It may not have hired Justin Long and John Hodgman to roll out "I'm a Mac" ads, but it's doing something even more sneaky by hitting Mr. Softy below the belt.
Sony has been the unexpected star of this week's E3 expo. It not only moved to price its upcoming PS4 for $100 less than Microsoft's Xbox One, but it's laying into Microsoft's requirements that gamers perform periodic online check-ins to validate game ownership. It's also making it easier for gamers to trade in used games.
A third game in the Falconeer series has been announced as the second, Bulwark: Falconeer Chronicles, launches.
While there’s a lot to love about modern video games, there is one trend — particularly in the AAA space — that tends to grate: their length.
Games are coming out with too much fluff and side activities that are horribly dull. That's my main issue with all these open world games. Open world should be about exploration, discovery and wonder, not have some stupid 10s or 100s of boring activities spread throughout.
Hopefully Hercule will at least get his jetpack.
Sure, but they just made it way harder for themselves
the only way Microsoft can win is by not buying xboxone and play the waiting game. I feel sorry for those picking the consoles at launch.
This is what's happened so far:
What if publishers price Xbox One games at lower price points than PS4 titles? It can happen. In fact, it should happen. If Xbox One discs are less valuable to gamers because they lack trade-in value, then the perceived value will be lower. Why can't software companies pass on those savings to the gamers in a move that will shift the value proposition of the Xbox One console itself?
What if they decide to only put out Xbox One versions of some titles? Each platform has its exclusives, but what if publishers begin holding back on one platform to favor the one where the margins will be higher?
Haven't you heard? The war is already over. Sony won.