RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS

[Nordicus]

I never understood the antipathy towards a subscription model, outside of needing to pay with something other than paper cash, perhaps. I think with subscription, you have a better chance of a little better content focus vs. the "new cool weapon/armor/skin/pet available to buy in the cash shop!" routine.

 

Yet it is quite understandable. You should have a better chance at getting more content with a subscription model, yet lack of content is one of the most common reasons why these subscription MMOs bleed subs quickly. At best you often get something to extend the gear treadmill.

 

How many subscription MMOs that released in... let's say last 5 years, can you recall that gave proper bang for buck? Rather often you just get the same as a F2P/B2P game would get, just in a less immersion-breaking package

 

The faith in subscription model working has more or less died, the general dislike didn't come from nothing

Edited August 25, 2013 by Nordicus

[LadyCrimson]

Yet it is quite understandable. You should have a better chance at getting more content with a subscription model, yet lack of content is one of the most common reasons why these subscription MMOs bleed subs quickly. At best you often get something to extend the gear treadmill.

 

How many subscription MMOs that released in... let's say last 5 years, can you recall that gave proper bang for buck? Rather often you just get the same as a F2P/B2P game would get, just in a less immersion-breaking package

 

The faith in subscription model working has more or less died, the general dislike didn't come from nothing

That would depend on what one thinks is appropriate "content" for an MMO. I've personally never thought MMO's should/could be anything much more than mass-multiplayer, extended environment versions of .... Diablo.  I think it's pretty difficult to get the grind out of action-oriented mass-MP, and if you try too hard to do so, it becomes less and less an MMO (a MMO that lets everyone play solo in instances might be to my tastes, but really, it's not very conducive to the concept originally behind MMO).

 

(exceptions could be games that are more building/community/economy based rather than mega-combat/arena/PvP etc. focused, but they're not typically what most ppl seem to want either)

 

The point is that, imo, this whole idea that MMO's/games should be financially non-committal (player-wise) is a big part of what actually increases the rate of less and less content in games that never had deep content to begin with - and even bleeds into non-MMO gaming. And it then gives more control, in a round about way, to those with the open wallets. eg, MMO's likely to eventually cater too much to what they see sells in cash shop, not what's good for gameplay or even longevity.

 

Altho actually, I should encourage this, because then all I have to do is spend spend spend and soon I'll have my perfect MMO - "CAT UNIVERSE - in your own instanced space, no one can hear you meow."

[Wrath of Dagon]

Check out these screens from CMBN : Market Garden - http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=325&Itemid=560

[ShadySands]

http://www.eteknix.com/microsoft-investor-wants-to-fire-ballmer-and-sell-xbox-division/

 

A report by BizJournals claims that ValueAct, a $2 billion Microsoft investor with a 1% stake in the company, is seeking to achieve some major changes at Microsoft. Analyst Rick Sherlund claims that big changes are going to take place very soon as other shareholders support the decision to get rid of Steve Ballmer in addition to the investment group ValueAct. According to the report ValueAct are seeking to replace Steve Ballmer because his strategy “inspires little confidence”.

 

Apparently Microsoft has no choice but to give ValueAct a board seat otherwise they might launch a “public war” on Steve Ballmer and Microsoft that could end with serious turmoil at the company.

 

“A decision by the board at Microsoft to offer a nomination for a board seat could keep the activist agenda behind closed doors and take longer for shareholders to see potential benefits”

 

Furthermore it is believed they might target the Xbox division and try and get rid of it altogether. This would allow Microsoft to focus on other products and mainly Windows.

 

“Xbox is cool, but by our estimates Microsoft has not made money at this”

 

 

 

Furthermore it is believed they might target the Xbox division and try and get rid of it altogether.

 

 

 

I really like the sound of it.

 

Well, Ballmer is stepping down so maybe this is legit

[Volourn]

ValueAct sounds like pieces of crap bullies.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Volourn

[Orogun01]

ValueAct sounds like pieces of crap bullies.

Just your regular capitalists, Vol.

