Tag Archives: Games

August 1, 2017 · 14:49

How weird are these two?

I got confronted with the weirdest article in the Independent today, the article was 4 days old, but then, I do not frequent that paper so often, hence, I initially missed it. The article (at http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/gaming/playstation-plus-price-date-details-sony-online-play-latest-expensive-cost-rise-hike-a7864351.html) gives us: “It’s about to get a lot more expensive to play PlayStation online“, which is an exaggeration to say the least. Now, for the longest time, the PlayStation plus has remained the same (as far as I remember), yet now we see a rate rise. The amount it rises with is £10 per year of £1 per month. It equates to 16% monthly, or 25% annually, yet the percentage increase is wrong, because it is £6.99 per month (new price), which comes to £83.88 per year, yet the full annual is a mere £49.99, which is only 59% of the monthly price on 12 months, so overall it remains a really good deal. So, as he whines on that event and how you can cancel the subscription. He also forgot to mention the fact that those with PlayStation Plus get 7 free games a month to play with, 3 PS4 games, 2 PS3 games and 2 Vita games, and the one subscription covers ALL three devices. Is it not interesting how that part got overlooked? The additional fact worth mentioning is that the list from June 2010 onwards has offered in total 493 games, 25 games had 90%+ ratings, which included games like Mass Effect (2+3), Bioshock Infinite, Batman Arkham City, Journey, Far Cry 3, God of War and a few others, So as we see the list offered, the £1 a month, or £10 a year does not add up to too much, when it amounts to 84 free games a year, which gets us an ‘enormous’ £0.11 increase per game (which makes it £0.59 per game in total) and in addition the access to multiplayer gaming, which we set at £0 for this exercise. So when Andrew Griffin writes that it is all about to get ‘a lot more expensive‘, I wonder if he has any clue on the gaming industry at all. Now, we know that there is hardship all over and that people can afford less and less, yet the option to get games at £0.59 per game remains a really good deal. In addition, you get them for the three devices without needing separate subscriptions. So I feel that Sony has always offered a really good deal for the gamers. Now, we might not always get the greatest games, yet 100+ titles had a higher than 80% rating and 25 games in addition had 90% or higher rating, so the people are getting really good games and they get a lot more than Microsoft offers and much better titles. The one part that the article does offer the reader is that if you try to renew the subscription now, you can get it for the ‘old’ price which is a pretty sweet deal, so you can delay the price increase for a year. In light of all this, not only is the description ‘a lot more expensive‘ a joke to say the least, the fact that the increase will not start until August 31st is also a clean option to quickly get the renewal now whilst the games are a mere £0.47 per game.

So when I see the title part ‘As Sony makes it more expensive to play online‘ I do wonder where he got his insights. Factual he might be right, yet in the day and age where the price of a PlayStation Plus videogame is set at less than a 1 pint bottle of Tesco Organic British Whole Milk, the entire setting of ‘a lot more expensive‘ should keep you on the floor laughing for some time to come.

From my point of view my response to the Independent is ‘Bad form, Independent, bad form!’

Second place issue

The second issue shown is one that was given to us in both the World Finance site as well as the Wall Street Journal. The issue given is “America’s young men are increasingly giving up on work in order to slay virtual aliens and fight videogame wars, new research suggests”, which is more than merely a laughable joke. The original source US National Bureau of Economic Research, the part that calls out might be “Academics from Princeton University, the University of Chicago and the University of Rochester say there’s ample evidence that since 2000, men who would otherwise be working are instead being drawn into immersive virtual worlds….”, yet what is this based on? You see, the data past 2008, a date many will remember, saw the Youth unemployment rate rise from 10% to 19%, after the beginning of 2011 those numbers have been declining steadily down to 9%, so the unemployment rate for the youth is now close on par with 1968, when it was the lowest in US History and only slightly better than 2003 which was the lowest at that point for close to 30 years. So when we consider those facts, it seems that the makers are giving us what some would regard a hatchet job. My title for that might be slightly too crass; yet when we see “Since 2004, time-use data show that younger men distinctly shifted their leisure to video gaming and other recreational computer activities. We propose a framework to answer whether improved leisure technology played a role in reducing younger men’s labor supply”, so how idiotic is such a notion when we consider the 2004 and 2008 meltdowns that thrashed the economy in several ways, in that same timeline, US unemployment (all) was set to 10% in 2008, with a steady decline that follows roughly the same downward trend to a little over 4% at present, now we might agree, that whilst unemployed those youthful individuals would divert towards videogames it is a path that is still better than heading towards the streets trying to be gainfully and criminally active.

