170°

Microsoft's Penello on why Xbox One's Kinect will overcome its "perception problem"

Panello on the cons of accessories, "The con is, when developers can't rely on it, when they don't know it's there, they're never going to take full advantage of it. So, you get these inconsistent gaming experiences, you get inconsistent implementation, game developers had to choose to take CPU power away from the console to support the skeletons. And what we said was, for those of us that use it - like I don't play Pixar Rush, it's not my kind of game, but I use Kinect all the time for Xbox pause, Xbox play."

allformats3880d ago (Edited 3880d ago )

It's not a perception problem. It's a gimmick problem.

And gimmicks never last.

theWB273880d ago

Gimmick? Is it only a gimmick because Microsoft is the first to finally make this a mandatory thing?

Last I checked....Sony has made improvements to their motion gaming. They've also had it for how many generations now?

Wii sold how many systems with its primary controls being motion?

Original Kinect sold 26 million in a few years.

Seriously I can't understand why it's a gimmick if the big three all invest in the tech. It has to be the Micro hate and the fact they include it with every X1.

GarrusVakarian3880d ago (Edited 3880d ago )

"Seriously I can't understand why it's a gimmick if the big three all invest in the tech."

You have your answer right there, gimmicks sell. Hence why all 3 invest so heavily.

Gazondaily3880d ago

It's not a gimmick.

Many might abhor Microsoft's decision to make the Kinect mandatory but it really is the boldest move they've made.

They've made the difficult decision and are going against the tide of core gamer sentiment for now, but if the Kinect is an integral part of the console experience like MS say it is, and if Kinect really proves its worth (beyond mere motion control gaming) then we are in for a real treat.

It can be a game changer but ONLY if it works. The Kinect Sports Rivals hands-on of mine might reinforce those old perceptions but that shouldn't take away from the potential of Kinect to do the other things well.

I'm cautiously optimistic and that's the most positive you can reasonably be with the Kinect considering its past pedigree.

DARK WITNESS3880d ago

Maybe if MS invested more money into making sure their first party studios actually created hardcore games using it to it's full potential, instead of wasting money on timed DLC, maybe gamers would have a better view of it and 3rd party devs would see more value in trying to make use of it.

If more 3rd party dev's then started to use it in more creative ways gamers would have even less of a reason to view it as a gimmick.

Just because it comes in the box does not guarantee that it's going to be used in some compelling way.

Anyone remember that ps3 had motion control built into the controllers... EVERY CONTROLLER, yet how many devs actually did anything really compelling and useful with it?

this idea that just cos it's in the box it will be used better is bullcrap. it's still not been shown doing anything other then gimmicky voice commands.

MWong3880d ago (Edited 3880d ago )

I think my issue with the "perception" of the Kinect is that it's forced on the consumer. Previously, M$ announced it as being mandatory to use the XBone, fine, I need it. Now it's not, as a consumer I currently have no wants for a motion capture device. Consumers shouldn't be forced to purchase hardware that is not necessary. Then why am I being required to pay extra money for a console with one? The XBone probably only costs $350-$375 and the Kinect $125-$150.

It's not my/the consumers fault that M$ probably spent well over $100M in R&D to improve a device that only 25% of it's installment base wanted in this gen. The cost of the Kinect R&D needs to be recouped so we will probably not see a Kinect-less console anytime soon.

Cueil3880d ago

it's closer to 50/50 on cost of the system...

MWong3880d ago

50/50 no that's way too uneven. You're saying the XBone is $250 & the Kinect is $250.

SuperLupe3880d ago (Edited 3880d ago )

There is no doubt whatsoever that it will ovecome its "perception problem".

Just the fact that everybody that owns a Xbox One will also have Kinect makes it already a mass product to become.

On top of that Kinect 2.0 is hand down more promising and advanced than the first Kinect so people will enjoy the functions it adds.

A gimmick is omething like the PS Move ---> dropped like a dead horse as soon as Sony could. Nobody wanted it, not even Sony but they did it anyway because Ninty and MS were doing it too. There was never a long term plan for it, it was just there for the sake of it.

paul-p19883880d ago

I agree with the PS Move, i kept seeing games use it really well and thought i needed it, so i went and bought it... then only a few decent games came out and now mine just gathers dust...

