Yeah he didn't put it very well. But the fact is they aren't supporting coaxial input for my 1980s TV either, for the same reason: they have numbers that tell them it's not worth it.
Yeah he didn't put it very well. But the fact is they aren't supporting coaxial input for my 1980s TV either, for the same reason: they have numbers that tell them it's not worth it.
Nope, I disagree with that number too.
You know who has accurate numbers of this sort of thing? Microsoft analysts. You know who is making this decision? Microsoft analysts. I know you want to assume they're dumb because it's trendy to hate on them but I assure you they're not--they're very smart and very well informed.
Terrible analogy.
Yeah Microsoft has numbers. This is the same Microsoft still launching in japan with their amazing 1.3 million sales over 8 years in Japan. Guess what, they are STILL launching in Japan. Don't tell me they are doing that to maximize profit.
I guarantee you that Microsoft lost more money than they made launching the 360 there, and they won't have better success this generation.
Why is it a terrible analogy? They've decided that a large enough segment of the market has moved forward into the next generation of connectivity, so they don't mind have a connectivity requirement.
It's like when PC games finally stopped shipping with software rendering options around the turn of the century. Companies basically started saying "if you don't have a graphics card that supports 3d we're not going to be releasing games for you anymore". Life went on.
You are not honestly telling me their strategy was to barely break into the market this gen, in hopes of selling a TV Console with 33% of usage being towards games during the next generation. If so whoever thought that was a good idea is probably about to be fired. Microsoft banked on selling the Xbox One with a cable subscription in the UK/Europe. They got denied. I'm sure they are trying the same thing here in the USA.
They brought up some good points in a round table today. The PS3 has a much larger global share than Xbox, and in countries that have a much less Internet connectivity, those countries are mostly Sony. Sony is huge outside of the Western Hemisphere (read: where Internet gets more sporadic). Xbox focuses on American market.
Is still fucking stupid, requiring something that's not required to play a game that doesn't require that service. Honestly, what's the point of requiring an Internet connection for my kids to play dance dance revolution in my basement that has no Internet?
So the connect can make videos of your kids dancing.
Wally, the sexual predator.
I think the better question is why don't you have wireless coverage throughout your entire house yet?
Do you just like, not ever take your mobile devices down there?
Some people live out in the woods, in the middle of fields, and areas that still only offer satellite internet for over $100/month.
Oh and I'm talking about in the United States.... not even outside of this country.
Some countries are lucky to have hot water (and use solar stills) so yeah.
You would fit well working for Microsoft. You and Adam Orth.
We can see how many sales we're at in 5 years (should be a pretty good estimate of how well the console(s) are actually doing). I think Sony is going to outsell the Xbox one 2>1 if not more. I could be entirely wrong though. Sony could have some overheating issues, Microsoft could change their policies (Highly likely), only time will tell.
Best part about these policies is everyone can completely ignore the console(s) and game(s) they don't like.
So basically what you're saying is that you're in the majority of people that won't be actually negatively impacted by a periodic phone-home.
I covered this earlier, but the main benefit of DRM is that it enables a greater capture of revenue: less freeloaders means better games, assuming capitalism.