FSTDT Forums
Community => Entertainment and Television => Topic started by: rtvc2012 on May 21, 2013, 11:59:01 pm
-
Has been revealed today
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xboxone/meet-xbox-one
What are your thoughts? As for me, I think it looks too much like an early 80s VCR.
-
What are your thoughts? As for me, I think it looks too much like an early 80s VCR.
That's an extremely shallow assessment.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the emphasis on social networking and stuff like TV and Netflix over actual games. Also, the mandatory Kinect is a very bad sign in my books. That said, I'll largely reserve my judgement for when its actually released.
-
It has two major DRM. First, it requires a licensing fee for used games. This is already a deal breaker for me. Second, it requires a daily internet connection, which is almost as bad as always-online DRM. In other words, Microsoft basically told someone like me who sees the problems with these kinds of DRM to fuck themselves.
-
First, it requires a licensing fee for used games. This is already a deal breaker for me.
Same. I'm pretty sure places like Gamestop will be pissed, too.
-
First, it requires a licensing fee for used games. This is already a deal breaker for me.
Same. I'm pretty sure places like Gamestop will be pissed, too.
With the growing trend of "licensing" instead of "selling (by that I mean simply selling permission to use a product and not selling something for a person to actually own)," I wonder how long it'll be until movies are simply licensed and movie players require online connections so it check for permission. Also, I'm curious; does requiring the license mean you pay for a game twice?
-
Consoles are moving toward being a multiuse machine then just gaming. The marking of that was all over the current generation. More then likely because of them having to compete against things like people either choosing a console or a Ipad.
And let's be honest, with the strong focus on digital game purchases, DLC purchases, online multiplayer for games or overall interactive connectivity (For example, I turn my Wii U on and I'm seeing drawings people have made and what people are saying about games and what not on the main dashboard) it's been pretty obvious that we've been heading toward a always online experience because online is where the money is at and people who play offline are lost sales.
-
First, it requires a licensing fee for used games. This is already a deal breaker for me.
Same. I'm pretty sure places like Gamestop will be pissed, too.
With the growing trend of "licensing" instead of "selling (by that I mean simply selling permission to use a product and not selling something for a person to actually own)," I wonder how long it'll be until movies are simply licensed and movie players require online connections so it check for permission. Also, I'm curious; does requiring the license mean you pay for a game twice?
Software has always been licensed rather that sold. When you buy a game or a movie or whatever, you own the physical medium on which its stored (be it a DVD, a floppy, a VHS tape, whatever it may be), but you don't own the actual content. Owning the content would mean having the right to sell it for profit, being entitled to royalties, the right to access and alter/re-use the source code, all the jazz. It's been that way since the days of vinyl records, it's not a new thing by any stretch of the imagination.
-
I suppose another motivation for the used game licensing fees is to recoup lost unit sales from renting, too. I'm a gamefly fan since '04, the few games I do buy are from their inventory, new or used.
In any case, all games will be streaming or DL only pretty soon. That way, they get all the chokehold on DRM and the money it forces you to pay. If they would just reduce the price of games to reflect the savings of not mass producing and distributing discs, offer flash drive load-ups at stores and continue to make games that have single player and multi player offline modes, it wouldn't be so egregiously greedy, poor snubbing, and control freaky.
-
It has two major DRM. First, it requires a licensing fee for used games. This is already a deal breaker for me. Second, it requires a daily internet connection, which is almost as bad as always-online DRM. In other words, Microsoft basically told someone like me who sees the problems with these kinds of DRM to fuck themselves.
Actually the once a day net connection thing has become rather unclear. MS is now saying the Phil Harrison was merely describing a "potential scenario", whatever the fuck that means. So nobody is entirely sure what is actually the case. I hope it's not true because my internet goes down for about 24hrs at a time once every month.
As for the activiation codes, and how to play a game on a friend's console you'll have to buy another code at the game's full retail price, initially I was pissed offby this. But then I realised that's exactly the same as PC games. They've required one time activation codes for fucking years now, which means you can't bring your PC games round to a friend's house and play it on his PC unless you can find a key gen, and nobody seems to give a fuck about that. It's also no different to Steam games - you can't currently re-sell any Steam games you buy. And people fucking love steam, so why is it okay for steam but not MS? You might argue the difference is Steam is downloaded games and these are physical discs but as somebody pointed out legally you don't own the contents of the disc, you've technically purchased a liscence to use said software and it's been that way since pretty much always.
It's also no different to the current situation with XBL downloaded games and nobody gets their panties in a twist about that. Also, sooner rather than later all games, films and music are going to be downloads and physical mediawill no longer be a thing, sp people need to get used to the idea of content tied to devices/accounts and not being able to sell on your stuff.
The only real issue for is that the Xbox One has lost one of the advantages consoles had over PC's - that you could lend games to your friends (unless they basically buy the fucking game) and play them at eachother's houses for game nights etc. If they keep doing things like this they'll make their own consoles irrelevant as there will be zero advantages to consoles and people will start thinking, "Well what's the point? This is just like my PC but my PC is more powerful."
But generally speaking I think people are over reacting to some of the stuff in MS's announcment (peple are even bitching about the controller's new rumble features, wtf?) and they haven't stopped to think that all these things have already been happening on another device for decades and it never bothered them then.
Edit: Turns out you can play games at a friend's house if you sign in using your profile, but that's still a bit of a pain if you've a group together and you have to keep signing in and out of eachother's profiles.
-
Yeah, no, when I buy a box with a disc inside, I'm not buying a license to play that disc. I'm buying the physical disc that happens to have the data for a game stored on it. What I then do with that disc is none of Microsoft's business. They shouldn't be charging people if I decide that I don't want that disc and sell it to someone, whether it be someone I know or to a store. Its the same reason I don't like to buy games digitally unless I trust the platform. Steam is a platform I trust because there are no restrictions on how many computers I can install my games to and I have never had issues getting my games from one computer to another. I don't really like that I have to run the games through steam, but that's a small thing compared to what Microsoft is implementing here. They're putting DRM on physical property. How this doesn't raise a red flag with some people is beyond me.
Hell, I don't even buy used all that often and, when I do, I refuse to pay twice for one product. Again, I'm not buying a license, I'm buying a disc with data stored on it.
-
Yeah, no, when I buy a box with a disc inside, I'm not buying a license to play that disc. I'm buying the physical disc that happens to have the data for a game stored on it. What I then do with that disc is none of Microsoft's business.
So by your own logic, you could, say, upload the contents of said disk to a torrent site, or copy it onto blank DVDs to sell to your friends. Or you could perhaps go into the source code, dig out the engine and distribute/sell it to others as you see fit. That'd be totally ok, right?
-
They shouldn't be charging people if I decide that I don't want that disc and sell it to someone, whether it be someone I know or to a store...hell, I don't even buy used all that often and, when I do, I refuse to pay twice for one product.
People keep saying this but I can't find where that's been confirmed, all I can find out about is MS confirming you will be able to sell your games on. Anyone got any links?
And it doesn't raise any red flags with me because to be honest I don't give that many fucks. I try to reserve my rage for shit that actually matters. MS interfereing with used game sales sucks yes, but it's not that high up on my list of priorities. The way some people are reacting you'd think the new console requires you to let MS emplyess fuck your sister's still warm corpse in order do anything.
-
Steam is a platform I trust because there are no restrictions on how many computers I can install my games to and I have never had issues getting my games from one computer to another.
MS has confirmed you can install and play games on any console, free of charger, if you sign in with the account that the game is attached too. How is that different to what you've described with steam? I'm pretty sure with steam you have to sign into the steam account you bought the game with regardless of which PC you're installing it on (unless you send it as a gift to another account or something but I think you have to buy the game again to do that).
-
Yeah, no, when I buy a box with a disc inside, I'm not buying a license to play that disc. I'm buying the physical disc that happens to have the data for a game stored on it. What I then do with that disc is none of Microsoft's business.
So by your own logic, you could, say, upload the contents of said disk to a torrent site, or copy it onto blank DVDs to sell to your friends. Or you could perhaps go into the source code, dig out the engine and distribute/sell it to others as you see fit. That'd be totally ok, right?
No, because that's what I could potentially do with the data on the disc. I am not buying the ownership of the data on the disc, just the disc itself. I said that what I do with the disc is not Microsoft's business, not what I do with the data. Yeah, I understand that some people say that they're buying the data, I say that I'm buying the disc with the data stored on it, not the data itself. I hope that makes sense.
People keep saying this but I can't find where that's been confirmed, all I can find out about is MS confirming you will be able to sell your games on. Anyone got any links?
http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2013/05/report-xbox-one-not-backwards-compatible/
http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2013/05/xbox-one-requires-internet-connection/
http://news.xbox.com/2013/05/qa
For the online connect, they flat out say on their website that it will require an Internet connection, but will not require a constant connection, which is only a step above always-online (and if I have to explain why always-online is an issue, I point to SimCity). Otherwise, things are a bit confused right now, so there's not a whole lot to discuss until it gets cleared up.
Now, let's assume assume that there will be a fee to install and play on another console. Rentals are out the window. Used games are not going to be viable. Borrowing games will be difficult, especially for people who are short on cash. No other medium does this. I can loan a friend a book. I don't have to pay twice to buy a used CD. I can rent a DVD with no issue. Why is it excusable for video games to expect you to pay twice for the same product?
That said, I'm not criticizing them for trying to keep people from passing a disc around their social circle and having several people play, but that can be solved a very simple thing: Only run the game when the disc is in the machine. You know, just like how the 360 and PS3 handles it.
And it doesn't raise any red flags with me because to be honest I don't give that many fucks. I try to reserve my rage for shit that actually matters. MS interfereing with used game sales sucks yes, but it's not that high up on my list of priorities. The way some people are reacting you'd think the new console requires you to let MS emplyess fuck your sister's still warm corpse in order do anything.
Because it takes SO much effort to not buy a console that doesn't fit with what you want it to do. I'm not defending the people who are overreacting, I'm trying to be a smart consumer. I don't like having DRM on physical discs, so I won't buy it. Its that simple.
MS has confirmed you can install and play games on any console, free of charger, if you sign in with the account that the game is attached too. How is that different to what you've described with steam? I'm pretty sure with steam you have to sign into the steam account you bought the game with regardless of which PC you're installing it on (unless you send it as a gift to another account or something but I think you have to buy the game again to do that).
Because it is a physical disc, not downloaded data. There is no other medium that tries to restrict what you can do with physical media. I don't have to pay the publisher when I buy a used book, nor have I ever encountered a DVD player with DRM or a CD player that refused to play a CD because I don't have a license to play that music. Why are video games different that its excusable to put DRM on physical media?
Also, does anyone have some statistics to show that needless DRM has ever prevented significant piracy or not hurt legitimate customers?
-
People keep saying this but I can't find where that's been confirmed, all I can find out about is MS confirming you will be able to sell your games on. Anyone got any links?
http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2013/05/report-xbox-one-not-backwards-compatible/
http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2013/05/xbox-one-requires-internet-connection/
http://news.xbox.com/2013/05/qa
Umm, that first link actually proves the fee for buying and palying used games people are talking about isn't true - "Microsoft has begun trying to clear up some confusion surrounding the Xbox One and its interaction with used games. An official Xbox Support Twitter account explains that there will be “no fees” for using pre-owned titles on your next-generation console"
And as I've already said, the internet connection thing is not clear, we don't know for certain because MS later said that the "confirmation" of the net connection thing was merely a "potential scenario" and that they're not confirming anything at this stage.
And it doesn't raise any red flags with me because to be honest I don't give that many fucks. I try to reserve my rage for shit that actually matters. MS interfereing with used game sales sucks yes, but it's not that high up on my list of priorities. The way some people are reacting you'd think the new console requires you to let MS emplyess fuck your sister's still warm corpse in order do anything.
Because it takes SO much effort to not buy a console that doesn't fit with what you want it to do.
Yeah, because that's exactly what I was saying ::)
Now, let's assume assume that there will be a fee to install and play on another console. Rentals are out the window. Used games are not going to be viable. Borrowing games will be difficult, especially for people who are short on cash. No other medium does this. I can loan a friend a book. I don't have to pay twice to buy a used CD. I can rent a DVD with no issue. Why is it excusable for video games to expect you to pay twice for the same product?
