Page 16 of 34 FirstFirst ... 61626 ... LastLast
Results 376 to 400 of 846
  1. #376
    Soldier 95B
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by FableMaster View Post
    I am new here

  2. #377
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    35
    Posts
    34,262
    Rep Power
    224
    @Soldier. Wow, how could he have said that back in the day!?






  3. #378
    Elite Sage
    Sub-stance1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    10,578
    Rep Power
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by FableMaster View Post
    That's unreasonable statement... MS do not have cap to do hostile take over of Sony. It's not a simple thing as just looking at Market Capitalization of Sony stocks....If MS can do w/e they want, why not buy out Bungie? Why not buyout best core game studios on market and make them first party. Even buying out franchise like Call of Duty, GTA, Assassin Creed IP, FIFa, Battlefield, etc and devs behind will be far cheaper than buying Sony and surely do a fatal move on Sony's PS3

    MS had to liquidate some of their core studios and equip them for Kinect. They are making casual studios all over the place. Due to the fact that casual game are cheaper to make and more profitable, MS has left core in the back burner. Even in the beginning of the gen, they would only purchase exclusive per exclusive. Never/or rarely developers. They spend least amount of money to secure an exclusive or timed exclusive.

    Xbox was an investment that was losing 7 billions before the board cracked down and told them to turn profit which Kinect came in for. It would have been much easier for them to buy Sony if what you are saying is true. Except it isnt.

    I am new here so I dont know your posting style, so maybe whole post was suppose to be sarcasm... If that was the case my apologizes for not catching up.
    I think his point was that money really isn't an issue for MS. They probably have enough cash on hand to do what they need to and then some. I'm sure they can buy any publisher out there if they wanted too but that would be bad business and would certainly create a backlash among gamers as well as the entire industry. MS benefits more with sony rather than without them. I don't think they have any interest in acquiring Sony. They are holding their own in the industry.

  4. #379
    Soldier 95B
    Guest
    Microsoft or Bill Gates could buy a country, but they are not. I am surprised someone took it literal that MS would buy Sony.

  5. #380
    Counting Mod
    PS4freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    PSN ID
    lsutigers19
    Age
    30
    Posts
    17,365
    Rep Power
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by Sub-stance1 View Post
    Sony will probably have their own version of some sort of move/holodeck just like MS. The question is how much will they push it? They are rumored to have dual move cameras so I expect some sort of Kinect like features but not as detailed. I expect them to have some sort of NUI setup similar to MS. They know that there is a market for this stuff and it would be a mistake to just let MS have this all to themselves.
    I suspect that Sony will incorporate some sort of motion controls into their next system. Fully integrated I doubt though. It almost seems like everything that they have tried to add on just doesn't ever really pan out like they though. Sixaxis, Eyetoy, and Move just didn't turn out too well. I wouldn't trust a peripheral to do very well if I was them considering their track record with innovation.

    MS on the other hand has had success with the Kinect. It is only natural for them to want to push it more into next gen. I just think it is too much of a risky move to go fully integrated like what is rumored. I don't think they will go this route to be honest. If the interest in Kinect goes down which we kind of saw with Wii in their motion controls a few years after release. They essentially would be stuck with a console that's main feature no one wants. In my mind that is too risky. If you want to box it with every system but not make it mandatory not such a bad idea.

    Many core gamers could also get upset with this as well. Seeing that MS's agenda is to "cater to the casual." There are many different angles to look at when discussing Kinect 2's place with the next xbox. We will be able to discuss how those will play out more when we have official word from MS what their standing is with using Kinect.


  6. #381
    Soldier 95B
    Guest
    MS had success with Kinect at the start...but it seems it went from 20 million sold to only selling 4 million in all of 2012. Doesn't sound too successful to me at this stage. It's like the novelty/fad wore off.

    I am only using my Kinect for menu navigation on the dashboard, and voice commands in games now as it is.

  7. #382
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    @Soldier. Wow, how could he have said that back in the day!?



    someone has already notified me about whole thing with previous member. It just sounds like you guys dont like hearing that MS messed up. It's just a company...

  8. #383
    Elite Sage
    Sub-stance1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    10,578
    Rep Power
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by ps3freak18 View Post
    I suspect that Sony will incorporate some sort of motion controls into their next system. Fully integrated I doubt though. It almost seems like everything that they have tried to add on just doesn't ever really pan out like they though. Sixaxis, Eyetoy, and Move just didn't turn out too well. I wouldn't trust a peripheral to do very well if I was them considering their track record with innovation.

