Sony and Microsoft simply didn't make much money from the previous generation overall. They took huge losses on hardware early on, sales were slower during the first several years than they anticipated, and the idea that gaming consoles were the key to dominating the living room didn't really pan out. It's not surprising that they would look for an alternate way to generate more revenue in the next round, especially with the console gaming market currently looking pretty soft overall in terms of growth. Whether the ideas they're pursuing for additional revenue are actually workable or not is another issue altogether though.
They still both made a hefty sum of money. If idiots are prepared to pay more than full price for console hardware in the form of a lengthy, overpriced contract for a service they probably won't make full use of, great, as long as it doesn't mean the rest of us have to pay more for the console outright and don't find it unusable without subscribing to said service. Previously they made money throughout the life of the console and early adopters could get one for less than the cost of the hardware. Now, they release a less gaming focused machine with relatively lower end hardware and expect us to pay more in the guise of "oooh look at all these services! *that I'm on a contract to pay for".
No, the PS3 was an overall money loser and Microsoft has not yet achieved an overall net profit for the lifetime of their Xbox division. They've got two generations under their belt and are still in the hole. It wouldn't really make sense for them to rinse/repeat the same approach with the Xbox One. Back in 2005, they might have believed it was worth it to take the hit because they thought they were going one-on-one with Sony for control of living room media. They know now that it's a lot more complicated than that.
That's because they both (more sony) went for stupid exotic hardware that was only good in theory. Now they've both gone for hardware that's easy to work with and relatively cheap, they shouldn't need to make a loss for years and will easily make it back with games alone. They're just getting greedy and want to be more like the cellular industry. Me, I want to have less to do with that shitty, corrupt business model.
http://ps4daily.com/2013/05/playstation-4-profitable-than-ps3/ The Xbox One should be cheaper to produce, but around the same if Kinect 2 costs more to make (depends if the camera is bundled with all PS4's also). They're not spending billions to design a custom architecture that only they have the fabs to produce this time. Their model is just like Apple's, design a custom chip based on existing standards, have it fabbed by a company who specializes in fabrication only and can (in the future) be swapped out for someone else if needed. They don't need to be like Apple/Samsung etc in the other way that they also charge an exorbitant amount for the hardware OR have you sign an expensive contract. I'm sure they want to, every big corporation want to be more like Apple. The core gamers won't stand for it and will go with whoever is less money grubbing and gives them a better gaming experience.
https://twitter.com/Jonathan_Blow And here's some stuff to back that up. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-spec-analysis-xbox-one
That seems more accurate than the previous one you posted showing it to be smaller than the 360. It's clearly noticeably larger. Nice to know that it is slightly thinner, though. EDIT: their PS3 fat dimensions are wrong for the length, it is only 27.4cm, I just measured mine to be sure. The first PS3 slim was noticably deeper (or as they are saying, longer) than the PS3 fat.
yeah.Not only that take a look at this image that were posted B4: is for shure xbox one,i found all the information here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-spec-analysis-xbox-one looks how compares the console in the hands
Microsoft have actually clarified a few points. If 2 people log into the same console (siblings) still no answer on how this will work but being able to lend a game once to someone on your list for more than 30 days seems a bit of a pain. What happens if your internet goes down or you move home and can't get an install for a week or more? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22812743
[quote author=Xbox.com] Share access to your games with everyone inside your home: Your friends and family, your guests and acquaintances get unlimited access to all of your games. Anyone can play your games on your console--regardless of whether you are logged in or their relationship to you. Give your family access to your entire games library anytime, anywhere: Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One.[/quote] Everyone can play your games on your Xbox One. Ten family members can play your games on any Xbox One. Only 10! That's a disaster! http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license
If I was able to go over 2 weeks without world of warcraft during my intimate time with that game, I'm sure these xboners will survive.
Thats not the point though, the point is you if you pay for an offline game you should be able to play that game offline whenever you want regardless.
Simple, just classify all the games as online games. Then if you buy it expecting to be able to play it offline, it's your fault for being dumb dumb
Yep, pretty much what chi just said above. MS is pointing out all of these requirements well before the system has launched. So if you believe that you should be able to play offline, you might as well get the darwin award. They already said flat out that the XBOX One requires an internet connection. It can not be any more straightforward than that.
This has been a pretty big PR disaster so far. Sounds like MS are making a lot of this shit up as they go along. I'll have very little interest in getting this if games require online to work as that fucks up any sort of legacy for the games I buy. I'm wondering if Sony will do something similar. This whole product sounds like a mess so far and their reaction is hardly encouraging. Seems like they've kept one eye on Apple, one on the console market and another on TV stuff. The three eyed freaks.