PC games have had these restrictions for a very long time. I remember borrwing PC games from friends in the 1990's and I had to find cracks and/or key gens in order to do so because you could only use the code the game came with a handful of times. And even before activation codes installing software to multiple devices was actually often illegal as it violated the user agreement and the publishers permissions regarding their software. I do agree rentals are out the widnow and that sucks, but as I said hasn't that been the case for PC games for ages?
My point is that people didn't complain about these issues with PC games but they're going ballistic now that MS is doing the same thing with the X-box. It sucks that the few advantages of consoles are disappearing here but I honestly don't understand the level at rage people have for the same thing they didn't mind on another platform. This is my point, I'm not talking about how this compares to movies and music and books, or even if it's fair practice, I'm only talking about how it compares to whats already been the case on another similar platform for ages and people said nothing but now they're forthing at the mouth over it with the xbox and how that doesn't make any sense. i'm also saying all these things are minor niggles (and for the record I would prefer them to not be happening with the new x-box) and some people need to calm the fuck down and get some perspective.
Edit: There seems to be a lot of confusing and conflicting information coming from MS about just about everything. I think we need to wait a bit to find out for 100% certain how these "features" will actually work. They've royally fucked up their unveiling event, even without all the fan rage.
-
On a different note, is it just me or is the X-box One massive and very ugly? I know those things don't really matter but it's an added bonus when my electronic devices don't make me wish I was blind.
-
Why the hell did they call it the Xbox One?
-
Why the hell did they call it the Xbox One?
There does seem to be a fad of naming sequels in a way that easily confuses them for the original. See the movies "Rock Balboa" and "John Rambo", or the most recent Tomb Raider named "Tomb Raider" as perfect examples.
-
Why the hell did they call it the Xbox One?
There does seem to be a fad of naming sequels in a way that easily confuses them for the original. See the movies "Rock Balboa" and "John Rambo", or the most recent Tomb Raider named "Tomb Raider" as perfect examples.
Part of me hopes devs will take to putting "one" at the end of game titles (like they did with the N64, everything was [Whatever] 64). It could make sequal titles interesting. Especially if Square Enix do it with their final fantasy series. Imagine the potential double sequal titles down the line - Final Fantasy One XIII-2. It would be gloriously stupid.
-
Why the hell did they call it the Xbox One?
To give it the excellent nick name "XBone". Which comes out about half an inch ahead of my prefered XBro, after what the launch titles all appear to be.
But yeah, looks like crap, has DRM that could potentially be hellish(Guys, do yourselves a favor and announce it's like a 5 dollar charge to re-license a game(and that game is removed from the original owner's library)), nothing terribly interesting setup for it, and I have a remote for my TV already. Plus my remote controls my PS3. Which is nifty.
-
Why the hell did they call it the Xbox One?
To give it the excellent nick name "XBone". Which comes out about half an inch ahead of my prefered XBro, after what the launch titles all appear to be.
But yeah, looks like crap, has DRM that could potentially be hellish(Guys, do yourselves a favor and announce it's like a 5 dollar charge to re-license a game(and that game is removed from the original owner's library)), nothing terribly interesting setup for it, and I have a remote for my TV already. Plus my remote controls my PS3. Which is nifty.
I'll quote again the Blistered Thumbs article:
"An official Xbox Support Twitter account explains that there will be “no fees” for using pre-owned titles on your next-generation console""
But for me I need to see the games. To be brutally honest that's all I'm really interested in. If it has awesome games I'm interested in I might overlook some of the mildly annoying DRM balls as most of it probably won't affect me that much as it seems to mostly relate to things I never did anyway (but I acknolwedge it looks like it's going to suck for a lot of people, like if you're a soldier on deployment or something so you don't have a net connection but you want to play One games) and it's hideous looks. If not then I won't, and I won't buy it. But if the PS4 doesn't have enough games that grab my attention then I won't be buying that either. I won't spend money on it just to teach MS a lesson about things which only annoy me slightly.
And as I said, MS seems to be confused themslves about how any of this DRM shit will actually work, so as I said before I think we wait need to wait and see before judging how much bollocks it is.
-
Honestly I'm about there too, I don't play enough games to particularly care about the used bit(aside from tracking down old ones) and I just don't see any games or useful features i'm interested in.
-
Indie developers can't self-publish on the Xbox One:
http://www.shacknews.com/article/79309/xbox-one-wont-allow-indies-to-self-publish-games (http://www.shacknews.com/article/79309/xbox-one-wont-allow-indies-to-self-publish-games)
http://www.polygon.com/2013/5/22/4355306/indie-developers-cannot-self-publish-on-xbox-one (http://www.polygon.com/2013/5/22/4355306/indie-developers-cannot-self-publish-on-xbox-one)
-
Honestly I'm about there too, I don't play enough games to particularly care about the used bit(aside from tracking down old ones) and I just don't see any games or useful features i'm interested in.
Well so far MS has said approximately fuck all about the games. So far I think these are the only confirmed games but most were confirmed by the devs/publishers not MS:
Assassin's Creed 4 - I'm interested as I rather enjoyed ACII (only one I ever played) and because PIRATES! But it's multiplatform so not enough to convince me to get a One over a PS4.
Battlefield 4 - same as AC4 regarding it being multiplatform. Also I don't know if I still care about BF or not.
Call of Duty: Ghosts - could not give fewer fucks.
Destiny - know very little about this so far (Bungie is being a bi t tight lipped) but I am interest in this one. If it's an exclusive and if it turns out to be interesting it could sway me.
FIFA 14 - mulltiplatform again.
Forza Motorsport 5 - big FM fan so yeah, I'm interested. PS4 will have GT6 but I've started to prefer FM over GT.
Madden 25 - don't care.
NBA Live 14 - don't care.
Quantum Break - no idea what this is or even if it's multi-platform.
Ryse - thnk this is a kinnect game so fuck that noise.
Thief - interested, but again multi-platform.
UFC - don't care.
Watch Dogs - very interest from what little we know about this game so far. But again it's multiplatform.
And I'll eat my own genitals if Halo 5 doesn't show up on the One. And whilst Halo is overated I still quite enjoy it.
So that's only 2 definate exclusives that I give a shit about. It's not really enough so far. Mind you I haven't seen any PS4 exclusives yet that have made me think, "Oh shit, I need that!".
-
Indie developers can't self-publish on the Xbox One:
http://www.shacknews.com/article/79309/xbox-one-wont-allow-indies-to-self-publish-games (http://www.shacknews.com/article/79309/xbox-one-wont-allow-indies-to-self-publish-games)
http://www.polygon.com/2013/5/22/4355306/indie-developers-cannot-self-publish-on-xbox-one (http://www.polygon.com/2013/5/22/4355306/indie-developers-cannot-self-publish-on-xbox-one)
Well aparently when they tried letting indie devs self publish with the current XBL it was a bit of a fucking mess. Also MS has said some vague stuff about "exploring other new business models" relating to this so it's again another thing about the One MS is giving unclear information about.
Again, I say we need to wait until MS gets their act together and actually makes up their minds on these thigns and tells us clearly how they are all actually going to work.
-
On a different note, is it just me or is the X-box One massive and very ugly? I know those things don't really matter but it's an added bonus when my electronic devices don't make me wish I was blind.
Agreed. Despite what others say, I like the UFO/George Forman design of the original PS3. It looks like a natural evolutionary step up from the PS2 (and I wish the PS3 slim I have looked as cool as the original). And hell, at least the original Xbox had the green eye thingy on top to make it look a bit snazzy. This thing looks like someone glued a fan onto a black Wii.
-
On a different note, is it just me or is the X-box One massive and very ugly? I know those things don't really matter but it's an added bonus when my electronic devices don't make me wish I was blind.
Agreed. Despite what others say, I like the UFO/George Forman design of the original PS3. It looks like a natural evolutionary step up from the PS2 (and I wish the PS3 slim I have wasn't as boring looking as the original). And hell, at least the original Xbox had the green eye thingy on top to make it look a bit snazzy. This thing looks like someone glued a fan onto a black Wii.
Personally I've hated all of the PS designs, even the PS1. Well the PS2 slim wasn't too bad. I think the 1st x-box might be uglier than this one, but that didn't stop me owning one, and I feel largley indifferent towards the 360's looks.
I think the last console I found to be asthetically pleasing was the N64 and I still think that thing looks pretty damn cool.
As I said though it won;t affect my buying decision, it would just be nice if I could stand to look at it.
-
I have nothing to contribute because I don't use consoles, so here's a funny video instead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOxdMQhDMIU
-
Honestly I'm about there too, I don't play enough games to particularly care about the used bit(aside from tracking down old ones) and I just don't see any games or useful features i'm interested in.
Battlefield 4 - same as AC4 regarding it being multiplatform. Also I don't know if I still care about BF or not.
Destiny - know very little about this so far (Bungie is being a bi t tight lipped) but I am interest in this one. If it's an exclusive and if it turns out to be interesting it could sway me.
Destiny looks fucking awesome so far, but it's not exclusive. It will be on Xbox 360, Xbox One, PS3, AND PS4. Although, if they find a way to use this to do cross-platform multiplayer I have absolutely no problem with that.
And I'm actually looking forward to BF4. I've only played the last couple Battlefield games, and want to play more.
I'm probably going to wind up getting the Xbox One myself. I do my gaming about half on my pc and about half on my 360. Though there are games I do prefer on pc, I still do a shit ton of console gaming, and I like my 360 and I love the controller (it feels like it's actually meant for a fucking human hand!), so most likely I will be purchasing one. Also thinking about getting one of the new Droid or Steam open-source consoles too.
-
(http://i.minus.com/iBzvb2JSpQNRM.gif)
-
Honestly I'm about there too, I don't play enough games to particularly care about the used bit(aside from tracking down old ones) and I just don't see any games or useful features i'm interested in.
Battlefield 4 - same as AC4 regarding it being multiplatform. Also I don't know if I still care about BF or not.
Destiny - know very little about this so far (Bungie is being a bi t tight lipped) but I am interest in this one. If it's an exclusive and if it turns out to be interesting it could sway me.
Destiny looks fucking awesome so far, but it's not exclusive. It will be on Xbox 360, Xbox One, PS3, AND PS4. Although, if they find a way to use this to do cross-platform multiplayer I have absolutely no problem with that.
And I'm actually looking forward to BF4. I've only played the last couple Battlefield games, and want to play more.
I'm probably going to wind up getting the Xbox One myself. I do my gaming about half on my pc and about half on my 360. Though there are games I do prefer on pc, I still do a shit ton of console gaming, and I like my 360 and I love the controller (it feels like it's actually meant for a fucking human hand!), so most likely I will be purchasing one. Also thinking about getting one of the new Droid or Steam open-source consoles too.
Do not get me started on how shit the PS controllers have always been.
-
Honestly I'm about there too, I don't play enough games to particularly care about the used bit(aside from tracking down old ones) and I just don't see any games or useful features i'm interested in.
Battlefield 4 - same as AC4 regarding it being multiplatform. Also I don't know if I still care about BF or not.
Destiny - know very little about this so far (Bungie is being a bi t tight lipped) but I am interest in this one. If it's an exclusive and if it turns out to be interesting it could sway me.
Destiny looks fucking awesome so far, but it's not exclusive. It will be on Xbox 360, Xbox One, PS3, AND PS4. Although, if they find a way to use this to do cross-platform multiplayer I have absolutely no problem with that.
And I'm actually looking forward to BF4. I've only played the last couple Battlefield games, and want to play more.
I'm probably going to wind up getting the Xbox One myself. I do my gaming about half on my pc and about half on my 360. Though there are games I do prefer on pc, I still do a shit ton of console gaming, and I like my 360 and I love the controller (it feels like it's actually meant for a fucking human hand!), so most likely I will be purchasing one. Also thinking about getting one of the new Droid or Steam open-source consoles too.
Do not get me started on how shit the PS controllers have always been.
