XBOX Next Gen Rumor and Speculation Thread - Reveal May 21st

[morsdraconis]

It's a strategy that works, but quite frankly stinks for the people that just want the thing to play high quality games.

Neither company gives a shit about people that just want to play games on their consoles. Those people aren't making Microsoft and Sony money like the people that pay to use the third party streaming software they have integrated into their systems.

Just like the whole argument about always being connected and the lack of internet for some people in this country - neither company gives a shit about those people because those people aren't making either company the amount of money that is available to be made for someone that's always connected to the internet and thus buying more shit through their consoles.

[morsdraconis]

...Console makers (except Sony apparently)) make money and they are pretty damn good at it.

Sony fails at it because they have an incredibly ass-backwards menu system for their console and, thus, fail at advertising to most console owners that those items are even available to them. Until they do something that makes their menu system flow better and have a more cohesive feeling to it (like Microsoft and Steam have done), they will continue to fail at bringing customers into doing those things on their consoles.

Of course, Sony sucks balls at marketing in general. IOU, the reason why the Vita sucks is because they've done NOTHING in the way of marketing to support it (I've seen one commercial for a Vita game and it was that dumb ass Call of Duty game that came out for it and I'd be willing to bet that they funded the marketing for it instead of Sony). I wouldn't put my game on it either because it's pretty damn obvious that Sony doesn't have a clue in how to market it to actually sell games.

If Sony was smart, they'd make it an integral part of the Playstation (don't be surprised if the next consoles are just called Playstation and Xbox instead of PS4 and Xbox 720 or whatever - the power of singular branding like that is VERY strong) experience with their new console. How exactly they do that? I don't know, but it would be HUGE for them to do that. Even bigger would be for them to market two or three BIG releases for it in the coming year during this February 20th announcement that they have coming up. With all eyes on them because of the anticipation for the new consoles (I could almost not give two shits less and I'll probably still be watching), it'd be the perfect time to market the hell out of the Vita with some big Playstation exclusive releases.

[I OU a Beatn]

Dude, you need to realize that, for most people, they use their consoles to watch things on their TVs more than they do to play games. For either console to actually be successful, they MUST continue to integrate those things into the consoles.

That's fine...doesn't mean they need to focus the majority of their attention on it. I don't necessarily agree with your "most people use their consoles to watch things on TV than play games" statement, especially on the 360. Considering a Gold Subscription is REQUIRED to use any of the video/music apps, I find it a little hard to believe that many people would be retarded enough to pay $60 a year just to use Netflix when they could watch it on their PC, PS3, or other device for just the cost of Netflix.

ardcore gamers bitch and complain but you know 90% still buy the stuff they are complaining about game after game. Don't let the internet fool you IOU with people saying they are not buying certain items, these people (developers and Console makers (except Sony apparently)) make money and they are pretty damn good at it.

I'm not being fooled by other people. Look at recent sales of Kinect. They are God awful. It was a fad, just like every other thing aimed at the casual has been. They'll use it, they'll get tired of it, and they'll go back to their mobile games. Quite frankly, I'm a little shocked Microsoft is supposedly working on Kinect 2.

[I OU a Beatn]

Of course, Sony sucks balls at marketing in general. IOU, the reason why the Vita sucks is because they've done NOTHING in the way of marketing to support it (I've seen one commercial for a Vita game and it was that dumb ass Call of Duty game that came out for it and I'd be willing to bet that they funded the marketing for it instead of Sony). I wouldn't put my game on it either because it's pretty damn obvious that Sony doesn't have a clue in how to market it to actually sell games.

It's partially marketing, and partially a million other things. There's not a single "MUST HAVE" game on the system. No 3rd party support. Too expensive. Memory cards are WAY too expensive. Also, as you said, terrible marketing.

With the Vita, Sony has pretty much done everything wrong. No one knows about it and the few that do know about it, don't care about it because it's too expensive and there are no games.

