Fox News says don't get an XBOX - Page 2

So, Crow, you're saying that you will probably spend most of that day telling people they can't get a 360? Have fun.

Thank merciful Christ, I don't work Tuesday.

However, i do work Black Friday. I almost got lynched last year because we were out of PS2s, a system that already sold 8 million units.

This year, I'm wearing kevlar.

Crow, can you find your store from this list, and confirm the numbers?

http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=388156

i work at a future shop here in canada (think best buy, but in red and black).

we were *supposed* to get, and planned our preordering on getting 52 premium bundles on release day. we only took 38 preorders, because we knew we'd get cut down eventually, and stopped about a month ago. only today did we find out that we got cut down.. a lot. we're only getting 34 now. well, technically 32 because two got misplaced and now reside in Saskatchewan.

38 preorders, paid for. 32 being received. how glad am i that i dont have to work that morning?

Yup, we're in there. 82 systems total. 62 premium, 20 core.

Goddamn those numbers are sad.

The funny thing is those numbers look like the highest ones yet. EB/Gamestop seem to be getting under 30, and other places even less.

Wednesday: half of those systems are posted on ebay... at 700 dollars. It's going to be the PS2 launch all over again.

It's all about bragging rights I guess.
I wouldn't even want one of the launch systems, especially if there are shortages(well, unless I had money to burn, of course). In addition to the buggy hardware you mentioned, I doubt the LIVE games will be all that great in these early days, with no one to play against(well, too few anyway).

I'd expect the opposite. Fewer 12 year olds who got an Xbox for the birthday and more older, serious (or less childish) gamers. I'd bet the next two months on Live with the 360 will largely be free of the shit we all hate about playing online.

It's so weird which aspects of the gaming industry get major media coverage. You'd think the massive nationwide shortages and slashed-in-half shipments would rate a few mentions, especially since I'd imagine plenty of parents will stroll into stores a week before Christmas and be shocked to learn that little Johnny's gaming system isn't available for purchase. But instead we get articles ranting about backwards compatibility and 50 Cent games. Strange.

Poorly.

But backwards compatibility never used to be an issue. It should be a bonus extra - not a major reason to not buy a console. That's my point - this secondary function is being spun into a big deal when it really isn't.

If you've got Xbox games you love playing, then you've got an Xbox to play them on. It won't suddenly vanish if you buy a 360 and your favorite game isn't backwards compatible.

It's not something they've done just to piss people off - it's a side effect of changing the graphics architecture of the console, so that future games will be even better. Any talk of Microsoft cruelly stiffing people on the key issue of backwards compatibility is kneejerk fanboy partisanship.

Of course they have. They've marketed it as a next generation games console. They've marketed it as an entertainment hub, as an online gaming center. That's the selling point. Unless they've been running TV ads saying "Buy an Xbox 360 and you can play all your old Xbox games! Oh, and there'll be some new ones as well!" then all this furore is silly.

People buy a new console for new games. Being able to play your old games on it is a secondary factor, and only a recent expectation.

They probably wouldn't. But that's not Microsoft's fault or responsibility. It's up to the consumer, and it's up to store staff, to explain any issues that may arise to people who are confused. Just as they had to do with VHS and DVD, with CDs, just as with any new technology.

They've released a list of games that will be compatible. They've openly admitted that not all Xbox games will work on 360. They've put out press releases, the news has run in all outlets where you'd expect to see gaming news - from the newsstand to the trade press.

Short of Microsoft calling every potential buyer up and explaining 360 backwards compatibility over the phone, or sending employees to every store to hold people's hands as they make their purchase, I don't see what else they can do. If people are still confused then the communication problem doesn't lie with Microsoft.

No corporation on Earth would make the partial functionality of a secondary feature of a new product the primary focus of a consumer awareness campaign. Nor should they be expected to.

I fooled around with a 360 for a half hour or so a couple of days ago. Demo for King Kong and Call of Duty. It honestly dampened my interest in the machine. Notable load times and pretty mediocre graphics--lotta missing textures on Kong. That's not the fault of the box, obviously, but I can't imagine spending three or four hundred dollars on day one for a machine with a very limited library and no observable improvement over its predecessor. If I had that kind of money to spend I'd sooner buy the original Xbox, or a couple new games.

I think both articles would be pretty useful to the average consumer, especially with Christmas in mind. Why spend that much money on an underwhelming piece of electronics with no unique library? If the price goes down and some games come out--sure. But why rush into it?

To a lot of people, getting the console during the holidays is a big thing. That's not so surprising, is it?

If the articles gave a balanced accounting of the facts, no one would have a problem with them. But when you name your article "Don't get an Xbox", and then go on to list very specific facts without context, it's a hatchetjob. This sort of propaganda would be inappropriate for any new piece of hardware.

Because a lot of people don't find it underwhelming

That's untrue, there are unique titles. Perfect Dark Zero, Kameo, Condemned, Dead or Alive 4, and Project Gotham Racing 3 aren't found on other consoles.

