Xbox One Why only one controller?

[bifftape]

The Xbox One is expensive enough as it is, they shouldn't feel the need to weight it down with extra pieces. I heard there are some stores throwing in an extra controller as part of a package deal. I don't remember the exact details but there's a thread with that information around here somewhere.

 

[KN1GHTMARE]

The Xbox One is expensive enough as it is, they shouldn't feel the need to weight it down with extra pieces. I heard there are some stores throwing in an extra controller as part of a package deal. I don't remember the exact details but there's a thread with that information around here somewhere.

I don't think the console is expensive for what it is. People don't seem to realize that you're buying a gaming PC at this point. A cheap one at that. I don't expect any less for a piece of hardware meant to last me a decade and it would silly to expect a cheaper version of the XB1. My Mac cost $2500 and my TV $3200, it's the price of long term entertainment and technology. To be honest I find the outrage over such a minuscule price as $500 ridiculous, my other "toys" cost at least 5 times the price. I understand for some people it may be a lot of money, but owning an XB1 is a privilege not a right. While it is always good to appeal to the masses and be affordable, it's just as important to be profitable. MSFT cannot afford to lose money on each sale like they did with the 360. Besides, like I said before, it's affordable for WHAT IT IS.

 

[Reptar_On_Ice]

This is true. Sometimes we forget buisinesses can't just give things away, even to their most loyal customers. It doesn't necessarily mean they are greedy and evil, it's just part of being a buisiness.

Business can, in fact, give things away.

Microsoft actually is giving away two games a month to people with Xbox Live Gold Memberships.

Microsoft gives away free **** all the time. Just nothing that costs anything for them. Hence why they are greedy. Where it counts, they won't give you anything, but if it's super cheap for them, they'll give you gifts like crazy.

 

[Reptar_On_Ice]

I don't the console is expensive for what it is. People don't seem t realize that you're buying a gaming PC at this point. A cheap one at that. I don't expect any less for a piece of hardware meant to last me a decade and it would silly to expect a cheaper version of the XB1. My Mac cost $2500 and my TV $3200, it's the price of long term entertainment and technology. To be honest I find the outrage over such a minuscule price as $500 ridiculous, my other "toys" cost at least 5 times the price. I understand for some people it may be a lot of money, but owning an XB1 is a privilege not a right. While it is always good to appeal to the masses and be affordable, it's just as important to be profitable. MSFT cannot afford to lose money on each sale like they did with the 360. Besides, like I said before, it's affordable for WHAT IT IS.

If your Mac cost you 2500 dollars, you got ripped off, and should consider buying Windows next time.

A decent gaming PC is actually around 500 dollars. You could spring 600 or 700 for something really really nice. 500 dollars is not a cheap gaming PC. It's a standard gaming PC. If you're buying a console for the same price as a gaming PC, uh, shouldn't you just buy a PC, then? Where games are cheaper, the DRM isn't at all restrictive, and you don't have to bundle it with a dumb motion controller you don't want?

 

[KN1GHTMARE]

If your Mac cost you 2500 dollars, you got ripped off, and should consider buying Windows next time.

A decent gaming PC is actually around 500 dollars. You could spring 600 or 700 for something really really nice. 500 dollars is not a cheap gaming PC. It's a standard gaming PC. If you're buying a console for the same price as a gaming PC, uh, shouldn't you just buy a PC, then? Where games are cheaper, the DRM isn't at all restrictive, and you don't have to bundle it with a dumb motion controller you don't want?

My Mac cost me $2500 because I had it custom built because I need it for work, I in fact did not get ripped off, because my career entitles me to know the whole sale cost of parts. I think there's a bit of arrogance in your response. I also have a windows PC, but the MAC is much better for website architecture. BTW no self-respecting PC gamer pays $500 for their gaming rig because that would involve buy a stock built gaming PC and not building your own. As you can see in the below picture a state of the art MAC cost well above the $2500 I paid, mind you the picture isn't for a fully upgrade MAC

 

[Esperahol]

I don't think the console is expensive for what it is. People don't seem t realize that you're buying a gaming PC at this point. A cheap one at that. I don't expect any less for a piece of hardware meant to last me a decade and it would silly to expect a cheaper version of the XB1. My Mac cost $2500 and my TV $3200, it's the price of long term entertainment and technology. To be honest I find the outrage over such a minuscule price as $500 ridiculous, my other "toys" cost at least 5 times the price. I understand for some people it may be a lot of money, but owning an XB1 is a privilege not a right. While it is always good to appeal to the masses and be affordable, it's just as important to be profitable. MSFT cannot afford to lose money on each sale like they did with the 360. Besides, like I said before, it's affordable for WHAT IT IS.

