Seems like a good way for MS to gather data for targeted advertising, and maybe a way for them to offer a subsidized Xbox One through content providers like Time Warner, but I can't see any real benefit to this for consumers. It's just more intrusive advertising.
@dragonsama @N0tYrBeezin Well, if they didn't effectively shut off the servers and disable the games once the platform became obsolete, how could they sell slightly updated versions of old games to you on the new platform?
@Yulaw2000 It's not just the Kinect, MS had to integrate eSRAM onto the APU in order to patch the bandwidth limitations of DDR3, which is why the XO's APU has more transistors than the PS4 (~3 billion vs ~5 billion). It's more complex, more difficult to produce, less powerful and more expensive.
I don't think most CEs are worth the cost. The ones that are limited are if the game or series itself is subjectively valuable to the player, but mostly they're just clutter. If they're truly limited, they appreciate, if not, you can pick them up for $30 when stores get sick of them taking up shelf space, and the people that paid $150 feel like they were ripped off. For every Ni No Kuni Wizard Edition there are 15 Halo 3 Legendary Editions.
If you're into statues, there are much, much better ones available as stand-alone purchases. Compare the Max Payne 3 statue, which looks like Homer Simpson with hair, to the DarkSiders statue Project Triforce is bringing out, for a great example (both made by the same company). Sure, the DS2 statue is much more expensive, but it's also legitimately limited, much better made, and will never be $30 at Target. CEs have just become a way for publishers to skim more money off of the more committed fans and gamers.
@franzito @Stonecutters908 I'm reasonably certain the measure of success for a system or its software is units sold, not "7 out of 8 guys with sticks up their a$$es agree that this game is fresh and original."
The problem with this line of thought is that it disregards the fact that companies like EA and Activision basically gain marketshare through horizontal expansion. They compete by acquiring successful studios and exploiting that preexisting customer base.
Companies like EA are nothing but a parasite on the industry - they provide nothing of value to anyone other than their shareholders, they just take something of value that is already there, seize control of it by exploiting their market position, and run it into the ground.
I agree with his comments. EA doesn't really even make games, they acquire developers, integrate them into the EA umbrella, and run them into the ground. Origin, Bullfrog, Maxis, Westwood, to name a few of the studios they've destroyed. They're presently in the process of ruining Bioware.
They rush games out the door in an unfinished or buggy state, add in day one DLC that should have been part of the core game (and then, after a few years, decide they don't want to support that DLC any longer and take it offline), add in online passes so they can charge you a fee for saving money by buying used. Look up Riccitiello's comments on microtransactions sometime if you want a good insight into the company's feelings on DLC. This guy's dream is to make microtransactions so transparent to the end-user that he can get people to buy "I win" type content during the middle of a heated gaming match with the touch of a button.
They gain an effective monopoly through exclusivity rights (Madden) and use that to force people to buy a $60 roster update on an annual basis. They force gamers to use their subpar Origin service, their laggy, poorly supported servers, hire customer support that is barely able to comprehend, much less resolve, customer issues. People lost time and money due to bugs with the ME3 online store, which EA/BW neither acknowledged or resolved. What were those users options? Be ignored by customer support, and either just suck it up and deal with it, or file a chargeback and risk losing access to everything else they own that is also tied into EA's service.
They are also destroying gaming by exerting too much influence on the direction of gaming as a whole. Anyone who has watched the changes in quality of output of the studios they liked that were then acquired by EA, knows EA has influence on their creative direction. Original ideas might not be given a chance because they wouldn't have the same profit potential. Why innovate when you can just water everything down for mass appeal? Mediocre Syndicate FPS remake, I am thinking of you when I say that.
People seem to have trouble differentiating between the people actually making the games EA publishes, and EA itself, when the company is basically a software "record label" that profits by exploiting both the creator and end-users in a way that diminishes both the integrity of the work, and the enjoyment of the output. Yes, EA is destroying gaming.
kalon088273's comments