By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Adinnieken said:
fillet said:

Microsoft has moved away from traditional gaming experiences most associated with a games console in a tradition sense to non-traditional games experienced in a non-traditional sense.

That is what he was saying, and your points, although all factually correct don't actually address his post in the slightest, not to knock what your saying, it's nice to read an informed and intelligent post from someone who clearly has a grasp of MS's moves and direction.

The difference between an F1 tornado that does a few hundred yards wide area of damage and an F5 that does a mile wide area of damage is what?.  They form and function the same, the difference is in the scope of the area of destruction. 

Microsoft hasn't, as you assert, moved away from traditional gaming experience.  However they have widened their scope to traditional and untraditional game experiences using an untraditional input method.  Microsoft, who is the publisher of Halo and Gears of War, just released those two games within roughly six months of each other.  How can you assert they've moved away from something when two of the games they've most recently released are of the group you assert that they've moved away from?

You can't reasonable argue that. 

Microsoft has actually followed a rather brilliant business plan.  Rather than throw lots of money into big AAA titles that do poorly, as Sony has done, they have invested in games and DLC that offer the greatest return on value.  The economy is tight right now, so gamers are less likely to buy AAA retail games, or if they do, they'll buy them second hand.  So, instead get a lock on DLC content, that way when gamers make the decision to get the game, they buy it for the Xbox 360 because it has the content.  Likewise, investing in a game like Minecraft to bring it to Xbox LIVE Arcade is a smarter investment for Microsoft than a AAA title.  A gamer, when they're low on funds, can easily make the decision to buy an Arcade game rather than a AAA title when they know they're getting a high-quality game. 

As I have said elsewhere, Microsoft has been creating content.  No, not all of it may not be the content you like, but they have been creating gaming content for a wide array of gamers. 

Again this is all true and I agree with you. But let's assume for a minute that Kinect didn't exist and thus no Kinect games. The question is would there be more of the traditional games released? Would they have invested resources on more traditional games (FPS etc etc). What do you think? This isn't bait, I'm genuinely interested in your view here.

My post wasn't complaining as such just to be clear, just an observation but yours is likely more valid than my own, hence asking what you think? :)