Xbox One - November 22, 2013

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CLW

NO the moral of the story is..... CLW = RIGHT IOU = WRONG.

The console war of CLW v. IOU was won the second Sony announced it at E3 and the crowd went NUTS (just as I said). Took a week for MS to get off the mat from the knockout punch.

CLW wins debate re: DRM versus IOU end of story. :nod:

---

I don't see how that has anything to do with used games, which is what I was arguing about. My argument of "if a publisher blocks used games on one system, they're going to do it on the other) still very much stands. They're still more than capable of locking a game behind a serial code on both systems. As I've said a million times before, Microsoft and Sony have absolutely no say in what publishers decide to do with their games. Sony may put on a show and use it as an easy way to win E3 with no games, but if a publisher wants to block them, Sony has no power to stop them. Neither does Microsoft.

The absolutely ONLY difference now is that Microsoft doesn't have a system in place, so publishers will have to use their own. Same thing on Sony's system.

The only other thing you could have won was which console would sell better, and no one is going to win that one because thanks to Microsoft backing down like a little you know what, we'll never know.

I definitely never argued about whether or not Microsoft would completely change their policies and turn their console I was looking forward to into a 360 v2, which is all that came out of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn

It was the original owner and one of the family members at the same time. Say Austin and G are my family members. I could play the game any time I wanted no matter what. If Austin was also playing, then G couldn't. However, as soon as Austin stopped playing that particular game, G could then start playing.

The part where you gave a game away and never got it back was the game trading they were going to do, the family sharing thing was different.

---

So if Austin was playing your owned game and you decided it's time to play, you'd basically boot him out of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn

I don't see how that has anything to do with used games, which is what I was arguing about. My argument of "if a publisher blocks used games on one system, they're going to do it on the other) still very much stands. They're still more than capable of locking a game behind a serial code on both systems. As I've said a million times before, Microsoft and Sony have absolutely no say in what publishers decide to do with their games. Sony may put on a show and use it as an easy way to win E3 with no games, but if a publisher wants to block them, Sony has no power to stop them. Neither does Microsoft.

The absolutely ONLY difference now is that Microsoft doesn't have a system in place, so publishers will have to use their own. Same thing on Sony's system.

The only other thing you could have won was which console would sell better, and no one is going to win that one because thanks to Microsoft backing down like a little you know what, we'll never know.

I definitely never argued about whether or not Microsoft would completely change their policies and turn their console I was looking forward to into a 360 v2, which is all that came out of this.

---

After seeing all the backlash that has come from the DRM debacle, do you really think a publisher would come out and say "hey we're still gonna have DRM on our games?" EA has pretty much solidified that they aren't gonna bring back online codes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kingpin32

After seeing all the backlash that has come from the DRM debacle, do you really think a publisher would come out and say "hey we're still gonna have DRM on our games?" EA has pretty much solidified that they aren't gonna bring back online codes.

---

"
Hopefully they will see that the market does NOT support this practice and won't go this route. However, I know some will bend over and say "I gotta play x", but if most say, "nope I will pass and support something else", you won't see much DRM. Now, drop my game to $40 and you can DRM away would be a good move :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBHuskers

So if Austin was playing your owned game and you decided it's time to play, you'd basically boot him out of it?

---

No, because I'd send dog ninjas after him. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBHuskers

So if Austin was playing your owned game and you decided it's time to play, you'd basically boot him out of it?

---

No. OU (as the owner) can play whenever he wants. Austin (if no one else but OU is playing) can jump on at anytime and fire up the game. But if you got online an hour later and both OU and Austin were still playing the same game from OU family share deal, you'd have to wait until Austin stopped playing the game before you could fire it up off of OU's family share stuff.

