Will post my thoughts on it later. If it's true you cannot play used games on it, that will pretty much decide my not getting it down the road.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Someone posted an animated gif of a picture of a topless girl in the comment's section...golly gee wiz bang.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I won't be getting it for a long time $$$
Hopefully it stays compatible with my version of XNA.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm actually laughing at all the Kaz Hirai gifs.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I was extremely dissapointed. I own all of the current gen systems as well as a Wii-U, however over the past six months there hasn't been an Xbox exclusive that I have really wanted to play. I feel like the PS3 simply has better exclusives lately, especially with games such as The Last of Us (Naughtydog Studios) and Beyond Two Souls (Creators of Heavy Rain) coming out.
I felt that Microsoft went too far with the Xbox One. They are fragmenting their time too much between gaming, TV, and other forms of entertainment. I bought an Xbox, PS3, etc for games. If I want to switch to TV, I can simply use my remote to change inputs. Making it easier to do so is nice, however it isn't anything groundbreaking, as cell phones are on the cusp of already doing things like this.
I suppose the Xbox One will be great for those that are into sports and sports games. Other than that the only thing regarding the TV aspects of the Xbox One I am looking forward to is the Halo TV series.
On the gaming side of things, they didn't really tell us anything to get super excited for. We got told there were exclusives coming, but didn't actually get to see them. I found it strange to end the conference with Call of Duty: Ghosts, as while the DLC is coming to the XBO (Can I call it that?) first, the game is multiplatform. We were also told we were getting a gameplay trailer, but there wasn't any gameplay shown. The concept looks cool, but the graphics were only average, certainly not on the same level as Battlefield 4.
I am holding out hope for the XBO, but right now I think I'll be picking up a PS4. The studios they work with, such as Naughty Dog, and (especially) Quantic Dream are making games that are helping bridge the gap between gaming and TV, film, and art. I'll take that over another Call of Duty game any day.
[ May 21, 2013, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Geraine ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
My Xbox is my media hub, so I'm OK with the focus on consumption of TV and movies. What I don't like is the attention to traditional cable. Cable TV with a program guide is as old as the first generation Xbox and putting it directly on the console is not worth much to me. What I want is a really great experience for exploring and consuming streaming content from a variety of providers as well as my own local content, which probably won't happen any time soon as Netflix will never agree to share real estate with Hulu and vice-versa. So for now we're stuck with isolated "apps" for each one.
I'm happy to get a spec bump and look forward to prettier games. It'll also be interesting to see if the new Kinect experience is more compelling. But nothing was particularly exciting. I'll probably buy one as well as a PS4 but I'm not dying to get either of them.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I wonder if I'll get an Xbox One any closer to release than I got an Xbox 360. Probably not. So I'm probably looking at 2016.
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
How do people feel about the Kinect vs Move? I was completely unimpressed with the Move but (full disclosure) I haven't tried the Kinect. However, I have heard nothing but awesomeness about the Kinect. Therefore, I have been looking forward to the Xbox One because Kinect is integrated.
Also I would like my entertainment to be more integrated (my music library, which is expansive; my movie collection, also expansive; etc.).
So, all other things being "close enough" I didn't like the Move (has it changed since I tried it out 2 years ago?). I'll be going Xbox.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by happymann: Also I would like my entertainment to be more integrated (my music library, which is expansive; my movie collection, also expansive; etc.).
Does your apartment smell of rich mahogany?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
So the ability and choice of "Always On Games" has been passed off to the game creators. Microsoft would prefer that future games utilize this, but have ostensibly shifted any and all blame to companies like EA. I am not a fan of the always on model, so this makes me really hesitant about buying the XBO.
Another problem I have is the Kinect integration. They have rebuilt it, made it more responsive, more intelligent and loads more useful in day to day use of the console. But they have also made it mandatory. It is still a peripheral, the big difference is that the XBO requires the Kinect to function. I know I have issues with paranoia, but the requisite of having a truly impressive level of technology that can map, record audio/video, determine physical status and mood seems like it would bother me with or without my mild paranoia. The idea of having a near-futuristic surveillance camera with a devoted high power computer in my living room is weird.
Their reluctance to release further information about used games is worrying, as it may be a deal-breaker for me. One report is that when you get a new game disc it will install the whole thing onto your hard-drive, but if someone else uses the disc to install the game on their console they will have to pay a fee. In short, you don't own the game you bought. It's like a seven pound itunes account, you will not able to use the physical copy of what you bought without the permission of the company that you bought the console from. Playstation is looking quite nice at the moment.
In short, it looks like I'm going to play all the games I find interesting for Xbox 360 as they go down in price and will either jump straight to the Playstation 4 or perhaps the discounted PS3 and play out all the best games it has to offer before catching up with PS4. So much of what I'm reading about the XBO is amazing, and too much of it is bothersome and controlling.
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by happymann: Also I would like my entertainment to be more integrated (my music library, which is expansive; my movie collection, also expansive; etc.).
Does your apartment smell of rich mahogany?
I feel like I missed something. Maybe I didn't convey what I was trying to convey. I meant, I would like my entertainment to be more in one spot/accessible from one location, or something like that. Your response has now left me utterly confused.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Sorry, just ribbing you. I was thinking of Ron Burgundy's description of his book collection.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:How do people feel about the Kinect vs Move?
I like the voice navigation which is technically a Kinect feature even though it shouldn't require any special hardware. The motion detection stuff is hit or miss. With some games it works really well and is a lot of fun. With others it's nothing but frustration. I'm hoping with the updated version that there will be more hit and less miss. I also have Move, but haven't found a much compelling use for it.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
These two links have made me go from "early adopter" to "not going to get one":
I think they are really misjudging hardcore gamers. I spend thousands of dollars each year on video games, but that's because I can trade in old games to purchase new ones. And I have a great internet connection, but not all of the time.
Thanks, but no thanks, Microsoft.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Some more information is coming out that has me even more discouraged...
The XBO will not work without the Kinect plugged in. I move my systems around the house. Usually I have my 360 plugged into one of my computer monitors, however sometimes when my wife is working late on her laptop I'll move my Xbox into the bedroom so that while she works I can be next to her and not be bored. Having to lug that huge box with the Kinect as well would be annoying.
There is also a "Fee" if you want multiple profiles on your Xbox to be able to utilize the same game. This isn't a problem for me since I'm the only one that uses it. For families with more than one player however this is going to be a disaster. Back when I was single and living at home, my brothers and I would all have our own XBOX live ID's. We would all log into Halo and play our own characters, have our own saves, profiles, etc.
Well, now you can't. If your family purchases a new game but your brother wants to use it on his profile, it is going to cost a fee, something Microsoft has said will be equal to the retail price of the game.
From IGN:
Microsoft executive Phil Harrison, in an interview with Kotaku, has some potentially bad news. The aforementioned 'fee' to play games on a second account? Full MSRP. So unless you want to use your account for your entire family, you'll be dishing out an extra $40, $50, $60 for siblings or friends to try out new games. Harrison did tell Kotaku that his company plans to allow gamers to 'trade' their used games online somehow - though declined to get into further details.
This just keeps looking worse and worse. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the pc gaming master race looks down from upon high with pity and bewilderment. what strange creatures, they opine, from the terraces of their sky-cities. do they do it to themselves? do they desire this? can they be helped from out of their serfdom?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Yeah, those were the two key questions I had, and neither were discussed in the presentation, for what seems like obvious reasons now.
I'm sure Gamestop is *so* comforted that Microsoft will setup some sort of system where you can sell your games online. :\
Man, those are just two major blows to the system for me. It's a shame Nintendo didn't find a way to put something bigger under the WiiU's hood, because it could have laughed all the way to the bank for the next 5 years.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm usually a pretty late adopter, but unless something dramatically changes, I don't think I'm touching the new Xbox with a 10 foot pole.
I'll consider the PS4 maybe a year or so after it comes out, but all this new crap to try and bilk money out of gamers is a huge turnoff for me, both because I simply don't have the money and because I fundamentally dislike the naked greed behind all of it. They're trying to squeeze blood from a stone, and it's probably just going to shrink their profits even more as casual gamers like me abandon console gaming in droves.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I'll get it for the Halos and the exclusives, but I feel really bummed about the recent news (as in, post-conference today) that if you buy a pre-owned game, you have to pay a "fee" to play it on your gamertag. That's absurd to me.
