The Xbox 1 is purposely oversized

[ZTxGhost]

 

Burning Typhoon said:

theprof00 said:

Burning Typhoon said:
Xbox One does allow more air-flow to it's fan. It allows the console to run quietly and not have any over heating issues, that were too common for 360. Microsoft knew they could not have that same issue again.

About console revisions.... I don't see too many people replacing their larger Xbox One consoles for smaller ones? I've never replaced a console unless it didn't work. They're all going to do the same thing anyway. Play games. Unless you need an extra inch of room, or whatever a slim would give you, or you just don't like the design of the original, why would you care about when a slim model comes out?

If I personally, were interested in an Xbox One, I know the last thing on my mind would be how big the console is. It would go in the same spot my large PS3 is in and my PS3 would go somewhere else.

Speaking from a design standpoint, both systems are fine... Wish PS4 Had more vents, but as long as it works without breaking it's fine. Same goes for Xbox one.

What I don't like about either console is that they both are simply not very good looking. PS4 looks like a discarded piece that fell off Metal Gear Rex, and the Xbox does look like a VCR, or something.

I don't think Metal Gear Rex is a bad design, but you get what I mean. Neither console is perfect, but size is the last thing on my mind. Hell, there are times my PS3 gets stupid-loud so anything different at this point would be fine. It's bothersome, yeah, but it isn't like it's impacting my experience a whole lot.

I can assure you that this is a common thing, most notabl seen in cell phone development and sales. There is something purposely left out that is satiated by the revision.

But you don't even  have to look any further than the gaming market.
This is a market that:
Releases games with LOCKED on-disc content
Plans DLC schedules while still in development for the game
Has Season passes to access content
Re-releases games with all the DLC included as new editions
Re-releases games on new gen consoles with slight upgrades to resolution and frame speed with DLC other than the previous edition
Charges the same amount for digital copies

And you're asking me why someone would buy a slimline? Ask yourself what prompted many users here to own 4+ x360s or 4+ ps3's.
Because half the people here are collectors, and they want every version. Others switch out and buy the new one and sell the old one. Just go in any thread about new systems and you'll likely find someone talking about selling their current to fund an upgrade, even within the same gen and console make.

Why are these things in the industry? Why does it make sense? Because people will buy it, even if they have no need. That is the fact about this market.

Who cares if content is locked on the disc.  It's still a digital portion of the game that was intended for an additional purpose.  You mean to tell me that you'd be okay with the exact same content as long as it isn't on the disc?  Shouldn't you be championing the idea that a company should hold off development of DLC for a game until after it has been released? (Not you specifically.  Yes, I read your post)

Rather that DLC is locked on disc or not, it doesn't matter.  You wouldn't have access to it either way because you weren't intended to.

I collect too.  It's up to the individual.  If you read my initial post, you'd see I did not leave out collectors.  I said most people would not buy it for those reasons, not that no one would.  I don't even care if it's the same model of one I already own, sometimes.  I have 2 of the same model dreamcastS which don't have the disc play-back restrictions, and I have 2 genesis model 2's, and a model 1.

As long as they do what I want them to do, it's fine.

Anyway, I agree.  But all that stuff you said about DLC can be summed to one thing.  Using development time for development of DLC and taking away resources from actual game development.  I don't care if it's a totally separate team doing the DLC, it's still wrong.  Being it on disc or not doesn't matter.  You're going to pay the intended price to get the content regardless.

And, "Because they will buy it," is the problem with everything.  It doesn't matter how unhealthy, or dangerous it is.  If people buy it, it will be sold.  Hence why most don't know what they're eating.  They only care that it's "the best thing I ever tasted before in my life."  But, that's a different subject.

The problem that people have with disc locked content is that people feel that when they purchase a disc, they should now own everything that comes on the disc. When they aren't allowed access to information stored on something that you now own, they feel ripped off.

It depends on how you view games. Do you view it as a service? Or do you see it as a physical product that you now own in its entirety after purchase?

 

Personally, I'm in the latter. If I purchase a disc, I deserve all content that has been stored on that particular disc.