In this the quote used by world finance “While eight percent of younger men were not in work in 2000, this number rose to 15 percent in 2016”, is more than inaccurate, according to worldfinance.com it is an outright lie. Governing.com gives us some extra information that is actually useful. Their quote (at http://www.governing.com/gov-data/economy-finance/youth-employment-unemployment-rate-data-by-state.html) is “The employment-to-population ratio for younger workers had only recovered about halfway for its recession-era decline as of early 2017. Youth employment rates have returned to pre-recession averages in just four states”, which seems to fit the other sources. This is what could be regarded as something that pisses me off. With ‘Leisure Luxuries and the Labor Supply of Young Men’ by Mark Aguiar, Mark Bils, Kerwin Kofi Charles and Erik Hurst, I have a hard time just giving it too much consideration. The paper has additional flaws, the consideration that we see on page 4 with “We further exclude full-time students who are less than age 25” which is a chunk of undergrads and post grads that work at least part time to be able to afford food and other small issues like books. So the numbers are already skewed, in addition some sources give us that 80% of the full time students work part time, which marketwatch.com gives us, which was part of a Citigroup study. The UK has numbers on 1 out of 7 students work and study full time, this might not be reflective of US students, yet it should be to some extent reflective of students in some of the US metropolitan areas like New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco where the cost of living remains a rising burden. It is in section 6 on page 31 when my laughter explodes. The issue given “we can use time allocation data to infer the rate of technological progress for gaming and computer leisure since the early 2000s”, this a given? With two recessions and the non-working youth being a historic high in 2010, surpassing the recession of the early 80’s is more than just an issue, with numbers showing a steady decrease since then, the job market starting to open, whilst outliers have a stronger impact. In 2017 retail shed 60,000 jobs in the US, whilst Wal-Mart and Amazon seem to be in a strategic battle of realigning jobs towards online presence, all elements that impact the job market. So as jobs get realigned through strategy, where do the jobs end up? What will those people do when they are not working? The information Forbes gives us on this is even scarier when it reflects the need for consumer appeal via transferred initiatives. In all this, the paper does give some interesting premises, yet relies on certain parts, which are I light of the two recessions a little too much of a stretch, yet the fact on how the formulas were used is actually quite interesting. Another flaw is seen on page 32, now this is the flaw as I personally see it regarding the data as showed, yet without the actual questionnaire on view, there is a flaw in both the results and the way that I see it might be, so we need to be aware of that.

With “We stratify by three groups: younger men who spent zero time on computer leisure the prior day, those who spent 2 hours or less, and those who spent more than 2 hours”, the flaw is the ‘when’, I would spend well over 2 hours playing after a full day work, so when we consider the working population with or without full time study, we see that the graph is flawed. Even the other way round, part time students with a full time job, they could fall into the 2 hour plus gaming bracket. It is that flaw that calls even more doubt into question regarding this paper. A final ‘consideration’ needs to be given when I take a look at the ‘Leisure Engel Curve’. Here I also must admit that I will give doubt to my own thought as I might not have comprehended that part completely (apart from the formula), you see, they do state “With the leisure Engel curves, we can link shifts in time spent across activities to an implied change in the marginal utility of total leisure”, yet does this part correct for any hype (read: diversion through peer and social group pressure)? I doubt that very much, as evidence I call for the Pokémon Go wave that started in July 2016, which is clearly computer leisure (read: mobile gaming leisure), yet the paper has not taken mobile gaming in any of it and sets gaming as a static given, yet this wave suddenly pushed 60 million people to a hyped community in the same group as other gamers, whilst mobile gamers can be set into any part of an idle time setting (like travel time), this disjoints the entire exercise as I see it and gives a larger (read accelerated) gaming community in a shifted setting according to the settings as given, yet not corrected for any version of the definition of what constitutes a gamer.