1. By that argument the PS4 should cost more and all the complaints about the PS3's initial price should have never been made. The PS3 was effectively a gaming rig, but it came with really crappy programing language. The PS4 is supposed to have corrected for that while still being basically a gaming PC that people shouldn't be able to screw up with malware and shoddy maintenance.

2. Just because you personally have money to splurge doesn't mean that other people can't be concerned with the cost and what is included in that cost. Gaming is a luxury, but so are nonessentials like chocolate, air condition, computers, and internet - yet most people are reasonable enough not to tell people to just get over it when they wonder about the prices of some things. Instead they suggest ways of getting the same for either cheaper or in a manner that doesn't break the bank and/or via some method of staggered payment. I mean going to Disneyland is a luxury, but I've never seen someone be ugly about it when someone has wished it was cheaper to go.

3. Considering the PS4 has better tech, but happens to be cheaper... and considering part of the inflation of price is, you know, not actually desired by most potential purchasers... yeah I can't really see how it's like the absolute best price. And while it's possible to pull the "it's a business" card that doesn't mean much considering basic economics. There are two ways to break even or profit - either sell something at a higher price with fewer customers or sell something as a lower cost with more customers. The second option is not only viable, but actually a better route - considering the demand a lower price would drive up sells and prevent much if any of a loss. On top of that if there were a loss it is entirely possible to make up the difference in 1st party game sales and online transactions via Xbox Live.

4. For 500 bucks you'd think you'd get at least two controllers...seriously.

 

[hatmasker]

Of course, they can choose to give some things away to raise opinion of themselves, but other things they choose not to give away for free. The controller is one of those things. Most people are still going to buy the console no matter how many controllers are in it. When I buy a game system I expect it to only come with one controller. I can understand why they don't want to add a second controller to the package if they don't have to.

 

[KN1GHTMARE]

1. By that argument the PS4 should cost more and all the complaints about the PS3's initial price should have never been made. The PS3 was effectively a gaming rig, but it came with really crappy programing language. The PS4 is supposed to have corrected for that while still being basically a gaming PC that people shouldn't be able to screw up with malware and shoddy maintenance.

2. Just because you personally have money to splurge doesn't mean that other people can't be concerned with the cost and what is included in that cost. Gaming is a luxury, but so are nonessentials like chocolate, air condition, computers, and internet - yet most people are reasonable enough not to tell people to just get over it when they wonder about the prices of some things. Instead they suggest ways of getting the same for either cheaper or in a manner that doesn't break the bank and/or via some method of staggered payment. I mean going to Disneyland is a luxury, but I've never seen someone be ugly about it when someone has wished it was cheaper to go.

3. Considering the PS4 has better tech, but happens to be cheaper... and considering part of the inflation of price is, you know, not actually desired by most potential purchasers... yeah I can't really see how it's like the absolute best price. And while it's possible to pull the "it's a business" card that doesn't mean much considering basic economics. There are two ways to break even or profit - either sell something at a higher price with fewer customers or sell something as a lower cost with more customers. The second option is not only viable, but actually a better route - considering the demand a lower price would drive up sells and prevent much if any of a loss. On top of that if there were a loss it is entirely possible to make up the difference in 1st party game sales and online transactions via Xbox Live.

4. For 500 bucks you'd think you'd get at least two controllers...seriously.

1. I agree the PS4 should cost more money and probably would have, had Microsoft not had the earlier conference. I actually had no problem with the PS3's launch price, sure in hindsight you can see it wouldn't be worth it, but hindsight is always 20/20. I merely went 360 do to the earlier availability, I didn't feel like waiting any longer for next gen.

2. I thought I stated I understood many people may not be able to afford one. I don't mean to be "ugly" as you put it, I'm merely expressing my right to an opinion. I apologize if you were personally offended by it. I, however, think that you cannot compare a XB1/PS4 to a computer or internet access. In this day and age PCs and internet may actually be necessities for school and work. Air condition may be key to your daily comfort and ease of living depending on you location. Chocolate and gaming are not things that make you days more difficult or uncomfortable when you don't have them around. They truly are luxuries. I can't afford a Lamborghini, but that's simply the card I'm dealt. I won't protest for the price to be lowered for my convenience. They cater to a wanted luxury and not a cause needing to be met. Wasn't it Sony who once suggested that if you can't afford the console, simply get a second job? Looks to me like plenty of people in this retail market expect people to just get over it, whether it's "ugly" or not.