 

Though I certainly can see it from their perspective; the Xbox reveal was a failure, they haven't secured as many exclusives, it overall looks like Microsoft gaming division is the weakest.  So I kind of find it difficult to argue with their logic of diverting resources from what is essentially a drain.

[AwesomeOcelot]

It would be shocking if MS hasn't made money from Xbox, sure the first Xbox wasn't profitable, but I thought the Xbox360 was highly successful, MS gets a cut of game sales, and peripherals like gamepads and Kinect must bring in profit, Xbox Live subscriptions. It's almost the only new venture MS has been successful at, that's why there's going to be changes.

[Deraldin]

It would be shocking if MS hasn't made money from Xbox, sure the first Xbox wasn't profitable, but I thought the Xbox360 was highly successful, MS gets a cut of game sales, and peripherals like gamepads and Kinect must bring in profit, Xbox Live subscriptions. It's almost the only new venture MS has been successful at, that's why there's going to be changes.

Go take a look at the financial reports. I believe that 2008 was the first year that the Entertainment and Devices division managed to turn a profit. They've managed to do so every year since then, but they've mostly had a relatively small operating income. Since they've started turning a profit they've managed to make somewhere between $2-$3 billion. They lost over $3 billion just looking at 2006 and 2007 let alone the years before that.

[Orogun01]

It would be shocking if MS hasn't made money from Xbox, sure the first Xbox wasn't profitable, but I thought the Xbox360 was highly successful, MS gets a cut of game sales, and peripherals like gamepads and Kinect must bring in profit, Xbox Live subscriptions. It's almost the only new venture MS has been successful at, that's why there's going to be changes.

Xbox 360 seemed to be a success, though I don't know how much money they lost because of the "three rings of death" issue. It seems that for every unit they sold they had to replace at it least once,not to mention repeat cases(which explains their earlier losses) . Still, by the end they were on top of the market despite hardware setbacks.

 

But with this current gen they don't have the factors that gave them an edge on the previous one; for one both systems are being release around November with a similar price tag and MS doesn't have enough exclusive titles to tip the scales on their favor. Add to that the scandal over DRM measures, always online, no used games, ect, ect.. which hurt their PR and it seems doomed to failure. Though I think ValueAct might be just fulfilling their own prophecy.

[Nepenthe]

 

It would be shocking if MS hasn't made money from Xbox, sure the first Xbox wasn't profitable, but I thought the Xbox360 was highly successful, MS gets a cut of game sales, and peripherals like gamepads and Kinect must bring in profit, Xbox Live subscriptions. It's almost the only new venture MS has been successful at, that's why there's going to be changes.

Xbox 360 seemed to be a success, though I don't know how much money they lost because of the "three rings of death" issue. It seems that for every unit they sold they had to replace at it least once,not to mention repeat cases(which explains their earlier losses) . Still, by the end they were on top of the market despite hardware setbacks.

 

But with this current gen they don't have the factors that gave them an edge on the previous one; for one both systems are being release around November with a similar price tag and MS doesn't have enough exclusive titles to tip the scales on their favor. Add to that the scandal over DRM measures, always online, no used games, ect, ect.. which hurt their PR and it seems doomed to failure. Though I think ValueAct might be just fulfilling their own prophecy.

 

 

'cept Microsoft aren't releasing in November in some smaller, but high purchasing parity markets, like the Nordic countries. The amount of Nerdrage here is causing a lot of die-hard x360 Halo fanboys to either jump ship or at the very least get a ps4 first.

[Orogun01]

I don't know why but I keep thinking that the WiiU (funniest console name ever, BTW) will come ahead on this gen. 

[Guest Slinky]

I don't know why but I keep thinking that the WiiU (funniest console name ever, BTW) will come ahead on this gen.

Heh, I'm expecting the exact opposite to happen. Wii sold a lot because it was attractive to many less enthusiastic gamers, I know people who got it just as party toy. I'm not sure they are that eager to swap it to newer model, unless it gets some mega popular party game that they just have to have.