Even as we can admire the formulated exercise, we need to concern that the raw data is not reliable as such and that there are additional issues that the data model and the questionnaires and requested data cannot correct for. In addition when we see the models, there seems to be no consideration for idle time and/or transit time and the consideration of handheld devices or smartphones which calls for even more questions on the gaming environment.

No matter how clever some will think the paper looks like, from the stage as I see it, there are too many unknowns or unanswered question marks and in reflection the conclusion and some of the media statements are not in line of the reality of the recessions the people lived through.

That is merely my setting where $0.02=C(1+r)^t

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, IT, Media, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 21, 2016 · 19:22

Deadly diversification

A term that is very much aligned with finances, perhaps to some degree this is about that, but it is even more about the diversification of business. The path we see did not start today or yesterday, yet as the news releases pile up, we need to consider the impact some are creating, mostly by not making any level of an impression. The final straw became clear and visible as Eurogamer (at http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-12-20-crytek-breaks-silence-lets-go-of-multiple-studios) gave us the news on Crytek. The quote “Crytek had struggled to pay staff since May 2016, but a source within Crytek’s main office in Frankfurt, Germany, told Eurogamer last week that October salaries had arrived, with November salaries set to be paid this week” is at the heart of the matter and as we realise that it is end December, we feel for those people who have been without pay for the longest of times. Now I am not going to kick a person who is down, that just ain’t cricket. Yet what does matter is that if we were to believe Ubisoft, that this house, the makers of Far Cry, Ryse and Crysis is in a mess that is deeper than a mere slump.

So Ubisoft? Were they not evangelising how great a game Far Cry was and how well Far Cry had been doing? If that is so, how come that Crytek is in such a mess? From what was initially a game I did not like (far Cry 1 on xbox360 is the only game I literally threw out of the window, the disc that is) was a game that I ignored, until I got the free edition on the PS3 as part of my PlayStation Plus, so as one does not look a gift horse (you know what I mean), I had a go at it and I was amazed on how a failure had become such a good game. I even bought the 360 edition later. Yet I kept my distance with Far Cry 4 as things were a little weird and the least said about Far Cry Primal the better, although it was not a bad game (at $20 I was willing to chance the burn of a lost $20 bill).

Yet here I myself was making the initial error. You see Crytek was the initial developer of Far Cry, the rest came from Ubisoft Montreal. Far Cry 3 was awesome and what followed was basically more of the same with a few nagging issues, not bad games mind you, but continuation of the same is what was the matter with the Far Cry series, a lesson Ubisoft has been unwilling to learn. I loved Far Cry 3 because of the stealth part, there is a lack of stealth games and Far Cry 3 filled that need. Yet repetition will never be a good taskmaster so as we saw more focus on large explosions and big guns, I personally saw a decline in the Far Cry series. Everyone said I was wrong and the fact that the ratings have been in decline is to some extent evidence that I was not.

Now we know that Ubisoft sees itself as the multibillion dollar revenue titan, yet we can agree that it only remains to be a titan for as long as the games are really good and it has been lacking in that department. If Ubisoft is still breathing it is mainly due to the impressive improvement that Watch Dogs 2 is turning out to be (by Ubisoft Montreal) and the anticipated success that For Honor is showing to become (also Ubisoft Montreal). So is that all?