The owner can (or could now) play day or night, any time he wanted. Everyone else, there could only be one playing at the same time as OU, everyone else had to wait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn

I don't see how that has anything to do with used games, which is what I was arguing about. My argument of "if a publisher blocks used games on one system, they're going to do it on the other) still very much stands. They're still more than capable of locking a game behind a serial code on both systems. As I've said a million times before, Microsoft and Sony have absolutely no say in what publishers decide to do with their games. Sony may put on a show and use it as an easy way to win E3 with no games, but if a publisher wants to block them, Sony has no power to stop them. Neither does Microsoft.

The absolutely ONLY difference now is that Microsoft doesn't have a system in place, so publishers will have to use their own. Same thing on Sony's system.

The only other thing you could have won was which console would sell better, and no one is going to win that one because thanks to Microsoft backing down like a little you know what, we'll never know.

I definitely never argued about whether or not Microsoft would completely change their policies and turn their console I was looking forward to into a 360 v2, which is all that came out of this.

---

http://i.minus.com/ibcj6IIHES2ffw.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBHuskers

So if Austin was playing your owned game and you decided it's time to play, you'd basically boot him out of it?

---

No. The owner is always allowed to play no matter what. Say I bought a game, Austin, G, and JB are my 3 family members. I want to play Call of Duty, so I start it up. G sees me playing and starts it up. We are both able to play. Say Austin sees us playing and wants to use a shared copy. He can not until G stops playing, and then Austin can play it. Once Austin stops, then JB can play it. However, if I stop, only one of the 3 family members can still play it.

Basically, only the owner AND one of the family members can be playing at one time. It was a REALLY good idea and I'm sorely disappointed they removed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kingpin32

After seeing all the backlash that has come from the DRM debacle, do you really think a publisher would come out and say "hey we're still gonna have DRM on our games?" EA has pretty much solidified that they aren't gonna bring back online codes.

---

EA said they were discontinuing the online pass. That's a little bit different than locking a game behind a serial code like a PC game. Do you think it's coincidence EA announced the end of their online passes right around the time Microsoft announced their system? I don't. It may not happen right away, but it will most certainly happen eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SCClassof93

"
Hopefully they will see that the market does NOT support this practice and won't go this route. However, I know some will bend over and say "I gotta play x", but if most say, "nope I will pass and support something else", you won't see much DRM. Now, drop my game to $40 and you can DRM away would be a good move :D

---

The market does support the practice. PC games are doing just fine. Diablo 3 sold a shit ton of copies and it was behind the one use serial code. A few hundred/thousand whiny babies on the internet does not even begin to equate for the entire gaming community that would be more than willing to purchase a game that requires a serial code to be entered.

This is from another "anonymous" Xbox One dev.....He/she says family sharing was actually basically a time trial.

First is family sharing, this feature is near and dear to me and I truly felt it would have helped the industry grow and make both gamers and developers happy. The premise is simple and elegant, when you buy your games for Xbox One, you can set any of them to be part of your shared library. Anyone who you deem to be family had access to these games regardless of where they are in the world. There was never any catch to that, they didn’t have to share the same billing address or physical address it could be anyone. When your family member accesses any of your games, they’re placed into a special demo mode. This demo mode in most cases would be the full game with a 15-45 minute timer and in some cases an hour. This allowed the person to play the game, get familiar with it then make a purchase if they wanted to. When the time limit was up they would automatically be prompted to the Marketplace so that they may order it if liked the game. We were toying around with a limit on the number of times members could access the shared game (as to discourage gamers from simply beating the game by doing multiple playthroughs). but we had not settled on an appropriate way of handling it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn

No. The owner is always allowed to play no matter what. Say I bought a game, Austin, G, and JB are my 3 family members. I want to play Call of Duty, so I start it up. G sees me playing and starts it up. We are both able to play. Say Austin sees us playing and wants to use a shared copy. He can not until G stops playing, and then Austin can play it. Once Austin stops, then JB can play it. However, if I stop, only one of the 3 family members can still play it.

Basically, only the owner AND one of the family members can be playing at one time. It was a REALLY good idea and I'm sorely disappointed they removed it.