3. I never stated MSFT had a good price point competitively so I'm not sure what you're referring to. The 360 lost money for every console sold in the first 3 years, they weren't profitable due to their larger install base or first part games. They became profitable once the cost of manufacturing went down due to advance in technology. They kept the price the same, but the cost gradually lowered. This was not a gamble they were willing to so again and I can't blame them.

4. The PS3 cost $600 back in 2006 and did not include an extra controller. Most console launches don't regardless of the fact the all cost a lot given the year of release.

 

[crazyduck]

If I remember correctly then other consoles release one controller with their systems. With the PS3, I only had one controller likewise with the 360. It isn't much to pay £40 for another controller if you need it. Most gamers only need one controller though. I have 2 because I sometimes play with other people but that controller doesn't get used much.

 

[Reptar_On_Ice]

1. I agree the PS4 should cost more money and probably would have, had Microsoft not had the earlier conference. I actually had no problem with the PS3's launch price, sure in hindsight you can see it wouldn't be worth it, but hindsight is always 20/20. I merely went 360 do to the earlier availability, I didn't feel like waiting any longer for next gen.

2. I thought I stated I understood many people may not be able to afford one. I don't mean to be "ugly" as you put it, I'm merely expressing my right to an opinion. I apologize if you were personally offended by it. I, however, think that you cannot compare a XB1/PS4 to a computer or internet access. In this day and age PCs and internet may actually be necessities for school and work. Air condition may be key to your daily comfort and ease of living depending on you location. Chocolate and gaming are not things that make you days more difficult or uncomfortable when you don't have them around. They truly are luxuries. I can't afford a Lamborghini, but that's simply the card I'm dealt. I won't protest for the price to be lowered for my convenience. They cater to a wanted luxury and not a cause needing to be met. Wasn't it Sony who once suggested that if you can't afford the console, simply get a second job? Looks to me like plenty of people in this retail market expect people to just get over it, whether it's "ugly" or not.

3. I never stated MSFT had a good price point competitively so I'm not sure what you're referring to. The 360 lost money for every console sold in the first 3 years, they weren't profitable due to their larger install base or first part games. They became profitable once the cost of manufacturing went down due to advance in technology. They kept the price the same, but the cost gradually lowered. This was not a gamble they were willing to so again and I can't blame them.

4. The PS3 cost $600 back in 2006 and did not include an extra controller. Most console launches don't regardless of the fact the all cost a lot given the year of release.

1. Yeah. I'm sure Sony was really banking on Microsoft having a high price point, and switched it at the last second. There's obviously a ton of evidence to suggest such a thing. It was just a big conspiracy against Microsoft.

2. Are you seriously going to pull out bad quotes of Sony? Because I'm pretty sure Microsoft beat them with terrible and condescending PR. A 'bad quote' discussion isn't something you want to get in, if you're supporting the Xbox One.

3. Microsoft sure seems to think so. They've said that their console is going to be profitable right out of the starting gate, even though it's more expensive and has a lot more going against it than the Xbox 360.

 

[jstep]

The Xbox One is expensive enough as it is, they shouldn't feel the need to weight it down with extra pieces. I heard there are some stores throwing in an extra controller as part of a package deal. I don't remember the exact details but there's a thread with that information around here somewhere.

Agreed. The fact of the matter is not everyone is going to want/need a second controller, so why 1. up the price of the system with 2. unnecessary extra accessories that not everyone is going to use? We just traded in a bunch of stuff to Gamestop today and paid off our Xbox One and made the smart move and paid off a second controller right off the bat because who knows how scarce those will be for the first few weeks. If I was single and living on my own, I probably wouldn't bother with a second controller for the time being either. I'm usually playing an RPG by myself or playing multiplayer with friends online. I think the only time the hubby and I ever play with two controllers on one system is for the GoW campaign, typically. Even the Halo campaign we just play on two systems.

Now if there are multiple people in the household and you're playing a lot of two player games with one system, then yeah, just buy a second controller because you'll obviously have a need for it. I really don't think MS is trying to "make more money off you."