Boody-Bandit3880d ago (Edited 3880d ago )

"Just the fact that everybody that owns a Xbox One will also have Kinect makes it already a mass product to become."

Just the fact that MS is including it into the box, which raises the price of ownership $100 more than it's competitor, when most of your core audience has next to no interest in it, is going to cost you sales out of the gate. It is one of the reasons I am holding off on getting an X1. Seriously, no fanboy speak here. MS needs to either get behind this peripheral 110% or offer a Kinect-less SKU.

As of now I have not seen ONE game that proves this perp will appeal to anyone but casuals. Most of it's implementation into core games will be something that would be better served with traditional controls and a microphone.

MS either needs to get off the duff and go all in with Kinect or offer multiple skus like they did with the 360 and leave it up to the consumer. If anything I think we have seen what happens when you try to push an unpopular vision off on consumers. That is why MS has rescinded some of those less than popular restrictions / features. They have also made Kinect "non" mandatory now. So how can that be viewed as a positive and where are the games that make the core gamer say, "wow, now that is really cool and original. I am more of a traditional controller gamer BUT I would like to give that game a try." So far I have yet to see one.

3880d ago
Belking3880d ago

A gimmick that sony is desperate to copy..lol

paul-p19883880d ago

Actually the Eyetoy came out first, so if anyone is copying it would Microsoft...

stuna13880d ago

Just on the assumption of one company copying from another, I've always had the understanding it's not who does it first, it's who does it better! Nintendo has a solid stable of core as well as casual game that uses motion controls, especially after adding motion plus.

Sony has a much smaller stable of games utilizing motion gaming, but it's also a mixed bag of core as well as casual games! Mind you Killzone 3 is a shining example of motion controls being utilized effectively in a core FPS.

Microsoft also has a stable of games using hands free motion controls, the difference is the majority are casual titles, with a few core sprinkled in for good measure, but how many core motion control titles performed as good or better than the competition core titles? None.

ExDexteraDomini3880d ago

If it were a gimmick, it wouldn't work, it wouldn't be useful, and it wouldn't be used by third party developers.

It works, it will be useful and enjoyable in a large number of games, and it is being used by third party devs.

XB1_PS43880d ago

It is a perception problem, it's perceived as a gimmick.. lol

Kuse3880d ago

Just like that Cell technology that PS3 had right? lol

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3880d ago
MrSwankSinatra3880d ago

Why should gamers have to pay premium for this kinect crap if they know they aren't gonna use it.

B-radical3880d ago

im getting x1 at launch and i agree aha since i have to pay for it though i will hook it up

MrSwankSinatra3880d ago (Edited 3880d ago )

If Microsoft quit being stubborn an just made kinectless Xbox one SKU. Guarantee it would make xbox one more enticing to consumers.

SuperLupe3880d ago

Well MS think that they see the potential that you dont. Give them a year and if it doesnt add anything to the Xbox One experience then yes you can call it useless.

I for one dont mind it at all, on the contrary looks pretty slick to me.

RytGear3880d ago

Yeah, that "Fighter Within" demo looked SO slick. /s

biRdy3880d ago

Microsoft is taking a huge gamble here with making the kinect mandatory, this will hurt them for the first few years but will insure every xbone owner has a kinect. This means developers no longer have to worry about making a game for kinect when only about 40% of owners will be able to use it.

Cueil3880d ago

those stupid gimmicky analog sticks turned out to be pretty useful when Sony made them mandatory on every system

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3880d ago
come_bom3880d ago

In all honesty, i think forcing Kinect on every console might cost Microsoft the next gen console war.

3880d ago Replies(1)
famoussasjohn3880d ago

Forced? It's included without the requirement of it being plugged in. If you want to use Kinect features, obviously it has to be plugged in.

paul-p19883880d ago (Edited 3880d ago )

I agree, there are a large amount of hardcore fans who want nothing to do with Kinect, and historically it is the hardcore who will get the console at launch. If they don't want the Kinect they may just jump ship to Sony/Nintendo to avoid it.