Anyway, the news about a Halo TV show is great. I can't wait to see that.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: the pc gaming master race looks down from upon high with pity and bewilderment. what strange creatures, they opine, from the terraces of their sky-cities. do they do it to themselves? do they desire this? can they be helped from out of their serfdom?
It is a good time to be a PC gamer indeed.
I just wish more people would wake up and realize it so more games like Heavy Rain and Fahrenheit would be made for or ported to the PC
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I'll get it for the Halos and the exclusives, but I feel really bummed about the recent news (as in, post-conference today) that if you buy a pre-owned game, you have to pay a "fee" to play it on your gamertag. That's absurd to me.
Anyway, the news about a Halo TV show is great. I can't wait to see that.
This is the only good news.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I'll get it for the Halos and the exclusives, but I feel really bummed about the recent news (as in, post-conference today) that if you buy a pre-owned game, you have to pay a "fee" to play it on your gamertag. That's absurd to me.
Apparently this isn't true, yet MS is still in the shitter for allowing the use of always online DRM.
quote:Anyway, the news about a Halo TV show is great. I can't wait to see that.
I'm excited as well, bummed we won't ever see Neil Blomkamp's Halo.
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Sorry, just ribbing you. I was thinking of Ron Burgundy's description of his book collection.
Just wanted to say how ashamed I am. This is, like, the tenth time that I haven't gotten an Anchorman reference. Apparently I don't know that movie as well as I thought. Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I'll get it for the Halos and the exclusives, but I feel really bummed about the recent news (as in, post-conference today) that if you buy a pre-owned game, you have to pay a "fee" to play it on your gamertag. That's absurd to me.
Apparently this isn't true, yet MS is still in the shitter for allowing the use of always online DRM.
All the places I've looked seem to indicate that there isn't 100% agreement yet from the people at Microsoft that there definitely ISN'T going to be a "fee." Can I get a source for this?
In regards to a used "fee," one reviewer compared it to a used car. He said that others are up in arms because they're allowed to sell their car used, but he says that cars lose value over time whereas games still look the same used or new. I think a better analogy would be used books. All the words are still there so you still get the same experience, but we're allowed to buy/sell used books. All of this, of course, could be a non-issue, but until it's official then Microsoft has this storm to deal with.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The fact is they didn't have a uniform response for two *huge* questions they were fully aware everyone wanted to know going in. They either needed to say, "We are getting feedback from gamers and vendors and do not have a final decision on this. We expect to have one by E3. But we are listening."
Instead they said, "Yes always online, wait no, and fees for playing on other people's systems, wait no."
[ May 22, 2013, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Yeah, there are now conflicting stories regarding the fees. It still does not give me much confidence and I think they will implement some sort of system, but hopefully it will be fairly inexpensive. I've noticed many companies have an online pass that used game purchasers have to pay in order to play online. Perhaps they will simply go that route.
While I don't like that, it is still a better option than paying the full MSRP to play a used game.
I was kind of let down that the 500GB hard drive will not be removeable. Since it seems all XBO games have to be installed prior to playing them, it is unknown how many games you will be able to fit. Some Blu-Ray games can be 40GB each. It is nice Microsoft is allowing you to plug in an external drive for storage, but having to purchase another hard drive that you would need to move around with your kinect as well is going to get annoying. I'd much rather buy a 2TB internal and throw it into the XBO.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
One of the links I posted above has a quote from a Microsoft rep about the fees.
I don't understand why people think PC gaming is superior to consoles. With a console I don't have to worry about if the game will play. I don't have to buy a new graphics card. My family can use the computer while I play a game. I get to use a big 50" television to play (which is possible with a PC, yes, but not always easy to do).
To put it another way, consoles make things simpler. I'm all for having choices, but when it comes to my hobbies, I'd rather not have to worry about *if* things will work.
I remember when I bought Warcraft 3. I wasn't sure my PC had enough power to run it, so I bought it anyway. Everything worked fine except when the 'heroes' came on-screen. My computer couldn't render them for some reason, so they were invisible and just showed up as shadows on the ground. It was playable, but frustrating. I gave up on having a powerful PC after that experience.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't understand why people think PC gaming is superior to consoles.
I have my HTPC hooked up to my 50" television. I don't worry if my games play, because I built the HTPC to play those games (and media, of course). I have six computers, so my family can use any one of them while I'm playing a game (or use a tablet to log into the terminal server, if they need to).
If you don't know what you're doing, consoles are a good compromise.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
It's not a matter of knowledge or understanding, Tom. It's a matter of going through the work and expense of keeping up-to-date.
Oddly enough, console games are becoming more PC-like as time goes on. It used to be that a game worked straight out of the box. Now when I put a game in my XBox or Playstation, I expect an update to download and install before I can play it. And don't get me started on having to pay for DLC...
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
It's simple. If used games require a fee to play them, I'll just buy the third party games for my PS4. If they're exclusives, I'm fine with paying full price, because if I'm going to buy an exclusive like Halo, Gears of War, or Fable (note: of these three, I only like Halo, so take that as you will), then I'll most likely buy them new anyway. I always buy Halo brand new because I want to play it on launch, which is why I pay the fee. I also want to support that franchise so that they keep making stories in that world. However, I'll never buy a game I know nothing about brand new. Even if people say it's great, I'd prefer to play it for cheap. And since I have no experience with the new franchise, I'll have no reason to care if I don't get to play it (note: the exception to this was Ni No Kuni).
I'm predicting Microsoft will make a lot of money in doing this change, but they'll also lose a lot of business. I'm guessing they'll make up for the loss, but it still bothers and directly affects me.
We'll see soon, hopefully. E3's right around the corner.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: One of the links I posted above has a quote from a Microsoft rep about the fees.
I don't understand why people think PC gaming is superior to consoles. With a console I don't have to worry about if the game will play. I don't have to buy a new graphics card. My family can use the computer while I play a game. I get to use a big 50" television to play (which is possible with a PC, yes, but not always easy to do).
People think PC gaming is superior to console gaming because PC gaming IS superior to console gaming. Even when PC used to be the 'premium' option (meaning that it was considerably more expensive to maintain a gaming PC than it would be to just settle on one of the consoles) it was superior. It isn't even a premium option anymore, and PC gaming is, on the whole, less expensive than console gaming. Extremely less expensive for anybody who pirates, but significantly less expensive even for people who purchase 100% of their games.
What console gaming has is that it is the simpler option for people who don't have much savvy with personal computers, and also for families that can take advantage of bell and whistle knacks like motion capture or wiimotes.
PC's don't even require a whole lot of knowledge or savvy anymore anyway. You mention that with consoles you 'get to use a big 50" television' — like, we've had the exact same HDMI conversation on this forum. It is literally so easy to connect a computer to television output that I taught my mom how to do it in less time than it took me to teach her how to use netflix on a console.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Also PC games have better multiplayer options and superior graphics at this time. For example iirc most of the console versions of recent FPS were locked to 32 player maps while the PC version had 64 player. Also the "1080p" resolution is balls on a console, PC's have much better and more complex options.
Also, most console games you can't mod or have huge difficulty, like with Skyrim iirc.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Not to derail - for gaming PCs on large displays, is there a good / standard way yet to properly scale UI elements? Last time I tried it, I couldn't read any of the text from my couch.
Back to the XBO - most of the games that I buy new are from series that I was introduced to by borrowing someone else's copy. If there's a substantial fee for used games/borrowing copies, I'm out completely. PS4 is actually looking pretty good.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:for gaming PCs on large displays, is there a good / standard way yet to properly scale UI elements?
Sadly, there's no standard. Many games are now getting smarter about this, and both Steam and Windows Live are pushing hard for some kind of consensus on it, but it's still up to the individual game to handle. Some do pretty well; some require mods; and some basically require that you sit closer to the TV, like Crusader Kings II.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I prefer console gaming in my house because I have several kids, some fairly young, and consoles are basically plug-and-play gaming appliances - entertainment toasters. Also we have multiple screens and our three Xbox 360s cost about the same as a single low-end gaming PC.