There's a reason Sony has barely made any changes to their controller design since 1998. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But different strokes for different folks.
-
Honestly I'm about there too, I don't play enough games to particularly care about the used bit(aside from tracking down old ones) and I just don't see any games or useful features i'm interested in.
Battlefield 4 - same as AC4 regarding it being multiplatform. Also I don't know if I still care about BF or not.
Destiny - know very little about this so far (Bungie is being a bi t tight lipped) but I am interest in this one. If it's an exclusive and if it turns out to be interesting it could sway me.
Destiny looks fucking awesome so far, but it's not exclusive. It will be on Xbox 360, Xbox One, PS3, AND PS4. Although, if they find a way to use this to do cross-platform multiplayer I have absolutely no problem with that.
And I'm actually looking forward to BF4. I've only played the last couple Battlefield games, and want to play more.
I'm probably going to wind up getting the Xbox One myself. I do my gaming about half on my pc and about half on my 360. Though there are games I do prefer on pc, I still do a shit ton of console gaming, and I like my 360 and I love the controller (it feels like it's actually meant for a fucking human hand!), so most likely I will be purchasing one. Also thinking about getting one of the new Droid or Steam open-source consoles too.
Do not get me started on how shit the PS controllers have always been.
They legit hurt my hands after playing for more than a couple hours.
-
Here's the conference. Oooh TV TV TV you can switch between TV and games easily like you have a device that already does that (cough universal remotes) WE have a new controller it'll give you carpral tunnel. We're gonna tak about sports games and COD which is pointless since those were never going to be exclusives
-
So I've been doing more reading on the new system:
-Apparently, they've been back pedaling like fuck because of the predictably huge backlash from the always on. Microsoft is now saying that they were just talking about "possible scenarios".
- I've also heard that Microsoft is saying that there was a misunderstanding about paying to play used games, and that that was never part of their plan in the first place. Whether or not this is more backpedaling I don't know, but if they don't force this then I'll be happy.
Though it is still my top choice big name console wise, the one thing that does annoy me is WHY SUCH A SMALL HARDRIVE? I have the bigger hardrive version of the 360S for a reason Microsoft.
EDIT: Also, I've heard that the reason there was like almost no concentration on games in the announcement is that Microsoft wanted to save as much as possible games wise for E3 and wants to remain tight lipped until then.
-
Honestly I'm about there too, I don't play enough games to particularly care about the used bit(aside from tracking down old ones) and I just don't see any games or useful features i'm interested in.
Battlefield 4 - same as AC4 regarding it being multiplatform. Also I don't know if I still care about BF or not.
Destiny - know very little about this so far (Bungie is being a bi t tight lipped) but I am interest in this one. If it's an exclusive and if it turns out to be interesting it could sway me.
Destiny looks fucking awesome so far, but it's not exclusive. It will be on Xbox 360, Xbox One, PS3, AND PS4. Although, if they find a way to use this to do cross-platform multiplayer I have absolutely no problem with that.
And I'm actually looking forward to BF4. I've only played the last couple Battlefield games, and want to play more.
I'm probably going to wind up getting the Xbox One myself. I do my gaming about half on my pc and about half on my 360. Though there are games I do prefer on pc, I still do a shit ton of console gaming, and I like my 360 and I love the controller (it feels like it's actually meant for a fucking human hand!), so most likely I will be purchasing one. Also thinking about getting one of the new Droid or Steam open-source consoles too.
Do not get me started on how shit the PS controllers have always been.
They legit hurt my hands after playing for more than a couple hours.
Me too. They're too small imo and I hate where the thumb sticks are positioned - their position is why I find them painful to use after a while. I also don't like how the sticks feel when you move them as well as how the buttons feel, but I can't really explain why. I also don't like their weird d-pad with the diagonal directions missing. I just find that harder to use than a normal d-pad. Not that the 360 d-pad was great but that sucked for a different reason.
I've found the 360's controllers the most comfortable to hold, they fit my hands just perfectly. I don't know wtf MS was thinking with the first X-box's controllers, I think the design department for them was staffed entirely by giants.
-
So I've been doing more reading on the new system:
-Apparently, they've been back pedaling like fuck because of the predictably huge backlash from the always on. Microsoft is now saying that they were just talking about "possible scenarios".
- I've also heard that Microsoft is saying that there was a misunderstanding about paying to play used games, and that that was never part of their plan in the first place. Whether or not this is more backpedaling I don't know, but if they don't force this then I'll be happy.
I've been trying to explain this to people on various forums (I've even mentioned both those things in this thread) but you're wasting your time. They either ignore you or they just turn their rage onto you instead.
I guess people don't like facts getting in the way of their ott, indignant nerd rage.
Edit: BTW, that's not directed at anyone here, it's directed at people on other forums and internet comment sections.
-
I'm glad the DRM is not what the rumors had it as. I would hate to have to lose GameFly, and end up either spending 120 + at minimum each month to continue console gaming the new stuff on xbox one, settle for playing only rented 360 editions til those are no longer made, or I would give up console gaming completely.
-
I personally never had a problem with PS controllers, but I have really small hands. I do prefer the 360 controller's joysticks, though.
-
I've found the 360's controllers the most comfortable to hold, they fit my hands just perfectly. I don't know wtf MS was thinking with the first X-box's controllers, I think the design department for them was staffed entirely by giants.
I liked the original Xbox controllers, and as a teenager I had some of the daintiest hands you've ever seen. Then again, I also liked the Nintendo 64 controller once I got used to it (which, admittedly, took quite a long time), so maybe I just had low standards.
-
(http://i.minus.com/iBzvb2JSpQNRM.gif)
I watched this whole thing and it's fucking hilarious xD
-
Honestly I'm about there too, I don't play enough games to particularly care about the used bit(aside from tracking down old ones) and I just don't see any games or useful features i'm interested in.
Battlefield 4 - same as AC4 regarding it being multiplatform. Also I don't know if I still care about BF or not.
Destiny - know very little about this so far (Bungie is being a bi t tight lipped) but I am interest in this one. If it's an exclusive and if it turns out to be interesting it could sway me.
Destiny looks fucking awesome so far, but it's not exclusive. It will be on Xbox 360, Xbox One, PS3, AND PS4. Although, if they find a way to use this to do cross-platform multiplayer I have absolutely no problem with that.
And I'm actually looking forward to BF4. I've only played the last couple Battlefield games, and want to play more.
I'm probably going to wind up getting the Xbox One myself. I do my gaming about half on my pc and about half on my 360. Though there are games I do prefer on pc, I still do a shit ton of console gaming, and I like my 360 and I love the controller (it feels like it's actually meant for a fucking human hand!), so most likely I will be purchasing one. Also thinking about getting one of the new Droid or Steam open-source consoles too.
Do not get me started on how shit the PS controllers have always been.
They legit hurt my hands after playing for more than a couple hours.
Me too. They're too small imo and I hate where the thumb sticks are positioned - their position is why I find them painful to use after a while. I also don't like how the sticks feel when you move them as well as how the buttons feel, but I can't really explain why. I also don't like their weird d-pad with the diagonal directions missing. I just find that harder to use than a normal d-pad. Not that the 360 d-pad was great but that sucked for a different reason.
I've found the 360's controllers the most comfortable to hold, they fit my hands just perfectly. I don't know wtf MS was thinking with the first X-box's controllers, I think the design department for them was staffed entirely by giants.
According to an EGM article I read long ago, the first Xbox and its controller were the result of tons of intensive focus group research. Apparently they only surveyed NBA stars when they designed the controller.
-
So I've been doing more reading on the new system:
-Apparently, they've been back pedaling like fuck because of the predictably huge backlash from the always on. Microsoft is now saying that they were just talking about "possible scenarios".
Wrong. They flat out state on their website that the console requires an Internet connection. The "possible scenarios" thing came from Microsoft's vice president mentioning that it might be a once every 24 hour connection check, which would practically be always online as you'd probably need to connect every time you use the thing.
- I've also heard that Microsoft is saying that there was a misunderstanding about paying to play used games, and that that was never part of their plan in the first place. Whether or not this is more backpedaling I don't know, but if they don't force this then I'll be happy.
Got any citations?
Though it is still my top choice big name console wise, the one thing that does annoy me is WHY SUCH A SMALL HARDRIVE? I have the bigger hardrive version of the 360S for a reason Microsoft.
So all the DRM bullshit and its still your preferred choice?
EDIT: Also, I've heard that the reason there was like almost no concentration on games in the announcement is that Microsoft wanted to save as much as possible games wise for E3 and wants to remain tight lipped until then.
Which doesn't excuse them spending more time talking about TV and sports than games. Having a small number of games is one thing. Spending more than half the conference talking about how they have TV and sports is another.
-
I'd get an Xbox One, once its down a bit in price or I manage to get a fair bit of disposable cash. Don't want to bother with the Wii-U, the controller is about as ass-backwards as you can get without putting the buttons on the inside of the damn thing. Also, don't like Sony because it seems to be going thru a "WE HAVE BIGGER DICKS THAN MICROSOFT" phase again with their next Playstation...that, and the whole Sony BMG CD thing where their DRM software installed literal viruses into your fucking computer.
Besides, how long do you think it'll take the community to find and/or make a workaround for the bad bits? A week maybe...a month at most, I'd bet.
-
So I've been doing more reading on the new system:
-Apparently, they've been back pedaling like fuck because of the predictably huge backlash from the always on. Microsoft is now saying that they were just talking about "possible scenarios".
Wrong. They flat out state on their website that the console requires an Internet connection. The "possible scenarios" thing came from Microsoft's vice president mentioning that it might be a once every 24 hour connection check, which would practically be always online as you'd probably need to connect every time you use the thing.
Umm, nobody ever denied it required an internet connection - it requires one to activate the games when you first isntall them, the same as with every PC game and every bit of PC software. What was up for dipsute because of Microsofts own words was whether it needed a once every 24 hours internet connection. Which is what we've been talking about the whole time. Apparently the once every 24 hours thing is "one possible scenario" because whether a game needs to do that or not will depend on the individual game. Some will need to do that to make use of the One's cloud functions. Other devs might chose to not use those functions and so their games won't need to keep connecting.
Although, as I keep saying, things are still confusing and unclear. We need to wait until we know for 100% certain before we start getting our knickers in a twist.
I've also heard that Microsoft is saying that there was a misunderstanding about paying to play used games, and that that was never part of their plan in the first place. Whether or not this is more backpedaling I don't know, but if they don't force this then I'll be happy.
Got any citations?
The article that you yourself posted confirms this. "An official Xbox Support Twitter account explains that there will be “no fees” for using pre-owned titles on your next-generation console"
http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2013/05/report-xbox-one-not-backwards-compatible/
Though it is still my top choice big name console wise, the one thing that does annoy me is WHY SUCH A SMALL HARDRIVE? I have the bigger hardrive version of the 360S for a reason Microsoft.
So all the DRM bullshit and its still your preferred choice?
Some of us really don't give that many fucks. None of this shit seems like all that big deal to me, it's little more than disappointing and a mild irritation. Maybe it's just becuase I'm used to the same thigns with PC gaming and got used to it so now I'm kind of numb to it all.
-
Umm, nobody ever denied it required an internet connection - it requires one to activate the games when you first isntall them, the same as with every PC game and every bit of PC software. What was up for dipsute because of Microsofts own words was whether it needed a once every 24 hours internet connection. Which is what we've been talking about the whole time. Apparently the once every 24 hours thing is "one possible scenario" because whether a game needs to do that or not will depend on the individual game. Some will need to do that to make use of the One's cloud functions. Other devs might chose to not use those functions and so their games won't need to keep connecting.
Uh, that's basically what I said.
The article that you yourself posted confirms this. "An official Xbox Support Twitter account explains that there will be “no fees” for using pre-owned titles on your next-generation console"
http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2013/05/report-xbox-one-not-backwards-compatible/
And I quote: "However, “You’ll have to pay a fee—and not just some sort of activation fee, but the actual price of that game—in order to use a game’s code on a friend’s account.”