Also, if the hardcore don't buy the console, then their non-hardcore friends may not buy the console as they cannot play with them.

It may not sound like much, and we all know MS are pushing Kinect like crazy, but with a few lost sales at the start because of the inclusion of Kinect could potentially spiral into a large loss of sales in the future.

Obviously this could be applied to every console (Wii U is a current example, not many people own them, so no-one wants to get one as their friends don't have them) and history certainly has a habit of repeating itself...

come_bom3880d ago

I agree. Microsoft losing those hardcore gamers at the beginning of the consoles "life cycle" is not good for present and future sales. It's the hardcore gamers that buy the most games.

One other thing is that a lot of people buy a console to play multi-platform titles like Battlefield or Call of Duty, and they will buy the cheapest console to play those games. Microsoft fails to understand that they sold a lot of consoles last gen simply because they had the cheapest HD console.

gaelic_laoch3880d ago

Kinect needs to overcome its depth perception problem first and actually deliver on what it says it does!

paul-p19883880d ago

Yup, my wife's cousin has one and we played it on his birthday (i'm the only other gamer in the family lol). He has a large, by UK standards, living room but we had to move everything out of the way and had roughly 3-4m square of free space and it still said we needed to move away from the camera....

We played Kinect sports football and i had to jump for it to realise where my legs were....

gaelic_laoch3880d ago

Yeap UK and Ireland are not known for large houses and living rooms. I had to pack up my Kinect as someone was going to get injured!

MWong3880d ago

Yea, you need a new vid. That's 10 minutes long lol.

KonsoruMasuta3880d ago

It's just the same thing looped over and over again. You don't have to watch the whole thing to get the message.

Show all comments (56)
280°

Xbox's Preservation Step Sets A Much-Needed Example, Especially For Nintendo

Hanzla from eXputer inquires: "If Xbox can care about preserving its games and legacy, what exactly is wrong with Nintendo, trying to kill game preservation single-handedly?"

purple1015d ago

Ahh yes the good old game preservation of saving all your games to a removable hhd on the Xbox 360, taking it round your mates house, setting up multiple tvs to
Be met with “save data corrupted, please re download”

Or how about removing 360 games
From the store
, download them now or else, and, better hope to god that save data doesn’t corrupt, or it’s lost for ever

Nice one ☝️

Zeref4d ago

It's better than what Nintendo and Playstation is doing. It might not be perfect but at least they are TRYING. Unlike the others.

DarXyde4d ago

Trying? Take off the blinders for a moment, mate.

1. A failure to preserve games is just that: a failure to preserve games. Don't try to sugarcoat it: NO ONE is doing it properly. Better than awful is nothing to write home about.

2. At the time of this comment, isn't it the case that you need an internet connection to play Xbox games even if you buy physical discs that are hardly in circulation anymore? I don't have a Series X and I can't verify, but I think that is correct. I'm fairly certain you can at least play PS5 games at version 1.0 (not much of a win really when many games require day one patches). I think Microsoft's all digital, licensing approach is by far more aggressive than anyone else's. They really try to push you to game pass where you lose your entire library by umm.... Skipping a month of payments.

I don't think anyone is doing it right whatsoever. Don't get me started on Nintendo, who goes after anyone looking to preserve their games better than they ever would with extreme litigation.

Don't be a simp for any of these companies. Get it together.

PhillyDonJawn4d ago (Edited 4d ago )

@DarX never speak on Xbox again. You lost all credibility with your internet connection comment. Smh you have 0 clue and misinformed yet speaking on something you don't no squat about.

Einhander19724d ago

What has Sony done exactly? You guys keep deflecting to Sony but I am not actually seeing any results, and ai am certain nothing that you can come up with even comes close to what Microsoft has done and what they have tried and failed to do, like tie all your disks to your account on xbone.