If I was the only gamer in the house I'd probably use a PC.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:for gaming PCs on large displays, is there a good / standard way yet to properly scale UI elements?
Sadly, there's no standard. Many games are now getting smarter about this, and both Steam and Windows Live are pushing hard for some kind of consensus on it, but it's still up to the individual game to handle. Some do pretty well; some require mods; and some basically require that you sit closer to the TV, like Crusader Kings II.
You play CKII? Wanna join my weekly saturday game ^_^
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Only if we all play Western Europeans. Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Well its already in progress (1269 iirc) and there's plenty of Europeans. Spain is owned by a Muslim Republic though, and France is also Muslim...
Only you can turn this around!
Also the Il Khanate are kicking our asses in the east.
He's like a geek version of Smokey The Bear.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Am I reading that map right? Does Russia really rule the south of Ireland? And is Italy really divided between two Muslim empires and Sweden? Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
This discussion has derailed into dangerous territory.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Am I reading that map right? Does Russia really rule the south of Ireland? And is Italy really divided between two Muslim empires and Sweden?
Russia does not rule southern Ireland, that's actually Mauretania (Morocco). Empire of Spain is a Muslim Republic and Mauretania is its vassal. Russia doesn't own overseas stuff.
Yes to Italy, technically sweden is the Holy Roman Empire and originally Denmark.
The game is tomorrow at 10 AM EST, should I poke you on facebook? Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Is CKII any good? It sounds interesting...
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
It's really fun, also there's a Game of Thrones mod.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Is CKII any good? It sounds interesting...
Play Victoria 2 instead, less fingerpaint and incest.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Woah woah woah, lets not get hasty now.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I'm not making any judgements, hey it's a useful way to keep titles within the dynasty.
(I just want some consistent V2 MP, my other MP games never get past 1860)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I have no idea what to think of the xbone reveal anymore. it's gone off so, so terribly that I can't think of any parallels.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Well as long as the launch isn't a massive bomb like the Wii U, I'm sure they'll do fine.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I don't understand why people think PC gaming is superior to consoles.
I have my HTPC hooked up to my 50" television. I don't worry if my games play, because I built the HTPC to play those games (and media, of course). I have six computers, so my family can use any one of them while I'm playing a game (or use a tablet to log into the terminal server, if they need to).
This popped to mind: the scene where Homer simpson invites Frank Grimes into his home, and Grimes marvels at his awesome life, and then goes berserk and kills himself.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Well, it just got worse:
“With Xbox One you can game offline for up to 24 hours on your primary console, or one hour if you are logged on to a separate console accessing your library. Offline gaming is not possible after these prescribed times until you re-establish a connection, but you can still watch live TV and enjoy Blu-ray and DVD movies."
Microsoft also spelled out its policies on game lending, trade-ins and rentals. "In our role as a game publisher, Microsoft Studios will enable you to give your games to friends or trade in your Xbox One games at participating retailers. Third party publishers may opt in or out of supporting game resale and may set up business terms or transfer fees with retailers. Microsoft does not receive any compensation as part of this. In addition, third party publishers can enable you to give games to friends."
“We designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers. Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games.”
Microsoft says "your friends and family, your guests and acquaintances get unlimited access to all of your games. Anyone can play your games on your console--regardless of whether you are logged in or their relationship to you." The company added that “Xbox One is designed so game publishers can enable you to give your disc-based games to your friends. There are no fees charged as part of these transfers. There are two requirements: you can only give them to people who have been on your friends list for at least 30 days and each game can only be given once.”
It's worth noting that Microsoft allows you to gift games to friends but they can't borrow them. Microsoft added that "loaning or renting games won’t be available at launch, but we are exploring the possibilities with our partners."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Yeah, I saw that. *barf*
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Anybody watch E3 today? Lots of games!
Then Sony revealed their console, and now I feel ethically obligated to buy their console instead of Xbox One.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
PS4 is $100 cheaper at launch, has none of the goofy restrictions that the One has, and just announced a pretty sweet lineup of games to be released.
I think they're going to leap out ahead of this round of the console wars unless Xbox does some serious backpedaling.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
scootin in to pop my Game Industry Cred and say:
you just watched a slaughter.
Microsoft has completely failed at several very important things and completely handed this year to Sony.
Microsoft (a) absolutely failed in a responsibility to its market audience and itself in maintaining good footing in its design negotiations with major publishers, resulting in things like the drm requirements and the lack of first sale/used game trading, (b) absolutely failed in design vision, coming up with inclusive clownshoes duds like the creepy always-watching kinect eye, (c) absolutely failed in marketing the console, and created a case study for marketing students in terms of a company failing to manage and positively direct expectations, target consumer response, and social media response to their product. C is partially the product of A and B, since A and B resulted in a console that even the best marketing team would really have to stretch to sell to console buyers, but the halfassed way they tried to waffle through it and muddle their answers to try to blunt the response to it absolutely did not help.
Sony was blatantly given the position and opportunity to murder Microsoft. Victory was handed to them before the night even began, they just had to cash it in. How much was tonight a complete gimme for Sony? So much so that the most exciting announcement for a next-gen console is that it does things that every console before it has done. No online requirement. You can sell the games you own. Does not stare at you with a motion camera all the time. Xbox go home.
Total murder. Sony spent the whole night capitalizing on this and twisting the knife, over and over again.
By the end of it, the price point was just a mercy killing drop-the-mic thing.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Sony going second and avoiding the "battle for the living room" social and entertainment content that seems to have been Microsoft's sticking point in their presentation remind me of the second Obama/Romney debate, when Pres. Obama simply said "Please proceed governor" when Romney was lying about something that even the moderator couldn't help but correct. Sometimes the best offense is letting the opponent destroy themselves.
Well played Sony, I'll be seeing you in early 2014.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I agree, AchillesHeel. Microsoft's greed is going to destroy them.
This whole thing reminds me of the 3rd console curse. Sega, Nintendo, and Sony have all experienced it and it has forced them to re-evaluate their strategies. Sony seems to have learned about humility (they also fired their entire marketing team) and seem to finally understand that you can't alienate your audience. Microsoft, on the other hand, thinks they're the king of the world, forgetting that their customers are the ones who are putting them there. I sincerely hope they fix this online requirement and used games policy, otherwise they're going to lose a significant portion of potential customers.
After all, if I can buy a PS4 game at half the price in a used game store, why would I ever buy a new xbox game for 60 bucks? It's just bad business. They are intentionally giving their competitor leverage, and all Sony had to do was NOT change the industry standard. I mean, how crazy is that? The biggest news at E3 was that the PS4 is going to treat its customers the same as every other video game console to date, by respecting their right to buy and sell used games.
Gotta love that Microsoft greed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the problem is not 'microsoft greed'
the problem is the major distributors like EA and Ubisoft, who are flexing their clout in order to try to keep the triple a games industry model from imploding, which is what is probably going to happen and which is absolutely what should happen, despite what a mess that'll be.
ps4's biggest news is the product of sony calling the distributor's bluffs, and they have definitely done so to great effect, but the ugliness of the current publisher environment and the detrimental effect it is increasingly having on game publication remains
for more on this subject or the state of the aaa games industry please contact your nearest tom davidson
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I agree. Microsoft is imposing these DRM systems, and have given the excuse that they were being pressured by third party developers. Sony came out and said they weren't having any of that, and called the developers bluff.
What publisher isn't going to make games for PS4 because of that? None. They all want their money, and the more systems they can have their game on, the better.
Sony also did good by announcing that indie developers can self publish. This is in stark contrast to the $40,000 fee it is going to cost on Xbox. Most small indie developers simply do not have that kind of capital to invest. That will mean that Xbox One users may not get many of the indie games released, or may get it later.
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
I vaguely remember there being whispers that the PS3 was going to not allow used games for a while, but then they listened to the public and changed (prior to the release of the PS3). Anyone else remember this or am I mis-remembering?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
If Microsoft actually changed their stance, it would be one heck of a surprise. They're the kind of company that doesn't care what the critics say because they're too busy ignoring them.
