@video_game_king: If they didn't care about the core guy they'd build a console that was half as powerful that cost a quarter to make. People are overreacting. The fact that they've said there would be 15 exclusives in the first year is all the core gamer should need to do. Do you really need to know about games 5 months before its even available?

@rebgav: I've seen games running at 720p, and while it sounds good on paper the tricks that they use in console development, added to the distance of a TV from a couch, don't actually make a meaningful difference in what you're looking at. An appreciable difference is high settings, and either 60fps or 1080p. Either one of those things is immediately noticeable as different in the real world. Having both is great but making it a requirement is unreasonable if I'm being fair to the other side of the argument.

And remember, he's referencing hardware he bought 5 years after the generations beginning, which is hardly a valid argument.

He isn't being condescending he is speaking actual business, seems fine to me.

I guess I'm not core then.

@darji: when you make the argument about cost, your not referring to your own particular situation, your making a case for everyone. Saying that the cost is the same is a response to the average opinion that PC gaming is more expensive. Also, using netbooks as an example is not being reasonable, its just trying to win the argument by any means necessary. Laptop does not in any way necessarily mean netbook.

@hunkulese:

I'd like that they treat core gamers with some respect instead of acting like their money is guaranteed.

This is why at the end of the day, I hope people stick to their guns and vote with their wallets. Sadly, history has shown often times we complain about things, but end up buying it in the end anyway.

Microsoft's target audience:

No I will jsut show you that gaming on the PC is not expensive at all. Show me how its more expensive? Because it is not. Also every went to a university? You will not see people with laptops but rather a lot of people with small netbooks. no one is using big laptops in the public anymore.

When they announce and release Halo 5, all will be forgiven/forgotten. People put up with a lot of MS BS because of Xbox multiplayer, and that will remain the same.

I'm way more excited about what Sony's first party teams can do anyways. Most of the best Xbox single player games are better on pc already, and will continue to be (thanks underpowered console!).

I think that there are three problems with this point of view. Firstly, you were just telling someone that 1080/60 is not a significant performance bump, which contradicts the idea that either one of those targets makes an appreciable difference. Secondly, perception is a purely subjective thing - I still hear people say that they can't see the difference in fidelity comparing a DVD to a Blu-Ray. It works the other way too, there are plenty of PC gamers who would say that both 1080p and 60fps are far below their preferred settings. Which brings us to the third problem, 1080/60 is not the upper ceiling of mid-range PC performance. The new consoles are probably going to fall short of either the framerate or the resolution that we're talking about (or both) while a dedicated gaming PC is capable of higher resolutions and much higher framerates already.

There's a totally valid point to be made in saying that consoles offer value for money when considering both performance and functionality. If someone intends to spend $400-$500 a console will always be a better value. When someone decides to pay the entry cost of a gaming PC, the performance and feature set of a console starts to look very meager. There isn't really a middle-ground where the two platforms duke it out, it's just a question of whether the individual is more concerned about the cost or the experience.

This super core guy must not be as super core as I thought I was because I don't care about the WiiU or XONE enough to buy them yet. However, at least Nintendo's stance isn't completely aggro like MS. Do they really want to take the chance that people will continue to buy all consoles "just cuz"?

All he's saying is that we'll buy it if it has good games, while others may need the extra shit to persuade them. If you're offended by his statements, get a fucking life.

I would consider myself to be someone who planned on buying all the systems this generation. I sincerely doubt I am buying an Xbox One. Even if they release 15 amazing looking exclusives that make my eyes bleed and my debit card cream its pants. Ya done spooked me Microsoft. Ya blew it.

@slaegar:

Sadly you didn't actually figure out the origin of that picture and realize its making fun of you for posting it unironically.

@rebgav: ...I completely agree with you, and you just agreed with me. I'm arguing that PC gaming that isn't pointless costs more. The argument against was that it doesn't cost any more. We both agree that it is less costly to be a console gamer.

I didn't say 1080/60fps didn't offer a benefit, but that 720/30 didn't from a couch. I use the coach example because that is where you see console games from, and because honestly if youre inches from a monitor, that quality isn't going to look that much better when you're seeing the flaws that much more clearly. On the TV from across the living room a PC game without the frame rate or large resolution bump, combined with specific tricks to make the console graphics better, the difference is also small. I don't think you need both 1080/60 for PC gaming to be worth it over co soles at all times, one or the other, combined with high settings will have an immediate impact. Remember I'm saying that it needs to be over the course of the entire generation, from 2005-2013. Someone saying they got a PC 3 years ago doesn't count. That therefore includes upgrades to maintain an advantage.

But yeah, the crux of this convo is something we both agree on.