Microsoft removed their whole indie section when they moved to the xbone because they were going to only allow games on the service that came from a publisher, id@xbox started after xbone launched and it only exists because Sony embraced indie and Microsoft was forced to cancel their plans and reverse course.

And every single game that was part of games for windows live including disk games (I have gta 4 on disk that won't work) so hundreds of games that use that DRM no longer work unless the company themselves patched it out which of course very few did.

MrBaskerville4d ago

Not trying. Tried. they killed of the backcomp program years ago. They set something up again, but sounds like it's more of an attempt to save the current library on whatever they are planning next. With luck they save everything and more, but let's see. I could see them killing off parts of the OG xbox and 360 libraries. Can't imagine that they would allow us to play Forza 5-7 in the future.

With that said, I do like what they've done and really wish they could have done more.

shinoff21834d ago

Zeref

So killing off physical media is trying what exactly. Ms don't really give a fk if you think they do your kidding yourself.

Profchaos4d ago

They are not trying this team is established for forward compatability the team is. It interested in preserving Xbox or 360 games.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4d ago
isarai5d ago

Is that why Hellblade 2 is digital only?

Zeref4d ago

Just because it's digital only doesn't mean you can't preserve it. Just put it on an external and you have the exact same functionality of what a disc does.

MrNinosan4d ago

Guess you're trolling, but if you actually think that's how it works, I'd recommend buying some braincells.

mkis0073d ago (Edited 3d ago )

Volitile vs nonvolitile data. A disc will not corrupt either. A drive can be corrupted.

Einhander19725d ago

This is just a scammy PR move to distract from the fact they are going digital only and trying to push streaming and subscriptions only.

No gaming company has pushed harder to remove ownership than Microsoft.

Without discs there is no preservation, preservation can't be done by the rights holders it can only be done by the consumers, anything else is a lie.

5d ago Replies(3)
Einhander19725d ago

Anyone remember xblig which Microsoft removed their whole 360 indie section removing hundreds of games from people?

5d ago
4d ago
Zeref4d ago

Do you know you can put your games on an external and preserve them that way? There are no benefits to discs. ZERO. Idk why some of you are still obsessed with them.

DarXyde4d ago

Because games like Persona 5 exist. It's STILL V1.00. On Playstation, that's a win because 1.00 is installed on the disc—no need to download anything.

If a game does not require any updates, it's all on the disc.

Extremely low bar in the modern era, of course. It's not much of a win by any stretch.

But for now, physical media does have a purpose, at least on Playstation.

Einhander19724d ago

That is factually not how game licensing works, try plugging your hard drive into someone else xbox, It's not going to work, and it won't work if the licensing servers ever go down.

Einhander19724d ago

Anyone remember games for windows live.

I have around a dozen games, some on Steam itself that will not work because Microsoft shut off the licensing servers.

BehindTheRows4d ago (Edited 4d ago )

I do. I STILL have games (Gears of War being the big one) I cannot access because Games for Windows LIVE is total garbage and no one has held Microsoft accountable.

Zeref4d ago (Edited 4d ago )

You don't have an Xbox apparently. Because you can 100 percent plug in your external and play games from it on any Xbox console lol. You just have to be logged in to prove ownership.

Chevalier4d ago

"You don't have an Xbox apparently. Because you can 100 percent plug in your external and play games from it on any Xbox console lol. You just have to be logged in to prove ownership."

Damn how many times do people got to explain your idiocy to you? You can take a copy of Persona 5 like someone used as an example and play that game on ANY console WITHOUT logging in which means I can lend the game to a friend without internet and they can play my game. Can you lend your hard drive to anyone without logging in for them to play? NOPE. That is a huge difference and if you think otherwise then sorry you're an idiot.

Tacoboto4d ago

"No gaming company has pushed harder to remove ownership than Microsoft."

Ubisoft is literally erasing games people bought from their libraries... My PS1-3 discs are useless on modern hardware. Nintendo's re-published and resold almost their entire Wii U library, and the eShop is completely dead with no BC mechanism in the Switch software. Microsoft publishes everything they make today day one on Steam and Xbox/Windows. Sony only brings to PC the titles they think you might want some years later and Nintendo won't even design a functional long-lasting joystick.

