@shawn30 OK first of all I've been part of the hardcore gaming audience for quite some time myself and I've seen a lot of atrocities to gamers as consumers for a long time now. This marketing campaign for this console was the most insulting thing to happen to console gamers in years and it shocks me to see anybody defend it. I had been a an Xbox user for quite some time now and this was a betrayal on a spectacular level. But let's sit down for a second and forget about it for a second.
What is on this console that would appeal to you and make you forget about these things? I have seen no good games announced on this console that were not multi platform. What do you see in this console that is so enticing and thrilling? We have Killer Instinct which is not being developed by Rareware and is being developed by Double Helix Games a company that specializes in half assed movie licensed games and is going up free to play with only one character (which is a stupid move in itself). We have Dead Rising 3 a zombie series made by Capcom that feels boring and lack luster (especially the 2nd one). We have Quantum Break developed by Remedy, but like Alan Wake, that may get a PC release in the coming of years because Remedy cares about their PC audience. And a few other new titles that have never seen the light of day until now, and look somewhat lackluster and wouldn't be worth buying a whole console for.
Let's also look into other things about this. The publishers that are backing this system are greedy companies that don't care about making a good game and sure as hell don't care about you as a customer. Companies like EA who have had a history of extorting money out of their customers with half assed DRM software made to force PC users to pay full price for games with no deals. These are people that you should not trust to make a good game for a console. Let's also bring into the fact that you bring up the money put into the console. What does that have to do with how you experience it and whether or not you should buy it? You know who else put a lot of money into a product, but succeeded, Microsoft with the first Xbox, but that console actually worked and didn't have intrusion software enabled and felt like a console catered to gamers. And do you know who else put money into something and ultimately failed? Phillips with their CDI, a console for the most part tried to garner to a general audience and failed miserably. It doesn't matter how much or too little you put into a product, it's what the product does that matters. Right now It's not doing a whole lot. And the reason why we don't see all the things you listed in your comment is because they don't exist. And you aren't the only one with a family and a career that talks on this board, so quit giving that bullshit illusion of seniority on this board because it proves nothing about the point you are trying to make. I don't care what you buy in the end. But what you just said may have been a very ignorant statement and I felt sick to my stomach reading it. But I can give you this, there is a 6 month time frame for Microsoft to change. It's very possible, but I won't hold them too it. They have made too many mistakes to get their audience back, one person being me.
Ubisoft is the new EA. Rushing out games to meet expected demands of their stockholders. Come on Ubisoft, Rockstar games takes their time with their games to focus on creative quality first as well as CDPR, and they sell quite a number of copies for their games at launch.
These are families that actually had meaningful lives and prosperous futures before their lives got screwed over from events that were out of their control. To believe that all Americans on food stamps are "takers" is such a fallacy in so many ways that it blows my mind to actually think so. I can't deny that there are those that do take advantage of the system. But they are so few in numbers, and the only reason we know about them is because our media focuses only on them and not so much the other side of the equation.
There was also a book made back in the 80's that chronicled the events of homeless families who also had meaningful lives before they got impacted from events out of their control and as a result ended up homeless. It also chronicles the results of cutting social welfare programs on real families that need dependence on government programs. This was back when Reagan ran the country and his administration had cut a serious amount of social programs in order to help get rid of the recession back in the 80's. However the recession would end primarily as a result of raising taxes on the rich.
I'm sorry, but the idea of cutting back a whole program that benefits lives just because a few individual takers are abusing it is just incredibly bizarre to me. And as I mentioned in my original point, this is such a small amount of money that is potentially being cut that it seems pointless to cut anyway.
Defense is something that we absolutely blow our money on. What are we investing our defense budget in? well I can point that out in these two documentaries.
My point is, why are we cutting social welfare programs when clearly MUCH more of our money gets wasted on this massive defense budget that both parties seem to never agree to cut massively. I take bigger offense to our government spending money on pointless materiel that we don't use, and using it to kill people in affairs we shouldn't be involved in.
@Ish_basic @ScottlinDLR But then where are the people who aren't religious. The non religious citizens who want a say in this legislation. Plus this is one reverend of one religion, so theoretically they are excluding the opinions of other religions so theoretically this is favoring one religious representative of one religion. This is why I tend to hate this country, no one seems to care about the people that aren't religious, which is just fucking ridiculous to me because the people of non faith are starting to rise more in number than small minority religions.
@Dem0nGam3r @ScottlinDLR Because the amount of money we give to towards people in need theoretically will fuel the economy because they will have an amount of money to afford the cost of living in this state.
Now I should be a little frank, there are takers not as many as republicans think, but there is still a small percentage. On top of that there are people who can't get off assistance because our system is so poorly constructed that it's actually more expensive for them to get off assistance and get real work. So reform is needed but cutting those programs without changing them shows that no one will win from doing that.
@Dem0nGam3r However in the case where republicans are claiming we are overspending and they want to cut back on social welfare which is actually beneficial to running the economy is stupid. No one ever wants to put defense on the table which in reality is the biggest waste of our government funds.
In all honesty I understand the government trying to find ways to balance the deficit by basically taking advantage of a taxable item that is deemed "bad" for our social climate. However, this caught my eye:
"As part of a recent gun legislation strategy meeting with religious leaders, Biden said that an idea brought forth by Reverend Franklin Graham to tax violent media could be a smart move."
I'm sorry but why in the **** are we doing this with religious leaders. Isn't there supposed to be a separation of church and state here? What about non religious leaders don't they have any say in this? **** our religion loving government.
This guy not only does not understand how games work, but he got his facts wrong in the process. He says "Now, the past Star Wars games have been really successful. And two of the most successful ever were made by studios owned by Electronic Arts." At the time they were not, both Bioware and Pandemic were independent studios at the time with different goals and processes when they had made those games. I don't understand how you could think that those companies were EA companies when they made those games when they were clearly published by Lucasarts and didn't have ownership from EA until way later. Jesus Christ all you have to do is look them up on wikipedia.
@Phazevariance In all honesty though what is the problem with changing something that already works though? Sure people are unwilling to change, but there exists a thing called unnecessary change. The idea of taking an OS that was designed for a tablet and putting it on a desktop computer just doesn't work. I mean honestly what improvements do you see over using a nice and simple start menu. I used the metro UI interface and I thought it was just tedious bullshit to have to scroll through a bunch of apps and because of their organization I had problems just looking for some of them. Also how is Windows 8 beneficial to gamers? It just seems like a waste of money considering that there is no bit version over 64 bit yet, so it's basically like rebuying Windows 7, but without a Start menu. Your argument doesn't make any sense sir.
ScottlinDLR's comments