Microsoft is contradicting themselves, but the closest thing to confirmation we've got is that you'll either have to pay a licensing fee (again, buying a box with a disc, not a license to use that box with a disc) or you'll have to basically buy the game again, regardless of how you acquired that disc. With such a system, there's really no point to selling physical discs in the first place as they're basically selling you the license code, not the game. And if you honestly don't see the problem with this, then you're not paying any attention.
Some of us really don't give that many fucks. None of this shit is really that big a deal. Maybe it's just becuase I'm used to the same thigns with PC gaming and got used to it so now I'm kind of numb to it all.
I never said it was a big deal. I only said that, because I don't like the product, I won't buy it. And, again, for the third or fourth time, yes, this is how things are done with PC gaming for the most part (you clearly have forgotten disc based releases that don't have this kind of DRM and sites like GOG that sell DRM-free downloads), but the difference is that PC games are largely distributed digitally nowadays. Again, when I buy an Xbox game, I'm not buying a license, I'm buying a disc with the game data stored on it. If I choose to sell that disc to someone else, that is none of Microsoft's business
EDIT: and none of this to mention that, with this DRM, Microsoft has taken away almost every single advantage that console gaming has. Part of the reason people like console gaming is because they can rent games to try before buying, they don't have to deal with money grubbing DRM when they want to do something as simple as buying used or borrowing a game from a friend. And, like I said earlier, literally no other medium with physical media has to deal with DRM on said physical medium. A book publisher doesn't demand a licensing fee to buy used, film studios don't try to keep people from renti g DVDs and record companies don't tie a CD to a single player. why os it perfectly acceptable for for game publishers to do this?
EDIT 2: Also, what happens when a hame's servers go down? You can't activate a game online when there are no activation servers. When the servers inevitably come down, no one can activate games anymore and literally every single Xbox One game will be completely worthless.
-
Umm, nobody ever denied it required an internet connection - it requires one to activate the games when you first isntall them, the same as with every PC game and every bit of PC software. What was up for dipsute because of Microsofts own words was whether it needed a once every 24 hours internet connection. Which is what we've been talking about the whole time. Apparently the once every 24 hours thing is "one possible scenario" because whether a game needs to do that or not will depend on the individual game. Some will need to do that to make use of the One's cloud functions. Other devs might chose to not use those functions and so their games won't need to keep connecting.
Uh, that's basically what I said.
WTF? No it wasn't, are you just trying to wind me up or something?
You implied the console will always need a once-a-day internet conenction for eveything, you did not specifiy it might only be for certain games depending on whether or not they use the cloud. Also, your sentence "Wrong. They flat out state on their website that the console requires an Internet connection." implies you thought we were saying MS had said it did not require an internet conenction full stop - which nobody had claimed.
The article that you yourself posted confirms this. "An official Xbox Support Twitter account explains that there will be “no fees” for using pre-owned titles on your next-generation console"
http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2013/05/report-xbox-one-not-backwards-compatible/
And I quote: "However, “You’ll have to pay a fee—and not just some sort of activation fee, but the actual price of that game—in order to use a game’s code on a friend’s account.”
How is that a retort to what we were discussing? That's not for used games, we were talking about fees for pre-owned games that you have already bought. That quote has nothing to do with that, that's a separate issue to the one we were talking about. Again, are you trying to wind me up or something?
Microsoft is contradicting themselves, but the closest thing to confirmation we've got is that you'll either have to pay a licensing fee (again, buying a box with a disc, not a license to use that box with a disc) or you'll have to basically buy the game again, regardless of how you acquired that disc. With such a system, there's really no point to selling physical discs in the first place as they're basically selling you the license code, not the game. And if you honestly don't see the problem with this, then you're not paying any attention.
Firstly, we've already explained this to you - that's always been the case. That's why I don't see the problem. When you buy a game, or any software, you are not techincally buying the contents of the disc, you're buying the disc itself plus a liscene to use the software contained on it within certain restrictions (it's actually pretty much the same as downloads the only reason for discs was it was the only way for people to get your software, and currently the world isn't quite ready to ditch discs entirely). One of those restrictions is usually the number of machines you can install it on. You know how many business and schools used to buy one disc and install the software on all their machines (back before activation codes made that more tricky)? Yeah, that was technically illegal. This is just a way of actually being able to enforce those restrictions.
Plus, a hell of a lot of PC software has had codes that can only be used a limited number of times for fucking years, don't hear anyboody complaining about that and vowing to never buy PC software ever again. Yeah, a limited number of times is better than once, but not a lot. And yeah, not all games have it but only because there isn't one single comapny making PC's.
Secondly, for the last time there are no fees for pre-owned games and their are no fees for installing it on another machine if you sign in with your account. Sure, you won't be able to lend games to friends, unless you stick around or trust them enough to use your account in you absence, and that sucks yes. But I think I'll live.
And again it's not really any different from Steam because, for the last time, WHEN YOU BUY SOFTWARE ON A DISC ALL YOU ARE ACTUALLY BUYING IS THE LICSENSE PLUS A PHYSICAL DISC WORTH ABOUT 20p. You are not buying the software itself, that is why software has restrictions on its use. If you were buying the software you could do whatever the hell you wanted with it, which you can't do legally. I don't think you've ever read any user agreements. Hell even movies on VHS, DVD and Blu-ray have restrictions on their use, just nobody has come up with systems that physically stop you from breaking those restrictions. As I said, this is just a way to actually enforce laws and licsense agreements that have always existed for software.
Some of us really don't give that many fucks. None of this shit is really that big a deal. Maybe it's just becuase I'm used to the same thigns with PC gaming and got used to it so now I'm kind of numb to it all.
I never said it was a big deal. I only said that, because I don't like the product, I won't buy it. And, again, for the third or fourth time, yes, this is how things are done with PC gaming for the most part (you clearly have forgotten disc based releases that don't have this kind of DRM and sites like GOG that sell DRM-free downloads), but the difference is that PC games are largely distributed digitally nowadays. Again, when I buy an Xbox game, I'm not buying a license, I'm buying a disc with the game data stored on it. If I choose to sell that disc to someone else, that is none of Microsoft's business.
See above.
I'm not going to reply to you anymore, we just keep going back over the exat same bollocks over and over and over and over. It's a waste of time. I'm done.
-
Well I fucked up the quote formatting in that post. Whatever, too lazy to try and fix it.
-
They legit hurt my hands after playing for more than a couple hours.
I get about 30 minutes before my hands go numb on an xbox controller. At least the PS controllers are symmetrical.
-
Waldorf, it's been what, 3 days since the system was announced? We still don't know anything one way or the other for sure on the drm or fee stuff. Nothing is set in stone at this point, and a lot of what we're hearing is still mostly rumors and he-said/she-said. The fact that Microsoft are contradicting themselves to such an extent just further proves this.
Nothing like this, whether it's a game or a full fledged console, has all the exact same features when it's released as it does when it's first announced. Like I said, nothing is set in stone at this point in time, and I'm refuse to pass judgement quite yet when in reality we know so little.
EDIT: Also, was it really necessary to jump down my throat like that?
-
WTF? No it wasn't, are you just trying to wind me up or something?
You implied the console will always need a once-a-day internet conenction for eveything, you did not specifiy it might only be for certain games depending on whether or not they use the cloud. Also, your sentence "Wrong. They flat out state on their website that the console requires an Internet connection." implies you thought we were saying MS had said it did not require an internet conenction full stop - which nobody had claimed.
We don't know if its for certain games. What TGRwulf said was that Microsoft was backpedaling on the issue, and they're not, at least in the way he said.
How is that a retort to what we were discussing? That's not for used games, we were talking about fees for pre-owned games that you have already bought. That quote has nothing to do with that, that's a separate issue to the one we were talking about. Again, are you trying to wind me up or something?
What's the difference between putting a game you own into a friend's console and a game you've sold into a stranger's console? Nothing.
Firstly, we've already explained this to you - that's always been the case. That's why I don't see the problem. When you buy a game, or any software, you are not techincally buying the contents of the disc, you're buying the disc itself plus a liscene to use the software contained on it within certain restrictions (it's actually pretty much the same as downloads the only reason for discs was it was the only way for people to get your software, and currently the world isn't quite ready to ditch discs entirely). One of those restrictions is usually the number of machines you can install it on. You know how many business and schools used to buy one disc and install the software on all their machines (back before activation codes made that more tricky)? Yeah, that was technically illegal. This is just a way of actually being able to enforce those restrictions.
Plus, a hell of a lot of PC software has had codes that can only be used a limited number of times for fucking years, don't hear anyboody complaining about that and vowing to never buy PC software ever again. Yeah, a limited number of times is better than once, but not a lot. And yeah, not all games have it but only because there isn't one single comapny making PC's.
Never said it was excusable on PC and was one of the reasons I never got as into PC gaming. I don't care what technicality says, I'm not buying a license, I'm buying a disc. I'm allowed to do whatever the hell I want with that disc.
Secondly, for the last time there are no fees for pre-owned games and their are no fees for installing it on another machine if you sign in with your account. Sure, you won't be able to lend games to friends, unless you stick around or trust them enough to use your account in you absence, and that sucks yes. But I think I'll live.
And I shouldn't have to sign into my account on my friend's Xbox to play a physical disc. Again, I'm not buying a damn license, I'm buying a disc. You're basically telling me to deal with it, but I'm not going to just deal with it because just dealing with it is nothing different that consenting to bullshit. Your money spends the same way, regardless if you consent or are just dealing with it.
And again it's not really any different from Steam because, for the last time, WHEN YOU BUY SOFTWARE ON A DISC ALL YOU ARE ACTUALLY BUYING IS THE LICSENSE PLUS A PHYSICAL DISC WORTH ABOUT 20p. You are not buying the software itself, that is why software has restrictions on its use. If you were buying the software you could do whatever the hell you wanted with it, which you can't do legally. I don't think you've ever read any user agreements. Hell even movies on VHS, DVD and Blu-ray have restrictions on their use, just nobody has come up with systems that physically stop you from breaking those restrictions. As I said, this is just a way to actually enforce laws and licsense agreements that have always existed for software.
I'm not buying a fucking license. If I were buying nothing more than a license to play the games I buy, that would imply much more serious issues. As for movies, there is a system in place to keep you from using the disc on other machines. It's what Microsoft is doing with the Xbox One. The reason they haven't done it with DVDs and Blu-Rays is because it would fiscal suicide to do so. Again, why is it OK for video games to do this?
I'm not going to reply to you anymore, we just keep going back over the exat same bollocks over and over and over and over. It's a waste of time. I'm done.
Wow, the non-existent high road. Truly, you are an expert in debate, I can't believe I ever tried to argue against you with you cherry picking my posts, failing comprehension and never answering a few of my arguments. If you didn't think I was worth responding to, why did you respond in the first place?
Waldorf, it's been what, 3 days since the system was announced? We still don't know anything one way or the other for sure on the drm or fee stuff. Nothing is set in stone at this point, and a lot of what we're hearing is still mostly rumors and he-said/she-said. The fact that Microsoft are contradicting themselves to such an extent just further proves this.
Nothing like this, whether it's a game or a full fledged console, has all the exact same features when it's released as it does when it's first announced. Like I said, nothing is set in stone at this point in time, and I'm refuse to pass judgement quite yet when in reality we know so little.
Which is fine, but what's wrong with discussing what we do know?
That said, yeah, Microsoft needs to get their heads out of their collective asses and sort things out.
EDIT: Also, was it really necessary to jump down my throat like that?
I don't really see how I was jumping down your throat. I was just trying to discuss things.
-
[Reads thread]
[Removes Art Vandelay from Steam friend list]
[Changes mind, sends new friend invite]
The thing is, Steam has offline mode, and the games on Steam are cheap enough that it's okay to not be able to resell games.
Console games, on the other hand, cost upwards of $60! Now, I may be upper-middle class, but even I know that's a pretty hefty amount of cash.
-
I downright rely on used games for most of my purchases now. They're never so low in physical condition that it actually affects how long the game lasts (my consoles have burned out more than my games, especially that motherfuckin' 360), and they cost less than new. And since I can wait up to a year before buying a game, I end up paying a fraction of the cost. Max Payne 3 is $18 used now, whereas that shitty new Star Trek game is still being sold for $60.