You're absolutely trolling and not serious if you think Microsoft today is the worst offender.

shinoff21834d ago

Yay steam

Not everyone fks with computers though. The disc is still the best way as a console player. Period.

Tacoboto4d ago

How do Sony and Nintendo feel about these discs from 2001-2013?

Don't be stupid, you know Xbox is the best at this today.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4d ago
Hofstaderman4d ago

Nobody wants this. Sales or the lack of it in the case of XBOX is very telling. I wonder how the adorably all digital series X will fare. Adorably dismal perhaps?

crazyCoconuts4d ago

Only time will tell, but for from someone like me suspecting that Xbox is trying to gracefully exit the console market, that "forward compatibility" team is trying to get Xbox games playing on Windows PCs. I mean, it's nice that they're not planning on exiting with a "enjoy your games while the hardware still works" message, so that's nice. They still have a brand to protect via Microsoft so probably feel obligated to have a better exit strategy.

Xeofate4d ago (Edited 4d ago )

That is not their plan, their plan is to transfer users accounts to the cloud.

Phil Spencer himself said as much a few months back, plans could have changed but I think people are reading way too much into one statement where Phil said he would allow Epic on xbox because he wants to be able to sell xbox games directly on other platforms. Aka, instead of selling Sea of Thives through PSN he wants to have an xbox store to sell his games on PlayStation without giving PlayStation any money.

Again, it's extremely unlikely that Phil plans to put PC on xbox and licensing would prevent them from just giving out other publishers games purchased on xbox copies of thier games on PC, Microsoft does not own their games.

crazyCoconuts3d ago

The thing that doesn't align with the cloud strategy is the giving up on exclusives. You'd still need strong exclusives for cloud streaming - it's still a "platform" , just with a lower upfront hardware investment. I feel like they've learned what PS learned with PSNow long ago. We're not ready to stream games and it's only gonna lose them money to try at this point

FinalFantasyFanatic4d ago

I would love that, I'd buy up some of the Xbox games if they could run on PC, like the Rare Replay, Lost Odyssey and Dead or Alive Ultimate, probably a pipe dream though.

Show all comments (43)
370°

Could Xbox Soon Become The Next Dreamcast?

Microsoft's future in the video game space is murky right now, so let's break it all down.

Read Full Story >>
thegamer.com
ApocalypseShadow17d ago (Edited 17d ago )

Not anytime soon. But they're on that path.

One thing not mentioned in the article is Microsoft's money bags. If Sega had Microsoft's money, they would have still been around as a hardware manufacturer. Xbox as a platform only survives because of the money bags. They can continue making consoles for the core and port to PC.

The multiplatform strategy is only the result of arrogance and misguided leadership that blew up in their face. They thought gamers would jump on Xbox in droves if they knew that many of their favorite games would be only on Xbox. But that's not happening at all. Sales didn't increase. They decreased. Why? Because the dumb asses thought giving away these expensively made games in a cheap service would also turn the tide.

Gamers on other platforms are willing to buy quality. They don't need to be handed nearly free games in a service that aren't even finished and sometimes average in their development. Gamers buy Nintendo games. They buy Sony games. Microsoft groomed their base to not buy games. Even the quality ones. It has always been their plan to go digital. But most gamers still like single player gaming. Still like physical releases.

Microsoft's problem has always been that they don't produce high quality games at the same output as Nintendo and Sony. Actually, they should be producing quite a lot more because they're worth over 2 TRILLION. How they don't have more is ridiculous and no excuse. Buying publishers to take away from competition only backfired. Because it still takes millions of dollars to continue to make those games from the publishers they snatched. Their only choice was to crawl back to their competitors to help sustain those developers because Nintendo and Sony platforms were the ones buying games.