    MS on the other hand has had success with the Kinect. It is only natural for them to want to push it more into next gen. I just think it is too much of a risky move to go fully integrated like what is rumored. I don't think they will go this route to be honest. If the interest in Kinect goes down which we kind of saw with Wii in their motion controls a few years after release. They essentially would be stuck with a console that's main feature no one wants. In my mind that is too risky. If you want to box it with every system but not make it mandatory not such a bad idea.

    Many core gamers could also get upset with this as well. Seeing that MS's agenda is to "cater to the casual." There are many different angles to look at when discussing Kinect 2's place with the next xbox. We will be able to discuss how those will play out more when we have official word from MS what their standing is with using Kinect.
    I don't think having kinect will hurt their overall goal getting the next xbox to mass market. I think it's a smart thing to do. They realize that consoles aren't just for single/core gamers. Sony sold over 150 Million PS2s and there is no way they were all bought by just core gamers. It's great that they push plenty of content for the core, but if they wanna get back some of the US market they will need to be more aggressive targeting other types of gamers.

    They have the Uncharted, GOW, and Killzone type of gamers reeled in already. It won't hurt to make Playstation have that cool effect with the younger gamers too like MS did with Kinect. If it puts more consoles in the homes, then it's worth it. I can assure you that at some point there are core gamers that go on to have families and look for games that are more kid/family oriented. I think this is a major reason why MS has done so well in the US. It's not because their agenda is to cater to casuals only but to cater to a wider range of gamers.



    Quote Originally Posted by Soldier 95B View Post
    MS had success with Kinect at the start...but it seems it went from 20 million sold to only selling 4 million in all of 2012. Doesn't sound too successful to me at this stage. It's like the novelty/fad wore off.

    I am only using my Kinect for menu navigation on the dashboard, and voice commands in games now as it is.
    Same here but but other family members still use it to play certain games. I still think it's worth it just for the navigation and voice commands alone.
    Last edited by Sub-stance1; 02-19-2013 at 00:14.

  9. #384
    Soldier 95B
    Guest
    We still have the occasional family friend thing where we throw in Kinect Sports or what have you. Younger kids will still play Kinect Adventures too, but it's rare.

  10. #385
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    35
    Posts
    34,262
    Rep Power
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by Sub-stance1 View Post
    I think his point was that money really isn't an issue for MS. They probably have enough cash on hand to do what they need to and then some. I'm sure they can buy any publisher out there if they wanted too but that would be bad business and would certainly create a backlash among gamers as well as the entire industry. MS benefits more with sony rather than without them. I don't think they have any interest in acquiring Sony. They are holding their own in the industry.
    So you're saying that MS wouldn't buy Sony because they don't want to make people mad?

    And of course, not because 1) Anti-trust laws. 2) Hostile take-over is almost impossible.

    You guys do know that they're both not that far off in their worth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soldier 95B View Post
    Microsoft or Bill Gates could buy a country, but they are not. I am surprised someone took it literal that MS would buy Sony.
    Which country? Hypothetically speaking.
    Last edited by Omar; 02-19-2013 at 00:28.

  11. #386
    Master Sage
    Two4DaMoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Age
    30
    Posts
    12,918
    Rep Power
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by Soldier 95B View Post
    MS had success with Kinect at the start...but it seems it went from 20 million sold to only selling 4 million in all of 2012. Doesn't sound too successful to me at this stage. It's like the novelty/fad wore off.

    I am only using my Kinect for menu navigation on the dashboard, and voice commands in games now as it is.
    Thats part of the reason I think it's risky to come out the gates with it.

    It's hard to pin point the market for kinect being that it didn't ship from the start with it. There's really no way to tell what percentage of kinect owners are new 360 owners and what percentage are customers that already owned a 360. And are those customers still going to want a kinect as they get older.

    The Casual market is hard to judge given how the Wii U isn't do well right after coming off the Wii's casual success. It's like the casuals have moved on. I'm starting to wonder if they really are playing the ios/android games instead.

    MS sold around 45m before kinect. Will they spread themselves out too thin trying to please both the core and casual? I guess time will tell on that.
    Last edited by Two4DaMoney; 02-19-2013 at 00:26.