EA said they were discontinuing the online pass. That's a little bit different than locking a game behind a serial code like a PC game. Do you think it's coincidence EA announced the end of their online passes right around the time Microsoft announced their system? I don't. It may not happen right away, but it will most certainly happen eventually.



The market does support the practice. PC games are doing just fine. Diablo 3 sold a shit ton of copies and it was behind the one use serial code. A few hundred/thousand whiny babies on the internet does not even begin to equate for the entire gaming community that would be more than willing to purchase a game that requires a serial code to be entered.

---

If all that were true then why did MS do the 180? If it's such a great idea that consumers/gamers will love: (1) Explain it; (2) Promote it; and (3) Destroy Sony with DRM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdj

This is from another "anonymous" Xbox One dev.....He/she says family sharing was actually basically a time trial.

First is family sharing, this feature is near and dear to me and I truly felt it would have helped the industry grow and make both gamers and developers happy. The premise is simple and elegant, when you buy your games for Xbox One, you can set any of them to be part of your shared library. Anyone who you deem to be family had access to these games regardless of where they are in the world. There was never any catch to that, they didn’t have to share the same billing address or physical address it could be anyone. When your family member accesses any of your games, they’re placed into a special demo mode. This demo mode in most cases would be the full game with a 15-45 minute timer and in some cases an hour. This allowed the person to play the game, get familiar with it then make a purchase if they wanted to. When the time limit was up they would automatically be prompted to the Marketplace so that they may order it if liked the game. We were toying around with a limit on the number of times members could access the shared game (as to discourage gamers from simply beating the game by doing multiple playthroughs). but we had not settled on an appropriate way of handling it.

---

So basically its the PS+ timed trial. LMAO. Yeah that is NO WHERE near as good as exchanging games with friends via the simple 1 step solution that has been around since the dawn of console gaming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSIFh8ICaA

EDIT: there are a NUMBER of quotes in that article that are just HILARIOUS and either (1) the person is "spinning" for his/her company; (2) they are not shall I say the sharpest knife in the drawer.

I tend to believe its the former or they are sippin' the koolaid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CLW

If all that were true then why did MS do the 180? If it's such a great idea that consumers/gamers will love: (1) Explain it; (2) Promote it; and (3) Destroy Sony with DRM.

---

If what were true? That customers are willing to buy games behind a serial code? Diablo 3 sold 7 million copies the last I checked, and it was behind a code and you had to be connected 24 hours. People just like to bitch. Take for example this recent Microsoft thing. People bitched and moaned all day about the 24 hour check thing. Then, Microsoft gets rid of it, so people are happy, right? Nope, now they're bitching and moaning because Microsoft flipped flopped. Listening to people on the internet is a no win situation, because the vast majority of them are simply trolls.

They could have sold the Xbox One with a constant internet connection requirement, serial keys for unlock the game, and an armed guard at your door to confiscate used games if you purchased them and people would still buy it.

Just like the naive people I've read around the internet the past month who think just because Sony and Microsoft don't have systems in place that publishers aren't capable/willing to block used games. :D

Honestly, I hope they don't, however, the writing is on the wall. Just like the writing was on the wall for Sony charging for online access. It's going to happen. It might not happen with this generation of consoles (I think it will), but I guarantee you it will certainly happen with the next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn

No. The owner is always allowed to play no matter what. Say I bought a game, Austin, G, and JB are my 3 family members. I want to play Call of Duty, so I start it up. G sees me playing and starts it up. We are both able to play. Say Austin sees us playing and wants to use a shared copy. He can not until G stops playing, and then Austin can play it. Once Austin stops, then JB can play it. However, if I stop, only one of the 3 family members can still play it.

Basically, only the owner AND one of the family members can be playing at one time. It was a REALLY good idea and I'm sorely disappointed they removed it.