Am I sorry for Microsoft? Hell no! They deserved last place for putting in the least effort. They deserved the fallout for buying up the industry and didn't make a single blip on the radar against their competitors where they now need those same gamers they took away games from to support them. Part of it may have been to cash in on their competition. But the result is the slow death of their platform. They may go 3rd party. They may keep making hardware. I don't give a shit about them to worry about it. I only give a shit about the destructive nature of their industry moves that only negatively affect gamers. They could sell and drop out of the industry and I wouldn't blink. Probably laugh. But not blink. They deserve whatever comes to them. At least Sega put in the effort when it came to games. They just had poor leadership. Microsoft has poor leadership and barely makes memorable games. That's a killer combination. And not in a good way.

Cacabunga17d ago

That would be an insult to Dreamcast.. it had a crazy line up of legendary critically acclaimed games.

Crows9017d ago

I was thinking the same. Dreamcast had incredible games in such a short amount of time. It was truly exceptional.

darthv7216d ago

...and yet all those great games were not enough to sway people from the looming release of the PS2 at the time. Sony just has that kind of brand loyalty.

Cacabunga16d ago

Darth

I do not agree.. Sony had even better games thanks to an unprecedented 3rd party support..
DC had amazing lineup but 90% were arcade games..

88316d ago

@darth:
And Sony showed off "The Emotion Engine" and their real time demos that made everyone think they would miss out on REAL next gen 128bit magic if they jumped in before PS2s polygon pushing monster (and early lack of anti-aliasing with a healthy heap of shimmer + DVD playback) stepped up. PS2 was a fantastic system though with amazing games.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 16d ago
blacktiger17d ago

That's not true. Just because Microsoft has the money doesn't mean Microsoft can allow xbox to bleed entire Microsoft money. It doesn't work like they. Also SEC will be watching and investor won't allow it. Lot of reasons why Microsoft can not continue even if they wanted to. SEC regulations is expensive.

fr0sty17d ago (Edited 17d ago )

Exactly this... Microsoft is a publicly traded company, mostly owned by their shareholders (Approximately 59.24% of the company's stock is owned by Institutional Investors, 7.73% is owned by Insiders and 33.03% is owned by Public Companies and Individual Investors.). Their shareholders call the shots on the business decisions, and their shareholders want one thing and one thing only, for their stock price to go up. Losses do not make stock prices go up... so if the division continually posts losses on hardware, but shows profits on software and services (which has been the case with Xbox its entire lifespan, for over 20 years now), the shareholders are going to grow impatient and demand they stop making hardware and focus on the only thing that has ever made them money, software and services.

When Microsoft bought Blizzard and Activision for almost 100 billion, I knew that was the nail in the coffin for Xbox as a console... as the shareholders were going to expect a quick return on that investment, and when it didn't materialize, they were going to be out for blood... out to force Xbox to sell those games on as many consoles as possible, "and while you're at it, sell those first party exclusives that aren't selling well on other consoles as well... hell, just stop making consoles and sell games."

If there is another Xbox console generation, it will definitely be the last, but I doubt there even will be one at this point. I think the Xbox division planning on it just in case, but I don't think the project has been greenlit from Microsoft itself. The rumors that they have not yet even secured the chips needed from the chip fabrication facilities ties into this.

shinoff218317d ago

While I usually agree with you . Alot of what was said can just also be asked before any of that.

How long will the shareholders wait? It doesn't appear long at all

Babadook716d ago

I think I get your point. Like just because MS has money does not mean they are content to throw it away on a dying ecosystem. Xbox has to be profitable or “what’s the point?”

ifinitygamer16d ago

Money bags, yes, but are we ignoring that Xbox actually makes a profit on games and GamePass? Hardware is often a loss leader, and they're probably making profit 4 years into the life cycle, but games and services revenue have been very profitable while other parts of Microsoft's business is struggling. Say what you will about the quality of those games, of course, but this is kind of a reverse Dreamcast situation, where the console was dragging down the company and put it at risk of shuttering entirely. Killing that console saved the business and allowed it to continue to make games on multiple platforms. In this case, the service is very profitable, as are the games, and they're also double-dipping into Multiplatform to extend this further, while their hardware is just sort of what they believe to be the best for gamers and their own titles (whether that is the case or not...)

fr0sty16d ago (Edited 16d ago )

The issue is, they aren't selling enough hardware to make their exclusives profitable, and now that they've bought half the gaming publisher/dev industry, they have no choice but to go third party to make a profit... and that is making their shareholders take a real close look at their hardware division under the microscope... why keep making the hardware if the software is all that is making them money, and they continually, generation after generation come in dead last with hardware sales?

