M$ Poor people can't play Xbox one #data4updates/back comp.=broke NXOE is poo!

Anyone trying to update/install/play games using their phone as a hotspot must be RICH in reality (At least here in the United States.), as the most common plans here are 2 gigabytes a month with a $10.00 per extra gigabyte overage charge.

Now there are a few carriers that offer "unlimited" cellular data...ha, ha. Don't think offering 2 gigabytes at 4G then throttling you down to 2G is a perk, nor do I believe that 5 gigabytes is unlimited either.

Do find it somewhat amusing that certain posts call out companies for being greedy. Businesses are out to make as much as possible while investing as little as possible; maybe some are confusing business with charity.

Have one bill that will charge $2.00 per month if I want a paper statement...$2.00 for 2 cents worth of paper and ink? Heck, if Microsoft thought they could charge $2.00 every time someone posted in here and get away with it; you know they would. Any business
would. It's the nature of the beast.

Just my ramblings, J.R.

 

Back Alley Bumperjack is more my style.

This data cap thing shouldn't come as a surprise as the more in demand something is, the more companies will find ways of charging more for it.

I look for net providers like TWC and others to go the data cap route soon as they have no direct residential compitition and like MS can get away with most any policy changes they can dream up.

Or, like they did in early Y2K's. Get Congress not only to make it legal, but also fund it.

CIP: I know of no-one who has cable TV, but does have net through the cable provider. 5 years ago, it was the reverse and you could local cable for less than 10 bucks a month. They added a few channels, mostely gospel often 2 channels of the same just East
West feeds and up'ed the cost to 70 bucks a month.. Which is why no-one even wants cable Tv now.

Point is, they'll do the same now that net services/Netflix/Hulu/etc is in high demand.

 

Something I'd like to point out, since the subject is up here.

I don't see gaming as the "expensive hobby" that many people seem to claim it is.

When the 'great recession' around '08 hit, I recall reading articles about a lot of different industries and how they were affected. I also remember reading some that stated the video game industry was still touting profits, despite the hit that the very
same companies were showing in the stock market. They went so far as to call it "recession proof" or perhaps "recession resistant".

A lot of very sensible explanations were offered.

It makes sense if you think about it. It's entertainment. Many would argue the expense of buying a console, but in all reality, the $500(ish) investment for the hardware lasted how long with the 360?

'$60 is a lot for a game if you're poor'... perhaps, but if you take all the factors into consideration, the bang for the buck is hard to beat.

How many hours could a person sink into a good game, especially if they knew they had to "make it last awhile" before they could afford another? One person could spend the cost of a game, if they went to a movie and didn't smuggle their own food into the
theatre, unless they planned on just not eating/drinking... and that will only get a few hours on a single night.

With a game, you don't have to leave home.

More than one person can enjoy it.

It has more replay value than any movie IMO.

DLC is optional and you don't have to get a season pass up front if you need to wait until you can afford it.

If you ask me, gaming is decent choice for entertainment in the bang for the buck aspect. Sure, you can spend a lot if you have it... but you don't really have to. Although OP's post does bring up the fact that more and more internet integration does chip
into the value of it.

 

I don't see console gaming expensive as such, I just don't see it as value for money, get a better spec and more functional equipment for the same money, and get the same game significantly cheaper, and while I appreciate that console gaming has it benefits,
I think am leading down the road that the difference doesn't warrant the price.

 

^Seems a fair enough point, but if you put a '10 year' life span on the 360 (just for a rounded number) I've had a lot more PCs come and go in that time span than consoles.

 

thats would assume two things the console won't break within the 10 years, going from experience it will, and the xbox one will last 10 years, and since the kinect has died already, I am not convinced, one thing for sure PC's will still be a thing.

Also peripherals like headsets, mics etc will all work from one to the next PC, thats not the case in terms of xbox.

 

Couldn't agree more about it being value for money, but if you don't have that disposable money in the first place (for whatever reason) it's an expensive hobby irrespective of how much bang you get for your buck.

 

I'm learning to be selective. Games that give me exceptional mileage, such as ESO, GTA Online, Dark Souls, and even Destiny have good value for the time you get out of them. Vanilla games cost about as much as two hardcover books or 2-3 BR discs.

However, when you see the trend toward games required a long term investment into DLC, the way Destiny did, the prices do creep up. Still no outrageous as far as hobbies go, but I can see why people feel the pinch. Word just came out today that The Division
is holding back the Brooklyn map until post launch, presumably as DLC. So all indications are, it's going to be another title that disguises subscriptions in the form of DLC.

 

@Enen, this could spiral... lol

Playing devil's advocate, keeping the same PC for 10 years may be no easier. Unless you want to remain in a static state with the OS. There have been several times I've considered updating OS's for a PC that has only been a few years old... only to be told
something like "math coprocessor is not compatible with this version of Windows" after running the compatibility check.

That's just the OS, not mentioning all the different apps that may or may not remain compatible, or continue support when an OS updates to a new version.

Historically speaking, I've 'needed' to upgrade (which typically means replace) a few PCs because of hardware compatibility issues that come along with natural software progression, before I've actually wanted to... within the lifetime of a 360. The 360
is also the only console I've ever had any issues with needing to replace because of a known hardware issue, but an extended warranty covered that.

I see it as the limitations being the advantage. I know that it doesn't matter if it's next year or 6 years from now, if they release an entirely new Xbox One Experience... it won't cost me anything for the update, it will be guaranteed to work with the
hardware that's already there... and all the apps, games, services, etc. will be compatible.

 

I personally feel i get value for money when buying my games, i look at it similar to blue, it would cost me £10 to watch a 2 hour film in the cinema and once watched thats it but with games they cost a little more and you get more hours of entertainment
for your money

 

Sorry Blue, my comment wasn't expecting to keep the same PC for 10 years, it was simply suggesting a counter arguement of an xbox having a 10 year life span.

Eg, I bought by xbox one day one, I expect it to break within the possible xbox one life span and have to replace it.

I should also mention that PC's wont loose there features with OS changes either, although will have ppl liking and disliking them.

It could escalate, and its horses for courses.

 

^Understood. My main point was that even if both could "go the ten years" with no failure... a PC will have hardware lagging behind the software. An Xbox won't, yet will still get regular updates.

 

True, but a PC will have more games, more choice in game types, mods (see what i did there), more peripherals, more options outside games, no xbox live subscription, games download quicker IME, I could keep going.

So you will get your moneys worth out of a PC, before you have to replace it.

 

^I get that and it's a fair point. Putting it in the perspective of the OP though, one has to take into consideration... getting your money's worth is "the best option" as long as you have it to spend. It's just been my experience that PCs want you to spend
it more often, even if it's a bit less. It would take actual number crunching to prove... but I'm starting to think it may just boil down to being a matter of preference.

 

I was thinking about it, and I paid £400 for a machine just to play games, and the games are more expensive.

I am pretty sure if I wanted to I could put together a convincing argument for both sides as we have both done, at the end of the day you have to spend money to play, and how you do that depends on to many consideration for us to worry about.

Is it value for money compared to other pass times, well I guess we would have the same argument and as long as it keeps you happy and out of trouble, who cares