Sony has learned some hard lessons with the PS3, and now we're seeing the results of that. Sony's whole marketing campaign has been that this system is going to be about games. Yes, they will have the other stuff like Netflix, original programming, and all that, but games are what matter most. And gamers don't want to be denied something (like buying used games), especially when it comes to saving them money.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Its amazing that the PS4 will seem to win this generation so handedly just be not making major blunders and simply doing everything right.
Also Gaiko looks awesome, possibly making this the last console generation.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
my reaction to microsoft
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Its amazing that the PS4 will seem to win this generation so handedly just be not making major blunders and simply doing everything right.
I wouldn't get too ahead of yourself. They blew it on messaging/perception and it's going to hurt them, but that doesn't mean they've lost the next generation.
I'm not even completely sold on the idea that Microsoft's model is terrible. What they are basically pitching is a Steam model for a console (yeah, minus the cross-platform, great sales, and indy cred). The way my family uses the console and buys games it's actually a better system for me than Sony's.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Matt, the point is the blood in the water. If a company like Microsoft fails *so* profoundly at even managing the terms of its licensure, to the point that they will not even be able to demand standard content controls from licensed publishers, which leads to a great deal of consumer doubt and disgust, then they are not to be trusted on pretty much anything.
It's like if Comcast or Direct TV came out with their next generation of web-based platforms (hopper or xfinity), only this time, they couldn't even guarantee that HBO or Showtime would make all their content available without extra fees on top of the regular subscriptions. For example, each network might have different limitations on devices or number of viewing locations. It shows a complete lack of control over their marketplace- and that they are the kind of company that is willing to sell you something, the terms of which they are not able to control because they fumbled on the 5 yard line.
This kind of lack of trust is enough to make a lot of consumers shy away from a purchase. They see a console with dubious restrictions on use, dubious privacy controls, and a price point that seems totally unjustified by the technology being sold.
Sony has had a better model for this kind of business since it started, and Microsoft was never going to beat it in the long term. Maybe for a few years, but not forever. First, Sony sells their initial consoles (the entire first year or two of sales) at a substantial loss- covering neither R&D nor manufacturing costs. They guarantee publishers huge distribution at a reasonable licensing fee, with low startup costs, and guarantee that games will be available on their console. Microsoft, from the very beginning, had a model that de-emphasized R&D and emphasized low manufacturing overhead, meaning they make money out of the gate on consoles. Their higher prices mean that they have less sway with developers because they can't guarantee massive distribution the way Sony can. They could with the first X-box only because it was released between generations, and used 2 year old technology and was "designed" if you can use that term, on a napkin, and manufactured for practically nothing because the plant was already essentially tooled for producing it. That was just opportunism- they could never repeat the feat and stay competitive in later generations. They're toast.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They guarantee publishers huge distribution at a reasonable licensing fee
Sony's licensing fees are not exactly "reasonable."
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Its amazing that the PS4 will seem to win this generation so handedly just be not making major blunders and simply doing everything right.
I wouldn't get too ahead of yourself. They blew it on messaging/perception and it's going to hurt them, but that doesn't mean they've lost the next generation.
I'm not even completely sold on the idea that Microsoft's model is terrible. What they are basically pitching is a Steam model for a console (yeah, minus the cross-platform, great sales, and indy cred). The way my family uses the console and buys games it's actually a better system for me than Sony's.
Can you elaborate? I ask because while the XBox does let you use games between family members on the same box, it still limits what you can do, especially if you or your kids decide to borrow a game from a friend. Personally, I trade games with my coworkers and friends on a regular basis. I don't do this with major titles that I know I'll play a lot, but for those smaller games that only last ten hours, that's my only option. I'm not going to go out and buy something for 60 bucks when it only lasts 6 hours (Halo: ODST), and I'm especially not going to do it if the average critic score is below an 80.
However, if I borrow a game that's first in a series, like the first Mass Effect, and I really end up liking it, I'll buy the next one right away. If those games are never at a severely reduced price, I'm probably not going to take the risk.
Back on topic, though, I really don't know how Microsoft's restrictions are better than Sony's absolute freedom. And even if there's one benefit to it, there's no possible way it can outweigh all the negative.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:They guarantee publishers huge distribution at a reasonable licensing fee
Sony's licensing fees are not exactly "reasonable."
Most developers actually prefer Sony because of their willingness to help smaller devs. Even the bigger ones prefer them. Bungie, which was primarily associated with Microsoft for nearly a decade, showed up at both of the Sony conferences, because, as they said themselves, Sony is actively trying to help devs. Microsoft is notorious for treating devs like crap, especially smaller ones. The guys who made Fez had a huge falling out with them, and Bungie didn't leave them on the best of terms, either.
What I think is really cool about Sony moving forward is that they are creating an indie game section of the PSN where anyone can make a game and upload it, sort of like youtube for games. That's amazing when you think about it.
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
I must say, I'm getting pulled more and more toward the PS4. Now it seems that the two big sticking points for me are the controllers (to me, the xbox controller setup is much more comfortable) and the kinect vs move (I really believe there is a good future for controller free gaming). But Sony has done a better job marketing this (despite the future gravitating toward cloud systems without a physical disc to trade with your friends. we're not there yet).
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Can you elaborate? I ask because while the XBox does let you use games between family members on the same box, it still limits what you can do, especially if you or your kids decide to borrow a game from a friend.
I did qualify my statement with "how we use it." My kids do not borrow or lend games very much. What they do like to do is play with their friends and cousins at their homes and ours and the MS cloud-based stuff let's them choose from any game in either family's library at either house without shuttling the discs back and forth.
Also, my six kids are avid gamers so we've got multiple Xboxes in the house. Being able to share one subscription that allows logging in and playing all purchased games from any console is a lot less hassle than managing the discs.
quote:...but for those smaller games that only last ten hours, that's my only option. I'm not going to go out and buy something for 60 bucks when it only lasts 6 hours (Halo: ODST), and I'm especially not going to do it if the average critic score is below an 80.
Most of those games eventually are available at a significantly reduced price. You used Halo 3 ODST as an example of a short game you'd be interested in - it's currently downloadable on Xbox Live for $14.99.
Finally, I almost always buy games new and almost never sell them used. I occasionally give one away to a friend or family member, which the "friends for 30 days" policy would accomodate adequately. I also take advantage of discounted retail prices on AAA titles a year or two after they release if I didn't play them during the initial rollout.
I'm not trying to defend Microsoft in any way. I think they totally screwed the pooch on pretty much everything so far, but when it comes down to the actual licensing terms matched up with *my* needs, they're just fine.
Also a couple of my kids are really into the few Kinect games that actually work - Dance Central and... ok, fine just Dance Central.
[ June 13, 2013, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Microsoft is notorious for treating devs like crap, especially smaller ones.
This is absolutely the truth. Microsoft's shout-out to indies in their presser was a 10-second mention of Minecraft while Sony brought half a dozen indie devs out on stage to demo their games. Even Notch was rolling his eyes at that and is now talking about how much he's looking forward to the PS4.
I have a couple friends that work with an indie studio that has actually done pretty well by partnering with Microsoft and they are always complaining about what a complete pain in the ass Microsoft is to work with.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Looks like they realized how badly they screwed up. I am considering getting one now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
writing, wall, etc
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Ha! This is superb news. I don't really think the changes themselves are that big of a deal, but let's look at what has actually taken place here. A major company that prides itself on innovation (among other things) has actually stepped back and looked at the reactions of their audience---and not just the broader audience, but the core gaming audience, which actually makes up a small percentage of consumers.
In other words, the voice of the People made a difference. And not just a difference, but a massive one. This is going to go down in gaming history, perhaps not as much as a groundbreaking game or the Nintendo Entertainment System's debut, but it will nonetheless.
I'm excited to see where things go from here.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: writing, wall, etc
They need to keep reading. Their system is still $100 more than the PS4.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Because of the built-in Kinect. That's worth it. Honestly, I think their reversal on the diskless license thing is a shame; I think the other model -- their original model -- was actually quite a bit better. I would be thrilled to no longer need physical media.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Let me buy the Kinect if I want to. It's not necessary for 95% of the things I would use my Xbox for.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Because of the built-in Kinect. That's worth it. Honestly, I think their reversal on the diskless license thing is a shame; I think the other model -- their original model -- was actually quite a bit better. I would be thrilled to no longer need physical media.