[morsdraconis]

That's fine...doesn't mean they need to focus the majority of their attention on it. I don't necessarily agree with your "most people use their consoles to watch things on TV than play games" statement, especially on the 360. Considering a Gold Subscription is REQUIRED to use any of the video/music apps, I find it a little hard to believe that many people would be retarded enough to pay $60 a year just to use Netflix when they could watch it on their PC, PS3, or other device for just the cost of Netflix.

See this article from 2011 and this specific fact from an analytics service called Strategy Analytics:

The report also found that 65 percent of U.S.-based weekly Xbox 360 users under the age of 25 watch more TV shows and movies online through the console than their desktop or notebook PCs. Strategy Analytics Senior Analyst Jia Wu says these findings indicate significant levels of consumer demand for such services.

“The upcoming Xbox TV launch for the holiday season will demonstrate an expansion of the partnership between the games consoles and the online TV and video industries,” he said. “Games consoles have already become the key media hub in U.S. households.”

While that may not mean that they are playing games less than watching Netflix or Hulu+, they are MOST DEFINITELY, using it for that more than ever before and, as said in the above article as well:

Twelve percent of U.S. households (about 15 million) use gaming consoles to watch content online, which is more than the percentage of households that connect a PC to a TV via HDMI.

More and more, people are using their consoles to watch this stuff on their giant HDTVs instead of watching it via their PC hooked up to just a normal monitor.

While, yes, console owners are more than likely paying for a XBL Gold Subscription to play games online, more than before, they're using their consoles to watch and listen to streaming media more often than ever before. Console makers aren't going to stop doing that when it's nothing but $'s in their future.

Also, the argument of using the PS3 to do things online for free is going to go away after this new console. Seeing how Microsoft is able to support itself from it's Gold subscription profits, Sony would be insane not to do something similar and FORCE people to get PS+ to have access to online content. Even more so if they go with online only connectivity for their consoles. That's money in the bank.

[morsdraconis]

I'm not being fooled by other people. Look at recent sales of Kinect. They are God awful. It was a fad, just like every other thing aimed at the casual has been. They'll use it, they'll get tired of it, and they'll go back to their mobile games. Quite frankly, I'm a little shocked Microsoft is supposedly working on Kinect 2.

Once again, Microsoft is looking at the success of the Wii motion stuff and how much money Nintendo made on their consoles because of the "it's so easy, grandma can play this stuff" factor. Nintendo struck gold with it and has no fuckin' clue how they did it (to the point where they have no fuckin' idea how to capitalize on it further) and Microsoft is trying to take that market share away from them. I guarantee you the amount of money they spend on creating the Kinect is FAR outweighed by the possibility of being THE motion control idea of this generation. Microsoft has to be licking their chops at the utter failure that is the Wii-U controller.

[I OU a Beatn]

While that may not mean that they are playing games less than watching Netflix or Hulu+, they are MOST DEFINITELY, using it for that more than ever before and, as said in the above article as well:

Also, the argument of using the PS3 to do things online for free is going to go away after this new console. Seeing how Microsoft is able to support itself from it's Gold subscription profits, Sony would be insane not to do something similar and FORCE people to get PS+ to have access to online content. Even more so if they go with online only connectivity for their consoles. That's money in the bank.

I don't dispute that one bit. I was saying that I find it hard to believe people knowingly pay for a gold subscription on top of their Netflix JUST to watch Netflix. The vast majority of those gold subscribers are playing games with it. There's also no doubt that more and more people are streaming videos and music. However, that plays right into my argument of "it's a game console, focus on the games." Without that focus on the games, no one in their right mind is going to fork over $60 a year for Live(a nice money maker for Microsoft) just for access to Netflix and Hulu when they can use other devices and just pay the subscription fees for the respective services without an additional fee.

I highly disagree with the 2nd paragraph I quoted. I think Sony's going to use the "hey, our service is FREE" tag line a lot in the upcoming generation. I also think they're going to continue with Plus, perhaps even upgrading it a little. Hell, they might even go with the ads on the interface somewhere and paying for Plus gets rid of those ads. I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet Plus will be a feature and the regular features of PSN will remain free. I know a good many people that only own a PS3 simply because it doesn't require you to pay to play online. I could be wrong, though.