[Zoraptor]

I doubt the other MS divisions were very happy about the xbox project at all. Lots of attention, lots of cash spent, and in the end they would have made considerably more money if they'd left the investment in cash reserves, if they've even broken even yet since they wrote off a huge amount on the original xbox and (allegedly) buried costs into other divisions. 360 would have been decently profitable if they hadn't had the RROD- selling your box at a loss in the first place; then having to replace/fix, courier etc got very expensive very quickly. But for all that they still came third in a 3 horse race. Cutting the losses is completely sensible and would have likely been done earlier had some big egos not been tied up with it.

 

Pretty typical MS venture away from their core competencies really. They only really have two approaches, copy flagrantly (CPM/DOS; WordPerfect/ Lotus/ Word/ Excel; MacOS/ Windows; PS/ Xbox) and decide what people really want based on the current fancy of their hothouse in Seattle (Ribbon/ Win8/ Clippy/ On3 Original Approach).

[Keyrock]

Pretty typical MS venture away from their core competencies really. They only really have two approaches, copy flagrantly (CPM/DOS; WordPerfect/ Lotus/ Word/ Excel; MacOS/ Windows; PS/ Xbox) and decide what people really want based on the current fancy of their hothouse in Seattle (Ribbon/ Win8/ Clippy/ On3 Original Approach).

You forgot one of Microsoft's favorite business tactics that can be used in conjunction with their other approaches:  Strong-arm your way into market dominance by way of FUD and threats.

[Amentep]

 

 

 

Eh...eventually all of the consoles will go away (as will home computers).

 

Why would home computers go away? Is the commercial and professional world switching to tablets too? AutoCAD iOS version maybe?

 

Eventually I think all the radio/tv/console/computer/media stuff will merge into one sort of thing

 

What do you mean, "eventually"? You can already do all of that on a stinkin' normal PC today.

 

 

Not in the way I mean it, but essentially yes I think that something akin (but not quite like our current PC concept) will be used to interface with entertainment options that are not held on a computer in your house; there won't be a need for separate anything as between the "PC" and the outsourced data you'll have at your fingertips a way to control all of your entertainment and possibly a lot of your general living experience with the "PC".  We've taken huge steps towards it but not to the degree I predict it will go.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Amentep

[Orogun01]

 

I don't know why but I keep thinking that the WiiU (funniest console name ever, BTW) will come ahead on this gen.

Heh, I'm expecting the exact opposite to happen. Wii sold a lot because it was attractive to many less enthusiastic gamers, I know people who got it just as party toy. I'm not sure they are that eager to swap it to newer model, unless it gets some mega popular party game that they just have to have.

 

They have changed their policies, they are acquiring a lot of third party developers which means exclusives and they have the lowest manufacturing cost. It just feels like they are a safe bet when both Microsoft and Sony are trying to go big and may end up failing big as well.

[AwesomeOcelot]

Considering how much they've neglected and mismanaged their position and legacy in PC gaming, it's a little hard to swallow that their experiments in consoles haven't made them any money, what they've been doing to PC I thought at least made financial sense. I mean Xbox360 sold well, has a good attachment rate, if that can lose money then I'm scared to think what the Xbox One will do, it could easily perform much worse considering it's more expensive and slower than than the PS4.

[Keyrock]

This one is for LadyC:

 

Catlateral Damage - A game where you play as a cat and your task is to cause as much mayhem as you can in your owner's home.

[Serrano]

Just so long her cats don't see and get ideas. Or maybe this would be a good way to get them into gaming?

[LadyCrimson]

This one is for LadyC:

 

Catlateral Damage - A game where you play as a cat and your task is to cause as much mayhem as you can in your owner's home.

....

My cats don't break things, but they sure are havoc on cloth furniture.

[Zoraptor]

I mean Xbox360 sold well, has a good attachment rate, if that can lose money then I'm scared to think what the Xbox One will do, it could easily perform much worse considering it's more expensive and slower than than the PS4.

