XBLA will not be around for Xbox 1 – ever. All XBL channels; i.e., indie will be consolidated into one virtual bucket of games from which you can rifle through. Whether this is Team Xbox living up to the XB1 credo of “oneness” or not is definitely an underlying point to the primary question of – why?
MajorNelson via Twitter:“Bomberman Battlefest is coming to Xbox One Backward Compatibility today”
A little tale of a black box that changed an industry.
Very well written article. I still have multiple OG XBOX consoles, bought a few extra towards the end of its lifespan. Fantastic console that really put Microsoft on the map in the console market!
long live xbox original, man i still remember when i first got it, best moment of my life second to halo ce/halo 2 days
still got it, but i dont think it works anymore
I liked the OG xb.. Mainly due to bioware & sega releasing the unfinished dreamcast titles on it.. I do remember playing Halo for the 1st time.. It was pretty awesome having a vast area to explore with smooth gameplay.. They lost their charm to me though.. Theres no exclusives that feel refreshing like that anymore
Ninja Gaiden, DOA3, Crimzon Skies, Mech Assault, Fuzion Frenzy, Panzer Dragoon Orta, Blinx and Halo CE were some of my best games on the OG Xbox.
While price elasticity is prevalent with many smaller independently developed and published video games, many of the larger AAA studios have set the price point at $60 for their games. This is a lot of money to spend on a single video game and that does not include the additional downloadable content that can make the total up to $80 or higher.
Pricing has gone out of hand.
Worst of all, some games do go up to 120$ with season pass and all DLC.
However, the article has it wrong.
He says a game with a 40 Million dollar budget should be priced lower than a 200 Million $ budget.
First of all, A company's goal is to make profit.
So, they have to sell enough copies of the game to recover it's cost.
That's not something that is variable, it is a fix cost "40M$".
That game's goal is to match it in profit, then the rest is pure profit.
It's not something like electricity, where the more you consume, the more it cost the company "and the more they charge you".
So, you've got to consider how many people "and how many platforms and potential buyers" you are dealing with.
Not everyone is going to buy a game like Heavy Rain, therefore it's customer base is smaller.
However, a very popular franchise like Star Wars can take the risk of going beyond their budget because they know there is a ton of fans out there willing to pay for the game.
What bothers me is when a franchise becomes successful, yet they put the minimum effort into it's game to cut cost and milk the game at a maximum.
Take Call of Duty for example. There's a huge install base for that game. They sell 10 Million copies of the game every year.
They know they are diving in profit, but yet, what do they do?
Nothing but exploiting their customers. They take shortcuts to save time: https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Instead of lowering the price of the game to 40$ and still make a ton of profit, they hike it to 120$ with "DLC" of maps that aren't even well tough out.
Advance Warfare seems like the biggest change in the franchise, if it's good that remains to be seen.
But you get my point.
It saddens me that were just getting the same games every year. As much as I like some of them like Assassin's Creed, I won't buy them every year anymore because they could be doing something different.
I applaud Ubisoft because they make a lot of original titles.
But we don't need the same game every year nor multiple times a year.
- purchase internet
- purchase console
- purchase peripherals
- purchase Subscription
- purchase game
- purchase DLC
- purchase micro-transactions
- purchase yearly releases of the same game
Oh how gaming has evolved.....
Just one thing at least in my country. Games had a price of 70 to 80€ at Nintendo/Sega time and when PSone came they started to be 60€. The price over here is still the same since PS came 20 years ago, with the difference that now you can buy them from internet at lanch for 50€ and if you wait 2/3 months you can have them for half price (less the big AAA and Nintendo games that are almost always with the same price).
So the prices for games are way better today because they didn't grow up in pair with the other stuff. For example in these 20 years a coca cola is 4 times more expensive and that happen with almost all food.
Games are expensive but people that complain about the price have no idea of what it was to live in the 90 and before.
Instead of making complete games like they used to, they rush it & slap a crappy patch on it later... Then charge for content that shouldve been in there to begin with
This is kind of silly to be outraged by this. When I started buying console games back in 87/88 I was paying about forty bucks for a New game. You take inflation into account it's pretty amazing how slowly games prices has gone up.
I swear with each piece of news hitting this site, MS just looks more and more out of touch with the core. XBLA was one of the best things 360 had going for it and now it looks MS is glossing it over even more next-gen.
i think this is bad for indie developers. just because we wont be able to see whats at their storefront, they would be completely overshadowed by the big devs.
I don't feel like reading the article, but are they essentially saying that there will be no XBLA on the Xbox One? Are they referring to something entirely different?
this is just going to be a clusterfuck of confusion about 2 years in when there are 780 arcade games 1000 indie games and about 300 games on demand.... horrible idea IMO... much like everything else i've heard of the xbox one... i've been shaking my head for the past 2 days straight now it seems... :(