Once again, Microsoft is looking at the success of the Wii motion stuff and how much money Nintendo made on their consoles because of the "it's so easy, grandma can play this stuff" factor. Nintendo struck gold with it and has no fuckin' clue how they did it (to the point where they have no fuckin' idea how to capitalize on it further) and Microsoft is trying to take that market share away from them. I guarantee you the amount of money they spend on creating the Kinect is FAR outweighed by the possibility of being THE motion control idea of this generation. Microsoft has to be licking their chops at the utter failure that is the Wii-U controller.

I know that, but if you look at the recent sales of Kinect, it kind of makes you wonder if people actually want it. I believe that it was a fad that has come, seen it's day, and has started to die. Unless they make VAST improvements to how the thing works(sit down, precise movement recognition, and not having to have a clear area the size of a football field), I don't see people really jumping on board this time around. Of course, rumors are swirling that Kinect v2 is actually IN the Nextbox, so maybe the system will be centered around it this time rather than it just being a peripheral.

[oweb26]

I dont think I have seen so money multi-quoted posts in a row in a very long time.

[morsdraconis]

I dont think I have seen so money multi-quoted posts in a row in a very long time.

Well, for me, I've absorbed a metric ass ton of information on this subject recently because of all the gaming podcasts and websites that I pay attention to all talking about it so, I have a lot to say on the subject.

[SmoothPancakes]

Just to throw in a comment here. While I do play games a majority of the time my 360 is on, I can completely understand if people use it most for their TV and movie viewing. Hell, I use nothing but 360 when it comes to watching Netflix. My 360 is hooked up to my TV by HDMI. My laptop isn't hooked up to it at all. Am I going to watch a movie or TV show on Netflix on my 40 inch TV or on my 19 inch laptop screen? I'm going the TV. Same with other apps that they have added on the 360. I'm gonna go with their uses through my 360 so I can watch/do stuff through my TV instead of having to have a large, bulky, heavy laptop sitting on my lap for long periods of time. I may still play games more often than not when my 360 is on, but there have been a great many times, especially over the last year, where I will go days and weeks without ever playing a single second of a game when my 360 is turned on, instead doing nothing but watching stuff on Netflix or Amazon on Demand or the other movie apps.

[I OU a Beatn]

Just to throw in a comment here. While I do play games a majority of the time my 360 is on, I can completely understand if people use it most for their TV and movie viewing. Hell, I use nothing but 360 when it comes to watching Netflix. My 360 is hooked up to my TV by HDMI. My laptop isn't hooked up to it at all. Am I going to watch a movie or TV show on Netflix on my 40 inch TV or on my 19 inch laptop screen? I'm going the TV. Same with other apps that they have added on the 360. I'm gonna go with their uses through my 360 so I can watch/do stuff through my TV instead of having to have a large, bulky, heavy laptop sitting on my lap for long periods of time. I may still play games more often than not when my 360 is on, but there have been a great many times, especially over the last year, where I will go days and weeks without ever playing a single second of a game when my 360 is turned on, instead doing nothing but watching stuff on Netflix or Amazon on Demand or the other movie apps.

...BUT, if you had zero interest in games, would you pay $60 a year on top of your subscriptions to watch Netflix when you could watch it elsewhere for just subscription cost?

I'm all for Microsoft reaching out and going for the casual market along with the entertainment market, but they had better be wise enough not to abandon the core games. Without the core games, the necessity to pay $60 a year for Live evaporates. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't concerned with Microsoft's vision, especially with ONE core exclusive coming out this year. I realize part of that has to do with a new Xbox coming, but it still makes me wonder.

Another worry for Microsoft should be Sony going back to a PC like architecture this upcoming gen. I'd imagine a lot of people game on 360 because of the usually superior 3rd party games. Madden is better on 360. NCAA is better on 360. Call of Duty is better on 360. Assassin's Creed is better on 360. Virtually every 3rd party game available on both consoles is noticeably better on 360. Obviously, a lot of that has to do with Sony's cell. If they're going back to a more PC like design, you'd have to think the difference between the two would disappear and games would play and look identically on both systems. If there isn't a different between 3rd party titles, it falls to which has better exclusives, more features, and which controller you prefer.