The RROD killed the 360's profitability something chronic. If you're selling the hardware at a loss it has to be reliable because it's the opposite from something like a toaster where if it falls to pieces after warranty you're laughing, because the person has to buy another toaster which you make money off. Planned obsolescence is only feasible if you're making money off the sales. They are making (some) money off the base hardware now by all reports, but every failure up to that point meant either full replacement plus courier fees and admin/ distro costs (maybe $300-400 US a pop), repair plus courier fees, someone buying a new loss leading 360 or someone swapping to PS3. All bad options.

 

MS should have learnt their lesson from the 360's hardware problems this time, and the overall on3 approach once the DRM shenanigans were dealt away with is way more sensible- far better to synergise with your existing products than compete against them*. Plus, if the rumours are true, there will be no more loss leading on the base hardware so out of warranty failures won't cost either.

 

*Personally I'd have had unified xbox/ PC gaming from the start, probably with 3rd parties making the x boxes under licence.

[Orogun01]

When you say unified xbox/PC, what exactly do you mean?

[Zoraptor]

Same games play on both systems, basically, have the xbox be a tech specification for a specialised, cheap, gaming PC and revise the tech spec every four to five years. You'd have the advantages of the PC system (lots of vendors, hardware competition) remove the loss leader in the equation (making the hardware yourself) and keep the bits which are profitable like online services and (potentially) game licence fees. There would be other potential advantages like better back compatibility and thus longer shelf life for games.

[Orogun01]

Same games play on both systems, basically, have the xbox be a tech specification for a specialised, cheap, gaming PC and revise the tech spec every four to five years. You'd have the advantages of the PC system (lots of vendors, hardware competition) remove the loss leader in the equation (making the hardware yourself) and keep the bits which are profitable like online services and (potentially) game licence fees. There would be other potential advantages like better back compatibility and thus longer shelf life for games.

The major appeal of consoles over PC is that they're meant to be less complicated (e.g: pop in the disc and play) I don't think that they would be willing to actually deal with choices, much less deal with manual installation. Although as consoles become more and more complex I see them eroding, as they are a bad PC and faced with two choices of equal loss but one that has more gains players will no doubt choose the one where they stand to gain more. (Unless publishers all out refuse to support PC)

 

On backwards compatibility; it is very possible now since all it takes is a simple shader algorithm to update the graphics. There are no major changes in a console generation that would prevent them from playing previous gen games but then publishers wouldn't get to re-release HD packs.

 

For a second there I thought that you were talking about mixing the pc and xbox online gaming, they actually tried to do that but desisted as it was unfair to console peasants who could not survive against the superior mouse and keyboard.

 

Edit: A little light on Microsoft and their views on backwards compatibility: http://www.polygon.com/2013/5/22/4355984/xbox-one-backward-compatibility-backwards-thinking-don-mattrick

Edited August 28, 2013 by Orogun01

[AwesomeOcelot]

I don't understand why PC games can't silently install, although Steam and other services are getting there, and just work on PCs bought from large manufacturers with standardized hardware. This is what I'm hoping the Steambox will be, a standardised PC. The PC will never be the choice of the casual consumer because it's too expensive and too varied, if you have to go out and buy a PC instead of building one, like say from Dell, you're going to get a bad deal compared to a console, and you would have to know a lot about ever changing hardware to make an informed decision, that's never going to happen for most consumers of consoles.

 

It's not as simple as changing a shader algorithm to update the graphics for backwards compability. For one, these games don't have one shader, updating shaders is far more complicated even if you're doing it for the same hardware, just look at the games that have done this like Psychonauts. Xbox 360 had inorder PowerPC cores, and the Cell was also PowerPC with Cell SPEs, both not at all like Jaguar that the XboxOne and PS4 will have. A large sum of time and money would be required to emulate the hardware in software, get it running fast enough. Porting the PC versions to the new consoles, especially if they're Unreal Engine 3 or Source, is probably going to have less headaches since a lot of games will probably already run on Jaguar and GPUs in the same family as the ones in PS4 and XboxOne, when they're used in PCs in 2014.