I suspect most people care, but most don't care enough to complain. If bored or repulsed, most people simply move on to stuff that interests them.

Its also worth keeping in mind that most vocal gamers online are traditionalists who want things to stay the same as they always have. That is a futile hope because the gaming industry has never held still (in the 38 years I've been gaming a lot of genres and companies have risen and fallen) and nowadays the market is more diverse than ever. Also, the market is more competitive than ever, with a plethora of quality games on offer and a shrinking number of franchises/games taking a bigger chunk of retail earnings (the mid-tier died like flies last gen and the dying is continuing this gen).

http://www.joystiq.com/2014/07/02/report-murdered-soul-suspect-developer-airtight-games-closes/

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/tony-hawk-s-dev-neversoft-closes-doors/0135247?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mcvuk%2Fstream+(MCV%3A+Home+Stream)

Developers who sit atop megafranchises like CoD and GTA can and should keep doing what they are doing, a lot of others are listening very carefully to anyone who they feel might give them advice which could help them make a commercially successful game.

@Areez said:

@CarnageHeart said:

@Areez said:

@Shame-usBlackley said:

@S0lidSnake said:

@Shame-usBlackley: lol i came here to gloat but you have already gloated enough for the both of us.

I think this is a step in the right direction though. Yeah, they fucked up, but they did 180 on nearly everything last year and now they've done a 180 on Kinect and XBL Gold. It's may not be enough to win the generation, but little things like offering XBL Gold refunds to those who bought it just for Netflix and other apps go a long way towards repairing the brand. If you read GAF and other gaming sites, they've already started to come around. All that's left for MS to do is have a strong outing at E3 and all will be forgotten. Just like it was with Sony last gen.

As for the analysts. The same firm, IDC, predicted this last gen. lol

I still don't think it's fair for people to conflate Sony's PS3 and Microsoft's intentions with the Xbone.

Sony made a terrible mistake and recovered from it somewhat, but only when one disregards how far they fell from the PS2. That's what Areez fails to realize -- brand damage can be tough to wash away. Sony mitigated some of the damage with the PS3, but when you compare how far they fell from the PS2, it was a bad fall for the brand.

What Microsoft did with the Xbone was not just a colossal mistake, it was a fist, intended to be rammed up the ass of the gaming community, forcing them to bend to Microsoft's will. The public told them not to do this, but they did anyway, making a myriad of other mistakes on top of the first. And then their attitude was "**** off if you don't like it." And now they're in trouble and all of a sudden, they're "listening."

Sony made a dumb move, Microsoft tried to kill video gaming as we know it. If some people are willing to let a hundred dollars make them forget that, then they deserve what they get. I don't care if they give the fucking thing away at $5 car washes, I wouldn't buy one. It was a device born of ill-intentions and bad ideas. Now it's a less powerful, slightly cheaper, slightly less-offensive collection of bad ideas.

When you mention the fall from PS2 to PS3 you forgot to mention other important factors. First, price hurt the PS3, second Nintendo sold ridiculous amounts of Wiis, three MS cut into Sonys market share with the Xbox 360. Sony considerably faced more competition last generation then they did with PS2.

And this whole idea that MS was trying ram their fist up the gaming communities rear, is so childish. I mean really? The gaming community seems to do more bitching and whining than they do gaming. And the crying is inconsistent as MS is held to another standard. Where was the crying when Sony implemented DRM for DriveClub? Sure they eventually reversed it, but I didn't see anyone crying about it? Where was the out rage when Sony lied, by advertising online that Watch Dogs was 1080p 60fps.

It amazes me, how gamers somehow believe that they know the motivations behind a company. To say MS tried to kill video gaming as we know it, is a thoughtless comment. MS to an extent tried to implement new ideas, with how we interact with games socially and consume them. The marketing behind those ideas was terrible and they did not do an effective job communicating them.

So here we are stuck, because many gamers lack the ability to think big picture. By the way, everyone should read this article :

http://www.cnet.com/news/why-the-death-of-microsoft-xbox-one-vision-means-we-all-lose/

Guys like you are satisfied with next gen game consoles being defined by a simple power upgrade. Improved graphics is just not going to cut it. And if game consoles continue to only offer power has an upgrade each generation, than consoles will eventually become obsolete. While I do not see that happening, I do see consoles becoming an all inclusive entertainment device, and do see a time where consoles will no longer use discs. DRM is coming Shame-Us, digital content is coming soon. It is a better business model for developers and console makers to do so. What are you going to do when Sony and MS eliminate discs and go full digital? MS gave you a preview of the future, perhaps much earlier than what people were comfortable with.