I'd LOVE if Microsoft would be able to find a balance between 2 or 3 major exclusives every year, along with 3rd party titles, and then their entertainment features. They seem to bounce around a lot between which one they want to focus on.

[JeffHCross]

If you don't count time on NCAA, which is the only game I'm playing now, the ONLY thing I'm using my PS3 for is Amazon Instant Video. And I have a good friend that purchased a PS3 solely to use Netflix.

I agree that non-gamers aren't going to pay for a Gold subscription. Hell, I know plenty of gamers that don't pay for one.

[SmoothPancakes]

...BUT, if you had zero interest in games, would you pay $60 a year on top of your subscriptions to watch Netflix when you could watch it elsewhere for just subscription cost?

That's easy. I'd still do it, because even right now I don't pay a single cent for Xbox Live Gold and never have. I get a 12-month Live Gold card each Christmas from my sister (beats getting random things that may or may not end up getting put to use), so since 2008, I haven't paid a cent for Gold. Granted, if I had zero interest in games, I probably wouldn't have a 360 at all (and I probably wouldn't be posting here). But even then, I'd just watch Netflix through my Blu-ray player. So I still wouldn't give a damn in regards to using my laptop to watch Netflix or other stuff.

[CLW]

Interesting chat about the "exclusives" debate:

[JeffHCross]

Without listening to the clip: Yes, yes they do.

[bdoughty]

Microsoft has one big sports problem as they head into next gen with baseball. What are they going to do? Do they finally decide to use that High Heat license they bought? Hold their fingers crossed that EA jumps back into console baseball? Hope 2ksports keeps making baseball games?

Decisions, decisions.

[Rudy]

I'm surprised EA hasn't jumped into the MLB license deal but I think part of that reason is they don't have a game engine ready for the PS3 or 360 and may just want to jump into the next gen. They do have a former MLB Show dev Kolbe on their Madden staff and I always assumed he was a guy to keep around for their own baseball game. MVP baseball was very popular and I think it would do very well if they update it properly.

[JeffHCross]

I'm not sure baseball makes enough, personally.

I'm not sure any sport besides football is going to survive through to the PS5 generation.

[bdoughty]

I'm not sure baseball makes enough, personally.

I'm not sure any sport besides football is going to survive through to the PS5 generation.

Chicken Little thought the sky was falling but it is still up there, holes and all. We seem to be forgetting about futbol (soccer)? The one that outsells football games, pro and college combined. Also the NBA is pretty safe based on 2K 13's sales figures continuing to grow, which are not that far behind Madden and well ahead of NCAA Football. Everything will depend on licensing costs in the future but I am pretty sure the MLB and NHL do not want to be left without a game in the market. Golf is my only concern, based on poor sales figures and the enormous licensing fees for players, courses, etc. etc. That said there will always be Golf games, people have shown they will buy golf games without the PGA stamp of approval (Hot Shots, Mario Golf, etc).

[SmoothPancakes]

I think there will be games for a long while for the major sports. Soccer, football, baseball, basketball and hockey. I wouldn't be surprised to see the day that college football meets the same end as college basketball, and it won't have anything to do with EA making it. Regardless of who would be making it, the day will come where it's too costly on the company's bottom line to make a college football game.

So the major sports will continue, but we'll see where things have already gone. There will only be one game, whoever the companies making them at the time in the future are, but there will only be one company, one game. The days of multiple, competing titles in sports are dead and gone. Two companies dueling it out may make for a "cold war" battle trying to improve the game more and put more features in the game than the other company and may make for better games, but it'll lead to lost money for both companies with splitting the number of games sold. So they'll keep trying to get the solo licenses instead of ending up in selling wars with other companies and, regardless of how great or bad the game is, lose money because the other company will sell at least some copies.