If I have to pay more than I already do for used games? Well, fuck you then. I ain't buying your console.
The Xbox 360 and PS3 were big leaps from the Xbox and PS2, graphically and in multi-use capabilities. The PS4 and Xbox One feel like they're just making updates to the previous consoles, with the Xbox One being mixed with a heaping helping of shitty business decisions that seem to be Microsoft trying to gain a stranglehold on gamers to squeeze more money out of them.
-
[Reads thread]
[Removes Art Vandelay from Steam friend list]
[Changes mind, sends new friend invite]
The thing is, Steam has offline mode, and the games on Steam are cheap enough that it's okay to not be able to resell games.
Console games, on the other hand, cost upwards of $60! Now, I may be upper-middle class, but even I know that's a pretty hefty amount of cash.
Eh? What'd I do?
-
If I have to pay more than I already do for used games? Well, fuck you then. I ain't buying your console.
Again, MS has said there is no fee for playing used games but they haven't given any details as to how the whole used game thing is going to work nor have they given any indication as to how much used games will cost. I doubt they'll cost the same as a new game because despite some of MS's decisions and they're seeming lack of knowing wtf they're doing I can't see them being THAT stupid to allow reselling games but not making them cheaper. Even they must see how pointless and stupid that would be.
I expect the pricing of used games will work much the same as now, i.e. the price for a game will depend.
Also, according to Gamestop they're working with MS regarding used games. So make of that what you will.
-
O.o Some people have weird hands...I've never had any problems with a 360 controller that weren't from simply playing too damned long, by that, I mean around 4-5 hours. Hell, it feels more natural to me than the PS controllers, me and symmetrical controllers have never agreed with one another very much.
-
Again, MS has said there is no fee for playing used games but they haven't given any details as to how the whole used game thing is going to work nor have they given any indication as to how much used games will cost.
MS may not have, but the retailers have (http://www.oxmonline.com/report-trade-process-xbox-one-revealed)...
Retailers have reportedly leaked details about how buying and selling used games will work on the Xbox One system, and how it will give money back to publishers and Microsoft itself. Speaking at a conference with "key retail partners," MCVUK is reporting that Microsoft representatives said that the new system will integrate with its own cloud-based Azure game tracking system. Gamers will only be able to buy and sell used Xbox One games at pre-approved retail partners who have integrated their computer networks with the Azure system.
When a gamer chooses to sell off an old game, the retailer will register that person's copy of the game as having been sold on Azure. After that, Azure will automatically wipe the game and its license from the seller's account. To play the sold-off game again, the seller must purchase another copy. Chances are this erasure would happen when the Xbox One was "checking in" with Microsoft's servers, a process described by Microsoft vice president Phil Harrison as taking place every 24 hours. Once sold, the retailer can set the price of the used game for resale, although rumors (see below) suggest that used game prices might have to include an "activation fee" set by Microsoft.
I doubt they'll cost the same as a new game because despite some of MS's decisions and they're seeming lack of knowing wtf they're doing I can't see them being THAT stupid to allow reselling games but not making them cheaper. Even they must see how pointless and stupid that would be.
The same rumor suggests that the price Azure would set for used game activations would be around $50 (£35). The rumor does not specify if this would be a blanket price for all games, or how it might change over time as games got older.
-
There is a bit of a point to how they're doing this though, used game sales may as well be piracy for all the developer sees out of them. Why? Because the retailers don't pay a dime to them for the used copy. This re-activiation business is intended to get retailers to payup for used games, since it is such a large industry. Of course, this has already sent gamestop's stock falling.
-
A reactivation per purchaser account would put GameFly and other rental services out of the realm of possibility to rent out Xbox One games, then, since a renter is just another user and not differentiated from a new purchaser.
Renting is important to a lot of lower to moderate income gamers, and is a legit way to try full size games before purchase. MS should consider some kind of separate deal to keep renting possible, since it does in fact increase sales of games to an otherwise economically inaccessible - or just reluctant - market segment. Considering the high price of games, unless DL or streaming full games becomes the norm, and is much cheaper than games only available on disc, more and more gamers are going to look elsewhere than Xbox One. Like, anywhere but Xbox One.
-
I doubt they'll cost the same as a new game because despite some of MS's decisions and they're seeming lack of knowing wtf they're doing I can't see them being THAT stupid to allow reselling games but not making them cheaper. Even they must see how pointless and stupid that would be.
The same rumor suggests that the price Azure would set for used game activations would be around $50 (£35). The rumor does not specify if this would be a blanket price for all games, or how it might change over time as games got older.
I Don't know about US prices but that is cheaper than new games in the UK, which are usually around the £40 mark. Of course though £35 is a hell of a lot more than >£20 which some used games cost. I'm not sure that £5 saving is worth bothing buying pre-owned. But then, this price might not be final, the article does describe it as "rumor".
Again I think I'm going to wait for complete, total, definate, finalised official information before I pass judgment. If MS will get the finger out and fucking tell us in plain, clear language what the hell is going on.
-
I, too, would like it if more companies, not just Microsoft, would talk real English and not just Hypenese.
-
If X-Box One really is doing this "charge money for reactivation", then I predict that actual piracy will go up as a result of this.
GOG is proof that PC Gamers don't exactly like DRM, either, as GOG specializes in selling DRM-free games.
Man, remember when "DRM" consisted entirely of cute little interface things that would screw you over at an unknown point if you didn't have the manual?
-
They'll have to hack it in the first place, and both consoles have done quite a bit to prevent hacking in their recent updates. Unless they're idiots they'll apply those lessons to the new consoles straight out rather than leaving people with vunerabilities to use to pirate anything in the first place.
With the Xbone they'll have to deactivate the install check, the daily check and never be able to play online as the code they generate will likely not be activated.
Of course, there's plenty chance they missed something in the new hardware that a hacker will find first, but if they force an update on network connection they'll still be able to kill multiplayer.
That said, I SERIOUSLY doubt that the fee is really going to be 50 bucks, perhaps up to 50(for a release week title maybe), but no way in hell is that going to keep going for very long.
-
I, too, would like it if more companies, not just Microsoft, would talk real English and not just Hypenese.
This, so goddamn fucking hard. Just tell us what the system can ACTUALLY do and we can figure it out from there.
EDIT:
Hahaha, so apparently when they were talking about the new Kinect during the live stream, people's 360 kinects would respond to the commands, bringing menus up or even flat out disconnecting people from the live stream.
-
Just for a little balance, Sony's PS4 might not end up being much better than the Xbox One for all this DRM and used game malarkey:
http://kotaku.com/rumor-the-ps4-has-used-games-drm-509969406
That is still in the realms of rumour and speculation but Sony seems to be being as vague and non-committal about it as MS is.
-
Yeah, I was telling people not to count their chickens before they hatch with the PS4 for a reason. Sony only said it could play used games, they never said that it wouldn't have DRM on them.
-
Well, if I ever get the money to buy a new gaming system, I'm going with a PC. The new lot of consoles look like a complete and utter mess. We've got either a horribly underpowered and gimmicky piece of shit or two horribly bloated and only slightly less gimmicky pieces of shit trying to be media centers. At this rate, even a fucking Mac of all things would be a better gaming platform than any of the new consoles.
I miss the Xbox/PS2/Gamecube generation more than ever right now.
-
Well, if I ever get the money to buy a new gaming system, I'm going with a PC. The new lot of consoles look like a complete and utter mess. We've got either a horribly underpowered and gimmicky piece of shit or two horribly bloated and only slightly less gimmicky pieces of shit trying to be media centers. At this rate, even a fucking Mac of all things would be a better gaming platform than any of the new consoles.
I miss the Xbox/PS2/Gamecube generation more than ever right now.
Well it's always been the case really that if you have the money, and ideally the expertise (as upgrading is a lot cheaper and simpler if you can do it yourself) PC gaming was the way to go. Plus modding open-world games like GTA and Elder Scrolls makes them 100 times more fun than they were already.
But people who gamed exclusivley on the PC did miss out one some genuinley excellent console exclusives. But it's obviously too early to tell yet if either console will have games that will make this bullshit worth while....asuming the bullshit ends up being as bad as people are expecting.
-
I succumbed to temptation and got a Asus G74SX just so I could play ME2 & III some time ago.
It's already old but it keeps me fit as it weighs a bloody ton when I have to lug it around with me. ;D
-
Well it's always been the case really that if you have the money, and ideally the expertise (as upgrading is a lot cheaper and simpler if you can do it yourself) PC gaming was the way to go. Plus modding open-world games like GTA and Elder Scrolls makes them 100 times more fun than they were already.
But people who gamed exclusivley on the PC did miss out one some genuinley excellent console exclusives. But it's obviously too early to tell yet if either console will have games that will make this bullshit worth while....asuming the bullshit ends up being as bad as people are expecting.
I used to like consoles because they were cheaper and a lot less hassle to use than PC. Not to mention spreading myself out on the couch with a controller is much more comfortable than sitting at a desk to use a PC. To be honest, I've wanted to get into high end PC gaming for quite a while now, but the new console generation has nigh-on guaranteed that I'll never buy a next-gen console. Not one of the new consoles even has a sensible control scheme. The Xbox One has requires a Kinect, the PS4 has a fucking touch pad of all things in the middle of the controller and, well, the less said about the Wii-U, the better. Then there's all this media center bullshit that already does what most TVs already do, only shittier.
It's as though all three console produces have bent over backwards to destroy what few advantages consoles had over PCs. It's utterly ridiculous.
-
Well it's always been the case really that if you have the money, and ideally the expertise (as upgrading is a lot cheaper and simpler if you can do it yourself) PC gaming was the way to go. Plus modding open-world games like GTA and Elder Scrolls makes them 100 times more fun than they were already.
But people who gamed exclusivley on the PC did miss out one some genuinley excellent console exclusives. But it's obviously too early to tell yet if either console will have games that will make this bullshit worth while....asuming the bullshit ends up being as bad as people are expecting.
I used to like consoles because they were cheaper and a lot less hassle to use than PC. Not to mention spreading myself out on the couch with a controller is much more comfortable than sitting at a desk to use a PC. To be honest, I've wanted to get into high end PC gaming for quite a while now, but the new console generation has nigh-on guaranteed that I'll never buy a next-gen console. Not one of the new consoles even has a sensible control scheme. The Xbox One has requires a Kinect, the PS4 has a fucking touch pad of all things in the middle of the controller and, well, the less said about the Wii-U, the better. Then there's all this media center bullshit that already does what most TVs already do, only shittier.
It's as though all three console produces have bent over backwards to destroy what few advantages consoles had over PCs. It's utterly ridiculous.
These days too you can buy yourself a pretty decent gaming PC for not all that much more than a new console when they're first released, so the money side of things is slowly becoming less of an issue. MY PC cost me around £500 or so and it's able to play most games on settings that still look better, with a faster frame rate, than what the latest 360 and PS3 games can do. The only downside is that the more graphically demanding games make my Pc sound like it's about to launch into space.
My PC is a a year or two old now so I imagine now you could get a PC that's slightly better for the same money or maybe even a little cheaper.
-
These days too you can buy yourself a pretty decent gaming PC for not all that much more than a new console when they're first released, so the money side of things is slowly becoming less of an issue. MY PC cost me around £500 or so and it's able to play most games on settings that still look better, with a faster frame rate, than what the latest 360 and PS3 games can do. The only downside is that the more graphically demanding games make my Pc sound like it's about to launch into space.
My PC is a a year or two old now so I imagine now you could get a PC that's slightly better for the same money or maybe even a little cheaper.
Most definitely. Hell, in the long run, PC gaming is much cheaper than consoles in the long run thanks to Steam, GOG and the like. Especially here in Australia, where boxed games are extortionately expensive (AAA new releases can cost as much as $120). All in all, there's just no reason to buy a console over a PC.
-
These days too you can buy yourself a pretty decent gaming PC for not all that much more than a new console when they're first released, so the money side of things is slowly becoming less of an issue. MY PC cost me around £500 or so and it's able to play most games on settings that still look better, with a faster frame rate, than what the latest 360 and PS3 games can do. The only downside is that the more graphically demanding games make my PC sound like it's about to launch into space.