  12. #387
    Counting Mod
    PS4freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    PSN ID
    lsutigers19
    Age
    30
    Posts
    17,365
    Rep Power
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by Sub-stance1 View Post
    I don't think having kinect will hurt their overall goal getting the next xbox to mass market. I think it's a smart thing to do. They realize that consoles aren't just for single/core gamers. Sony sold over 150 Million PS2s and there is no way they were all bought by just core gamers. It's great that they push plenty of content for the core, but if they wanna get back some of the US market they will need to be more aggressive targeting other types of gamers.

    They have the Uncharted, GOW, and Killzone type of gamers reeled in already. It won't hurt to make Playstation have that cool effect with the younger gamers too like MS did with Kinect. If it puts more consoles in the homes, then it's worth it. I can assure you that at some point there are core gamers that go on to have families and look for games that are more kid/family oriented. I think this is a major reason why MS has done so well in the US. It's not because their agenda is to cater to casuals only but to cater to a wider range of gamers.





    Same here but but other family members still use it to play certain games. I still think it's worth it just for the navigation and voice commands alone.
    If they find a good balance. They will be a big contender this gen. If they are going to attack the casual crowd more they need to make sure they have a sound plan to do so without losing the confidence of their core gamers. Which at the current moment, a great deal of core fans are upset about the direction they are headed with the massive push of Kinect later in the gen. You can't go full bore for casual because the casual get's bored easy imo. But if your talking about trying to appeal more to families that is a dangerous territory to go with considering Nintendo has almost always had that route sealed up. They pretty much had their own place this gen because they were more off to the side from what MS and Sony were doing this gen.

    Me as a core gamer, thinks that top priority should be putting out games that gamers want to play and then venture out to your other areas as secondary priorities. Not saying ignore that aspect, focus on but not at the loss of what you system's main feature is, to play games. Not interacting with your TV screen by moving your body around.
    Last edited by PS4freak; 02-19-2013 at 00:29.


  13. #388
    Soldier 95B
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Two4DaMoney View Post
    Thats part of the reason I think it's risky to come out the gates with it.

    It's hard to pin point the market for kinect being that it didn't ship from the start with it. There's really no way to tell what percentage of kinect owners are new 360 owners and what percentage are customers that already owned a 360. And are those customers still going to want a kinect as they get older.

    The Casual market is hard to judge given how the Wii U isn't do well right after coming off the Wii's casual success. It's like the casuals have moved on. I'm starting to wonder if they really are playing the ios/android games instead.
    Well, I want to see what Kinect 2.0 can do. If it's more of the same as Kinect 1.0 with similar limitations, sell me an Xbox without it. I don't NEED it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    Which country?
    http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/29/for...-vs-world.html

  14. #389
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    35
    Posts
    34,262
    Rep Power
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by Soldier 95B View Post
    Well, I want to see what Kinect 2.0 can do. If it's more of the same as Kinect 1.0 with similar limitations, sell me an Xbox without it. I don't NEED it.



    http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/29/for...-vs-world.html
    1) They're comparing their worth with GDP...makes no sense but definitely worth lols. A country's worth is not their GDP.

    2) Bill doesn't have that much money anymore, that article is from 2009.

  15. #390
    Elite Sage
    Sub-stance1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    10,578
    Rep Power
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    So you're saying that MS wouldn't buy Sony because they don't want to make people mad?
    lol... is that all you got from that? For what reasons would they spend billions on sony? To hurt them? Sony has done a good job of that all by themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by ps3freak18 View Post
    If they find a good balance. They will be a big contender this gen. If they are going to attack the casual crowd more they need to make sure they have a sound plan to do so without losing the confidence of their core gamers. Which at the current moment, a great deal of core fans are upset about the direction they are headed with the massive push of Kinect later in the gen. You can't go full bore for casual because the casual get's bored easy imo. But if your talking about trying to appeal more to families that is a dangerous territory to go with considering Nintendo has almost always had that route sealed up. They pretty much had their own place this gen because they were more off to the side from what MS and Sony were doing this gen.

    Me as a core gamer, thinks that top priority should be putting out games that gamers want to play and then venture out to your other areas as secondary priorities. Not saying ignore that aspect, focus on but not at the loss of what you system's main feature is, to play games. Not interacting with your TV screen by moving your body around.
    And that's exactly what they are doing. Putting out games that people want to play. I don't get caught up in the hype of what people say on forums because they don't speak for everyone. This industry is evolving and you need more than just exclusives and powerful hardware in a split gaming market.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    1

    2) Bill doesn't have that much money anymore, that article is from 2009.
    He's actually worth more now. Go check.
    Last edited by Sub-stance1; 02-19-2013 at 00:45.