I will leave you with this last quote from the article I linked above.. which reminds me of you and everything wrong with gamers...

"Ultimately, the end result of the widespread pressure for uniformity in the industry will be a perpetuation of the more malignant undercurrents entrenching console gaming in its bloated, risk-adverse traditions. Instead of fresh takes that incorporate new technologies and take bold chances, we're now likely to get more of the same: more cycles of selling sequels and turning riffs on established game genres into franchises, all for what have become overly marketed PCs that just happen to be plugged into our TVs.

The fight for the living room, for fully realized next-generation entertainment that transcends gaming, has been reduced to the same tired squabbles that render console war discussions vapid and self-defeating. More choice for consumers has become Microsoft's forced doublespeak for an offering that closely resembles that of its competitor, a decision made solely to boost sales and keep fanboys from foaming at the mouth."

Areez, gaming is a luxury. Gaming companies are not in a position to dictate to consumers. They can change our minds about stuff by offering us value (nods towards Sony offering digital copies of games to PS Plus subscribers every month) but they can't just say 'I know you think you don't want this, but we're going to force it on anyway!'.

Anyone fool enough to force digital and/or DRM upon consumers without offering them value (read: selling the digital game at a discount) is going to be abandoned by consumers. Personally, I prefer digital, but a recent NPD survey made it clear that most avid gamers feel differently.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-05-14-three-out-of-four-us-gamers-prefer-physical-games-npd

Digital distribution is becoming an increasingly accepted way of buying games, but the clear majority of gamers still prefer to get something tangible for their money. According to the NPD Group's Core Gaming 2014 report, 74 percent of core gamers in the US would choose a physical copy of a game over digital, assuming both were the same price.

Despite the preference for physical formats, acceptance of digital games is growing. The 26 percent of gamers who said they preferred digital copies of games is up 5 percent year-over-year.

The report comes from a survey of more than 7,900 core gamers ages 9 and up conducted in March. The research firm defined "core gamer" as anyone who plays five hours or more on Microsoft or Sony consoles, PC, or Mac, and plays in certain genres (action, adventure, fighting, flight, MMOs, racing, real-time strategy, RPGs, shooters, or sports games) on those platforms.

The article you linked to is ridiculous. I'm a longtime gamer who welcomes innovation but who frankly doesn't understand why people think that game innovation can or should be hardware led. Making a console which has an expensive gimmick or draconian DRM isn't innovative and doesn't encourage innovation (look at the Wii U, whose tablet/control hybrid has just resulted in a string of Yet Another Marios). Meaningful innovation isn't a function of hardware, it comes from developers who have either new ideas or are approaching the familiar in different way (famously innovative games like Minecraft, DMC, GTA3 and The Sims all used traditional controls).

Gaming is a business. This idea of forcing things on someone is not what is happening. We have choices to purchase or not purchase what we want as consumers. It is hilarious how gamers misconstrued new ideas as forced concepts. Digital is coming and it is not a forced concept as it is an evolution in how we interact with games.

I am also a longtime gamer, I have been gaming for more then three decades now. The commonality in every new console generation has been improved graphics. Not until the Xbox and the advent of online console gaming has that trend been bucked some what.

How can developers innovate without having the hardware to do so? Here is the problem, and you just highlighted it. You said "new ideas or are approaching the familiar in different way". The familiar, the familiar does not lead to innovation, it leads to status-quo and the eventual death of an industry. Gaming is not just about using a controller and two thumb sticks anymore to experience a game (Insert Project Morpheus here). It is also about how, in new ways we interact with that game, how we interact with others in a specific game and how we consume games. How we manipulate the internet and new technologies to provide new experiences. So no, that article is not ridiculous, it only highlights that gamers such as yourself are stuck and find it hard to think outside of the box.

If Steve Jobs had your attitude and perspective, we would never have had the home PC, iPhone or iPad. Do you know that everyone said, that the average consumer did not want a home computer? This was IBMs attitude prior to the first Apple PCs launching to consumers. Do you know how long touch technology was around before the iPhone launched? Years. Had that technology not existed, we would not have had the iPhone. Technology is not always as simple as, its here today and it is an immediate hit. Technology can take time to evolve and catch on. You call into question the WiiU. So it not outselling the competition, but I applaud Nintendo's effort to try something new and who knows perhaps their innovation leads to something else that benefits us down the road.