My PC is a a year or two old now so I imagine now you could get a PC that's slightly better for the same money or maybe even a little cheaper.
Most definitely. Hell, in the long run, PC gaming is much cheaper than consoles in the long run thanks to Steam, GOG and the like. Especially here in Australia, where boxed games are extortionately expensive (AAA new releases can cost as much as $120). All in all, there's just no reason to buy a console over a PC.
I haven't been looking forward to the inevitable day when all music, movies and games will be downlaodable only and discs Will vanish forever, I like my discs :( . I'm guessing though if in Australia boxed games cost $120 you can't wait for that day to arrive lol.
-
I haven't been looking forward to the inevitable day when all music, movies and games will be downlaodable only and discs Will vanish forever, I like my discs :( . I'm guessing though if in Australia boxed games cost $120 you can't wait for that day to arrive lol.
Yeah, without any brick and mortar retailers swinging their dicks around, publishers will have no reason to force digital distributors release games at different dates for different regions and keep their prices high. Though I don't want physical sales to completely disappear, just for digital distributors to gain the majority of the market share.
-
To be honest it's mainly music and movie discs I'll miss rather than games. Downloaded movies don't have any extra material, so no more fascinating insites into how they made the film, and downloaded music doesn't have any artwork expect for a single jpeg of the album cover. Metal albums in particularl often have some amazing artwork in the booklet, along with lyrics etc. When CD's are no more we won't get any of that anymore :(
-
I feel so old saying this, but I really do miss the days of consoles being for gaming, and only gaming. I'll probably end up sticking to PC gaming for a good while, at the very least until consoles have come down dramatically in price and there are several good titles released. I may not get any of them, depending on details regarding DRM, internet connection, etc. I've wanted a high-end PC for awhile now, anyway, and there are endless games to be played on there.
-
I feel so old saying this, but I really do miss the days of consoles being for gaming, and only gaming. I'll probably end up sticking to PC gaming for a good while, at the very least until consoles have come down dramatically in price...
Yeah if I do get a console this gen it won't be for a while as I can't really afford it until their prices drop. And there'll likely be PS4 and Xbox One "slim" models down the line that will hopefully be less ugly too. And if either console has any technical problems they should be resolved by the time the "slims" come out.
-
I'mma just leave this here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hB1uTsoooc
-
Well, this thread has sure turned into PC elitism central.
horribly underpowered and gimmicky piece of shit
You know, if you love graphics so much, why don't you marry an art museum?
(Also, gimmicky is a very strong word)
-
Well, this thread has sure turned into PC elitism central.
horribly underpowered and gimmicky piece of shit
You know, if you love graphics so much, why don't you marry an art museum?
Well here's someone else I'm just going to ignore from now on.
-
Okay, it's more Arts posts which have turned into PC gaming elitism. I may have exaggerated a tad.
EDIT: Or misinterpreted. Nevermind.
EDIT 2: Mulligan plz.
-
horribly underpowered and gimmicky piece of shit
You know, if you love graphics so much, why don't you marry an art museum?
(Also, gimmicky is a very strong word)
You know that hardware impacts much more than just graphics, right? And yes gimmicky certainly applies. Tablet controller, motion controls, kinect as a mandatory part of the system, voice controls. Yes, all of those are gimmicks, no doubt about it.
As for my rather scathing commentary, I'm actually speaking from my console gaming side. The new crop of consoles just look absolutely abysmal. No question about it.
-
"Gimmicky" is quickly becoming the "communism" of video games :P
-
"Gimmicky" is quickly becoming the "communism" of video games :P
That's rather ironic, coming from Mr All-Video-Games-Are-Gimmicks.
I'm not saying or anything, I'm just saying.
-
"Gimmicky" is quickly becoming the "communism" of video games :P
That's rather ironic, coming from Mr All-Video-Games-Are-Gimmicks.
I'm not saying or anything, I'm just saying.
You're right, "All Video Games Are Gimmicks" was a stupid statement.
On the other hand, I can point to many things that are, indeed, gimmicks and are what make individual games good.
EDIT: And I think you used "ironic" wrong. I'm not sure what's ironic about it.
-
Art, bro, you gotta take into account that companies always sell consoles at a loss. Microsoft, from appearances alone in the console arena, is more frugal than Sony when it comes to how heavy a loss per console they're willing to take. That, and Sony's fanbase is likely larger, and much more thoroughly-established; the first PlayStation was likely the most popular console since the NES, and it had very little in the way of real competition, allowing it to cement its place as a gaming juggernaut. The PS2 had nearly a year's worth of time in the US alone to further entrench itself into the gaming community before the first Xbox came on to the scene.
The only console maker around that can beat Sony's lengthy legacy is Nintendo, and the latter has some of the longest-running, most lucrative franchises in gaming history, which is likely one of the reasons Nintendo is still a household name, to this day.
Compared to Sony and Nintendo, Microsoft is a baby. Its had to fight an uphill battle to stay alive and viable as a console-maker, and part of the reason they survived is the willingness to sacrifice horsepower to minimize losses. Some of those sacrifices were, admittedly, quite stupid and some of the hardware, especially for the 360, was very rushed so it could engage properly with its rivals. However, Microsoft has, in the years since the 1st Xbox came online, cut out its own niche as something of a middle-ground between Sony and Nintendo.
Nintendo has, typically, the more casual games and more innovative (whether for better or worse) designs. Sony has incredible horsepower and a tried-and-true design that makes it a sturdy, if expensive, choice for a console. Microsoft is the grey area between the two: trying new things out, but doing so at least somewhat carefully, while having less overall power when compared to Sony, so as to minimize the amount of fiscal loss per console sold.
So, yes, I can see Microsoft's consoles always being a step below Sony's in terms of horsepower, but its biggest selling point, and the area where its got both Nintendo and Sony beat, is that its got a good library of games for casual and hardcore gamers while being easier on the wallet at launch than the comparable PlayStation.
With all this taken into account, unless Microsoft does something monumentally stupid, I could seriously see myself owning an Xbox One at some point. Likely not at launch, I tend to avoid both consoles and games when they first launch because I know they're going to be buggy. Actually, the 1st original Xbox my family has is still around, and it still functions...and we got it shortly after launch. We had to replace the DVD drive on it at one point, but other than that, its survived where numerous 360s fried themselves, or in the case of our first one, got stolen. The first Xbox was a heavy, ungainly motherfucker with a wonky controller design, but from my experiences, that son of a bitch was solid as a rock, and I still love it as a console. If that makes me a Microsoft fanboy...so be it. Bill Gates is one of the men who most inspires me, and I'd take being called his fanboy as a badge of honour any day.
-
"Gimmicky" is quickly becoming the "communism" of video games :P
That's rather ironic, coming from Mr All-Video-Games-Are-Gimmicks.
I'm not saying or anything, I'm just saying.
You're right, "All Video Games Are Gimmicks" was a stupid statement.
On the other hand, I can point to many things that are, indeed, gimmicks and are what make individual games good.
EDIT: And I think you used "ironic" wrong. I'm not sure what's ironic about it.
Like voice controls? Even the best tech is highly unreliable at best, and even if it were 100% accurate, it still has rather severe latency issues that simply pressing a button does not. Kinect? Not one (non-casual) game made for that thing was any good, simply because it barely works, even if you have the gargantuan sized room it requires. Need I remind you of Steel Battalion? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to shit on casual games. Just that making a very expensive piece of tech that has rather limited usefulness a mandatory part of the system is a very Bad Idea. And the list goes on.
I know the word can be overused at times, but when something is legitimately a gimmick, it should still be called a gimmick.
-
"Gimmicky" is quickly becoming the "communism" of video games :P
That's rather ironic, coming from Mr All-Video-Games-Are-Gimmicks.
I'm not saying or anything, I'm just saying.
You're right, "All Video Games Are Gimmicks" was a stupid statement.
On the other hand, I can point to many things that are, indeed, gimmicks and are what make individual games good.
EDIT: And I think you used "ironic" wrong. I'm not sure what's ironic about it.
Like voice controls? Even the best tech is highly unreliable at best, and even if it were 100% accurate, it still has rather severe latency issues that simply pressing a button does not. Kinect? Not one (non-casual) game made for that thing was any good, simply because it barely works, even if you have the gargantuan sized room it requires. Need I remind you of Steel Battalion? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to shit on casual games. Just that making a very expensive piece of tech that has rather limited usefulness a mandatory part of the system is a very Bad Idea. And the list goes on.
I know the word can be overused at times, but when something is legitimately a gimmick, it should still be called a gimmick.
So would you consider the control stick to be a gimmick? Because even to this day I've seen kiosks where the control stick of <insert game system with a "vanilla" controller> has been completely fudged up.
Comparing a rather reliable touch screen to, say, the voice control madness that is "Lifeline" (okay, this is hyperbole, but I'm trying to give an example of what you mean) is rather disingenuous. If your problem is with how reliable the tech is, then I think you're taking some worst case scenarios into account in some scenarios and forgetting that they exist even for controllers that are, nowadays, considered "vanilla".
PS1 having four shoulder buttons was a gimmick. Having two control sticks was also a gimmick.
Hell if you want to get technical, the control pad for the NES itself was a gimmick back when joysticks were the norm because everyone wanted to copycat the Atari.
I'm okay with calling things gimmicks, but to use the word "gimmicky" as a criticism makes no sense. It would be like me saying "This game is very platformy" as a form of praise.
And that's not even getting into video games themselves. Games, both great and terrible, have become gimmicks piled on top of gimmicks, because the gimmick is what enables them to say "This is why playing this game will be a different experience than playing that game, and thus worth buying."
In short, I think it's silly to use "gimmicky" as your reason for not wanting to buy a game or a console. And... "underpowered"? Seriously? I know it applies to more than graphics, but hell, look at what "overpowered" "pieces of shit" like the 360 and PS3 brought us - games that decided to be "realistic", brown, and completely unimaginative because they blew their budget on "pushing the graphics".
...Though there were some games like that for the Wii, I'll grant you that.
-
<snip>
I'm not talking about the Xbox One's power (my initial comments on underpowered consoles were directed at Nintendo). I know Microsoft consoles aren't as powerful as their Sony counterparts, and by and large, that's not a problem. It's still able to run current gen games just fine. Porting from one to the other rarely results in more than maybe two or three less frames per second, or a little less anti-aliasing or some such. It's slightly less shiny, but other than that the game is still in its original state and plays as such. It should still be a perfectly fine console on that front.
The problem is that it's a bloated mess. As I said already, the Kinect is a mandatory part of the system. That's a very expensive piece to tech that in all honesty is pretty much useless to someone like myself. That's going to push the price of the system up, and quite significantly reduce the edge it has over Sony. The same goes for the voice controls and media center stuff that most TVs already do. It's just needless fat that'll provide almost no benefit, and yet will force up the price. I know the PS4 has its share of fat, but not nearly as much as the Xbox One. It's quite possible that the Xbox One will end up selling for around the same price as the PS4 when they both launch.
-
<snip>
I'm not talking about the Xbox One's power (my initial comments on underpowered consoles were directed at Nintendo). I know Microsoft consoles aren't as powerful as their Sony counterparts, and by and large, that's not a problem. It's still able to run current gen games just fine. Porting from one to the other rarely results in more than maybe two or three less frames per second, or a little less anti-aliasing or some such. It's slightly less shiny, but other than that the game is still in its original state and plays as such. It should still be a perfectly fine console on that front.
The problem is that it's a bloated mess. As I said already, the Kinect is a mandatory part of the system. That's a very expensive piece to tech that in all honesty is pretty much useless to someone like myself. That's going to push the price of the system up, and quite significantly reduce the edge it has over Sony. The same goes for the voice controls and media center stuff that most TVs already do. It's just needless fat that'll provide almost no benefit, and yet will force up the price. I know the PS4 has its share of fat, but not nearly as much as the Xbox One. It's quite possible that the Xbox One will end up selling for around the same price as the PS4 when they both launch.