  16. #391
    Soldier 95B
    Guest
    I am glad that MS is starting to get pressure from companies like Google, as well as many others offering similar services and apps...not only for less...but more reliable. Maybe not as feature rich, but these other companies are giving the consumers what they want, not more than they need.

  17. #392
    Superior Member
    Old Man Gamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    928
    Rep Power
    46
    I have no problem with Kinect being included with every console or even Kinect being required to be connected as long as I don't have to use it.

    My concern is that it will drive up the cost and/or take away from CPU or GPU.

  18. #393
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    35
    Posts
    34,262
    Rep Power
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by Sub-stance1 View Post
    lol... is that all you got from that? For what reasons would they spend billions on sony? To hurt them? Sony has done a good job of that all by themselves.
    You said, "I'm sure they can buy any publisher out there if they wanted too but that would be bad business and would certainly create a backlash among gamers as well as the entire industry."

    So it's not because 1) They can't just buy any publisher they want to because a) their shareholders wouldn't allow it unless it made sense and would get them profits in the end or b) just because they have the money, doesn't mean they can do a hostile take-over. (wait, I don't think they have enough money to buy off Activision or Rockstar off the top of my head)

    I don't understand why people keep thinking that all that money is just some guy who can spend it if he wanted to. That may be all Gate's money but it's not his choosing what he does with it unless he wants to run out of business and lose his staff. People's lives depend on these companies.

    and then this quote that was definitely lol-worthy, "MS benefits more with sony rather than without them. I don't think they have any interest in acquiring Sony. They are holding their own in the industry."

    So you're saying that the reason why MS wouldn't buy off Sony is because they want them to be around? lol. They want to be frandz?

    In what world wouldn't any of these companies would want to be a monopoly? Again, you can't just take over a company and there are anti-trust laws that go into place, preventing things like these...not to mention, Sony gets the say if they want to sell, not the other way around.

    Secondly, even if they did buy them off, they wouldn't have money left to themselves to operate.

  19. #394
    Elite Sage
    Sub-stance1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    10,578
    Rep Power
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    You said, "I'm sure they can buy any publisher out there if they wanted too but that would be bad business and would certainly create a backlash among gamers as well as the entire industry."

    So it's not because 1) They can't just buy any publisher they want to because a) their shareholders wouldn't allow it unless it made sense and would get them profits in the end or b) just because they have the money, doesn't mean they can do a hostile take-over. (wait, I don't think they have enough money to buy off Activision or Rockstar off the top of my head)

    I don't understand why people keep thinking that all that money is just some guy who can spend it if he wanted to. That may be all Gate's money but it's not his choosing what he does with it unless he wants to run out of business and lose his staff. People's lives depend on these companies.

    and then this quote that was definitely lol-worthy, "MS benefits more with sony rather than without them. I don't think they have any interest in acquiring Sony. They are holding their own in the industry."

    So you're saying that the reason why MS wouldn't buy off Sony is because they want them to be around? lol. They want to be frandz?

    In what world wouldn't any of these companies would want to be a monopoly? Again, you can't just take over a company and there are anti-trust laws that go into place, preventing things like these...not to mention, Sony gets the say if they want to sell, not the other way around.

    Secondly, even if they did buy them off, they wouldn't have money left to themselves to operate.
    It's all just talk because when it comes down to it ,shareholders would never allow it. I know that. The point is that if it were possible they are capable of doing it. They have that sort of money to make those sort of purchases.

  20. #395
    Ultimate Veteran
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down Under
    Age
    45
    Posts
    20,641
    Rep Power
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post

    Let me just say that if they made a significant amount of upgrade to Kinect where it's like the Siri of consoles, we're going to see some heads turn, it may as well be a key to their success moving on. Of course, they need more things but that would be setting the foundation.
    Do you mean the voice recognize side of it, well that already happens to an extent, they just limit what you can actually search for.
    I'm sure that side of it will be server side based regardless. Just like Siri.

    Im not sure what other Kinect 2.0 features you guys want, more players, better and faster response is a given, that would happen even if all they did was a processor upgrade.
    See I'm not sure why you all thinks its going to be expensive.
    Most of this is software/library based tweaks at best.
    A nui interface in terms of bandwidth allowed form the camera, and perhaps an extra sensor or 2?
    Meh, its not expensive.