Nope, the other side of their gaming franchises are taking another hit when we consider the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/dec/19/assassins-creed-film-review-michael-fassbender-videogame-marion-cotillard), when we see ‘achieves transcendental boredom‘ gets a rating of one star and scores a lot lower than last year’s remake of Point Break, we know that the bottom of the barrel had been reached. Ubisoft might not mind losing $120 million as they are approaching 3 billion in value, yet that value becomes debatable and questions whether the value of Ubisoft has been inflated when we look at the non-successes from the last few years. As for the movie? Well I personally think that other questions come to mind when IMDB gives it 8.2 out of 10, yet Rotten Tomatoes sees it as 26% fresh, making it basically 74% rotten. Where the tomato dudes and dudettes state “the CGI-fuelled end result still is still a joylessly over-plotted slog“, with a stellar cast that includes Michael Fassbender (12 years an entrepreneur), Jeremy Irons (from Brideshead Revisited to Justice League a hit) and not to forget the utterly lovely fashionista  Marion Cotillard from Orleans (which is cool as this is one of the few French cities I actually visited in the past), who some saw first in Taxi (by Luc Besson) and most remember for being the person who drive the dagger home into Christian Bale in The Dark Knight Rises, with dozens of additional awesome gigs in between. So the cast was already top notch. So as I see the ratings and critics we can set the issue with the director and script that both might be regarded as below basement levels. In all this Ubisoft needs to be pointed at as the cause for the mere reason that you do not sit idly by as what should have been regarded as the most important franchise of Ubisoft to take a hit like that. A mistake that is not the first one (remember Unity). In this, the review Forbes is giving, as diplomatic as they could be, gives way that several high placed Ubisoft meetings are due and these board members better get a really good grasp of the risks they are now running. Although, I thought they would not last this long, the fact that they are still around can only be attributed to the hit ‘the Division’ became (it really is), the improvements Watch Dogs 2 proved to contain and the informing approach that Jason VandenBerghe has done through quality gameplay videos on YouTube showing the people that For Honor is indeed the awesome journey gamers hoped it to be. We could speculate that the life of Ubisoft would be depending to promote several people from Ubisoft Montreal to get promoted to the board of directors whilst we trim the fat with a sharp blade from the current collection of board members, whether Yves Guillemot would like to call it trimming fat or slicing off surplus weight is up to him, but he needs to do something to get Ubisoft to stand out in a few ways, standing out in one way will no longer be enough, the movie is making sure of that. Regarding For Honor, we have a small addition (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1LF52R8U_0) where the gamer himself is really not that good, yet we still get to see some awesome gameplay, making us all wonder, what damage can we, as overall better gamers do? The fact that I had this question in mind in a multiplayer setting is something I rarely have, mainly because I am not that much of a multiplayer person.

Yet let’s get back to bleeding and sickly Ubisoft. We will see how they will do and how desperate the fans will be to see the movie, yet the reviews are not great and as the AC fans have Rogue One, Moana and Office Christmas Party to see the options for the AC movie are not that great, yet we should consider that any large issues we will possibly see in the new releases could be countered by Ubisoft giving us a free download of the movie, which they can then book as sales and as negative sales (loss) keeping their tax deductibility high as well as their ‘revenue’.

We could attribute that approach to optional good CFO management, yet in that regard, the games that are lacking the high reviews they could have had, as seen by Assassin’s Creed Unity, Assassin’s Creed Syndicate, Far Cry Primal and the Crew. We need to wonder what else gamers are missing out on and the issue with the movie should not be linked, yet the gamers are unlikely to see it that way. With two non-hits, the movie now expected to be a flop and the AC franchise a year away from the next one, you should see this as an alarm issue for Ubisoft; in addition it is not impossible that Ubisoft could decide down the track (next quarter) to push forward the time line of the next AC game, with additional risks that the next one is another version of Unity.