@darji: School is not necessarily university, and your still being too specific. Im referring to any kind of laptop. The form factor, not a specific kind. Even if a cheap one costs $300, the typical person is still not going to consider a tower a sunk cost of gaming, because they are going to have a laptop for some kind for general computing needs.

You say you can show me? I'm sure you can to a certain extent, but you're an outlier if you only have a tower PC. As to your PC which you havent had for the full generation, and the weak performance you get from it, I've already a dressed those.

Hmm.. I'm a 360 guy and I'm by no means married to the services and titles exclusive to xbox. I'd be using the next system strictly for SP gaming, so am I outside what this fella considers the 'super core guy?'

The only exception for me is Nintendo games, but otherwise PC gaming has taken over for me.

Laptops are not supposed to be gaming machines and almost no one uses them if he/she is a real gamer. As for the Tower PC I bought my PC I think 3 years ago and it outclasses a PS3 or 360 by a mile and I am sure If I want a new PC now it will be able to outclass the PS4 and new XBOX also by a mile for the same price. which would be in my case 400-500 Euro.

As someone who is an admin for a PC server community I have to disagree with this. PC users are just as ugly and despicable as the worst Xbox Live has to offer. The only reason you think that PC gamers are more mature is because when you play games online there are people like me keeping you from encountering these people. Granted this is the plus of having the ability for people to volunteer to keep their favorite server clean.

Also the thing I find more interesting about the article than the quote you pulled is the fact that they are saying "if all you want is gaming, you'll still pick us". Curious to see what this means in terms of games. Although in reality I'll probably pick up an Xbox One anyway since most of my friends have sworn off of Sony after the PS3.

I don't see how this statement is controversial. Yes there are a group of people who will buy every system. Most people don't. Let's not create controversy where it doesn't exist.

Holy stress. Clearly a ton of gamers own laptops. Are you really trying to sell me on the idea that "real" gamers have tower PC's, as their only computing machines? You must exist in a very small, very specific social circle, not be aware of laptop vs. tower sales, or not visit tech sites. Edit: You seem to be assuming that I'm referring to laptops for gaming, which is a weird left field perspective. I'm referring to the laptop as a general purpose computing machine that the average uses, in response to the other persons comment about part of the cost of a PC already being sunk because you need a PC anyway. That is predicated on the assumption that your tower is your primary and only PC. That is not true for the average person.

I'm in NA, if a game console costs 400-500 Euro's where you live then that is in no way indicative of the price where I live. Obviously if consoles are so insanely overpriced where you're from then there's no point of comparison here. Sure, if a console costs $700 CAN (tax included) then you're at least getting somewhere close to a reasonable PC. But you don't seem to understand your audience when you say "PC's cost no more than consoles as a gaming choice" because not only have you not paid for a PC for the whole gen, which with the price point of your hardware would have required an upgrade to almost every part if you bought it in 2005, but your performance bump isn't even worth it to those who live in countries where a console is. When you have this conversation with people who would like to game on a PC, why do you think they want to make the switch? What do you read almost universally on forums? People like the idea of smooth 60 fps instead of the lame 30 on consoles. They want to finally have native 1080p as opposed to the consoles 720p. "PC gaming" as a worthwhile experience to those who live in areas where a console doesn't cost as much as a very modest gaming PC aren't going to be converted by unimpressive performance. Hell, PC gaming in NA can cost less than consoles...if you want to stick to low settings in a window or WoW.

@thesoutherndandy said:

Yeah, but it seems like they're conflating an incredibly small demographic that will buy all three without any discretion with a much larger "core gamer" audience.

@donpixel said:

I just built this baby:

Ahh, the Bitfenix Prodigy. Been thinking about doing an small form factor build for a while and was considering getting that case. It looks great, has good airflow, and you can stuff a crapload of components in there for an ITX build. What mobo are you using in that rig.

@andorski said:

@donpixel said:

I just built this baby:

Ahh, the Bitfenix Prodigy. Been thinking about doing an small form factor build for a while and was considering getting that case. It looks great, has good airflow, and you can stuff a crapload of components in there for an ITX build. What mobo are you using in that rig.

Asus P8H77-M PRO with a Core i5 3570k, the vid card is a Gigabyte Radeon 7950. I even manage to put a CM Hyper EVO for cooling (0.o) on that case.

It's not. What he is saying happens to be largely true and not controversial in the slightest. "Hardcore" gamers, as in not mainstream folk that play 3-5 games a year, will probably want to own all systems. The statement itself isn't really condescending to anyone, but rather stating a very basic matter of fact. Although since Darji has fast become the Brighty of Microsoft threads, anything they might say or do is automatically tantamount to unequivocal failure on every perceivable level.

If only we were all so lucky, to live in.. Xbonerland..