This. I'm still hopeful that they'll manage much of their original vision on downloaded titles but without that being the default consumption model I don't know that they'll expend the energy to make that a great experience. Let the vocal "core" gamers have their plastic and still give us a chance to go all digital if that's where we want to live.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Let me buy the Kinect if I want to. It's not necessary for 95% of the things I would use my Xbox for.
Well, they want it to be necessary. Or rather they want it to be a feature of the system which developers can count on the existence of. That significantly increases the chance that it will actually be developed for and, provided it is used well, become a true differentiator for their console which is, otherwise, pretty much just commodity hardware.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
mandatory kinect is actually the only really good thing the console has going for it.
It's just that most people don't understand why.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:They guarantee publishers huge distribution at a reasonable licensing fee
Sony's licensing fees are not exactly "reasonable."
Feasible, then. The point is, they own the distribution network by setting clear expectations for content providers: you follow our rules, and you can play in our market, which is big because we can back it up with production and pricing.
In the sense of their market strategies, Xbox is a console built for distributors; PS4 is one built for gamers. Only Microsoft forgets who's forking over a significant sum of money for the console in the first place.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: mandatory kinect is actually the only really good thing the console has going for it.
It's just that most people don't understand why.
How does it being mandatory at all times actually add anything? Why not make it optional? I'm not suggesting they not include it with the console, but why does it have to be on at all? You could say that certain interface options won't be available, but are those required to play the games? If not, then I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to turn off your kinect if you don't feel like having it on. I love the idea of using it, but I really don't see why it has to be mandatory.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Because of the built-in Kinect. That's worth it. Honestly, I think their reversal on the diskless license thing is a shame; I think the other model -- their original model -- was actually quite a bit better. I would be thrilled to no longer need physical media.
This. I'm still hopeful that they'll manage much of their original vision on downloaded titles but without that being the default consumption model I don't know that they'll expend the energy to make that a great experience. Let the vocal "core" gamers have their plastic and still give us a chance to go all digital if that's where we want to live.
Yeah because that belief worked out so well for Nintendo in regards to their Wiimote setup.
I really thought 3rd party developers would catch the ball and run with it, just like they have with other peripherals Nintendo has created, but they didn't, and they didn't for the Kinect when it was released for the 360.
Heck the game they showcased at E3 which was supposed to be a AAA Kinect game, reverted back to a controller setup.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I can't wait to play Simon Says on my mandatory Kinect.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Yeah because that belief worked out so well for Nintendo in regards to their Wiimote setup.
Innovation is going to be hit and miss - mostly miss. WiiMote, Kinect, Move, Wii U gamepad... all a bit ho-hum in retrospect while initially seeming to have great potential. Kinect 2.0 is the next iteration. Maybe it'll do well, maybe it won't, but ubiquity is necessary for it to even have a chance.
High fidelity motion tracking and voice recognition is an exciting idea. If Kinect 2 delivers it I'll be thrilled. If it doesn't I'm still happy that someone with deep pockets and motivation is pushing the tech forward.
quote:How does it being mandatory at all times actually add anything? Why not make it optional? I'm not suggesting they not include it with the console, but why does it have to be on at all? You could say that certain interface options won't be available, but are those required to play the games? If not, then I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to turn off your kinect if you don't feel like having it on.
I can imagine a few reasons. First, as I mentioned earlier, developers are more likely to take advantage of a feature if the know that feature is present for every player. They want people to develop for Kinect so they are making sure there is *always* a Kinect.
Second, they want *us* to use it. You're more likely to try voice and gesture navigation (and, they hope, fall in love with it), if those features are always available.
This is all about making Kinect an integral part of the Xbox experience, and yes, doing that is going to require forcing reluctant customers to actually have it plugged in.
What's sort of funny here is that if they'd build a mic and camera into the Xbox One itself we wouldn't be complaining about not being able to use the machine without it. However, placing it on the end of a cord to allow for best positioning is a much better experience. But now we see a cord and are pissed that we can't pull that cord out.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
I'm glad Sony is staying reasonable. I'll probably get a PS4 after the first or second price drop.
Until then, it's PS3 and if I feel like putting my pirate hat on, my PC.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: How does it being mandatory at all times actually add anything? Why not make it optional? I'm not suggesting they not include it with the console, but why does it have to be on at all? You could say that certain interface options won't be available, but are those required to play the games? If not, then I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to turn off your kinect if you don't feel like having it on. I love the idea of using it, but I really don't see why it has to be mandatory.
If I'm a game studio or a publisher backing a game studio, and we're making an xbox game, then Kinect being an integral part of the system determines whether or not we're going to have Kinect be an integral part of our game's control system and experience.
If Kinect isn't integral to the system (and thus only possessed by a fraction of xbox users), we can only devote ourselves as far as token integration of Kinect features that can be swapped out with alternate controller input, because we have to be making the game for Kinect and non-Kinect users.
Which, in practice, means we're designing the game fundamentally around a non-Kinect experience, since we have to default to the universal control input element (the controller). We can't base our game in any significant way around the inclusion of Kinect functionality. If we did, we would be heavily straightjacketing ourselves into the niche novelty market of Kinect-only games. And that doesn't float standard game development budget.
But if Kinect is integral to the system and we know everyone has it on the system, we can actually design our game to incorporate Kinect controlled systems and gameplay.
Kinect being integral to the console will drive innovation and motion/sound control inclusion into games, which will boost the console and lead to some really cool new game design. Kinect being an option will not, and would hard limit the investment into motion/sound control schemes at pretty much where it is now, where made-for-kinect games are made on parcel budgets limited to a fractional market.
There have been plenty of games that made the most out of piecemeal optional kinect controls and were better gameplay experiences for it. Skyrim, etc. So I want to see what happens when Kinect isn't a corner novelty with junk like the last LucasArts game. Pretty much the only thing about consoles that interests me at all is what will happen when mandatory Kinect drives sound and motion input innovation.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
"When" huh?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: How does it being mandatory at all times actually add anything? Why not make it optional? I'm not suggesting they not include it with the console, but why does it have to be on at all? You could say that certain interface options won't be available, but are those required to play the games? If not, then I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to turn off your kinect if you don't feel like having it on. I love the idea of using it, but I really don't see why it has to be mandatory.
If I'm a game studio or a publisher backing a game studio, and we're making an xbox game, then Kinect being an integral part of the system determines whether or not we're going to have Kinect be an integral part of our game's control system and experience.
If Kinect isn't integral to the system (and thus only possessed by a fraction of xbox users), we can only devote ourselves as far as token integration of Kinect features that can be swapped out with alternate controller input, because we have to be making the game for Kinect and non-Kinect users.
Which, in practice, means we're designing the game fundamentally around a non-Kinect experience, since we have to default to the universal control input element (the controller). We can't base our game in any significant way around the inclusion of Kinect functionality. If we did, we would be heavily straightjacketing ourselves into the niche novelty market of Kinect-only games. And that doesn't float standard game development budget.
But if Kinect is integral to the system and we know everyone has it on the system, we can actually design our game to incorporate Kinect controlled systems and gameplay.
Kinect being integral to the console will drive innovation and motion/sound control inclusion into games, which will boost the console and lead to some really cool new game design. Kinect being an option will not, and would hard limit the investment into motion/sound control schemes at pretty much where it is now, where made-for-kinect games are made on parcel budgets limited to a fractional market.
There have been plenty of games that made the most out of piecemeal optional kinect controls and were better gameplay experiences for it. Skyrim, etc. So I want to see what happens when Kinect isn't a corner novelty with junk like the last LucasArts game. Pretty much the only thing about consoles that interests me at all is what will happen when mandatory Kinect drives sound and motion input innovation.
As I said before, your argument here suggests that it simply be bundled with the system. If they simply included it with the console, it would allow for the scenario that you propose. However, the XB1 requires Kinnect be on at all times, which in my opinion is unnecessary. If I want to disconnect the Kinnect, I should be able to do that. Certainly, there can be innovations that developers can take advantage of if the Kinnect is being used, but all they need to do is, upon start up, show a screen that says "Kinnect Required". Since everyone has a Kinnect already (because it has been packaged with the system), there's not a problem.