EA said they were discontinuing the online pass. That's a little bit different than locking a game behind a serial code like a PC game. Do you think it's coincidence EA announced the end of their online passes right around the time Microsoft announced their system? I don't. It may not happen right away, but it will most certainly happen eventually.



The market does support the practice. PC games are doing just fine. Diablo 3 sold a shit ton of copies and it was behind the one use serial code. A few hundred/thousand whiny babies on the internet does not even begin to equate for the entire gaming community that would be more than willing to purchase a game that requires a serial code to be entered.

---

I think the pc gaming market while there may be overlap is a different market from console gaming.

It may be, but I don't think it's that much different. Besides, let me ask you this: what do you think customers are going to do when consoles inevitably get rid of physical media and rely solely upon digital distribution. It's definitely happening next gen because digital distribution is much cheaper for the publisher, and as doughty noted yesterday, it also eliminates the used game markets and ensures a copy be purchased new to be played.

Microsoft should have just stuck to their guns and gone through with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn

It may be, but I don't think it's that much different. Besides, let me ask you this: what do you think customers are going to do when consoles inevitably get rid of physical media and rely solely upon digital distribution. It's definitely happening next gen because digital distribution is much cheaper for the publisher, and as doughty noted yesterday, it also eliminates the used game markets and ensures a copy be purchased new to be played.

Microsoft should have just stuck to their guns and gone through with it.

---

There aren't going to be consoles when that happens. It will all be in the cloud and you will pay a subscription fee to use "Sony's" (or whoever's) service.

Customers won't be buying a physical product so they will have to decide which company's terms of service are best for them.

However, all gens including the next one revolve around the purchase of physical products. As such, consumers expect/demand the ability to trade the physical products they bought on the open market.

MS would have "stuck to their guns" if the writing wasn't on the wall and obvious to everyone but you that they were going to lose the console battle to Sony the only ? was by how much.

Screw the digital download. I like my hard copies of games!

There's always gonna be a retail market. Even if games are offered cheaper as a digital property, retail and physical media is still gonna be there. Everybody aren't able to download a 20-40 GB game. (I say that not knowing the size of the average game)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GatorfanStovy

Screw the digital download. I like my hard copies of games!

---

Well, you're going to be SOL after 2020. Outside of buying online, it's almost impossible to find physical copies of PC games in brick and mortar stores. It's either buy them online from Amazon, etc., or download them. The next generation of video gaming (whenever it comes around after 2020) will almost all but likely be 100% digital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kingpin32

There's always gonna be a retail market. Even if games are offered cheaper as a digital property, retail and physical media is still gonna be there. Everybody aren't able to download a 20-40 GB game. (I say that not knowing the size of the average game)

---

For me on Xbox, the standard game averages 1.5 to 4 GB. The really big games (GTA, RDR, etc) can run upwards of 7 or 8 GB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CLW

MS would have "stuck to their guns" if the writing wasn't on the wall and obvious to everyone but you that they were going to lose the console battle to Sony the only ? was by how much.

---

:D

Based on what? Early order numbers? The PS4 is $100 less and the Xbox One was STILL selling out. We have absolutely no idea who would have won if Microsoft had kept their policies. I'm not going to have a hypothetical argument with you. Unfortunately, due to Microsoft's lack of a backbone, we'll never know who would have won that battle. Only someone wearing Sony or Microsoft goggles can declare "victory" before the systems have even launched. I'm not going to pretend to know how well each one would have done, but it wouldn't have been a massive difference either way. Microsoft has way too much of a stranglehold on America not to be a key player.

There will still be consoles, it'll just be based completely on digital distribution and the cloud. It wont be cloud exclusive because of the fact internet still probably wont be consistent and fast enough to stream full games, but I would be absolutely shocked if PS5 and Xbox whatever had physical drives, which means consumers better get ready for not being able to trade in games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn

It may be, but I don't think it's that much different. Besides, let me ask you this: what do you think customers are going to do when consoles inevitably get rid of physical media and rely solely upon digital distribution. It's definitely happening next gen because digital distribution is much cheaper for the publisher, and as doughty noted yesterday, it also eliminates the used game markets and ensures a copy be purchased new to be played.

