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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
“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."
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Then Sony revealed their console, and now I feel ethically obligated to buy their console instead of Xbox One.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 258 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 258 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me buy the Kinect if I want to. It's not necessary for 95% of the things I would use my Xbox for.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?"
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
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.)
IP: Logged |
posted
I feel the same way about family sharing. Actually, I feel a lot like this. (warning, language)
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
