This week’s gaming podcast is all about energy, excitement and enough Warcraft news to make you want to throw up in your own mouth. However, we sugar coat it with lots of other news, great community comments and we’re flashing back to Age of Empires while taking a little time to remember the man behind the Wumpus. This weeks news includes:
38 Studios Appoints New CEO- Blizzard Working on LAN support for StarCraft 2
- Guitar Hero 5 DLC not compatible with World Tour
- Most World of Warcraft Rumors were true
- Nintendo and Sony battling it out in the handheld space
- Sony Announces PS3 Slim
This week we’re asking the question, what key selling points are needed to sell someone on an Xbox 360 considering the fact that they’d love exclusive FPS titles for the console.
A few months ago, Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick said investing $500 million to a billion still wouldn’t be enough to compete with an MMORPG like World of Warcraft. The MMORPG space is a costly investment and you’d need to really burn a lot of money to start competing against the mega-giant, but Mythic VP and Warhammer Online lead designer Mark Jacobs disagrees with that quote.
You neglected to mention the Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds series, which was Age of Empires with a Star Wars coat of paint.
Sony Playstation 3 is a powerful machine and a great multi media System. But in a Ivan Prospective aka “the Gaming Prospective” the 360 is the way to go. Point 1. I believe xbox live experience is better because your paying for it, How can you expected the play station online to be that great if its free. X box live has a large community of all ages, a nice interface and a great deal of affordable DLC. Point 2. Playstaion 3 didn’t market there product as good as the 360 and are losing exclusives because of it, be wise, get a 360 avoid Disappointment. The 360 has a large list of great games available like Halo:3 and ODST, Gears of War, Left 4 Dead, Forsa motor Sports 1 & 2, AC6, Fable & Geometry Wars =] and now you can play Devil may cry and soon Final fantasy 13 ( who knows maybe Kingdom hearts some day) Point 3. I Don’t really want blue ray is expensive and I don’t think its that amazing its not like VHS/cartridge to DVD.i think a something a little more revolutionary will replace blue ray quite quickly ( always was happy with the matrix on DVD don’t think blue ray will be that much more epic). Point 4. Its Cheaper. There my reasons y you should get a 360.
But ultimately its your choice.
Cheers
“I believe xbox live experience is better because your paying for it, How can you expected the play station online to be that great if its free.”
The fallacy here is that a lot of people believe “you get what you pay for,” and while perhaps once upon a time that was true, it is not this day (to misquote Aragorn something awful.)
Case in point: I am currently using free Wi-Fi at a coffee shop. I am not paying for it. At home, I pay $24 a month for a dial-up service. By your logic, my at-home service should be better than this coffee shop’s service, because I’m paying for one but not the other. But it is very much the reverse.
Granted, if I had a choice, I would not pay the aforementioned two dozen monthly dollars for such a relatively mediocre service, but what choice do i have?
Similarly, people on the XBox360 have no choice, really. (Not that they’d necessarily want an alternative, since part of the appeal of the XBox Live [as well as consoles in general] is the ease that’s supposed to come with conformity.)
I only have a PC and a Wii. My Wii has no connectivity, but even if it did, I probably wouldn’t pay extra for it, unless it offered a LOT for my dollar. (Not sure what that would involve, off the top of my head.)
Anyway, don’t mind me, I’m just annoyed that Arkham Asylum is delayed for the PC. (Not that I was going to run out and get it. It’s the principle of the thing. ‘;D [It had better be bug-free, is all I’ll say.]
(This ramble brought to you by Coffee Shop broadband and Friday Night caffeine.)
Xbox 360 owners do have a choice. They can go with Silver, which means they can’t play multiplayer and they have to wait for premium demo content.
But they still have chat, they still have messaging, and they still have the social networking as Gold.
Hi Krud
I would just like to say everything I say isn’t Black or White. Its true that there are things in life which are free which are better than what you can pay for.But Would you expected to purchase a 360 for free? In my opinion in reference to the gaming industry (and most). In this world the main ambition is money and when it comes to software and hardware development I can’t see much freeware being better. Companies won’t develop games/software/hardware for free unless its some tactical marketing move. Although in lots of cases the free product can overcome a quality paid version due to just being a free alternative for example Shonky maps which is GPS map overlay is not as detailed than other worldwide/Nationwide overlays but if you intend to not spend $220 on Oztopo than Shonky maps will satisfy you. But if you want to focus on quality Oztopo will be better because their getting Money to produce the product and in most cases it costs money to make money and in gaming its costing developers million of $ in investments so Y would they give it to you, they want their return. So back to my point I think Xbox live has More Room for improvement and better experience compared to Play station Online because there getting money for that service to pay for years of development.
Cheers
I get what you’re saying, Ivan, and I agree, it’s not a black-and-white issue. I don’t even buy into the phrase “the best things in life are free.” (There’s still shipping and handling, or a self-addressed stamped envelope. Or whatever.) Nor would I expect a free XBox360.
But I do feel that the arguments are at odds with each other, because at first a point is made for the XBox360 because their Gold membership costs more (that is, costs anything at all), whereas PS3’s version does not. But then later on, one of the arguments in favor of the XBox360 is that it is cheaper. By prior logic, wouldn’t that make the PS3 the better machine? (I’m playing devil’s advocate here, of course; I’ve already established that I don’t think cost links directly with value.)
I think a lot of people have drank the “you get what you pay for” Kool-Aid where the internet is concerned, especially those who were late adopters of the internet. Paying for most services is a relatively new phenomenon, and one with which not everyone is yet on board. (Though even I admit it’s inevitable. If there’s money to be made, it will be made, plain and simple.)
But this is a total tangent from 360 vs. PS3, so I’ll just end it here. O:)
hey krud i c ur points to.
I’m no Microsoft fan boy, but we all know microsofts are masters at marketing( hey they sold a dodgy OS to like every company in the world). i live in Aus where the 360 is $299-450 and ps3 is $699. the 360 has a cheaper console to begin with & the $50 a year for live has done them well because many people are like ” its only $50″. the way Sony were marketing their product was a higher risk approach they came after 360 with a more expensive product and the idea of free online service is great if that helps sales turn around but if it doesnt then ur in a bigger money hole.
cheers