@truthtellah: What do you mean? Person who's dumb enough to buy everything for no particular reason (as disdainfully mentioned in the initial comment) or a person who plays a lot of games; as one has little or nothing to do with the other.

@donpixel: The Bitfenix Prodigy can basically fit any CPU cooler you can think of. The dual tower Noctua NH-D14 in triple fan configuration can be put inside that case!

I totally agree. I go where the good games are. Who cares if you're being pandered to?

Remember, this is what happens when corporations try to aim at the "core" demographic:

@unequivocable: Oh god. I can't even make it past the 30 second mark.

I actually think the Xbox division during the 360's launch were great at marketing towards gamers. The best E3 conference IMO is the one MS had in 2006 (I think). I believe it was Peter Moore who went on stage and basically said "Shut up. We are going to talk about financial stats for a couple of minutes and then we are going to show a handful of exclusives." They then just rolled out games like Gears of War and Viva Pinata out one after the other. (Relatively) no marketing spiel.

I guess that part was lost on me. Oh well I'm not going to be too burned out by it since I wasn't using it to insult a demographic, I was using it to insult the pursuit of a demographic.

Microsoft wants the guy who buys Call of Duty and Madden every year and doesn't give a shit. I think what they are saying is they don't need to prove to gamers that they are a gaming platform since people who want a gaming platform will probably buy most if not all of the gaming platforms anyway. If they can button up a nice line of exclusives that will be true. They don't seem to be looking to beat their very high attach rate of the 360, though.

I think Ryan said it best, "This thing will have games" So what is there to worry about? E3 will be the final word on how the reveal of these consoles went. Because Sony showed many games, but none that I care about. Knack looks cute and all but that is more impressive for the breaking than the gameplay so far. Infamous? Fuck that. Killzone? Fuck you. (I hated Killzone 2. Uncharted 2 saved me from feeling like I wasted 400 bucks on a PS3.) And all the games that were shown, Assassin's 4, Watchdogs, those will be on XB1 too so they didn't need to show them again at the MS conference right?

I think we will have an interesting E3. Sony has to show something compelling. Both will have games but how awesome will it be to use the system? If they have the same games, why buy a PS4 instead of Xbox One? Or Vice Versa? I'll take Halo over Killzone. And Uncharted doesn't look like it will be back for a while. Sony will have a longer press conference, and I am sure you will all react badly when they take time to show you what the PS4 can do besides games.

Well he's not wrong.

@humanity: Yup pretty much summed this up.

@oraknabo: He kinda is yeah but it's a pretty harmless marketing dude statement especially considering the screw ups MS has already had.

That's why I'll be going PC+WiiU (with a little 3DS/Vita) this generation.

He has a point

but he is an absolute idiot for saying it in public.

Rule #1 of business - never, ever insult your customers.

The corest of the core will buy this since they all bought a Wii U, already have a nice PC rig and plan on buying a PS4. It's the "most people" that Microsoft might have trouble with if the PS4 ends up being the console of choice.

He's kind of right. I already have a Wii U and will buy both the XBone and PS4 for the exclusives. Videogames are one of my favorite past-times and the amount of joy I get from them over the course of the console lifetime makes the cost easily justifiable for me.

PC Gaming really doesn't cost more (at least it didn't for me)...Here's why...

I already had a desktop because most people have a computer..I bought a $120 graphics card a couple years ago...I can now play every game that comes out on max or near to max settings and its looks miles better than any console game. That's it. I bought 1 thing that cost much less than a new ps3 or xbox...plus I don't pay for a subscription PLUS with steam most games are far cheaper than retail xbox or ps3 disks.

So if you own a good desktop already (which most tech savvy people should have) you can spend half the money you spent on a new xbox on something that performs better.

To look at it another way: By their own public statements they've thrown at least $6B US into just the 360 but by some calculations Microsoft went over $10B in total. This isn't automatically a problem except for the tiny issue that no one is sure if the whole "Global Video Game Industry" seem to have $10B in profit to make for anyone. This kind of move (spending more money in a market than it can ever make back) is very risky and only seems to work well if you knock out a competitor....which didn't happen.

And that is only from Microsoft where Sony has been doing the same thing late in the generation. All of that money pumped into "semi-exclusives" and dead end games was essentially wasted and destructive. It ruined the mid-market game where most of the "bread and butter" was made in the PS2 era for Sony.

Going into the next, this mid-market needs to come back and be strong or there are going to be those "adjustments". So far Microsoft's refusal to indies to self publish is going directly against that. This means Microsoft is betting on the fewer AAA will carry the platform instead of a wide range of smaller games and that is a bet I'm not very sure is safe at any point in history let alone the future.

No I won't.