Microsoft should have just stuck to their guns and gone through with it.

---

But it is exactly what is different in them at this time that we are discussing :D. As far as speculating on the future I will leave that to folks more qualified in fortune telling than me :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn

:D

Based on what? Early order numbers? The PS4 is $100 less and the Xbox One was STILL selling out. We have absolutely no idea who would have won if Microsoft had kept their policies. I'm not going to have a hypothetical argument with you. Unfortunately, due to Microsoft's lack of a backbone, we'll never know who would have won that battle. Only someone wearing Sony or Microsoft goggles can declare "victory" before the systems have even launched. I'm not going to pretend to know how well each one would have done, but it wouldn't have been a massive difference either way. Microsoft has way too much of a stranglehold on America not to be a key player.

There will still be consoles, it'll just be based completely on digital distribution and the cloud. It wont be cloud exclusive because of the fact internet still probably wont be consistent and fast enough to stream full games, but I would be absolutely shocked if PS5 and Xbox whatever had physical drives, which means consumers better get ready for not being able to trade in games.

---

Based on MS being intelligent enough to see that physical orders (market response) were not what they wanted?

You also start this post correctly stating that it is impossible for us to have knowledge of counterfactuals, but you then claim to have counterfactual knowledge.:D Which is it :dunno:

IGN Best of XBox E3 Awards:

• Best Game - Titanfall
• 360 Game - Arkham Origins
• Best Coop - Payday2
• Best Reason to Keep 360 - Splinter Cell
• Best Use of Smart Glass - The Division
• Most Disappointing - Black Tusk

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/...of-xbox-awards

I don't think I have ever heard of Black Tusk until now :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SCClassof93

Based on MS being intelligent enough to see that physical orders (market response) were not what they wanted?

You also start this post correctly stating that it is impossible for us to have knowledge of counterfactuals, but you then claim to have counterfactual knowledge.:D Which is it :dunno:

---

If they wanted to improve early sales numbers, they would've dropped the price. Most people aren't like us and read this stuff about always online and used games. The thing that has Sony in the lead right now is mostly the $100 difference, just like why the 360 sold so much better early in the generation.

It's both. I'm not going to pretend to know which one would have won, which is what I said. That's impossible to tell, and like I said, only someone wearing fan goggles for one company would predict a victory before the systems even launched. I also said that it would be close in sales regardless. I wasn't predicting a winner, just making a point that the days of one company dominating the console sales like the PS2 are pretty much over, and regardless of who "wins," the race for the most sales is going to be close enough that neither one of these companies will care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBHuskers

I don't think I have ever heard of Black Tusk until now :D

---

Not a game, one of Microsoft's first party studios that's supposedly working on a AAA game. They only showed a teaser, though, so I guess that's why they were disappointed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SCClassof93

Based on MS being intelligent enough to see that physical orders (market response) were not what they wanted?

You also start this post correctly stating that it is impossible for us to have knowledge of counterfactuals, but you then claim to have counterfactual knowledge.:D Which is it :dunno:

---

I disagree. I think anyone without "fan goggles" knows that MS saw the writing on the wall and KNEW it was defeated with its current XB1 versus the current PS4 and so they decided to drop the thing/difference that would help them the most DRM to try to close the gap.

I think it has LONG been noted that I predicted Sony would go the route they went and would CRUSH MS b/c of it. I think a 180 in a week constitutes a "crush" again unless you are wearing those "fan goggles"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn

If they wanted to improve early sales numbers, they would've dropped the price. Most people aren't like us and read this stuff about always online and used games. The thing that has Sony in the lead right now is mostly the $100 difference, just like why the 360 sold so much better early in the generation.