Forcing people to have the Kinnect on at all times seems extremely unnecessary.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Its also like saying that the only way to force innovation is to allow microsoft to bundle Microsoft Explorer with every copy of windows.
Wasn't how it was supposed to work is that "Hey, people want to play this game, so they'll buy this console/accessory"; not "Corporations want to make money off of this widget, so lets force people to buy the widget because lol what else are they going to do *NOT* buy our console?"
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
Am I the only one that is a little disappointed that they didn't leave me with the option of taking the "Check-in Every 24 hours" thing? After reading about what they were offering, and the 10 friends, check-out games, play games on any Xbox console, etc. I kind of want it.
But Microsofts inept ability at explaining what they were doing ruined that, and they took their toys and went home. Instead of working out a compromise
As for the Kinect, I still think that comes down to Microsoft miswording what they are doing. From what I've read up on it, it's not actually 'always on' so much as .. 'always waiting for a specific command to turn on' which is sort of "Always on" if you don't trust them for their word. But if it's actually listening/recording/whatever.. more than that - it will be posted on the internets around Day 2.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: Am I the only one that is a little disappointed that they didn't leave me with the option of taking the "Check-in Every 24 hours" thing? After reading about what they were offering, and the 10 friends, check-out games, play games on any Xbox console, etc. I kind of want it.
But Microsofts inept ability at explaining what they were doing ruined that, and they took their toys and went home. Instead of working out a compromise
As for the Kinect, I still think that comes down to Microsoft miswording what they are doing. From what I've read up on it, it's not actually 'always on' so much as .. 'always waiting for a specific command to turn on' which is sort of "Always on" if you don't trust them for their word. But if it's actually listening/recording/whatever.. more than that - it will be posted on the internets around Day 2.
This. The Family Share thing was the only good thing that really set it apart from the PS4, and was one of the reasons I preordered both systems. I would buy all of the PS4 games I wanted, but a couple of friends and family members are buying the XBO, so I figured I could just play the games they purchased as part of the family share program. It kind of lets me down that that option will no longer be there.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
So you're surprised that the company who has handed Sony the number one console spot of the next generation in the name of slaying pirates and used game users took away your last option to play games without their permission? It only makes sense that they won't allow you to play a game without paying for it just because your friend who did pay is now bored with it. If you think Microsoft think, that is.
If you want to wear a pirate hat, wear it with pride. I'm currently saving up to get a decent gaming PC, and will get that before PS4, for precisely that reason. (I will never, ever buy an XB1 with the current restrictions.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Obama, you're about a week behind.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I feel the same way about family sharing. Actually, I feel a lot like this. (warning, language)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: As I said before, your argument here suggests that it simply be bundled with the system. If they simply included it with the console, it would allow for the scenario that you propose. However, the XB1 requires Kinnect be on at all times, which in my opinion is unnecessary.
Having Kinect at all is technically unnecessary. They could have just bailed on Kinect as it languished in the netherworld of niche title, but they decided to go all-in on it.
And I'd also like to think that you could get the same effect just by bundling kinect but not making it an integral part of the system, but it's really not true in practice. I've already heard people say that they want the kinect to be optional so that they can sell their bundled kinect to make the console cheaper, because they would 'never use it anyway'
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: As I said before, your argument here suggests that it simply be bundled with the system. If they simply included it with the console, it would allow for the scenario that you propose. However, the XB1 requires Kinnect be on at all times, which in my opinion is unnecessary.
Having Kinect at all is technically unnecessary. They could have just bailed on Kinect as it languished in the netherworld of niche title, but they decided to go all-in on it.
And I'd also like to think that you could get the same effect just by bundling kinect but not making it an integral part of the system, but it's really not true in practice. I've already heard people say that they want the kinect to be optional so that they can sell their bundled kinect to make the console cheaper, because they would 'never use it anyway'
The problem there is that the kinect is a separate entity. If MS was wiser, they'd have made them all a part of the same box. That would have prevented the scenario you just proposed. Instead, we're forced to keep the kinect on at all times, which in my opinion will hinder sales. Why? Because there are a lot of paranoid people out there who actually believe that MS is using this tech to spy on them. I heard this as recently as last night when I was at a party and a bunch of guys were talking about how they were getting a PS4 because, "The government is already spying on us. The XBox is just going to make it easier for them!"
I know that sounds ludicrous, but that's the mentality of the ignorant common folk.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The problem there is that the kinect is a separate entity. If MS was wiser, they'd have made them all a part of the same box.
Like what do you mean, like have the kinect motion sensor and everything just physically integrated into the xbox case?
Because if so, no, that would be a bad idea.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Why would that be a bad idea? Multiple gaming outlets complained about the fact that it was a separate entity. They'd say things about how hard it was going to be to find a place to put the kinect and that they would have preferred it be a part of the actual box.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Where would you put the actual box if it required that you place the optical sensor -- now part of the box -- at eye level?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That anyone is seriously complaining about this is so bizarrely dumb it hurts.
Having the sensors inside the console case itself would be the stupidest thing ever. Most people have the kinect sensors directly in front of or mounted on top of the tv. That's why its a compact and separate unit you can position easily and independently of a giant console. Nobody I know with a kinect positions it anywhere you would be able to balance the whole console.
Like they are seriously complaining that microsoft didn't do something really dumb.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
I'm sympathetic to Microsoft wanting to get ahead on cloud based games, but it's too soon. Too many people still don't have broadband access, and even the ones who do all too often have a connection that's not nearly fast enough to achieve what MS is claiming cloud gaming can give us.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
yeah, I guess you're right about that, Samp. I've never owned a Kinect (and I have zero desire to ever own one), so I never considered that. I still don't think it's a good idea to force the thing on people, though.
I recently spoke to two game testers who work for EA and, surprisingly, they both said they preferred the PS4 over the XB1. When I asked why (I was honestly surprised by this), they told me that because the XB1 has so many operating systems going at once, it has to use a good portion of RAM and processing power, which could otherwise go toward the games. As a result, it just isn't as powerful. The PS4, as they said it, was more fluid and ran games smoother. Take that with a grain of salt, because these guys are just game testers and not experts, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That IS interesting, and I can think of no department that would have a better idea of the real feel of the console than QA, but I really don't know how closely the finalized Xbox OS (or its memory overhead) is going to resemble prerelease development and testing console builds, for either console.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Yeah, which is why I'm going to wait and see on both consoles. I'd like to buy one on release, but it's usually a terrible idea to do that with these things. I'll probably give it about 3-6 months to see how each compares and what people are generally saying about them, and then I'll make the call.
Personally, I'd love to get both. I have both consoles right now and I find that each has their merits. For example, The Xbox has a fantastic online infrastructure, but the PS3 has a ton of amazing exclusives (like The Last of Us, Ni No Kuni, and Uncharted). In a perfect world, there would be one console that played Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony exclusives, but I guess you can't get everything.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
I have both consoles right now ...
That must be nice. I only have a PS3 because I won it at work, and there's no way I could justify the cash outlay (to myself, or my wife) to own two current-gen systems at the same time.
Personally, if it weren't for the Resident Evil series, I'd not have bought any consoles since the Super Nintendo...and I only bought the Super Nintendo to play Zelda, and sold it as soon as I beat the game, 3 months later.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Yeah, I can never justify the expense to myself. I own one console of each gen, and usually wait a year or two after it comes out for a price drop or three.
At least that way I have a backstop of a couple years of universally acclaimed good games to work through, and never have to buy a new one and get a clunker because I've played everything else.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Steven, by your comments I'm assuming you aren't a gamer. By that I mean you don't view it as a major hobby. As a gamer (and someone who isn't married and has zero children), I have invested a decent amount of money into this hobby, so it makes sense to buy both.
Now, keep in mind that I didn't buy either of them at launch. On the contrary, I waited to buy an X-Box until Halo 3 was released, and I waited a few years to get a PS3 because it had a very limited library for quite some time. I really questioned the decision because of the lack of software it had, but now I'm really glad I did. The biggest draw on that was that I wanted a bluray player and the cheapest one at the time was 200 bucks. I looked at that and then at the PS3 and figured a hundred bucks difference wasn't a big deal.
