All those games have a market, some niche some much larger, but I wouldn't say any of them makes people say "I need to own a PS4, to play ___________" because most of them are multiplatform. While Xbox got on stage and just showed a long log of actual exclusives. MY point in that post is games will still move the xbox one even with bad policies because people want to play those exclusives , while PS4 will sale just based on the fact that they have policies people like regardless of what games they showed.
Assuming that people can be arsed buying a controversial console for the sake of those games. And even if they do - what's to say that it's not just for sake of getting
THOSE games while investing the bulk of their gaming and money on another console? It's a pretty heavy price for some people just for the sake of a few games. There's previous generations i'm sure where gamers would have liked to play certain exclusives on a different console but passed them up in favour of the console they selected.
Sony could have stood on stage and said nothing but jabs at micro and their price, nothing else, and people would have still said they won.
Maybe they would have "won" but there would have been more disgruntled responses also. Fact is they
still presented games that a fair amount of people want to see and they assured people in regards to issues that Microsoft refuses to address. It's hardly Sony's fault nor is it the fault of people who are supportive of Sony either - that's Microsoft's own damn fault for alienating people and who can blame Sony for capitalizing?
And as far as games go - in past generations it's always (meant) to be a bigger deal. But this generation it's already being overshadowed to a fair degree because of how Microsoft is handling their overall console. This console is far different from any console til now. It's a big deal. PS4 and Xbox One can't be compared like the PS3/360 were. Microsoft would LIKE us all to focus on the gaming perspective (and to ignore the rules they've imposed in the background) but there's no hiding the facts.
Well yes but the point of my post was focusing on the classes of people. I do think within certain aspects of technology you can appeal to the upper classes and be successful, but in the instance of gaming, it should always be emphasized on the working class. Microsoft have gone and done something that would look good to a person with a bit of money, whereas PS4 have focused on majority of the world - people who don't have huge bundles of cash.
This also means the Xbox One games will be more expensive than PS4 ones. As people can still trade in PS4 games those will be re-sold cheaper. Xbox games will rarely experience price drops I'd imagine, as companies will want to make even on them. It's going to be a rough period for the Xbox One if they do follow through with it. It's going to be one of those consoles that one in every few people own, whereas I can see PS4 being a household product.
They're obviously not intentionally focusing on the upperclass (that would be ridiculous and poor business) nor is it (IMO) necessarily indicative of that either. It's not
just a matter of whether people can afford it or not either. Yes the preowned games aspect is a big deal to most people (not myself since I just import brand new games instead) but it's more than that (with many of the problems we already know). And besides, I don't know about "every" rich person, but some of the smarter rich people got rich or continue to stay rich because they know where to invest their money in the first place and not be overly wasteful. It's not always about having the money but it's also very much about "where it's being spent". Of course, i'm not an upper class guy myself so maybe i'm wrong about that part. Either way I don't think it's a matter of class really.
Now all that being said, it's just as much a matter of
principles than it is anything else. Microsoft are making some ambitious and distasteful decisions. Whether we can afford to or not is a tad irrelevant when considering the larger picture. It's just as much about "who you're giving your money to" as it is "being able to afford it". There's people (like myself) that simply want nothing to do with Microsoft's ambitions and selfish policies. Even if it wouldn't necessarily affect me in practice, I still wish to boycott the Xbox One because I feel as though they're infringing on fundamental "rights" (for lack of a better word) I feel I have as a console gamer. I know there's people that feel the same way I do even if to certain degree.
And to all those people inclined to support Microsoft's "get with the times" attitude - let me just point out that Microsoft's opinions of the world are in no way "fact". The world they refer to is merely the kind of world (or attitude at least) they're hoping people will come to accept if they force that point enough - it's advantageous and profitable for them (sure we're becoming a more technologically advanced world but what they insinuate is hardly realistic or feasible
now). In reality there may currently be high internet usage (at least in part through mobile internet access while out and about) but it's not exactly flawlessly accessible as some people are inclined to believe (whether it be because technology, aging infrastructure, additional costs, location etc). And while MANY appliances optimally use the internet, they're still operational outside of a connection. While the internet is more accessible than ever - it's not simply a "fact" in this world. Perhaps in the future "required internet" will be no-brainer, but not right now and especially NOT because a few pompous and overzealous Microsoft employee's feel the need to say so with their official statements or unprofessional tweets.