Take what you know about the current cell phones we have today. Pretend that you know nothing of what these devices do today. Lets go back a decade and I say to you, here is a camera attached to your cell phone. My guess is that your attitude would have been "what the hell do I need this for, I have a camera for pictures and phones are meant for calling people". Look at what the inclusion of cameras has done for cell phones and not just phones themselves, but with how we interact with others from a social media perspective. The impact has been huge, and yet it was frowned upon when included by many. You can only go the water well yet so many times before it dries up. That is the point of the article.

Your first paragraph restates what I just told you. Companies cannot force (expensive) technology consumers don't care about upon them.

Also, consoles have improved in many ways over the years (including controller functionality and game storage mediums). *Waves* But that tech stuff is irrelevant. What drives innovation in the industry is the creativity of programmers.

Your home computer comparison is bizarre. Steve Job's Apple did not completely take over, but from the get go it was pretty damn popular among consumers (it addressed a need) and would have been more popular if rivals hadn't freely adapted its ideas. One can say something similar about cell phones. No one objected to the idea of being able to communicate with other people, the expense, bulk and limited coverage is what put people off (in the 80's cell phones were the provenance of people with money, now they are damn near a necessity).

Your point about cell phones in cameras is also strange. The inclusion of cell phones in cameras was never controversial among because the cost was negligible (the opposite of the Kinect's impact on the Xbox One's price) and because people only have so much space to carry around stuff when on the road, so giving them two things they wanted in one package suited them fine.

The fact one the Kinect has a lot of functionality which excited social media types s great, but judging by sales of the PS4's camera or the X360's camera only a minority of gamers are into that tech. As Sony could have told MS (our PS3 costs $600, but it has bluray functionality so its a bargain because you get two things in one!) doing stuff which increases the price of the base console but doesn't clearly benefit games doesn't pay off for games consoles.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-03-21-sony-ps4-camera-shortages-down-to-twitch

Sony Computer Entertainment's Shuhei Yoshida has attributed supply shortages of the PlayStation 4 camera to the unexpected popularity of Twitch livestreaming.

At present, there are relatively few gameplay experiences that make use of the PS4's camera peripheral, and yet the device has sold around 900,000 units - an attach-rate of 15 per cent. According to Yoshida, president of PlayStation's worldwide studios, the resulting stock shortages were down to a, "total miscalculation by our marketing guys."

Last and most importantly and as I've explained to many Nintendo fans last generation, technology isn't a well, its a palette and easel. Timid developers content to iterate on the same franchise ad infinitum are going to do so regardless of technology (the Marios on the Wii U play pretty much the same as the Marios on the Wii which play pretty much the same as the Marios on the Gamecube). Its telling that the award for the most innovative game of 2013 from the GDC (trade group of industry professionals) went to Papers, Please (a game in which you play as an immigration official). The interface (a keyboard and mouse) is perfectly conventional, but the game designer (an ex-Naughty Dog guy) really thought outside the box when designing the game. There have always been a lot of gimmick controllers out there, but few of them have tied to the industry's most innovative games.

@Areez said:

@Shame-usBlackley said:

@S0lidSnake said:

@Shame-usBlackley: lol i came here to gloat but you have already gloated enough for the both of us.

I think this is a step in the right direction though. Yeah, they fucked up, but they did 180 on nearly everything last year and now they've done a 180 on Kinect and XBL Gold. It's may not be enough to win the generation, but little things like offering XBL Gold refunds to those who bought it just for Netflix and other apps go a long way towards repairing the brand. If you read GAF and other gaming sites, they've already started to come around. All that's left for MS to do is have a strong outing at E3 and all will be forgotten. Just like it was with Sony last gen.

As for the analysts. The same firm, IDC, predicted this last gen. lol

I still don't think it's fair for people to conflate Sony's PS3 and Microsoft's intentions with the Xbone.

Sony made a terrible mistake and recovered from it somewhat, but only when one disregards how far they fell from the PS2. That's what Areez fails to realize -- brand damage can be tough to wash away. Sony mitigated some of the damage with the PS3, but when you compare how far they fell from the PS2, it was a bad fall for the brand.

What Microsoft did with the Xbone was not just a colossal mistake, it was a fist, intended to be rammed up the ass of the gaming community, forcing them to bend to Microsoft's will. The public told them not to do this, but they did anyway, making a myriad of other mistakes on top of the first. And then their attitude was "**** off if you don't like it." And now they're in trouble and all of a sudden, they're "listening."

Sony made a dumb move, Microsoft tried to kill video gaming as we know it. If some people are willing to let a hundred dollars make them forget that, then they deserve what they get. I don't care if they give the fucking thing away at $5 car washes, I wouldn't buy one. It was a device born of ill-intentions and bad ideas. Now it's a less powerful, slightly cheaper, slightly less-offensive collection of bad ideas.

