Quantcast
Is Microsoft screwed no matter what they show at E3 this year?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Is Microsoft screwed no matter what they show at E3 this year?

vivster said:
DonFerrari said:
I don't think there is anything they could do that would change the sales of X1 significantly.

They could buy Sony and rename the PS4.

Well, that announcement at an E3 would be funny =p

JRPGfan said:
Jranation said:

And that is exactly what is happening at the e3 thread lol

If it was it wouldnt have so many people rateing it a 8 outta 10 in the thread.
So no thats not exactly what is happending.... .MS are getting props for doing a decent E3 presentation.

You have to let them play the victim card.

 

@The presentation. Many people doesn't know the games revealed are multiplats (and in case of DMC5 the trailer at the end had only X1 and X1X logos, inducing exclusivity thinking), plus 5 new studios (people also doesn't know how big they are or the games). So on perception front that would be a very strong showing, that for next box can be very good.

Also they talking about nextbox gives points on how good an E3 is... but considering they talked about no more generations and released X1X like 8 months ago it can make some damage to current gen sales and also make buyers lose confidence in the next generation... that feeling that if MS isn't selling well in a gen they cut it short, making gamers think on "perhaps I should wait to see if they will have solid sales so the gen will stay" and after "well perhaps I shouldn't buy at the 3rd year because they could release a new console next year".



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network

obviously not because they announced the game to end all games:

battletoads



Yhey have laid out some great plans for the future, now they have to prove that they can execute them



Switch friend-code: 6700-1526-7903

PSN: melbye82

germibobi said:

Sony and Nintendo are going neck and neck with the Switch and Sony, the Xbox One is a distant third. Gamer don't seem to care third party are marginally better on the One X because of the high price point and Sony is just killing at 1 st party game. They already had Detroit and God of War and are showcasing 4 blockbuster 1st party games this year @e3, Microsoft can counter at best with 1-2 exclusive games and some third party content and at this point they need to so much better than Sony to even out the playing field and I'm not sure if they can even be competitive.

First party, second party and exclusives have ALWAYS defined the image of  console.  Because no matter how powerful of a console you have, you cannot have those fore mentioned games on that console.  And this whole "I just like third party games" to justify an Xbox One (not to say that there aren't other reasons that make the One worth the purchase) is a very sorry excuse.  Easily, Sony's console (for example) offers exclusive titles that are also of the same genres as those third parties games.  So you get more game, more choices.



LivingMetal said:
germibobi said:

Sony and Nintendo are going neck and neck with the Switch and Sony, the Xbox One is a distant third. Gamer don't seem to care third party are marginally better on the One X because of the high price point and Sony is just killing at 1 st party game. They already had Detroit and God of War and are showcasing 4 blockbuster 1st party games this year @e3, Microsoft can counter at best with 1-2 exclusive games and some third party content and at this point they need to so much better than Sony to even out the playing field and I'm not sure if they can even be competitive.

First party, second party and exclusives have ALWAYS defined the image of  console.  Because no matter how powerful of a console you have, you cannot have those fore mentioned games on that console.  And this whole "I just like third party games" to justify an Xbox One (not to say that there aren't other reasons that make the One worth the purchase) is a very sorry excuse.  Easily, Sony's console (for example) offers exclusive titles that are also of the same genres as those third parties games.  So you get more game, more choices.

More choices are bad, because they make it harder to decide =p.

Give me the same games every year so I don't need to think about what I want to buy.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
NobleTeam360 said:
Slade6alpha said:
Well yeah will get downplayed no matter what they showed.

"Game's already out on other platforms."
"Game will end up being cancelled."
"Everything was leaked before hand."
"Halo, gears, forza is no surprise at all."
"Too many multiplats."

So much this 

So that's why the One has been outsold by the 4 and now recently the Switch.  Never noticed... (sarcasm)



DonFerrari said:
LivingMetal said:

First party, second party and exclusives have ALWAYS defined the image of  console.  Because no matter how powerful of a console you have, you cannot have those fore mentioned games on that console.  And this whole "I just like third party games" to justify an Xbox One (not to say that there aren't other reasons that make the One worth the purchase) is a very sorry excuse.  Easily, Sony's console (for example) offers exclusive titles that are also of the same genres as those third parties games.  So you get more game, more choices.

More choices are bad, because they make it harder to decide =p.

Give me the same games every year so I don't need to think about what I want to buy.

Ummm.. Do I laugh or do I cringe?



LivingMetal said:
DonFerrari said:

More choices are bad, because they make it harder to decide =p.

Give me the same games every year so I don't need to think about what I want to buy.

Ummm.. Do I laugh or do I cringe?

I'm not sure, too many options... and we have seem people defending similar thoughts for real.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Fantastic conference. A bit too much 3rd party games but I think after buying these new studios they are warming up for the new generation in 2020. Super excited for Gears 5 ofcourse and Battletoads aswell.



LivingMetal said:

First party, second party and exclusives have ALWAYS defined the image of  console.  Because no matter how powerful of a console you have, you cannot have those fore mentioned games on that console.  And this whole "I just like third party games" to justify an Xbox One (not to say that there aren't other reasons that make the One worth the purchase) is a very sorry excuse.  Easily, Sony's console (for example) offers exclusive titles that are also of the same genres as those third parties games.  So you get more game, more choices.

It's sad if you and others think that an expense of mere $200 - $500 has to be justified.