#XboxReveal Kind of Disappointing

Before I start on this, let me preface this with not liking sports or racing games. That said, I understand why they highlighted those and I consider them for their gaming value rather than my personal tastes.

The big reveal was a little disappointing.

I love what they're doing with the XBox One. Bringing together media, entertainment, usability, ease of use and so on. The power should usher in a whole new age of games. But that's what was really lacking in the reveal: no game play. The demo of CoD: Ghosts at the end was more trailer than actually showing someone playing the game.

So let's look at what we do know: Impressive system specs, expanded XBox Live support, exclusivity deals, blended (not just combined) entertainment options. It's all nice. I really like the idea of not having to find the remote to switch between TV, XBox, and what not. Hmm, can I have XBox One switch to my PS3 for me? That'd be funny.

I have to admit, making the Kinect more built-in is quite the gambit. I know the Kinect wasn't originally as successful as Microsoft was hoping, but they put time and effort in to it and evolved its integration. The ability to include voice commands in games in a less clunky way would also be divine. Playing CoD: Ghosts and telling everyone to take cover rather than pull up some menu would make for a much more unique experience.

The work that EA (yes, I don't like them much, but I still have to analyze what they're doing) is putting in to their sports games is refinement. Let's face it, you play a football or soccer game, there are rules that just won't change. The only difference in competing game franchises is how well the game runs. Everything else is more or less gimmicks. EA is telling everyone they can improve how well their games will run. Better calculations, improved AI, greater graphical detail, all of it a step up. This translates well to other games yet to come.

One of the things that caught my ear was "persistent worlds". I hear that and I envision MMOs. Whether it's RPGs or otherwise, this could have a big impact. The style of free play or subscriptions is getting old, especially with so many companies getting it wrong. This could introduce new gaming models that will bring more satisfaction to players.

Let's looking at "Trending" next. Cool story, bro. I'll be blunt, there's nothing to convince me that anything trending isn't sponsored or that I'll care about it. I'd be more interested in watching The Price Is Right than The Today Show. However, given that I myself generally don't watch "trending" stuff, it could introduce me to some new content. Personally, I'll be more interested in Netflix support. But like everything else, there's potential. Possibilities. Promise.

Yeah, that's all it is right now. Promise. I'll be watching E3 for both Sony's and Microsoft's game play demos. Given its early stage of development, I really shouldn't have expected a whole lot, but when you're selling a game system, and it is a game system with a built-in media center, you need to sell games. Telling us there's a new CoD arc on the way is cool and all, but don't show brief demo clips and call it game play footage. Something more substantial would be needed. Even 15 to 20 seconds of continuous, actual game playing would be better.

For now, we have specs to help us determine base possibilities. I look forward to seeing what can actually be produced. Give us an appetizer at E3, not smells from the kitchen that you gave us at the Reveal. Looking forward to it and have fun!

PS: Did you see that plug for Halo: the TV series? Who would have thought they'd have a commercial in such a big presentation?

Disruption of games

The Next Xbox Has Mandatory Kinect, Game-Swapping and New Controllers, According To Leaked Info

The speculation of Microsoft’s next-gen console having systems in place to stop people from playing used game discs has many people speculating. If true, the used game market could take a nosedive in an empty pool. The idea is that once a game is installed and played on a single console, it cannot be installed on any other console. So, once you install it, it’s your for life. Even if you lend to a friend, he couldn’t play it.

Now, I know quite a few people who, once they are bored with a game, will trade it in for store credit and get another game. This business would come to a halt. While I know people who would not shed tears for their $10 credit for a $50 game being around anymore, there is also a misunderstanding about how the used games market works. When you trade in your game, they are essentially taking a chance that the game will be bought by somebody else. While they give you a $10 credit and them mark it up to $30 on their shelves, if the game does not sell, they’re out that money for good.

“So what? They make plenty of money from new games, right?” Wrong. Game stores usually buy a game for $45 and sell them for $50. Not a big profit. Now perhaps you can understand why they are willing to take such risks: much bigger profits.

So what is the uproar then? Developers do not get a cut of used game sales. They make money based on how many new games are sold. While people purchase a game 10 million times, only 5 million of that may be new games.

With this new suggestion of locking a disc to a console, the used game market is cut. The business of selling games becomes disrupted. So why is this “better” for consumers? Well, if developers can make more money on their games, they can lower the prices on them. Naturally, consumers win.

This begs the question; why not just go digital on games? XBox Arcade does that now. There is Steam as well. Why not just sell those AAA titles digitally? This is because of places like Walmart who threaten to cut shelf space for everything if they do. Stores do not make much money on games, but they do make money on peripherals, like controllers and HDMI cables. Companies like Microsoft make good money on those too. With games on the shelves, people will come in to buy the games and increases the chances of buying peripherals as well. Walmart makes money, Microsoft makes money, and prices stay high.

This has been true for quite some time, but physical stores are losing to virtual stores. Amazon can give you a comparable deal to Walmart. What’s more, they could set themselves up to sell games digitally as well. By cutting out more need for physical game discs, they can cut prices. At that point, if Walmart were to do away with selling peripherals, they would only be hurting their own bottom line.

We have two cases of disruption that essentially cut out the middleman. Companies can sell virtually direct to consumers without shelling out money to print millions of discs and get a much better return. This may take some time to bring about, but at this point, it seems inevitable.