In all this I am intentionally ignoring Steep. Even though the ratings are not great, I think it is a great achievement in its unique kind. Extreme snow sports are very niche, just like some sport games. The open world approach is truly cool and the fact that there is a tongue in cheek developer amongst that team and added the achievement ‘Shaked by the bell‘ is just awesome, just remember to go head firsts! I will accept that niche games like this score lower because of the niche character, but the fact that it shows something not seen before needs to be heralded, especially as I have been roasting Yves his chestnuts for not doing so in a few franchises.

Crytek might not be linked to Ubisoft, the issues they face are hopefully a loud wakeup call towards Ubisoft. Diversification in gaming is a good thing, as far as I can see, Jason VandenBerghe is excellent evidence of that, yet the wrong direction and distance could hamper growth and divert attention in another direction. Any firm that has €2.98 billion in revenue, whilst ending up with a remaining €561 million in net income should realise that the cost of 10,000 employees is quite the anchor. It is hard to state whether a remaining 18% of the revenue is a good result. I might have a good grasp on games and gaming, yet the CFO side of such a firm is a close an equal to reading tea leaves. Consider that next year, the AC movie results will be in. Not sure on the producers and where the funding came from, because Ubisoft Motion Pictures is only one of the three producers, so the damage would be limited, but with the additional releases in 2017, Ubisoft needs to make very sure that they have at least 2 really good hits in 2017. For Honor seems to be a definite one, yet the other two at present announced is the South Park game and Ghost Recon: Wildlands. Ghost Recon has a good track record, sales will have to show how good a game it is, of course until the final version is ready, we just cannot tell. Of course in addition there will be the games that remain unknown for now, games that will see the first light of day on June 13-15 2017 at the E3, unable to tell whether it will include additional 2017 releases, yet from my point of view, if the list does not change, there will be slimming required for Ubisoft. It would be great to see Ubisoft escape the abyss, especially as the push at present might not be entirely their fault, yet they were partly producers, giving them a slice of that expected flop too.

In the end, these are only a few parts, as stated, Ubisoft has had its shares of successes and the Division is one, with a new DLC available, those who did not take the road of the season pass will have to shell out $15 to get this DLC, giving Ubisoft another boost in revenue. In the end, do these actions matter to anyone but Ubisoft? I am going with yes! You see, we might be positive or slightly negative for the first Assassins Creed, yet there is no doubt that 100% of the fans have been 100% positive regarding Assassins Creed 2 and Brotherhood. This is the reality and we gamers, we want more of that amazement offered in November 2009 and 2010. I reckon it is that part that has driven fans (me included) to such anger as the franchise started to slide and the movie reviews so far aren’t helping either.

Yet, there is a clarity in the success that Watch Dogs 2 brought, which is a forward momentum, baby steps, baby steps.

From my point of view, Ubisoft needs to diversify as stated, yet I reckon it should be in another direction of gaming. I think that the salvation (read: stronger growth) of Ubisoft lies in new IP, in light of Watch Dogs 2 we know that the right team can salvage broken IP, we also know that the right person can create awesome IP (read: Jason VandenBerghe), so if Ubisoft can pull this off twice more, it could return back to the top it once clearly held, even more interesting for the big dude at the top of that hill (read: listens to the name Yves), possibly with a margin decently better than 18%. In that regard 2017 will be an interesting year.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 24, 2013 · 10:36

Spin dryers by Microsoft

Some might have heard the news and some might not. Microsoft will be launching their new console by the end of this year. Sony will come with one too, but about that more at a later time.

So, I did watch the presentation, and it is not unlike an American based company to take on so much more than they are likely to chew when they go up against a population of gamers. This has been proven in several occasions and as such this moment was no different.

The new system is called Xbox One (sounds like a Star Wars episode copy).

This system is supposed to be the new revelations that evangelical gamers will pray too. Yet, this is no longer a gaming console. They now call it an all in one entertainment system.

It is a fair step to extend boundaries. Any business minded person will do that whenever possible. Yet, at this time, with the current available information, many wonder why things were not thought through on many levels is slightly baffling.