The price of consoles always comes down. Launches are traditionally sparse times with bad titles. Nothing is new with this situation. Are people supposed to never buy consoles at launch?

The only unfortunate thing is that titles like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion and Ghost Recon 3 didn't make the release. It would have been nice to have better third-party titles, instead of EA's flood of cross-platform sports titles, but just because the launch isn't as spectacular as it could be doesn't make it terrible.

The only people adversely affected by the lack of backwards compatibility are the game geeks who are going to run down to GameSpot and trade in their XBox for store credit towards the new system. And they probably already know about the lack of BC anyway. Like Dan says, the average person most likely doesn't really care about it.

You're right that it's being spun into too great of an issue here, and Slater's right that press should be concentrating on the intentional shortage.

But saying 'it never used to be an issue' is living in the past. HD never used to be an issue, either, but after the 360 launches and people play all their games in HD it will be. Sony changed things by making the PS2 BC, and even though few people use the ability, it's become a talking point and will remain so.

And just because consoles have never had this functionality, why shouldn't we ask for it? They never had online capabilities or HD output, either (Dreamcast excepted) so should those not be issues as well? The market changes and people expect more features for their $400. And the fact that several companies in the past had released accessories to mod their consoles into backwards compatibility after release also shows that maybe this always was an issue.

A lot of people no longer have original Playstations. And yet they can find copies of Symphony of the Night, Final Fantasy VII or Parappa the Rappa and play them on their current PS2, just like I can get a copy of Red River to play on any movie player. That helps gaming as a medium, and consumers should ask for it.

HD affects more than just games consoles though. It's not the same thing at all. HDTV is an emergent technology that consoles need to adapt to. Backwards compatibility is the opposite - it's the ability to remain compatible with yesterday's technology (for, as you say, a minority of gamers).

At what point should the former be sacrificed for the latter?

Microsoft changed the graphics architecture so 360 can play games that will look great in HD. In doing so, they made it difficult/impossible to play some old games.

I'm not saying we shouldn't ask for it. I'm saying we shouldn't expect it, if implementing it would mean restricting the future of a console. That doesn't make any sense for gamers or publishers.

And backwards compatibility is not the same as online or HD. Those are new technologies, not old software.

It's always been something people have been interested in, sure. But as you've just said - companies can retroactively implement it. X360 not being compatible with all Xbox games out of the box wouldn't even figure in my Top Ten list of downsides of the machine.

Most of those copies will be second hand though, so it doesn't help gaming as a business. And, yes, people should ask for it. And companies should make it available, if possible.

It's not like thousands of Xbox owners petitioned them for backwards compatibility and Microsoft spat in their faces. They've made a technological decision based on the future of the console, and that's meant that making it compatible with all archive titles will be troublesome.

So they've done it, and been open about the results.

I'm not arguing against backwards compatibility, or that hardware companies should disregard the wishes of gamers (though BC is traditionally a minority concern).

It's just that given the choice between a 360 that can play all the old Xbox games, and a 360 that's designed to deliver the next generation of games, I'll always take the latter. No question.

And you know that had they gone the other direction, had they traded off future performance for retro compatibility, people would still be pissing and moaning about that decision.

Backwards compatibility isn't just about games released three or four years ago. I'm sure there are people who will want to play Panzer Dragoon again on their 360, and BC would be an important feature for selling the platform to them, and I also agree that those gamers are a smallish portion of the gaming public.

But BC is also about playing the games that were released in the last month... Half-Life 2 and The Warriors. Or, for people who don't buy the latest games as they are released, it's for playing the games that are now hitting bargain bins... Splinter Cell:CT and Psychonauts and GTA:SA. I'll grant you that buying a 360 does not automatically activate the self-destruct sequence on the XBox. But doesn't Microsoft want to sell 360s to people who never owned an XBox? And wouldn't it be smart to offer them the opportunity to play some of the great XBox games they've heard about but missed? Particularly since any list of launch games... no matter how great compared to other launches... looks paultry next to the mature library of a retiring system?

Surely the never-owned-an-XBox market isn't a smallish segment Microsoft can safely ignore.

I used to argue just like you, Dan, or maybe even less enthusiastic about BC. I said it should be the lowest priority for console developers, that it should be sacrificed for the sake of performance or price. I've changed my mind for a few reasons- console generations appear to be shortening (particularly looking at Microsoft's rapid turnover from the XBox to the 360). Older systems probably won't stay in production as long as, say, the original PS1... I think it will be nearly impossible to find a new XBox within a year. The increase of game quality from generation to generation is more incremental, meaning playing your last generation games won't be quite so much like stepping back into the stone ages (is there anything on the 360 that looks vastly superior to Ninja Gaiden? I mean, SNES-to-PlayStation superior?) And most important...

The modern consoles are more fragile than previous generations. If you own an original SNES there's a good chance it still works. I can go into my local EB and buy a used SNES right now. If I found an old SNES game I absolutely had to play I could get my hands on a working console easily. I very much doubt you'll be able to say the same about the XBox or PS2 in 10 years, or even 3 years. So if you're just planning to keep the XBox in perpetuity to play those old 360-incompatible titles you are going to have a rude awakening.