The price of the consoles combined was roughly 600 bucks, possibly less, which isn't that bad when you consider the things that most people spend their money on these days. I've gotten a lot of enjoyment out of both of them.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Steven, by your comments I'm assuming you aren't a gamer. By that I mean you don't view it as a major hobby. As a gamer (and someone who isn't married and has zero children), I have invested a decent amount of money into this hobby, so it makes sense to buy both.
Now, keep in mind that I didn't buy either of them at launch. On the contrary, I waited to buy an X-Box until Halo 3 was released, and I waited a few years to get a PS3 because it had a very limited library for quite some time. I really questioned the decision because of the lack of software it had, but now I'm really glad I did. The biggest draw on that was that I wanted a bluray player and the cheapest one at the time was 200 bucks. I looked at that and then at the PS3 and figured a hundred bucks difference wasn't a big deal.
The price of the consoles combined was roughly 600 bucks, possibly less, which isn't that bad when you consider the things that most people spend their money on these days. I've gotten a lot of enjoyment out of both of them.
Over the last 14 years, I've really only played a few "serious" games. Thief 1, 2, and 3; Resident Evil 4, 5, and 6. Everything else is iPhone gaming, or browser-based. So I'm not really a typical gamer, probably. I don't enjoy FPS that much, especially online competition, and I really don't enjoy sports titles. RPGs are fine, but they don't really suck me in like they do some people. I actually have probably spent more time playing iPhone games than anything else, over the last couple of years. Angry Birds, Doodle Jump, Scrabble, Legendary Wars, etc..
It's so easy to just tap on the icon and start playing. With PC games the load time is a pain, and console games require you to turn on the TV, change the TV input, start up the game, etc., etc.. It's a hassle, compared to the smartphone games.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Steven, by your comments I'm assuming you aren't a gamer. By that I mean you don't view it as a major hobby. As a gamer (and someone who isn't married and has zero children), I have invested a decent amount of money into this hobby, so it makes sense to buy both.
Now, keep in mind that I didn't buy either of them at launch. On the contrary, I waited to buy an X-Box until Halo 3 was released, and I waited a few years to get a PS3 because it had a very limited library for quite some time. I really questioned the decision because of the lack of software it had, but now I'm really glad I did. The biggest draw on that was that I wanted a bluray player and the cheapest one at the time was 200 bucks. I looked at that and then at the PS3 and figured a hundred bucks difference wasn't a big deal.
The price of the consoles combined was roughly 600 bucks, possibly less, which isn't that bad when you consider the things that most people spend their money on these days. I've gotten a lot of enjoyment out of both of them.
Over the last 14 years, I've really only played a few "serious" games. Thief 1, 2, and 3; Resident Evil 4, 5, and 6. Everything else is iPhone gaming, or browser-based. So I'm not really a typical gamer, probably. I don't enjoy FPS that much, especially online competition, and I really don't enjoy sports titles. RPGs are fine, but they don't really suck me in like they do some people. I actually have probably spent more time playing iPhone games than anything else, over the last couple of years. Angry Birds, Doodle Jump, Scrabble, Legendary Wars, etc..
It's so easy to just tap on the icon and start playing. With PC games the load time is a pain, and console games require you to turn on the TV, change the TV input, start up the game, etc., etc.. It's a hassle, compared to the smartphone games.
And a youtube video takes just seconds to load as well, doesn't mean I'm not going to also enjoy seeing a fantastic film in a theater.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Well Stephen there's not much you can do about the wait times, although I've made my X-Box the center of my entertainment center, so it's not that big of a deal for me. I don't have cable, so I watch Netflix and Hulu and I use the X-Box, which means the TV is always on that channel. But if you're caught up on what ultimately equates to roughly thirty seconds to a minute of wait time, then you probably aren't the kind of person who should be playing games. Most games tend to require at least an hour or more of your time, which means that minute of wait time you spent turning everything on doesn't really detract from anything in any significant way. If you're constantly on the go and you're impatient, however, maybe a 3DS or a PS Vita would be more your style.
I agree with BlackBlade, though. I would rather go to a movie theater and deal with the lines and the wait than watch a youtube video just because it's faster. It's the experience I'm after, not the quick fix.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
More Jim Sterling: Yay! Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: More Jim Sterling: Yay!
You just made my day! Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
In other news, the Xbox One isn't coming with a headset.
Yep, we totally want you to go social on our machine, but we aren't going to provide a head set or mic to do it, just some $100 device that interprets your movements. We might even include lip reading + closed captioning!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
jim sterling is like if you took moviebob and made him fat, bombastic, manic, annoying, and right Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
A lot of the time he just champions the obvious. And he's made an art of taking the dumbest arguments on the internet and making videos out of (read: responding to) them.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I'm pretty sure moviebob is also overweight, not that it matters to doing your job though...?
I find Bob to be insightful and good at explaining in fancy movie critic speak why I like the movies I like, and why I felt something was off about the movies I probably enjoyed. Though I feel there are times there's some stuff he just tears into because he doesn't like some inherent part of the premise or just sorta irrationally sticks to his guns in some instances because he'ld like games to be exactly like film just maybe a tad too far.
Such as the Mass Effect boycott where he focused on possibly the worst reasons to be against it, reasons that only make sense with small indie titles where creative control is firmly in the hands of those making it and not paying for it.
As for which movies, maybe complaining about changing the ending to WoK stands out to me, that speaks like subjective fanboy outrage and not meaningful criticism, why should the older movie be a sacred cow? Also Battleship, his review was kinda odd.
Now as for Jim Sterling basically making a living out of responding to living breathing strawmen. So? Bloggers do it so why not him? And I'ld rather listen to a video tabbed while drawing or programming than read a blog.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I don't like blogs, either.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Moviebob as a movie reviewer is a scattershot nerd ranter who often drifts into laughable positions that murder his overall credibility. Its like he has correct analyses of movies by accident
Moviebob is not a good movie reviewer or analyst. He's an opinionated nerd. That's fine, but that's what he is. He's too scattershot with his cinematic analysis to ever be considered much of a authority.
To his credit, his movie reviews are marginally better than his history as a 'game analyst' or whatever — those, I have watched. Those, I can attest, are just so full of it that it hurts. I could write pages on the idiocy of his response to the ME3 controversy (attesting to how much I got sucked into overthinking video game issues when I became part of the industry) but I would really just be able to sum him up with his declarations on the future of gaming.
Chris Roberts, who's currently noodling with some sort of weird dream to be at the forefront of PC gaming's 'return to form' or whatever got to take the best bits of his Declaration on the Death of PC Gaming and get in a hilariously indulgent hit on ~the game overthinker~
quote:Such as the Mass Effect boycott where he focused on possibly the worst reasons to be against it, reasons that only make sense with small indie titles where creative control is firmly in the hands of those making it and not paying for it.
Can you elaborate? I haven't watched it but I'd like to know what he said.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The episode where moviebob got the most ridiculous about the mass effect series was called "Crass Effect" and what was remarkable about it is that he took an argument which closely resembled the (also completely wrong) argument by Ebert that the player's agency in an alterable plot ruins artistic potential inherent to directorial control by the artist (Ebert extended his argument to conclude that video games were not and could never be art). The movie reviewer parallel is odd, but at least Ebert's position could be explained through complete ignorance of the entertainment medium or its mechanisms; he just watched some youtube videos and decided he am understand them nintendo videocade games.
But moviebob is obviously a videogame obsessive (the matter even seems deeply tied into his mental health, no lie) who plays a lot of video games and has a whole set of video game commentary series where he calls himself the game overthinker. He has no such ignorance of the medium. So, what's the deal?
Essentially, Moviebob concluded (similar to Ebert) that if your game features player-directed malleability in the narrative where player choices and actions matter towards the development and conclusion of the story, it's going to be a bad story.
When you pick apart his premises and arguments, he was saying that mass effect sucks because it has player choices. His power quote was "Nobody won a Pulitzer for Choose-Your-Own story books"
He then went on to completely miss practically every reason why the ME3 conclusion was such a big issue — by saying, brazenly, 'if your choices are different in some way, depending on the choices you made, then Bioware didn’t lie.' Oh ok well then.