Even though Microsoft is releasing information on many planes, I would be in remiss if I did not mention that Gamespot (www.gamespot.com) is a massive centre player when it comes to console information, so they are an important source of information for all readers.

There is one part where Microsoft is right, and it is only fair I mention it. Microsoft’s Don Mattrick stated “If you’re backwards compatible, you’re really backwards.” I grant him that one. Even if I was opposed in the past, in combination with statements made from those who made the ‘promise’ at that point (a promise both Microsoft and Sony royally broke). Where we saw the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 to be required to be backwards compatible to PlayStation 2 and Xbox, is just not realistic to expect at this time. So, as such, I will agree on that, even if several gamers might not agree with me.

My first issue is with the hardware that is central to the new Xbox One. If this is supposed to be an all in one entertainment solution, always connected, always cloud ready for downloading of Movies, TV, Games and so on, then whomever lacked the synapses to decide on a 500 Gb drive had clearly been watching a little too many Xbox-Files (like the TV series from the 90’s with Box Mulder and Data Scully). Then 500 Gb would then have been mucho alien. Now, the difference between 500 Gb and 1 Tb is about $20, so when they state it cannot be upgraded, in a time when we are all overloaded with data, we should start asking serious questions. Their statement that we can add a USB3 drive just does not hold water. Consider that they called it an all-in-one entertainment system; consider that a Blue-Ray can contain up to 50 Gb and consider that the operating system and temporary files for this system takes up some space too. Then this system has space for 9 movies in high res (worst case scenario). Even less if we consider the need for our music on MP3, out private photo collection(s) and a few games, then this drive will be choc-a-block stuffed full really quickly.

In opposition, as a start, I might not object to a 500 Gb start. Yet, the non-upgrade limit means that we will need extra external drives; so in addition needing power, needing cables and one young player accidently yanking the wrong cable might make things go wrong fast. This is also the first of many points where your internet data plan will cut in (or cut out might be a better phrase). You see, data plans cost money, and considering the plans some are on now, then the added changes would also mean you might on average pay $30 a month extra to keep being online. So that goes towards $400 in extra costs each year (not including the annual fee for Xbox live). Mind you, this is the INCREASE, not the bare cost. In some cases some would go from $69 to $99 a month. That should go over well with the millions of students all over the globe who are already in dire need just to make ends meet. If you think that this is an exaggeration. Think again. The system that now boasts on 3D gaming possibilities will need data to get this all rolling out. So either you accept time for a dozen DVD’s to install, or you’ll have to get to the cloud. In addition, they might offer the ‘normal’ version on 1-2 DVD’s and the rest needs downloading. This is a bigger deal then you realise. For example, consider the option of starting World of Warcraft on the PC as a new gamer. It is really nice that they offer it for free to new gamers to try. I am honest; it is a really nice gesture. Yet the initial download is 22 Gb. For some that is almost half their monthly download allowance. The second part of their entertainment boast is that they will support 4K. 4K is a resolution for TV meaning 4000 pixels per line. In all fairness there was a mention that this is for photos and movies only, not for games, yet, the 4K trailer of Spiderman (trailer, not movie) was said to need almost 500 Gb. That much for a 3 minute trailer? Is anyone waking up considering the ridiculous limitation of a 500 Gb hard drive?

Realistically, we are not ready for 4K resolution, as this goes beyond the ability of Blu-Ray, which of course makes me wonder why the 4K mention was such an effort? 3D is more and more added to the consumer’s home, yet at this point, we see an unbalanced situation between the offered hypes and the offered hardware. Not a good thing Microsoft!

So let us take a gander in the second division of MS issues (This applies to Sony too by the way). This new-gaming wave seems to cross several borders. What is advertised as new gaming, what others call entertainment, what few see and should see as the end of privacy! Microsoft is now offering a solution that is always on, always connected and remembering and learning from you all the time. Most laws are not ready.

The one thing that we hold dear, that we protect, we seem to give away when playing a game.