Aah, okay, misinterpreted what ya said, sorry bout that. But, what we've seen and heard right now should be taken with a grain of salt. I doubt everything about the console's set in stone, right now, so the Kinect requirement may very well not be a feature of the finished product. Though, honest criticism is good, and its one of the reasons companies do reveals before everything's set: so they can see what the market wants, and if there are any changes/improvements that can be reasonably made to make their product more marketable.
Microsoft may be a tad out of touch, sometimes, but I'm sure they at least pay rudimentary attention to the comments and press they're getting regarding their reveal. If they've got a modicum of intelligence, they'll listen to what everyone's saying, and will make changes to achieve broader general appeal. After all, that's what marketing is aaaaaall about.
-
So would you consider the control stick to be a gimmick? Because even to this day I've seen kiosks where the control stick of <insert game system with a "vanilla" controller> has been completely fudged up.
Comparing a rather reliable touch screen to, say, the voice control madness that is "Lifeline" (okay, this is hyperbole, but I'm trying to give an example of what you mean) is rather disingenuous. If your problem is with how reliable the tech is, then I think you're taking some worst case scenarios into account in some scenarios and forgetting that they exist even for controllers that are, nowadays, considered "vanilla".
PS1 having four shoulder buttons was a gimmick. Having two control sticks was also a gimmick.
Hell if you want to get technical, the control pad for the NES itself was a gimmick back when joysticks were the norm because everyone wanted to copycat the Atari.
I'm okay with calling things gimmicks, but to use the word "gimmicky" as a criticism makes no sense. It would be like me saying "This game is very platformy" as a form of praise.
I guess it comes down to whether something is functional or simply new and interesting (for the moment), but ultimately less practical. For example, the two control sticks were chosen because they're kind of necessary for 3D games, since camera control is now a thing and works best with analog controls, similar to movement (especially in 3D space). Touch screens, not so much. They get away with it on smartphones and tablets, since you're actually looking at them as you're playing, and its not really designed for gaming in the first place. On a console, i.e. a machine that designed from the start to be a gaming machine, not so much. When playing a game, you tend to look at the TV screen and rely on your sense of touch to find the buttons. For obvious reasons, this doesn't work out with virtual buttons on a touch screen. There may be cases where it's genuinely useful, but I can't imagine those cases would be numerous enough to warrant the touch screen not being at least a peripheral rather than the main controller.
And that's not even getting into video games themselves. Games, both great and terrible, have become gimmicks piled on top of gimmicks, because the gimmick is what enables them to say "This is why playing this game will be a different experience than playing that game, and thus worth buying."
Of course. A lot of second-rate games deviate from what's proven to function in the name of "innovation". They also tend to crash and burn because of it.
In short, I think it's silly to use "gimmicky" as your reason for not wanting to buy a game or a console. And... "underpowered"? Seriously? I know it applies to more than graphics, but hell, look at what "overpowered" "pieces of shit" like the 360 and PS3 brought us - games that decided to be "realistic", brown, and completely unimaginative because they blew their budget on "pushing the graphics".
...Though there were some games like that for the Wii, I'll grant you that.
Of course there are shit games for the 360 and PS3. Sturgeon's law and whatnot. The console's power only dictates the games' potential, and that lack of potential on the Wii relative to the 360/PS3 really shows. Look at Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. It was nothing special, but a decent enough action game on the 360/PS3. The Wii port, on the other hand, had to have the physics engine neutered and entire levels cut out to make it work. Not so good, since the physics were largely what the game was built around. Then of course there's Monster Hunter on the Wii. That game was supposed to be completely open world, however due to the Wii's crappy processor, the map had to split into smaller, air-locked chunks in order to make it run. Conversely, Red Dead Redemption on the other two consoles did manage to have a single, massive open map that spanned literally hundreds of square kilometers.
That's the problem with having such underpowered hardware. It really does cripple the games' potential on that system.
-
That's the problem with having such underpowered hardware. It really does cripple the games' potential on that system.
Honestly, I think the only thing that can ever really cripple a game's potential is the creativity of the developers. Sure, at the end of the day, there are some things any given console just can't do, but that's no excuse to resign yourself to just doing something bad like what happened with Force Unleashed 2. The Wii had plenty of games that showed its lack of raw horsepower didn't prevent it from being a platform capable of hosting amazing games--they simply had to be amazing in different ways to games on the PS3 and 360.
And, heck, I'll go ahead and say it: open-world gameplay is a worthless gimmick. It adds nothing of substance to a game, with loading screens merely replaced by large areas of no action to give the system time to render in new things. Ones that don't do this suffer from horrible framerate issues any time it's having to load map data while processing any actual gameplay.
-
That's the problem with having such underpowered hardware. It really does cripple the games' potential on that system.
And, heck, I'll go ahead and say it: open-world gameplay is a worthless gimmick. It adds nothing of substance to a game, with loading screens merely replaced by large areas of no action to give the system time to render in new things. Ones that don't do this suffer from horrible framerate issues any time it's having to load map data while processing any actual gameplay.
I have to disagree, the Elder Scrolls games wouldn't be half as good without the exploration that open world allows. I can't even remember how many hours I spent in Oblivion and Skyrim just going exploring. And I've had far more fun in the GTA games just dicking around than I did actually playing the missions.
-
Honestly, I think the only thing that can ever really cripple a game's potential is the creativity of the developers. Sure, at the end of the day, there are some things any given console just can't do, but that's no excuse to resign yourself to just doing something bad like what happened with Force Unleashed 2. The Wii had plenty of games that showed its lack of raw horsepower didn't prevent it from being a platform capable of hosting amazing games--they simply had to be amazing in different ways to games on the PS3 and 360.
Sure, lower fidelity games can be good, no question about it. However, I do expect a certain standard when it comes to full price AAA console games. If I want a really good but low fidelity game, there are plenty of indies or previous generation releases that are tiny fraction of the price.
As a rather extreme example, I think there were quite a few utterly fantastic games on the SNES and in the 16-bit era in general. However, I wouldn't be caught dead paying $60 and upwards for such a game today.
That's the problem with having such underpowered hardware. It really does cripple the games' potential on that system.
And, heck, I'll go ahead and say it: open-world gameplay is a worthless gimmick. It adds nothing of substance to a game, with loading screens merely replaced by large areas of no action to give the system time to render in new things. Ones that don't do this suffer from horrible framerate issues any time it's having to load map data while processing any actual gameplay.
I have to disagree, the Elder Scrolls games wouldn't be half as good without the exploration that open world allows. I can't even remember how many hours I spent in Oblivion and Skyrim just going exploring. And I've had far more fun in the GTA games just dicking around than I did actually playing the missions.
And if there truly are really large areas of no action in an open world game, then its doing it wrong. Also, no fast travel of any kind is also doing it wrong.
-
I can actually only think of a very few games that used open worlds as a way to disguise behind-the-scenes loading, namely Tony Hawk's American Wasteland. Most others work with either a single large loading screen (after we left behind the GTA III and Vice City era of needing a loading screen every time you transferred to a new land) or streaming content as it comes into play.
-
Mechanicly a lot of games work that way if you can see them or not. It's actually one of the more annoying things I've looked at in game design. If you don't do it you're either constricted to levels, loading screens or eventual memory death.
-
My thoughts are that, since the original PlayStation is generally called PSOne nowadays, there's going to be a lot of confusion here.
-
My thoughts are that, since the original PlayStation is generally called PSOne nowadays, there's going to be a lot of confusion here.
I thought the original PlayStation was called the PSX, since the PSOne was a separate console.
PSX:
(http://jscustom.theoldcomputer.com/images/manufacturers_systems/Sony/Playstation-PSX-PS1/596173psx_sys1.jpg)
PSOne:
(http://gadgetcrave.frsucrave.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/PSone_2.jpg)
Ran the same games, but still technically not the same thing, I don't think
-
oh shit what the fuck (http://www.gamespot.com/news/xbox-one-can-talk-report-6408871)
"The source claimed that the Xbox One's integrated Kinect camera is capable of scanning a room and using its facial recognition software to detect foreign users. If Kinect detects someone it does not recognize, it then audibly asks this person to identify themselves. Once this is done, the Kinect saves the information to the console, according to the report."
Hoping Microsoft comes out and denies this, I don't want a console talking to me.
-
oh shit what the fuck (http://www.gamespot.com/news/xbox-one-can-talk-report-6408871)
"The source claimed that the Xbox One's integrated Kinect camera is capable of scanning a room and using its facial recognition software to detect foreign users. If Kinect detects someone it does not recognize, it then audibly asks this person to identify themselves. Once this is done, the Kinect saves the information to the console, according to the report."
Hoping Microsoft comes out and denies this, I don't want a console talking to me.
Gee, that won't used for trolling or anything.
Console: You there. With the stupid hair do. Who are you?
Random friend (before Stupid Hair can respond): Eric von Dogbollock!
Is it wrong that I hope names can't be edited after they're saved?
-
Microsoft confirms console needs to connect to internet once every day (http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/6/4403936/xbox-one-online-requirements-details)
-
Microsoft confirms console needs to connect to internet once every day (http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/6/4403936/xbox-one-online-requirements-details)
Well, good thing I don't plan on buying it yet.
-
What's put me off buying an Xbox One over the last few weeks isn't so much the "features" of the console, as to be blunt none of them will really affect me, but rather Microsoft's attitude. I feel like saying "fuck you" and buying a PS4 instead....but then I keep remembering that Sony isn't really much better. At least they seemed to have learned a few lessons though. Unlike MS who seem to have their heads up their own asses lately.
-
Very few companies truly care about the "little guy", but they at least try to put on a facade. Microsoft isn't even trying to pretend at this point.
Someone on another forum pointed out how useless the idea of the Xbox One as a multi-purpose living room box is in 2013. It's got all these features....but so does any TV purchased in the past 18 months. Not to mention that many people now use their smartphones, tablets, and laptops that they carry with them 24/7 to access many of the same features.
Basically, the market that they're trying to reach is a minority that's rapidly shrinking with each passing month. And the people who don't have the money to purchase a new TV or iPhone probably won't be dropping hundreds for an Xbox One on launch day.
Assuming they can even get it, that is. The Xbox One is only launching in 22 countries. They're not even having a launch in Southeast Asia, despite the size of the Japanese game and electronics market and the fact that Singapore has 104% internet penetration (there are literally more broadband connections than homes in Singapore). And because you NEED an internet connection to activate games, none of the people in these countries can even import one because Microsoft won't let them use Xbox Live.
They're also telling people now that getting an Xbox Live ban (thousands of which are done unfairly and don't always get quickly fixed; even the fastest takes 12 hours, and many people are denied a reprieve at all) will also ban you from offline play. Hope you didn't spend hundreds on Xbox One games before saying that you live in Fort Gay, Virginia (http://kotaku.com/5632871/xbox-live-gamer-suspended-for-living-in-fort-gay).
-
This is the bad side of license-based marketing. You don't just own the license to the game, but now that license can be revoked at no reimbursement to the player.
The good side is when you buy a game on one console and get the same game on a periphery console for free. And it doesn't matter which one you buy, either. (Looking at you Sly 4)
Unfortunately I don't see that as a gambit that can be played very often, regardless of how interested the corporation is in pleasing the player.
-
Though I did like the 360 better than the PS3, I think I'm starting to lean towards the PS4, only because of the drm/games thing and there's some exclusive content for one of the games I want that's only on the PS4. To paraphrase what Yahtzee said in the Zero Punctuation next gen buyer's guide (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUAeYL7eAdI&list=FLgJPl_vzArOq3OztLV3Ul1Q&index=2), it says a lot about the state of the console market, when you're decision is based on which console is the least bad.
Also, because of how weak the consoles are this time around, I think I may change my Battlefield 4 pre-order to PC.
-
I don't have any Xbox One exclusives that I'm really interested in except MAYBE Dead Rising 3. On the other hand, the PS4 exclusives are quite interesting.
-
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7580686336/h9ADF1706/)
That is all.
-
Technically wouldn't they just disconnect (including the guy himself) and thus he wouldn't be able to hear the rage?