  21. #396
    Elite Sage
    Sub-stance1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    10,578
    Rep Power
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by mynd View Post
    Do you mean the voice recognize side of it, well that already happens to an extent, they just limit what you can actually search for.
    I'm sure that side of it will be server side based regardless. Just like Siri.

    Im not sure what other Kinect 2.0 features you guys want, more players,better and faster response is a given, that would happen even if all they did was a processor upgrade.
    See I'm not sure why you all thinks its going to be expensive.
    Most of this is software/library based tweaks at best.
    A nui interface in terms of bandwidth allowed form the camera, and perhaps an extra sensor or 2?
    Meh, its not expensive.
    I don't either. I still think the version we get with xbox720 is what they originally wanted but was held back by the console. If they profited from the start from kinect it's possible they could do the same with Kinect 2. It's just my guess.

  22. #397
    Soldier 95B
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    1) They're comparing their worth with GDP...makes no sense but definitely worth lols. A country's worth is not their GDP.

    2) Bill doesn't have that much money anymore, that article is from 2009.
    You take me too literal.

  23. #398
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    35
    Posts
    34,262
    Rep Power
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by mynd View Post
    Do you mean the voice recognize side of it, well that already happens to an extent, they just limit what you can actually search for.
    I'm sure that side of it will be server side based regardless. Just like Siri.

    Im not sure what other Kinect 2.0 features you guys want, more players, better and faster response is a given, that would happen even if all they did was a processor upgrade.
    See I'm not sure why you all thinks its going to be expensive.
    Most of this is software/library based tweaks at best.
    A nui interface in terms of bandwidth allowed form the camera, and perhaps an extra sensor or 2?
    Meh, its not expensive.
    Voice recognition would take R&D money.

    Do you remember I said "integration"? They would have to integrate the device to all programs like they would with a controller. That would be a difficult feat. Most of the R&D would go in finding ways to make the console accessible and the only reason it would be valuable for a normal user like us to get into it or there's no use.

    When Nintendo came out with the Wii Remote, it was successful because they integrated it and the same reason why Sony and MS had success to a certain extent more or less.

    That's where most of the cost will come. To make it more appealing. Now, I'm not saying they will definitely do that but it would be smart.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soldier 95B View Post
    You take me too literal.
    Sure but there has to be some reality to it. Most of the money talk is mostly exaggerated, is my point.

  24. #399
    Quote Originally Posted by Sub-stance1 View Post
    lol... is that all you got from that? For what reasons would they spend billions on sony? To hurt them? Sony has done a good job of that all by themselves.
    So they do not have any competition.

    Point is MS can't buy Sony. Especially if you are doing hostile take over you can't go with the market capitalization cost. You be paying far more with that.

    It was an unreasonable statement. Stop defending it and let's move on.

    And that's exactly what they are doing. Putting out games that people want to play. I don't get caught up in the hype of what people say on forums because they don't speak for everyone. This industry is evolving and you need more than just exclusives and powerful hardware in a split gaming market.
    That's very true. Problem with that is MS is putting more games that different set of people and not the original group of people who originally bought 360 would enjoy.

    Namely kinetic casual games. Besides few games that original purchasers would enjoy. MS is focusing mostly on casual crowd.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sub-stance1 View Post
    It's all just talk because when it comes down to it ,shareholders would never allow it. I know that. The point is that if it were possible they are capable of doing it. They have that sort of money to make those sort of purchases.
    Um.lol....

    Either way I don't think you "knew". MS still cannot hostilely take over Sony even if they wanted to without antitrust laws.

    And MS and Sony are competitors. MS don't want them around. It's unreasonable view that MS want Sony around.

    MS has a lot of money, but not much for gaming. Otherwise, they be best at core while pursuing casual. They are not.

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    Last edited by FableMaster; 02-19-2013 at 03:01.

  25. #400
    Elite Sage
    Sub-stance1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    10,578
    Rep Power
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by FableMaster View Post
    So they do not have any competition.

    Point is MS can't buy Sony. Especially if you are doing hostile take over you can't go with the market capitalization cost. You be paying far more with that.

    It was an unreasonable statement. Stop defending it and let's move on.
    We've already moved on. Why you still talking about it?


    That's very true. Problem with that is MS is putting more games that different set of people and not the original group of people who originally bought 360 would enjoy.

    Namely kinetic casual games. Besides few games that original purchasers would enjoy. MS is focusing mostly on casual crowd.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    Yea, i think we got it now.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts