mobile gaming and the number of console gamers doesn't rise to meat it, mathematically speaking the market share of consoles decrease.
It's not worth an entire article on, though, as I just summed it up in one long sentence and one short one.
MS' E3 presentation was all games.
The May conference was 90% extra features.
They told us that's how it would be, so E3 could be nothing but games.
BTW, PCs have evolved to do a tremendous amount more than they originally did. As have TVs. Cable boxes were just a new way to absorb media that already existed. There was already a way to watch TV before they came around.
If you own a smart phone and a computer this argument is silly. If you own a tablet this argument is silly. If you have GPS in your car, this argument is silly. Hell, if you own an atari this argument is silly, because you can "just play games" on it.
The PS2 did a hat trick as a cd player, dvd player and gaming device. No one had a problem with that.
There's literally no way to logically disagree with any of what I just said that I can tell, bu...
I don't know why anyone would disagree with your statement.
It's why TV series and movies both exist.
I don't think most people want a series of anything to last forever, though. There comes a point where it grows stale. As long as possible without growing stale is a difficult target to bull's-eye.
n4rc gets a bubble.
That's dead on. This is an integral part of the system but it doesn't mean you have to play dance games or even stand up. It doesn't mean all games will become full motion control. It doesn't mean you have to abandon that precious controller. It just means there will be more options in game.
Hell, I think if I'm playing The Division and that neato holo-map pops up and I can use my hands to interact with that map in the...
@ Grassyknoll, I would have the same concern if it were a peripheral, but it most likely won't lead to a creative cul de sac if it's an integral part of the system. Developers will use it in ways we can't dream of right now because they KNOW everyone has one.
Nyromith, every generation of your phone has had new features forced in and no one complains. Every generation of gaming HAS had something new. It's progress. The way the world works.
@ Wynams, while I don't agree with their comparison of smartphone to vita, almost everyone already has a smart phone purchased for other reasons and the fact that it can be used in conjunction with the system is an extraneous yet nice detail. Your argument holds zero water.
@mewhy32 to claim the difference is a factor of 50% is ridiculous. As is claiming hardcore gamers can't see value in Kinect. Hardcore gamers just tend to be stubborn and dislike change.
I'm a hardcore gamer and I see value in having the kinect as a peripheral as well as seeing value in it being mandatory.
The Xbox brand has always been marketed as a media delivery device, not as a gaming console. Sure, gamers are the primary market. Sure, it's rare for someone to buy a console for music and movies (I personally know someone who has purchased a 360 and someone who purchased a PS3 to that purpose so it's not THAT rare). None of that really means they are primarily gaming devices. They're whatever you want them to be devices.
Remember, just because YOU don't use ...