Look at a game like Spiderman 2... if it had been an Xbox exclusive, with the amount it cost to develop, it would have been a huge failure... simply not enough consoles out there to sell it on. They would have been lucky to break even.

ifinitygamer16d ago

@fr0sty agreed completely, which is why they're hedging by releasing other games to multiplatform, plus they have PC to make up for the difference in a lot of ways, which is why their games are not complete money pits. It brings up the question of whether or not those exclusives would drive sales of consoles, though. Let's say Spiderman 2 was an Xbox exclusive, it would certainly have pushed console sales, though who's to say how much is anyone's guess.

fr0sty16d ago

That's why you can't rely on just one exclusive, Sony has always delivered on a wide range of solid exclusives, even this generation (even if they haven't been strong on the first party exclusives, they've made up for it with third party). They don't rely on just one "system seller", they have a portfolio of them.

16d ago
JBlaze22616d ago

ApocalypseShadow To be honest Sony has more of a chance to go 3rd party because like you said Microsoft has money, Sony does not. Sony does not have games, Only games they have come from 3rd party. Sony has been losing money for years and you. Saying Microsoft has been putting the least effort just proves you have no idea what's been going on. All Sony has done is repeat and recycle, never innovating or doing something new. All Sony has is brand loyalty nothing else and it shows.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 16d ago
LG_Fox_Brazil17d ago

Not sure about that. It's been two decades and I still think about Power Stone, Shenmue, Crazy Taxi, Jet Set Radio, Seaman and others, but I'm not sure I'll remember Xbox Series X/S games in a few years from now... Maybe I'll remember about the franchises that the Xbox brand spawned, but I don't believe that the Xbox Series lives up to the late Dreamcast or even to the Xbox name itself. I do have great memories about the 360 with Blue Dragon, Gears 2 and Lost Odyssey though

isarai17d ago

Nah, sega actually makes good games

Becuzisaid17d ago

No, Dreamcast was ahead of it's time and most still have very fond memories of it that had one. It also had some good games on it even in it's short lifespan. Xbox has none of these qualities.

Profchaos17d ago

I remember it coming out at the time in a really bad place they hit the market before the PS2 but it was during this transitional time when Sony was promoting the power of the PS2 and so many of the Dreamcast games were awesome but often third parties simply ported the PS1 version increased resolution and performance but rarely fully utilise the capabilities of the console.

I think in the end bad marketing done it in and like the GameCube so many people are fond of it now but at the time it was looked at in the lense of the day and it didn't stack up.

Personally I miss Sega in hardware they took risks that many companies won't

Becuzisaid17d ago

I never owned it, and got the PS2 right when it launched. But there were certain games it had that I was always jealous of that I didn't have access to - Sonic adventure, crazy taxi, power Stone, code Veronica, shenmue, skies of Arcadia. I always thought it was a really cool machine though. I've never heard a bad thing about it though from those that had it.

FinalFantasyFanatic16d ago

I only ever saw one Dreamcast, and that was one my friend owned, pity I never got to play it, I wonder what games he had for it?

It would be nice if some of those games got ported to modern systems.

Profchaos17d ago

Oh man sonic adventure on the Dreamcast made me so jealous as a huge sonic fan on the mega drive who also moved to PlayStation 2 I never got the chance to play it back in the day either. The Dreamcast in Australia where I am was always relegated to the smallest corner of EB Games it was kind of a strong first indicator that things were not going well at the time.

Show all comments (72)
80°

Microsoft Rewards app on Xbox and weekly streaks to be killed off soon

Microsoft has announced the Microsoft Rewards app on Xbox will be discontinued in April and has confirmed that weekly streaks will also be coming to an end.

Read Full Story >>
trueachievements.com