 

[GetFresh]

I totally understand. It would be great if Microsoft could just add one more controller. I'm sure many more people will be inclined to buy one after that. I'm going to have to go out of my way to buy another controller for my brother. He always wants to play with me.

 

[cynthiabailey738]

I would love to have 2 controllers with my bundle so I don't have to wait for a next one to come.

 

[Jameson]

I feel like its just another way for Microsoft to make more money like they usually do. I cant particularly blame them in this case considering how costly the Xbox One's are to make, but it just feels like theyre always looking for new ways to make money at their communities expense :/

 

[Esperahol]

Agreed. The fact of the matter is not everyone is going to want/need a second controller, so why 1. up the price of the system with 2. unnecessary extra accessories that not everyone is going to use? We just traded in a bunch of stuff to Gamestop today and paid off our Xbox One and made the smart move and paid off a second controller right off the bat because who knows how scarce those will be for the first few weeks. If I was single and living on my own, I probably wouldn't bother with a second controller for the time being either. I'm usually playing an RPG by myself or playing multiplayer with friends online. I think the only time the hubby and I ever play with two controllers on one system is for the GoW campaign, typically. Even the Halo campaign we just play on two systems.

Now if there are multiple people in the household and you're playing a lot of two player games with one system, then yeah, just buy a second controller because you'll obviously have a need for it. I really don't think MS is trying to "make more money off you."

The fact of the matter is not everyone or even most people want a Kinect 2.0, but they're going to get one and be charged for it. Saying folks should either buy two systems or just get over it isn't really very reasonable, because I mean what is the point of telling people they can play up to 8 on a game if there is only one controller per box? And yeah I know it's become the thing to just have one controller in a box, but why? Why is it better to play with folks you'll never meet versus an actual flesh and blood friend? I don't get it.

 

[incredibleone]

Honestly, most gamers are lone wolves. Or at least a good chunk of them. That's probably why it is wise to only issue one controller per console. I don't have that much of a problem with it. We tend to play against other people online now instead of in- person. If this was 1990 then i would expect more than one controller but we are living in 2013.

 

[purpleguardian]

I was actually just asking myslef this same question. Since Video Game Systems have been sold there have always been Christmas' where kids have to take turns and not be able to play 2 player games because the system only comes with one controller. Most parents do not realize these and will have to go back to the store at a later time andbuy another controller anyway.

 

[Jameson]

Honestly, most gamers are lone wolves. Or at least a good chunk of them. That's probably why it is wise to only issue one controller per console. I don't have that much of a problem with it. We tend to play against other people online now instead of in- person. If this was 1990 then i would expect more than one controller but we are living in 2013.

That may be true, but even if youre a lone wolf there are still times that you have your friends over to play some games, but what happens when you have no extra controller? Or what if the wires on your controller get messed up somehow or some other minor thing that causes a big problem to it. Its just more reliable overall to include 2 controllers no matter what. Really though i think if people just knew this fact and remembered it when they went to buy the console, they could just buy another controller while theyre there and the whole problem would be solved.

 

[Esperahol]

I was actually just asking myslef this same question. Since Video Game Systems have been sold there have always been Christmas' where kids have to take turns and not be able to play 2 player games because the system only comes with one controller. Most parents do not realize these and will have to go back to the store at a later time andbuy another controller anyway.

Exactly. I mean yeah a lot of gamers only need the one controller - but the Xbone is supposedly the Toy of the Year and the new Family Entertainment Center... so why only one flipping controller? What about the couple that gets a console? Are they supposed to take turns? What about the kids who team up to buy one? I mean there is honestly no real reason why you can't just have two controllers in the box. Well no real reason that doesn't have to do with massive amounts of ducats in your pocket.

 

[incredibleone]

That may be true, but even if youre a lone wolf there are still times that you have your friends over to play some games, but what happens when you have no extra controller? Or what if the wires on your controller get messed up somehow or some other minor thing that causes a big problem to it. Its just more reliable overall to include 2 controllers no matter what. Really though i think if people just knew this fact and remembered it when they went to buy the console, they could just buy another controller while theyre there and the whole problem would be solved.

Well, they could bring their own controllers over. That's one way to solve the problem. If the wires get messed up then it isn't your fault, just shoddy manufacturing. I think it would have been a bad business decision to include 2 controllers. They are in the money making business. They aren't a charity.