[Khellendros]

All this stuff about only being able to 'gift' a game once, to someone who's been on your friends' list for at least 30 days, and only being able to sell or buy used games if the publisher agrees and only with 'participating retailers' (so presumably no personal sales/buys over EBay and the like), makes a great deal more sense if you think about the Xbox One in this way:

It is a digital-only console. All games have to be installed before you can play them, so the disc is there just because it's still usually quicker to install large games from a disc than it is to download. Furthermore, MS have said that every game will be available to download digitally on its release day. And like most/all games you buy digitally, you cannot trade them, sell them, or buy them used. What Microsoft is attempting is slight pandering in response to the expected negative reaction, but in reality I don't foresee any great market in this, as most publishers are unlikely to agree to do it (unless they are now going to get a large cut from those 'participating retailers').

Of course, in my opinion, there should be no real reason why you shouldn't be able to trade or re-sell downloaded games that you've purchased just because there is no material property, but that's a different argument

This post has been edited by Khellendros: 08 June 2013 - 06:56 PM

[Khellendros]

Ganoes Paran, on 07 June 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

Will my current xbox and the way I use it be affected by this new piece of crap?

Well, it *shouldn't* be. I think Microsoft have already said they plan to continue support for the Xbox 360 for much longer than they did for the original Xbox once the 360 came out (they dumped the original quick-fast).

What you might find, though, is that games which are released for both consoles could be significantly scaled back on the 360. If developers make extensive use of the cloud computing which MS is bigging up (and which the 360 won't have access to), then there could be a great many things which games will be able to do on the One which they couldn't on the 360.

[Silencer]

Khellendros, on 08 June 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

All this stuff about only being able to 'gift' a game once, to someone who's been on your friends' list for at least 30 days, and only being able to sell or buy used games if the publisher agrees and only with 'participating retailers' (so presumably no personal sales/buys over EBay and the like), makes a great deal more sense if you think about the Xbox One in this way:

It is a digital-only console. All games have to be installed before you can play them, so the disc is there just because it's still usually quicker to install large games from a disc than it is to download. Furthermore, MS have said that every game will be available to download digitally on its release day. And like most/all games you buy digitally, you cannot trade them, sell them, or buy them used. What Microsoft is attempting is slight pandering in response to the expected negative reaction, but in reality I don't foresee any great market in this, as most publishers are unlikely to agree to do it (unless they are now going to get a large cut from those 'participating retailers').

Of course, in my opinion, there should be no real reason why you shouldn't be able to trade or re-sell downloaded games that you've purchased just because there is no material property, but that's a different argument

This makes little more sense however - computer games have had to be installed to the computer since time immemorial, and frankly wiping out one considerable advantage consoles had over computers (i.e. didn't have to install the game, and could resell the disk) is hardly a step *forward* in terms of making your consumers like you. It may make the publishers love them, but consumers are going to hate it.

Honestly, I almost never resell my games. I just pile them up and maybe eventually sell them with the console like I did my PS2 and PS2 games. But the point is actually that there is now no reason to own an Xbox One over a computer save for exclusive titles! It is, essentially, a moderately weak, overly limited, DRM-heavy, TV-connected computer. So what point in buying one, then? My laptop can do more than it can by virtue of running Windows 7 non-modified-for-consoles and having a keyboard and mouse. And it doesn't have idiotic treat-your-consumers-like-pirates DRM built into it. >.>

Khellendros, on 08 June 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

Ganoes Paran, on 07 June 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

Will my current xbox and the way I use it be affected by this new piece of crap?

Well, it *shouldn't* be. I think Microsoft have already said they plan to continue support for the Xbox 360 for much longer than they did for the original Xbox once the 360 came out (they dumped the original quick-fast).

What you might find, though, is that games which are released for both consoles could be significantly scaled back on the 360. If developers make extensive use of the cloud computing which MS is bigging up (and which the 360 won't have access to), then there could be a great many things which games will be able to do on the One which they couldn't on the 360.

Could be? HAHAHAHAH. The 360 is an end-of-life console that is, honestly, about two years+ overdue for an upgrade. The fact that Sony and M$ have dragged their console's lives out so far just makes it *harder* for the current gen to keep up to pace with the next gen. Honestly if games for the 360/PS3 aren't significantly scaled back by comparison with their successors then the new consoles are weaker than two year old PCs from day one and being able to develop for a stable platform is apparently no longer enough to make that situation tenable, in which case all consoles might as well just be thrown in the fire...

But, I doubt the difference between the 360 and the One will come purely from the cloud computing. The hardware is better to start, and that is where the biggest difference will come. The Cloud stuff can only do so much as the internet connection of your console (and other's) allows - and bear in mind that connection is already being used up somewhat if you're playing a multiplayer game - you can't send *too* large amounts of data in and out because the bottleneck will happen at the internet rather than the console's speed, rendering any of this cloud crap redundant. So I doubt that is going to revolutionise the way games are played or how much performance can be eeked out of the console. It's a gimmick, most probably.

