ethomaz said:
I think funny a lot of people saying "Sony made MS changed", "MS changed die Sony fans", "the bad press made MS change", "the gamer forum community made MS changed", etc. Bullshit. The only thing that can make a company of the size of MS change is that they will profit less over a product in the future... that the point... MS just changed due a unique fact "they know people won't buy their console like it was before". We need good inovations and not bad inovations. Why not make the holy family sharing feature only for digital buyers and stay the offline disc based gaming for others... give the choice to the consumer... it is the best ideia. I will try to give you a example... Before AMD created the hybrid 32/64bits processor called x86_64 today... Intel tried several times to move to 64bits without success but the consumer didn't buy that... so AMD move for the future mantain the past and have the successs that Intel always wanted... I can say for sure if Intel or AMD create today a processor only 64bits nobody will complain about It's the same case. MS needs to try to move the things slowly and not changed everhing at the same time... try to make the inovations for these that buys digital titles and mantin the retail discs like it was today. That my opinion about the subject. And MS is in a way better position today than yesterday for sure. |
They all want to make money, Ethomaz. Sony, Nintendo, MS. They changed it to convince customers. This you can spin where you want it to be. Listening to pre-orders, listening to customers, listening to Sony, whatever. I think all are parts of the truth.
"We need good inovations and not bad inovations."
First of all, we need innovations. If they are good or bad has to be judged afterwards. For most it was a bad innovation so they changed it. Is this good for most? Yes.
"Why not make the holy family sharing feature only for digital buyers and stay the offline disc based gaming for others... give the choice to the consumer... it is the best ideia."
Perhaps they will in the future. By now it is like 360 and they should keep it a long time so people see they are not evil. Giving the share-option later is still an option for them.
"Before AMD created the hybrid 32/64bits processor called x86_64 today... Intel tried several times to move to 64bits without success but the consumer didn't buy that... so AMD move for the future mantain the past and have the successs that Intel always wanted... I can say for sure if Intel or AMD create today a processor only 64bits nobody will complain about 
"
Oh Ethomaz, that's a tough one :) I still think x86_64 was a quite bad decision. By the time it was implemented nobody needed it but AMD wanted to have an advantage over Intel with the buzzword "64 bits!". The existing 64-bit-processors weren't targeted to consumers and thanks to PAE we already had servers with more than 4 gb ram. Intel had to implement this crap also because software-companies already built hardware for x64 so yes, AMD introduced it. But I am still not happy with it... They really should've made a 64-bit-only processor with small capabilities to run ia32-software, not the other way round!
"MS needs to try to move the things slowly and not changed everhing at the same time... try to make the inovations for these that buys digital titles and mantin the retail discs like it was today."
I think there is enough time until launch so they can make a new strategy. But to me the best would be that they do it like with 360 now and implement other stuff afterwards.