Then at one point he said 'the medium will never be taken seriously as long as you’re all so entitled" — and no, context doesn't help that. My response to that is forthcoming, once I can at all take it seriously as even an intellectual exercise.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Oh wow, yeah I'd say he is definitely wrong in his logic. Mass Effect's ending sucked because it felt rushed and didn't fulfill Bioware's promise, which was that every major choice you'd make over the course of all three games would ultimately affect the ending. Instead it just came down to three choices with different colored explosions.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Eeeeeh, that is not what I remember watching, unless he wrote that somewhere else; the argument as I understand it was whether consumers were justified in demanding Bioware change the ending to what they promised.
Can we not make arguments about his mental health without proof thanks?
[ June 27, 2013, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Elison R. Salazar ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am not making arguments about his mental health beyond mentioning that videogames are important to him on a level related to his mental health and this is probably a big element of his obsession with video game commentary. This is not my supposition, he himself has talked about it before.
quote:the argument as I understand it was whether consumers were justified in demanding Bioware change the ending to what they promised.
that is a weird way to put it, but essentially the answer is "hell yes"
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I am not making arguments about his mental health beyond mentioning that videogames are important to him on a level related to his mental health and this is probably a big element of his obsession with video game commentary. This is not my supposition, he himself has talked about it before.
There's no relevance to bringing it up, nor do I see the point of labeling his video game commentary an obsession, if games are an artform then yes, they should get a great deal of focus. Though Extra Credits does it way better for sure. All that was needed to be said is that he has a blog where he likes to intentionally does a lot of possibly over analysis of games/gaming culture/history etc etc and should know better than to make the same wrong argument as Ebert (Which if I recall in his response to said argument he really went through a lot of hoops to interpret it as "Halo bad artform, Mario good artform".
quote:the argument as I understand it was whether consumers were justified in demanding Bioware change the ending to what they promised.
that is a weird way to put it, but essentially the answer is "hell yes" [/QB][/QUOTE]
Well duh, within reason anyways; but I am just saying that what you are saying his argument was does not seem to be what I remember to recall was his argument.
His argument, as I remember, was that "just like with film" people shouldn't get angry and change the ending of something "they didn't 'get'", the director/artist/creator is the one who determines the product, even if it means making an ending people don't like so long as it is true to his or her vision as to what constitutes art. The example given was the movie there with Will Smith, I am Legend where they changed the ending from the more book inspired and arguably the better ending to something kinda garbage but was more of a hopeful high note, purely because of negative screenings of test audiences. With Bob thus likening the events to each other, the consumers of Mass Effect didn't like the ending and wanted it changed.
Bob thus, believes this is wrong, because he feels the creators should be free to create a game with a narrative/ending/whatever that appeals to their vision; people being able to get angry/disliking it and getting it changed sets a bad precedent. Because endings should have the freedom to be sad, depressing, happy or whatever the creator thinks they should be.
Now then, this argument that I am paraphrasing has to my mind and recollection no semblance to the argument you recall, I can not at all recollect Bob Chipman ever arguing against Multiple Choice endings as being less artistically meaningful than some other style of game, I've never to my memory I repeat, ever heard him say this. I imagine he has played or heard of Visual Novels and Eroge like Fate/Stay Night and I'm sure he would vouch for their artistic merits (from what I've seen and heard).
Now maybe its possible he made that argument, but not in the episode of Overthinker I saw.
Also, I believe this (of Bob's) argument as I can best recollect is also wrong because I am figuratively crippled from laughing my ass off at the notion that there's anything resembling creative control of a AAA title that comes to anything close to the director's chair of a film. Plus that Bob seems to have misunderstood what people are upset about, its not whether it was a "downer ending" as I recall him implying but simply that the ending's were largely indistinguishable except for the background colour scheme and your choices throughout the whole game had no bearing on your final choices (something Visual Novels been doing right for years) and feeling like an extreme rush job, leaving consumers with the feeling they've been cheapened literally of their very own money to save the publisher some extra bucks.
Jimquistion I think made the better argument though I don't recall the whole thing.
My friend who played ME3 explained to me the differences and presented his theories but it takes some really subtle (too subtle) genius to justify them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm going to clip this down to a response to the part I figure to be ultimately at all relevant.
quote:There's no relevance to bringing it up, nor do I see the point of labeling his video game commentary an obsession
It's all quite relevant (some of it by his own admission) to what games represent in his mental realm and why he responds to them and discusses them the way he does.
quote:His argument, as I remember, was that "just like with film" people shouldn't get angry and change the ending of something "they didn't 'get'", the director/artist/creator is the one who determines the product, even if it means making an ending people don't like so long as it is true to his or her vision as to what constitutes art.
And if that's his argument, it's wrong without nuance. Ending sucked. People were mad. That's that. It doesn't matter at all what someone thinks that the mad people were 'entitled' to do.
That's why I think the "entitlement" (or whether they are "justified") is weird phrasing for it, because if people are going to be vocal about it, they're going to be vocal about it. Nobody "entitles" them to do it. It's a collective power taken in and of the act of engaging in the critical discussion of the work. Good luck telling the mob otherwise.
Secondly, "Just like with film." Ha. You can't use the film industry as a counterpoint to how the game industry is apparently prescriptively supposed to work on its own incentives.
They're different mediums entirely.
Bioware was obviously capable of adjusting the ending post-release; what was going to happen?
Was somebody going to tell them right before they shipped the adjusted extended cut ending that "whoa you can't do that, because you can't do this with films!"
Film and games are alike in that they are both invariably the product of both artistic and economic incentives.
Writers don't want to write endings that people don't like or get (accessibility being a functional requirement of their craft), but if they do, they shouldn't complain later when they don't get to write endings (or much of anything) again. My god, we've killed art.
The people who were vocally upset and critical of the ME3 ending gave themselves all the "entitlement" they needed simply by being vocally upset and critical — again, their entitlement was a collective power they took in and of the act of engaging in their criticism, so anyone saying they were or weren't "entitled" to do so — and Bioware's response demonstrated the critical differences in what a studio can do in response to criticism with regards to cinema or gaming.
There was no fundamental dilution of Art. There was no substantive overreach by those "lacking entitlement."
When all these points are taken in sum, it doesn't leave much for what that guy was talking about.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:whoa you can't do that, because you can't do this with films
Star Wars.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I lol'd.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Right, we both agree he's wrong, but he never made the argument you thought he was making just so we're clear.
quote: It's all quite relevant (some of it by his own admission) to what games represent in his mental realm and why he responds to them and discusses them the way he does.
Except you frame this in a way that comes across as ultimately derogatory and I'm telling you to knock it off; its not relevant because as mentioned if you wanted to make the simple and strong point that he should know better than Ebert all you need do is point to his blog. Whether gaming was the light at the end of the proverbial tunnel that helped him through a tough spot of his life (like with many people) is not something that should be lightly tossed out there as a point against and isn't needed to be brought up to critique his handling of the ME3 matter.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: he never made the argument you thought he was making
disagree
quote: its not relevant
disagree
You need to be able to tell when I am making "a point against someone" versus "a point relevant to understanding something" — like his general attitude towards and investment in games, platform partisanship, etc. But besides that we done there.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Remember when this thread was about the new XBOX.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: Remember when this thread was about the new XBOX.
Those were good times.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Sorry guys, we'll lock the thread until something new about xbox one comes up that anyone feels like commenting about, as opposed to just continuing to talk about videogame stuff
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I finished Dead Space 3. I didn't like it very much. I recommend playing DS2 instead.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Thread is now about unambiguous PC gaming supremacy
The drake sword makes the game much easier on first run-throughs. It'll do the most damage with little stat allocation. Other early weapons can exceed it, but you would have to invest a lot of souls that could be more productive in other areas.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
I don't have a bow.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Buy one. the return will be worth it.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Oh wow, there were whole sections of Undead Burg I passed by, including the merchant that sells the bow!
Edit: Made significant progress on this game today...got the drake sword, beat the Bell Gargoyles, and the mini-boss immediately beyond the blacksmith.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
$$$![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)