When you mention the fall from PS2 to PS3 you forgot to mention other important factors. First, price hurt the PS3, second Nintendo sold ridiculous amounts of Wiis, three MS cut into Sonys market share with the Xbox 360. Sony considerably faced more competition last generation then they did with PS2.

And this whole idea that MS was trying ram their fist up the gaming communities rear, is so childish. I mean really? The gaming community seems to do more bitching and whining than they do gaming. And the crying is inconsistent as MS is held to another standard. Where was the crying when Sony implemented DRM for DriveClub? Sure they eventually reversed it, but I didn't see anyone crying about it? Where was the out rage when Sony lied, by advertising online that Watch Dogs was 1080p 60fps.

It amazes me, how gamers somehow believe that they know the motivations behind a company. To say MS tried to kill video gaming as we know it, is a thoughtless comment. MS to an extent tried to implement new ideas, with how we interact with games socially and consume them. The marketing behind those ideas was terrible and they did not do an effective job communicating them.

So here we are stuck, because many gamers lack the ability to think big picture. By the way, everyone should read this article :

http://www.cnet.com/news/why-the-death-of-microsoft-xbox-one-vision-means-we-all-lose/

Guys like you are satisfied with next gen game consoles being defined by a simple power upgrade. Improved graphics is just not going to cut it. And if game consoles continue to only offer power has an upgrade each generation, than consoles will eventually become obsolete. While I do not see that happening, I do see consoles becoming an all inclusive entertainment device, and do see a time where consoles will no longer use discs. DRM is coming Shame-Us, digital content is coming soon. It is a better business model for developers and console makers to do so. What are you going to do when Sony and MS eliminate discs and go full digital? MS gave you a preview of the future, perhaps much earlier than what people were comfortable with.

I will leave you with this last quote from the article I linked above.. which reminds me of you and everything wrong with gamers...

"Ultimately, the end result of the widespread pressure for uniformity in the industry will be a perpetuation of the more malignant undercurrents entrenching console gaming in its bloated, risk-adverse traditions. Instead of fresh takes that incorporate new technologies and take bold chances, we're now likely to get more of the same: more cycles of selling sequels and turning riffs on established game genres into franchises, all for what have become overly marketed PCs that just happen to be plugged into our TVs.

The fight for the living room, for fully realized next-generation entertainment that transcends gaming, has been reduced to the same tired squabbles that render console war discussions vapid and self-defeating. More choice for consumers has become Microsoft's forced doublespeak for an offering that closely resembles that of its competitor, a decision made solely to boost sales and keep fanboys from foaming at the mouth."

Areez, gaming is a luxury. Gaming companies are not in a position to dictate to consumers. They can change our minds about stuff by offering us value (nods towards Sony offering digital copies of games to PS Plus subscribers every month) but they can't just say 'I know you think you don't want this, but we're going to force it on anyway!'.

Anyone fool enough to force digital and/or DRM upon consumers without offering them value (read: selling the digital game at a discount) is going to be abandoned by consumers. Personally, I prefer digital, but a recent NPD survey made it clear that most avid gamers feel differently.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-05-14-three-out-of-four-us-gamers-prefer-physical-games-npd

Digital distribution is becoming an increasingly accepted way of buying games, but the clear majority of gamers still prefer to get something tangible for their money. According to the NPD Group's Core Gaming 2014 report, 74 percent of core gamers in the US would choose a physical copy of a game over digital, assuming both were the same price.

Despite the preference for physical formats, acceptance of digital games is growing. The 26 percent of gamers who said they preferred digital copies of games is up 5 percent year-over-year.

The report comes from a survey of more than 7,900 core gamers ages 9 and up conducted in March. The research firm defined "core gamer" as anyone who plays five hours or more on Microsoft or Sony consoles, PC, or Mac, and plays in certain genres (action, adventure, fighting, flight, MMOs, racing, real-time strategy, RPGs, shooters, or sports games) on those platforms.

The article you linked to is ridiculous. I'm a longtime gamer who welcomes innovation but who frankly doesn't understand why people think that game innovation can or should be hardware led. Making a console which has an expensive gimmick or draconian DRM isn't innovative and doesn't encourage innovation (look at the Wii U, whose tablet/control hybrid has just resulted in a string of Yet Another Marios). Meaningful innovation isn't a function of hardware, it comes from developers who have either new ideas or are approaching the familiar in different way (famously innovative games like Minecraft, DMC, GTA3 and The Sims all used traditional controls).