The new systems are all about data collecting. They call it ‘trending’, it is in reality a ‘personalised’ form of mass-advertisement. The abundance of hype created whilst stating interaction through the cloud is in fact nothing less than a new form of data collection as Skype, TV, movies and your choice of gaming is at all times stored and saved on the cloud. A system that interacts as per now on multiple levels, unhindered by privacy laws as we surrender to that extra little ‘benefit’ where we forget that others get access too.

Their on-line system is now getting grown from the initial 15000 servers now that Xbox 360 uses, to 300,000 servers from the moment the next Xbox is launched. It is a 2,000% growth in data collection and over 200,000% storage capacity. If foundations of business are set to return-on-investment, then ask yourself why a gaming system requires that level of growth. Intellectual property that is no longer bought, but rented on a temporary basis as the cloud keeps what we buy, yet we will pay more per hour and hand over our identity in the process.

Most laws are not ready, with these new systems starting to get pushed out as per this year. Consider this; the presentation had a quote in relation to the collected information “Game developers can take advantage of our data centres“, is anyone else getting access?

As Justice continues a losing battle against cybercrime, corporate entertainment is about to hand the keys over to a group that can really use all that input. Should you consider that this would not happen, then remember how Sony lost the security of a few million accounts which included credit card information, affecting many in Australia. When this level of collection happens, when consumers connect devices, then consider the added interest cybercrime will get as many will want these amounts of data for several reasons and most laws are not ready.

In less than 6 months we will see a new age where many willingly, unaware of the consequences will give out their details, their personality and their identity to a data cloud where we can all be statistically weighted. The haves and have nots will see their private lives classified into moments of targeting, some of it likely questionable. The laws are not ready, the justice system is not ready and law enforcement is not even close to ready.

So we are faced with the cloud, space and privacy. Consider that the new console was announced to be cheaper than the 360 initially was. Consider that Microsoft is adding hundreds of thousands of servers. Then consider that thy need to make a profit. So how will this happen? More important what extra costs will you the consumer get when their marketing will start making statements like the one we heard when the 360 was about to be launched “Each console has a variety of games. Most games released on the original Xbox are backwards compatible and can be played directly on its successor, Xbox 360” This did not pan out so well. Sony was just as bad, if not worse as millions signed up for the PlayStation 3, selling (or trading in) their PlayStation 2, only to learn that this backward compatibility was not ever working correctly.

Now, as stated earlier, the new consoles will NOT be backward compatible, yet Marketing is making all kinds of statements again. The Telegraph reported in (Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/Xbox/10075540/Xbox-One-gamer-backlash-over-fee-for-pre-owned-titles.html) that gamers will see a fee coming their way when they are playing pre-owned titles. How fun is that? I admit, I am not yet aware what Sony does, yet this could tip the scales in a major way. I all honesty Microsoft Marketing did state that there will be pre-owned possibilities, yet they have not officially stated how this EXACTLY will play out, so we await clarity by Microsoft (be really really patient)

Personally I am on the fence in this regard. I never liked pre-owned games. And as such it never really hit me. When we look at off line gaming, my thoughts are that this is none of Microsoft’s business. If I give a game I am done with to a niece, a nephew, or even the neighbours so their kids can play a game without having to pay for it, then so what? I do agree with Microsoft that the one who buys the game gets access to on-line gaming. If someone else wants to go on-line, then they should by an access pass for the on-line part. They reserved the gaming server for me the buyer, the next person will need to pay for that service. So off line gaming, patching and so on, they should stay away from charging. That is my personal view.

So here we are, Microsoft marketing spinning their party lines fast enough to get your clothes dry, it does however gives more and more pause to the quality of gaming we have to look forward to. This is how I currently see the gamers market go backwards. A business approach to a consumer world, pushing through all kinds of idea’s the youthful player never signed up for.

So Microsoft calls it an entertainment system. Entertainment? For who?

2 Comments

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,