I'm happy they conceded to the notion of "games as a service" and finally made the right choice on their policies. This fight just got interesting and although I would love to get both consoles, I will only be getting a PS4 for now. Maybe down the road, Microsoft can earn my trust and offer me a good reason in purchasing their console, cause turning around on their policies is not enough for me anymore.
EarthBowl's forum posts
@the_laughing_man: Yes, which was why I decided wit the PS4 because alongside their policies and practices, they begun to treat their loyal consumer base as either "children who are refusing to cooperate with them" or uneducated and backwards for not "keeping up with the times and getting internet" ( From the way I interpreted it, that is).
A personal perception on these next generation consoles ultimately reassures one's purchases. I absolutely feel that these consoles speak to different audiences in that one supports the notion of "video games as a service" and the other with "video games as a form of property", whether or not anyone of us fit such distinctions is clearly left to our own discovery on the matter. I too, was excited to see more of Sunset Overdrive and play Killer Instinct (Cause I want to believe Double Helix should have one good game under their belt), but the policies and restrictions made wanting a PS4 more reasonable (from my perspective).
I'm happy to hear other perspectives on these consoles and reasonable arguments for getting an Xbox One over a PS4. Cause in the end of all this, we as the "consumer base" and as "gamers"(i still think this word is dirty for some reason anytime I say it...but that's just me i guess) decide for ourselves whether or not we see gaming and the industry at large as either a service or property.
No, simply due to the fact that they have oriented the Xbox One's entire infrastructure around their DRM and legislative policies surrounding the used game market. My thought is more fixed more on how Microsoft will win over consumers with exclusives and first party titles, in order to get that consumer base to deal with their policies and DRM. This is the direction (I feel) Microsoft will push heavily before launch.
I would like to think that asking "why" towards anything would seem both simple to ask, but difficult to answer. That may seem cryptic to say, but asking Microsoft (for example) why they chose this path for their "next-generation" console is already being asked by the majority of the gaming community already and is putting their policies to task (still after their E3 Press Conference). I would hope that they answer such a simple question with a simple answer, but their comments on the Xbox One being "future-proof" will never be enough and they don't seem like explaining anything more (for the moment, but this can all change close to November).
I have always had a fond respect for Killer Instinct and am excited to see it come back (even with Double Helix co-developing alongside Rare), but it is not enough for me to consider the Xbox One. For those who are willing to buy a Xbox One for it, I respect them and their nostalgic tendencies, but I will not join them.
As the Killzone Appreciator I am, I will definitely be getting Shadow Fall with my PS4 at launch. Knack also looks really good and a must buy also (if it is also a launch title).
Fantastic Blog and I absolutely agree with you in saying that the gamer won this E3. Competition can be and should be seen as a positive for the consumer (especially towards gamers), but to have seen it at this level from these press conferences made me somewhat proud for not just my hobby, but for the longevity of an entire industry we hold so close. This was a wonderful read and I share your enthusiasm. Long Live Gaming!
I already have a WiiU and will be getting a PS4 at launch. The PS4 is absolutely justifiable for not only what it offers in value but what it represents when stacked against the Xbox One.