That's true but I doubt that MS letting Sony's cheaper, more powerful, better supported hardware build up a sizable lead in territories which have historically been more pro-Playstation anyway is going to end well for the Xbox One.

Remember how early on the take was that Sony scattering sales of the PS4 to so many countries while MS focused on ensuring a good supply for a handful of big countries (including of course the US) meant that Sony and MS were going to essentially replicate the X360/PS3 market, with Sony selling more systems on global basis but the Xbox selling more systems in the single biggest gaming market?

It hasn't worked out that way. Sony is winning even in the US and the UK (both markets where the X360 was way ahead of the PS3 in terms of installed base). Momentum is a real thing in the console market, so MS would be wise to do something to change the dynamics sooner rather than later.

Kojima is an increasingly hamfisted, self-indulgent, pandering director so I understand why you are bothered by his handling of a subject such as rape (offering a rape scene as a reward is pathetic), but honestly, your thread is just giving Kojima the controversy/publicity he clearly wanted the game to get.

MGS2's design was a disaster. The areas one wandered through (once one got past the bit showcased in the demo)were utterly boring, the villains were unmemorable and the last boss battles sucked.

I completely agree that MGS trailers (including those of Ground Zeroes) cause lots of speculation on the internet. Clearly being heavily discussed on the internet doesn't necessarily translate into sales. No need to argue. Numbers don't lie :).

Like a lot of kids, I requested the game from my parents after I watched the movie. The only good thing about the game was the title screen. ET would have to radically improve to work its way up to crap and I honestly envy those who could enjoy such an experience.

@dvader654:

Konami hasn't done a lot to help the Metal Gear brand in recent years (MGS4 was six years ago). There is a Platinum DMC type game with a nodding relationship with the main games (whose numbers were a fraction of those real MGS games used to put up) and now a wildly overpriced demo (whose numbers are once again a fraction of those real MGS games used to put up).

If Konami were bright they would have sold Ground Zeroes at a lower price (giving people unfamiliar with the franchise an attractive entry point) instead they chose to milk their most faithful by charging a ridiculous price for Ground Zeroes (penny wise and pound foolish).

While I'm on a rant, I remember Kojima talking about his willingness to be controversial, and based on some of what I have read, Ground Zeroes includes some stuff that would be very controversial back before the media and gamers became inured to some developers' desperate attempts to court controversy.

@Areez said:

@S0lidSnake said:

More numbers to come out later.

UPDATE #1: PS4 still wins the month despite all those cheap bundles and sales that effectively made the X1 less than $350.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-04-17-titanfall-tops-chart-but-ps4-leads-hardware-again-in-march-npd

Just saw this on gaf lol. NPD really brings out the best in people.

Is this really the title of this thread? And the GIF? This is the kind of crap that should stay in GAF and System Wars. But considering the brains behind the operation here, I cannot say that I am surprised.

Now on to the discussion at hand. Is anyone really surprised that the PS4 outsold the Xbox One in March by 60,000 consoles? I am not and why would I be, considering that TitanFall is also available on the Xbox 360. Having TitanFall on the Xbox 360 has potentially hurt the Titan boost to the Xbox One. What is the incentive to upgrade to an Xbox One, if you own a 360? Why would you pay $499 when you could pay $60 for arguably the best game of 2014? You would not.

Maybe, but I doubt it. MS pushed back the X360 version of Titanfall, showed nothing of it and said nothing as (ridiculous knowing Blue Point) rumors about it being crappy circulated.

Its just as likely that the many Titanfall buyers bought the Xbox One even before March. Remember, at the Xbox One's launch MS was featuring Titanfall in tv ads.

Its also worth keeping in mind that CoD has left a trail of bodies behind it this gen. Like WoW the community constantly plays the latest game up until the next one hits so its not like with an single player game where people eventually finish it and then start looking around for something similar.

Review scores don't mean much. There was a massive backlash against MGS2's many design flaws. Even Kojima acknowledged the problems and the backlash and MGS3 was a much stronger game for it.

Also, there is no better indicator of a franchise's popularity than its sales. You can't just say 'Wonderful 101 got great review scores! Obviously everyone loves it!' you have to look at sales numbers, discussions, developer post-mortems and sales of the direct sequel.

So let's look at the sales numbers. MGS is a crossgen franchise whose latest iteration sold less than 280K copies in the US (60% of them on the PS4 because almost nobody buys games on last gen consoles nowadays for whatever reason). Dark Souls 2 appeared only on those last gen consoles almost nobody buys games for and handily outsold it. If you think the MGS franchise is in great shape and universally loved, let's just agree to disagree.