It's both. I'm not going to pretend to know which one would have won, which is what I said. That's impossible to tell, and like I said, only someone wearing fan goggles for one company would predict a victory before the systems even launched. I also said that it would be close in sales regardless. I wasn't predicting a winner, just making a point that the days of one company dominating the console sales like the PS2 are pretty much over, and regardless of who "wins," the race for the most sales is going to be close enough that neither one of these companies will care.



Not a game, one of Microsoft's first party studios that's supposedly working on a AAA game. They only showed a teaser, though, so I guess that's why they were disappointed.

---

You don't have to pretend who would have won MS' change is an admission that they could not win the next gen console war with DRM. They have said it wasn't the price affecting the sales it was customer demand for no DRM.

So either you concede MS is right (something you usually do) or they are now magically liars b/c it goes against the arguments you have been making forever now and were proven wrong as time has passed?

Okay, so with Microsoft removing the restrictions, they should start to close the gaps on orders with your theory, right? It was several days ago that they changed their policies, and yet no change. They're still getting outsold by 50%, if not more. So why is that, if it's like you say and totally dependent upon the restrictions?

Face it, most customers do not care about having to be online every 24 hours or used games. Why? Because they don't even know about it. You, me, and the other people who really get into this stuff do, but at retail for the people who don't, the absolutely only thing on the planet that is affecting their decision is the $100 price difference. Plain and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn

Okay, so with Microsoft removing the restrictions, they should start to close the gaps on orders with your theory, right? It was several days ago that they changed their policies, and yet no change. They're still getting outsold by 50%, if not more. So why is that, if it's like you say and totally dependent upon the restrictions?

Face it, most customers do not care about having to be online every 24 hours or used games. Why? Because they don't even know about it. You, me, and the other people who really get into this stuff do, but at retail for the people who don't, the absolutely only thing on the planet that is affecting their decision is the $100 price difference. Plain and simple.

---

I sorta get what you're saying, but the majority of people preordering right now are those people who cared about that stuff and followed it closely. The general consumer will not think about a preorder until it smacks them in the face later in the fall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn

Okay, so with Microsoft removing the restrictions, they should start to close the gaps on orders with your theory, right? It was several days ago that they changed their policies, and yet no change. They're still getting outsold by 50%, if not more. So why is that, if it's like you say and totally dependent upon the restrictions?

Face it, most customers do not care about having to be online every 24 hours or used games. Why? Because they don't even know about it. You, me, and the other people who really get into this stuff do, but at retail for the people who don't, the absolutely only thing on the planet that is affecting their decision is the $100 price difference. Plain and simple.

---

I actually think the main reason why their being outsold is because they seem to have a lesser supply at the moment. I remember reading an article where pretty much Gamestop sold all their XB1 preorders. As much as I think you're right about that $100 difference I also think that MS has some type of research that shows that their most loyal fans would still be projected to purchase the XB1. That's the price of familiarity. For $100 less are some people willing to abandon the years of effort and buddies they made, only to do it again on a brand new system? Speaking for myself, if the PS4 was the same price as the XB1 is now, I still may have preordered it.

Reading that article the XBOX employee posted made my head hurt. That is what's wrong with these big corporations, they make sugarless kool-aid that taste like shit and think they can force everyone to like it. :smh: It's funny how he tries to spin everything his way especially finishing by calling PS4 XBOX 360-2, when their family share plan was basically PS+ 1 hour free trial but with less time and more restrictions LMAO.

And to point to the CLW vs IOU argument, PS4 was definitely winning based on their policies. The week after E3 we had a few customers come into the store to get more information on both consoles before they even thought about preordering. One guy (about 35-40) stood out to me because before I even started explaining the consoles to him he said he had a group of friends he always played 360 with but now most of them are switching to the PS4 next gen so he wanted to get some information. I objectively stated the facts to him, didn't point out any differences between the consoles. He wanted to know about the XBOX ONE first so I laid everything out to him and the more details I told him the more I could see in his face he was getting disappointed. Then eventually he said "so we're basically getting screwed all around by Microsoft huh" and I busted out laughing, and this was after I explained the family plan thing to him. Then I explained the PS4 to him and he thanked me for the info and said he was gonna do some more research but will most likely get a PS4.

He hated the 24 hour online check-in thing, because his first question was immediately "what if my internet goes down?" Microsoft has already lost more than it can recoup. The only people that know they changed their policies now are people who browse forums on the internet. There is a reason they say the first impression means everything.

I OU the pc gaming community is completely different than the console gaming community. Many people don't care about having to be connected 24/7 on pc games, because their pc's are already connected 24/7 same as cell phones. You are trying to use the argument that got that guy fired from Microsoft on twitter. Alot of console gamers just want to insert the disc and start playing their games.

Every client, colleague, and friend I know that has kids and could well afford both systems at launch is passing on the Xbox this go around. When I ask why I get the same reason I am passing at launch.....policies. As I stated earlier, I may get an xbox down the road but I am taking a wait and see approach for now. Without the DRM proposed will publishers be let out of "exclusive agreements? These are things I want to see play out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Escobar

The week after E3 we had a few customers come into the store to get more information on both consoles before they even thought about preordering.

---

I didn't know you worked at a game store in Houston Escobar. At your store what's the ratio (approximately) of pre-orders for PS4 v. XB1. Has there been a noticeable "shift" since the "180" announcement?

I don't have to argue anything. What I'm saying is 100% indisputable fact. Before the policy changes the PS4 was outselling the One by 50% After the policy changes, the PS4 is still being outsold by 50%. Obviously, if the 24 hour check was such a huge factor for people, that number would have changed. What's the constant then? The $100 price difference.

As King said, it's also a known fact that Microsoft has been limiting orders because they started much later than Sony and will not be able to match the supply numbers that Sony is going to be able to do, hence why most GS stores are taking twice or 3 times as many orders for the PS over the Xbox.

To say Sony is winning right now because of the DRM is just asinine, IMO. It's the exact same example as the people who bitch about NCAA year in and year out. Madden, too. If you'd go by what the internet is saying, EA might as well just pack up their shit and call it a day. Meanwhile, both games are selling millions of copies. :D

Sony is winning because of the price difference and supply numbers, not because of some people on the internet angry about having to connect every 24 hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn

I don't have to argue anything. What I'm saying is 100% indisputable fact. Before the policy changes the PS4 was outselling the One by 50% After the policy changes, the PS4 is still being outsold by 50%. Obviously, if the 24 hour check was such a huge factor for people, that number would have changed. What's the constant then? The $100 price difference.

As King said, it's also a known fact that Microsoft has been limiting orders because they started much later than Sony and will not be able to match the supply numbers that Sony is going to be able to do, hence why most GS stores are taking twice or 3 times as many orders for the PS over the Xbox.

To say Sony is winning right now because of the DRM is just asinine, IMO. It's the exact same example as the people who bitch about NCAA year in and year out. Madden, too. If you'd go by what the internet is saying, EA might as well just pack up their shit and call it a day. Meanwhile, both games are selling millions of copies. :D

Sony is winning because of the price difference and supply numbers, not because of some people on the internet angry about having to connect every 24 hours.

---

Well, stating an indisputable fact and your opinion all together. No need for further debate :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CLW

I didn't know you worked at a game store in Houston Escobar. At your store what's the ratio (approximately) of pre-orders for PS4 v. XB1. Has there been a noticeable "shift" since the "180" announcement?

---

I work at the Best Buy in Meyerland Plaza, but that may change by August. I finished up school officially in May and I am currently debating whether I should try and do modeling/music production full time or get my teacher's certification so I can start my coaching career. I got certified by USA Track & Field as a coach a couple years ago when I was trying to go pro and my knee injury forced me to stop competing.

From the pre-orders I have been involved with and talking to a couple of other employees the pre-order count is 10 PS4 to 0 XBOX ONE. That is speaking only from what I can confirm 100%. But everytime I go into work I get questions or hear about more people coming in to pre-order the PS4. So far I have only heard about maybe one to two people considering the XBOX1. I didn't find out about the 180 until last night when I checked this forum lol, which is why I figured most people have not heard about it. I will discover more info when I go back in on Sunday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Escobar

I work at the Best Buy in Meyerland Plaza, but that may change by August. I finished up school officially in May and I am currently debating whether I should try and do modeling/music production full time or get my teacher's certification so I can start my coaching career. I got certified by USA Track & Field as a coach a couple years ago when I was trying to go pro and my knee injury forced me to stop competing.

From the pre-orders I have been involved with and talking to a couple of other employees the pre-order count is 10 PS4 to 0 XBOX ONE. That is speaking only from what I can confirm 100%. But everytime I go into work I get questions or hear about more people coming in to pre-order the PS4. So far I have only heard about maybe one to two people considering the XBOX1. I didn't find out about the 180 until last night when I checked this forum lol, which is why I figured most people have not heard about it. I will discover more info when I go back in on Sunday.

---

Congrats on finishing school :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn

To say Sony is winning right now because of the DRM is just asinine, IMO. It's the exact same example as the people who bitch about NCAA year in and year out. Madden, too. If you'd go by what the internet is saying, EA might as well just pack up their shit and call it a day. Meanwhile, both games are selling millions of copies. :D

---

The reason people keep buying Madden and NCAA is because they are the only game available. You either buy them or don't play football. Present people with two options and they will most likely choose what they feel is the better product. This is why 2K has become successful and Live died. There was no exclusivity deal, people felt 2K was the better product and it won.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SCClassof93

Congrats on finishing school :up:

---

Thanks man. It felt like more work than it should have been, because I kind of got screwed over when I transferred from OU after taking some time off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Escobar

I work at the Best Buy in Meyerland Plaza, but that may change by August. I finished up school officially in May and I am currently debating whether I should try and do modeling/music production full time or get my teacher's certification so I can start my coaching career. I got certified by USA Track & Field as a coach a couple years ago when I was trying to go pro and my knee injury forced me to stop competing.

From the pre-orders I have been involved with and talking to a couple of other employees the pre-order count is 10 PS4 to 0 XBOX ONE. That is speaking only from what I can confirm 100%. But everytime I go into work I get questions or hear about more people coming in to pre-order the PS4. So far I have only heard about maybe one to two people considering the XBOX1. I didn't find out about the 180 until last night when I checked this forum lol, which is why I figured most people have not heard about it. I will discover more info when I go back in on Sunday.

---

I know where that Best Buy is but its not "my" Best Buy. For some reason I usually end up at the one out by the Galleria. That's interesting that there has been that big of a discrepancy in what you have seen. Can you confirm/deny the "supply issue" many here speculate that Sony is WAY ahead of MS in manufacturing. I've read/heard several reports from retailers that they have 2 or 3 times as many PS4s to sell as XB1s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Escobar

The reason people keep buying Madden and NCAA is because they are the only game available. You either buy them or don't play football. Present people with two options and they will most likely choose what they feel is the better product. This is why 2K has become successful and Live died. There was no exclusivity deal, people felt 2K was the better product and it won.

---

Point is, people constantly complain about it year in and year out, and it still does just fine. People complaining on the internet are a small fraction of the total customer base (if I had to guess, I'd say easily less than 10%).

People are complaining about the Xbox One, it has supply issues, cost $100 more, and is still only getting outsold by 50%. That right there just goes to show you how little the total potential customer base cares about the 24 hour online check. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there's not people out there that were avoiding the console for that reason as I'm sure there are. However, in the overall picture, I just don't see that big of a percentage being off put by it. I'd say the $100 price difference is the really big one, which is why I'm a firm believer Microsoft needs to cut the price.