-
Microsoft has changed their tune and done a total 180. They're now scrapping the lending and resale restictions as well as the once a day online connectivity completley:
http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/update (http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/update)
Hopefully this indicates a change of attitude as well, coz as I said that was putting me off more than the actual DRM was.
-
I wonder who has more restrictive DRM now - PS4 or Xbone?
-
That's good to see. I wonder if Sony will announce any changes in the near future.
-
I wonder who has more restrictive DRM now - PS4 or Xbone?
It still says that it requires an initial system setup period and that you never need to connect online "again" after this. That implies that you STILL need to be able to hook up to Xbox Live at least once to get your system activated, and you may need to do that with a replacement console (who knows whether they'll have a RRoD-scale problem?). So this probably won't affect it only being launched in 22 countries, since you'd STILL need to connect to the internet and those countries don't get Xbox Live service.
This seems to be a case of Microsoft being so transparently evil and hateful toward consumers that they have no choice but to fix all of their mistakes to avoid being firebombed.
-
I wonder who has more restrictive DRM now - PS4 or Xbone?
It still says that it requires an initial system setup period and that you never need to connect online "again" after this. That implies that you STILL need to be able to hook up to Xbox Live at least once to get your system activated...
Isn't all PC software like that now though, including games? Not that it makes it OK but it's a bit unfair to single out MS for it. Especially when PC gamers keep telling everyone how in every single way pc gaming is superior.
-
Not all of it, but with the xbox the best reason is why they can't get rid of it. They're doing the drm removal via launch day patch.
They don't have the option of reformatting all of the pre-built systems, the cost would kill them, so they're doing this instead.
-
I wonder who has more restrictive DRM now - PS4 or Xbone?
It still says that it requires an initial system setup period and that you never need to connect online "again" after this. That implies that you STILL need to be able to hook up to Xbox Live at least once to get your system activated...
Isn't all PC software like that now though, including games? Not that it makes it OK but it's a bit unfair to single out MS for it. Especially when PC gamers keep telling everyone how in every single way pc gaming is superior.
Thank you. As a pc and console gamer, it amazes me the number of people who ignore this fact while talking about the Xbox One and the PS4.
Anywho, if this is true, I'm most likely getting a Xbox One again. I had started to lean towards PS4, but that was pretty much only because of the DRM and used games thing.
-
I wonder who has more restrictive DRM now - PS4 or Xbone?
It still says that it requires an initial system setup period and that you never need to connect online "again" after this. That implies that you STILL need to be able to hook up to Xbox Live at least once to get your system activated...
Isn't all PC software like that now though, including games? Not that it makes it OK but it's a bit unfair to single out MS for it. Especially when PC gamers keep telling everyone how in every single way pc gaming is superior.
It's not, especially older games that many people continue to purchase and play (especially those without the money for a modern gaming computer). The only software I personally have that requires an internet connection to activate is Photoshop, and it took people a few seconds to figure out how to get around that (it's the easiest trick in the book, really: crack it and don't be connected to the internet when you install it).
The vast majority of security that isn't infamously invasive DRM (which people continue to complain about, rightfully so) is simply entering a serial number. Even many legitimate owners crack their games after installing them just to make things simpler. Moreover, the main reason for PC gaming having so many restrictions is because a desktop computer isn't a gaming platform above all else. It's extremely easy to share illegally on a computer, and it takes no special hardware and often no special software to get your computer to run pirated content. Meanwhile, your console simply won't accept pirated material. Even the old PS2 needs physical hardware modifications, which makes hacked consoles a minority. There's simply no need to put restrictive DRM on console games.
Not that there was any need on PC games in the first place. Nobody's actually managed to prove that the DRM that people regularly complain about has actually lessened piracy (especially since pirates tend to respond to restrictive DRM by cracking it faster; Spore was infamous for its DRM and is one of the most pirated games ever in spite of it), only that it hinders legitimate usage. The problem is that the people who want more DRM tend to ignore whoever's telling them that they're wrong, because they often don't understand the reality in the first place and get upset when they need to change their opinions.
-
What's hilarious now is watching the rabid fanboy level fans of the PS4 grasping at straws as to why the PS4 is the "beyond superior console" even though they're both almost the same now. I've seen so many rants on Facebook today that basically translated to "Well the PS4 is still better because warblegarbl slightly better graphic warblegarbl free internet (though it isn't for the PS4) warblegarbl um yeah".
-
What's hilarious now is watching the rabid fanboy level fans of the PS4 grasping at straws as to why the PS4 is the "beyond superior console" even though they're both almost the same now. I've seen so many rants on Facebook today that basically translated to "Well the PS4 is still better because warblegarbl slightly better graphic warblegarbl free internet (though it isn't for the PS4) warblegarbl um yeah".
Honestly even with this Sony is doing better with their console. Last couple estimates I've seen put them near a break even point on the console sale, Xbox not so much, and one of the key differences being PS4 RAM memory is far better(XB is trying to catch up with fancy caching, which may cause problems with games not written specifically for such mechanisms), probably the key for a faster console at this point since processors can be tossed onto chips by the dozen. Oddly enough I'm even hearing the PS4 dev kits are better, which is surprising if you've followed Sony's history on these things at all.
Beyond that... 100 bucks difference and no desperate scramble to save face. I donno, does PS4 have an always on camera too? If not I'd count that for them too.
Xbone's attempting to make up for quite a bit, but MS dug themselves quite a hole on this one and Sony seems to be learning from past mistakes. This just makes it a bit less one sided. The only other aspect I can see to hold against PS4 is the pay to use multiplayer which honestly makes sense given the cost of supporting such things. Assuming the money goes to the people supporting them at least.
Not trying to be partisan, but this just kills off the most horrible flaws in Microsoft's business plan, it doesn't improve the hardware it's attached to any. I'm still lost on how they managed less power for a higher cost. Unless they wind up tossing the titan cards into the xbone just to fuck with Sony(at a cost of 1000 a card baring deals with the manufacturer), they are apparently using them in their display systems.
-
What's hilarious now is watching the rabid fanboy level fans of the PS4 grasping at straws as to why the PS4 is the "beyond superior console" even though they're both almost the same now. I've seen so many rants on Facebook today that basically translated to "Well the PS4 is still better because warblegarbl slightly better graphic warblegarbl free internet (though it isn't for the PS4) warblegarbl um yeah".
Honestly even with this Sony is doing better with their console. Last couple estimates I've seen put them near a break even point on the console sale, Xbox not so much, and one of the key differences being PS4 RAM memory is far better(XB is trying to catch up with fancy caching, which may cause problems with games not written specifically for such mechanisms), probably the key for a faster console at this point since processors can be tossed onto chips by the dozen. Oddly enough I'm even hearing the PS4 dev kits are better, which is surprising if you've followed Sony's history on these things at all.
Beyond that... 100 bucks difference and no desperate scramble to save face. I donno, does PS4 have an always on camera too? If not I'd count that for them too.
Xbone's attempting to make up for quite a bit, but MS dug themselves quite a hole on this one and Sony seems to be learning from past mistakes. This just makes it a bit less one sided. The only other aspect I can see to hold against PS4 is the pay to use multiplayer which honestly makes sense given the cost of supporting such things. Assuming the money goes to the people supporting them at least.
Not trying to be partisan, but this just kills off the most horrible flaws in Microsoft's business plan, it doesn't improve the hardware it's attached to any. I'm still lost on how they managed less power for a higher cost. Unless they wind up tossing the titan cards into the xbone just to fuck with Sony(at a cost of 1000 a card baring deals with the manufacturer), they are apparently using them in their display systems.
Not arguing that the PS4 does slightly outedge the hardware of the Xbox One, but not by all that much. Also, the Kinect does NOT need to be always on. That was known even before E3. Also, the PS4 is only cheaper because of the one thing I still don't like that Microsoft is doing, which is forcing you to get the Kinect. If you get the Playstation Eye, which is their Kinect style motion gimmick it's like only 30-40 dollars difference between the two systems.
Not arguing that Microsoft still has some fires to put out, but I think it's funny watching the uber fanboys who were blasting the new Xbox before EITHER were even announced now backpedaling because one of the only two MAJOR things the PS4 had better is completely indifferent between the two systems now.
-
The Kinect isn't "always on", but it can only be turned off manually. And when the Xbox One is off, the Kinect automatically turns itself on, ostensibly only to listen for the "Xbox On" command. There's no way to really shut it off other than disconnecting it physically from a power source. This may not be possible without unplugging your Xbox itself, in which case you probably can't turn the system on because there doesn't seem to be a physical power button for it (unless you can turn on the console with the controller like the 360).
Even so, I'm heavily concerned with a system that has a camera and microphone that keeps itself turned on even when the system is off and can only be manually paused (they don't say shut off, just that you "pause" the Kinect) when you're using it. No, I DON'T trust Microsoft when they publicly say that nothing leaves the Kinect without your explicit permission. Or that said permission won't be buried in an EULA so that people don't notice that they're agreeing to it. I just plain don't want my system to have a camera and microphone that can be monitoring me at any given time and having nothing but trust in an infamously poorly trusted corporation to reassure me.
-
It's good to see Microsoft is actually learning from the utter PR disaster and scrapping the always online aspect. However, until they get rid of the region locking, make the kinect and all of that media center software strictly optional (though admittedly, the PS4 is still guilty of that media center stupidity) and, most importantly, price it to better reflect its capabilities relative to the PS4, I say the PS4 is still hands down the superiour console. Of course, making those changes now would probably be way too costly, since manufacturing has already begun and devs are already making games for the console as it is now, so I suppose it's safe to say that Microsoft is royally fucked. They're never getting out of this lovely hole they dug for themselves, that's for sure.
-
Actually, they got rid of region locks as well. Source: http://www.techhive.com/article/2042445/microsoft-reverses-policies-on-xbox-one-rentals-online-check-ins-and-region-restrictions.html
-
Actually, they got rid of region locks as well. Source: http://www.techhive.com/article/2042445/microsoft-reverses-policies-on-xbox-one-rentals-online-check-ins-and-region-restrictions.html
Well, how about that. In the words of Jim Sterling, Microsoft has gone and pulled an Xbox One80.
Oh, and I almost forgot about the Xbox One's much more hostile stance on self publishing than the PS4. The up and coming AAA releases look snazzy and all, but don't forget about the indies. They can add a hell of lot of gems to the console's library and at this rate, it looks like all of those gems will be on the PS4. Something more for any prospective buyers to consider.
-
From what I've heard the 360 self publishing wasn't much better than nothing at all. If they're smart they're working out something better for this round. However the first smart decision seems to have happend within the last week, so it'll probably be a bit. Just not their top concern as no one buys a console for some 5 dollar indie game.
-
I just hope the XBOne is as rugged as the first Xbox. My bro's got one of the initial batch, and barring a DVD drive replacement, it still works just fine. If it can last even half that long, I'd be a happy camper.
-
I just hope the XBOne is as rugged as the first Xbox. My bro's got one of the initial batch, and barring a DVD drive replacement, it still works just fine. If it can last even half that long, I'd be a happy camper.
Or it could be like the 360 and have some obvious manufacturing defect that they never tell anyone about until it causes a gigantic recall, because nobody cared even a little bit about the obvious flaws as long as they could shove the product out.
-
I just hope the XBOne is as rugged as the first Xbox. My bro's got one of the initial batch, and barring a DVD drive replacement, it still works just fine. If it can last even half that long, I'd be a happy camper.
Or it could be like the 360 and have some obvious manufacturing defect that they never tell anyone about until it causes a gigantic recall, because nobody cared even a little bit about the obvious flaws as long as they could shove the product out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80YFtnTBApU
-
I just hope the XBOne is as rugged as the first Xbox. My bro's got one of the initial batch, and barring a DVD drive replacement, it still works just fine. If it can last even half that long, I'd be a happy camper.
Or it could be like the 360 and have some obvious manufacturing defect that they never tell anyone about until it causes a gigantic recall, because nobody cared even a little bit about the obvious flaws as long as they could shove the product out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80YFtnTBApU
I think you just won the thread.
-
Shouldn't we send that video to Microsoft?