And that's just from the end user's point of view. Developers have a whole set of other concerns that are addressed by BC, such as deciding whether or not to cancel expensive projects that will be released very near the end of one console's life (StarCraft: Ghost, FFXII). Given BC all the owners of shiny new systems can still be expected to buy one or two games released for the old system, particularly if the library on the 360/PS3 is still small.

I don't hang around in my local game store listening to the sales pitches as a habit or anything, but I've happened to overhear a clerk trying to pitch the 360 to parents three or four times (usually standing in line waiting to make a purchase). These apparently aren't serious gamers, they are buying games for their kids. And one of the things every single one of them has asked is "Can it play my kid's old XBox games?" And then the poor clerk has to stumble around and say Yes, well, Maybe, if you buy the $400 system.

Parents are asking. It's about the only thing they ask. I think it's because while many parents are still completely in the dark about video games they do know computers (unlike the parents of my generation). Games are software to them, consoles are little mini-computers, and they want something that can continue to play the games they've spent a couple hundred bucks on.. something that can play the game they're buying at that moment.

And if Microsoft weren't including backwards compatibility at all then I'd agree with you. They've changed the console architecture. That makes complete compatibility a problem.

I don't know how much more clearly I can say this: 360 is a new console. You buy it to play new games. That it can play some old Xbox games is a bonus. Is it a shame that recent Xbox games won't work on it? Sure. Is it a disaster? No. Because those games will still work on the Xbox you bought them for.

This is like arguing that a new car is flawed because the cigarette lighter only works on Marlboros.

Plus... as time goes by, developers might make emulators that can work with a group of games, so just hold tight.

You must not understand the bloodlust some parents have just to not have to hear their spoiled children bitch about not having the console ASAP.

Didn't you notice the site indicia (or the thread title)?

As for living in the past, aka BC, The Sphinx is spot on. But the validity of Dan's view remains the core issue.

But consumers often won't educate themselves, and remain in the dark about some important issues concerning such a hefty purchase. And it IS a hefty purchase to most of this group, who can maybe afford only one (gasp!) system for little Joey. Ever. I suppose this would also limit the amount spent on games, but they would want the biggest library available. These people don't need an Xbox 360. But that's what Joey wants. So, yeah, buyer beware, but what Microsoft doesn't want is a bunch of angry parents. They can afford it, but bad press is always unwelcome.

Is it the "first to get it" or getting it at all during before the end of the year? I think you're confusing the two. If the numbers are as small as we're hearing they are, it will be a real struggle to find this system at all before Christmas. Buying it in a couple weeks may be no different than buying it now.

I'm sure it doesn't come as a shock to you that people place great value on their enjoyment of this time of year. I don't even think it's the "spoiled kids" syndrome that much. Maybe there are some kids whose parents drop $800 on them easily, but I find it much easier to believe the real people buying these overpriced consoles will be gamers in their late 20s or over. These are the people with a lot of disposable income earmarked for their entertainment, people who likely already have their HDTVs and surround sound, people who don't have the time or inclination to camp out at a store. I think this financial situation is where the main bulk of the hardcore Xbox fanatics reside.

Making judgements like "you should know better than to pay X amount of dollars for something" is a dangerous thing. Everyone has different values and priorities, to which you can't stamp one general attitude.

I'm kinda surprised. Since it's from Fox News, I'd figure they'd say buy the 360 because it can't play Bulletproof.

That's always been the case, historically. The people who buy consoles at launch, at the highest price point, are the early adopters - the core gamers who have to own the latest generation as soon as possible.

It usually takes at least a year for prices to drop and the number of games to increase to the point where the majority of customers are casual players.

Things have changed somewhat over the past few years, and I suspect this will be the first generational shift where gaming is mainstream enough to skew that trend, but given the limited availability (made worse by store staff claiming theirs out of the stock before they go on sale) I don't think it'll change that much.

At least not until there's more than one next-gen console on the shelf.

Getting back to the consumer education bit for a second, has Microsoft sent any kind of point-of-purchase signage to retailers describing the different bundles and the equipment needed to run Live and backwards compatability? The weekly ads certainly didn't do much to highlight the differences.

I've seen the ebay sales. They're going for a lot, I'm sure, even when you discount the auction shilling. However, if someone spends $3,000+ on a console, money isn't an issue for them. Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel is not out there mortgaging his house to buy the 360.

It's not your place to tell people what their priorities should be, nor mine. I disagree with plenty of purchases rich people make, doesn't mean they're "wrong" or "stupid". The worst I'd call them is self-indulgent and short-sighted. But then, isn't all entertainment self-indulgent?

Giving in to passing judgement on stuff like this is dangerous because it never ends. I have no doubt that there are people who would call ever spending more than $100 on a console foolish. Others would say spending more than $20 for a game is equally idiotic, only to be shouted down by people who say anyone who buys instead of rents is too. And then there are people who would nag you for buying video games at all. Where you draw the line is entirely relative, making any sort of complaints futile.