[Lucifer's Heaven]

Obdi and Silencer - You both seem to have missed what was my absolute favourite bit of news in the PS4 announcement (it was only a small mention, and nobody really reported on it). Something I have been wanting games and/or games services like Steam to do for years. Every game available on the PS4 digital marketplace will be allowed to be trialled for free. You download it, play a certain amount of it and then if you like it you can then pay for it and just continue (they haven't gone into specifics yet about how much you can play, though I imagine that will vary game to game and would be up to the publishers, so they can stop it at a good point).
Traditional demo's are bad. They take up dev time and are often not as good as the actual title, so will sometimes put people off. There's no continuation and they often try to fit too much of the games novelties/stuff into it, ruining pacing and atmosphere etc. This, this take basically no extra time gives you a taste of the actual game, doesn't need to be released early and allows continuation. It'll probably finish with some video/pictures/mention of stuff to come further one etc.

It'll probably require PS+ membership if they still have the same set-up, but as you said Obdi, you'd pay a little for something like this (and currently PS+ gives you free games every month anyway)
Man, I am sure hoping I didn't miss some sort of crucial bit of info on this in the announcement that means I completely misunderstood it and that's why nobody seemed to care

EDIT: Huh, looks like PS+ already allows 1 hour free trials. I hope the PS4 version allows the devs/publishers to choose when to stop you (with, say, a minimum 2 hours or something), so that it can stop you at a game point instead of necessarily a time point (time points are good for multiplayer based games etc)

This post has been edited by Lucifer's Heaven: 09 June 2013 - 12:43 PM

[Silencer]

Good point, Luci. I'd forgotten that bit (it was kinda lumped in with the play-while-you-download or whatever stuff, wasn't it?). Then again, props to Sony. Still betting money that M$ won't do it. XD

[Obdigore]

Lucifer, on 09 June 2013 - 12:41 PM, said:

Obdi and Silencer - You both seem to have missed what was my absolute favourite bit of news in the PS4 announcement (it was only a small mention, and nobody really reported on it). Something I have been wanting games and/or games services like Steam to do for years. Every game available on the PS4 digital marketplace will be allowed to be trialled for free. You download it, play a certain amount of it and then if you like it you can then pay for it and just continue (they haven't gone into specifics yet about how much you can play, though I imagine that will vary game to game and would be up to the publishers, so they can stop it at a good point).
Traditional demo's are bad. They take up dev time and are often not as good as the actual title, so will sometimes put people off. There's no continuation and they often try to fit too much of the games novelties/stuff into it, ruining pacing and atmosphere etc. This, this take basically no extra time gives you a taste of the actual game, doesn't need to be released early and allows continuation. It'll probably finish with some video/pictures/mention of stuff to come further one etc.

It'll probably require PS+ membership if they still have the same set-up, but as you said Obdi, you'd pay a little for something like this (and currently PS+ gives you free games every month anyway)
Man, I am sure hoping I didn't miss some sort of crucial bit of info on this in the announcement that means I completely misunderstood it and that's why nobody seemed to care

EDIT: Huh, looks like PS+ already allows 1 hour free trials. I hope the PS4 version allows the devs/publishers to choose when to stop you (with, say, a minimum 2 hours or something), so that it can stop you at a game point instead of necessarily a time point (time points are good for multiplayer based games etc)

PS+, which is a pay service, and yes, I know what PS+ is. If I ever turned on my PS3 to do more than watch Blu-ray movies I would probably be a member. The _only_ reason I game on a console is to play FPSes, and both my friends and the competition is better on Xbox-live. Not to mention the service is better as well (and yes, you get what you pay for).

[Khellendros]

Silencer, on 09 June 2013 - 01:10 AM, said:

Khellendros, on 08 June 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

All this stuff about only being able to 'gift' a game once, to someone who's been on your friends' list for at least 30 days, and only being able to sell or buy used games if the publisher agrees and only with 'participating retailers' (so presumably no personal sales/buys over EBay and the like), makes a great deal more sense if you think about the Xbox One in this way:

It is a digital-only console. All games have to be installed before you can play them, so the disc is there just because it's still usually quicker to install large games from a disc than it is to download. Furthermore, MS have said that every game will be available to download digitally on its release day. And like most/all games you buy digitally, you cannot trade them, sell them, or buy them used. What Microsoft is attempting is slight pandering in response to the expected negative reaction, but in reality I don't foresee any great market in this, as most publishers are unlikely to agree to do it (unless they are now going to get a large cut from those 'participating retailers').

Of course, in my opinion, there should be no real reason why you shouldn't be able to trade or re-sell downloaded games that you've purchased just because there is no material property, but that's a different argument

This makes little more sense however - computer games have had to be installed to the computer since time immemorial, and frankly wiping out one considerable advantage consoles had over computers (i.e. didn't have to install the game, and could resell the disk) is hardly a step *forward* in terms of making your consumers like you. It may make the publishers love them, but consumers are going to hate it.

Honestly, I almost never resell my games. I just pile them up and maybe eventually sell them with the console like I did my PS2 and PS2 games. But the point is actually that there is now no reason to own an Xbox One over a computer save for exclusive titles! It is, essentially, a moderately weak, overly limited, DRM-heavy, TV-connected computer. So what point in buying one, then? My laptop can do more than it can by virtue of running Windows 7 non-modified-for-consoles and having a keyboard and mouse. And it doesn't have idiotic treat-your-consumers-like-pirates DRM built into it. >.>

You answered your own question. Going digital is a step forward in pleasing the large publishers, as you yourself mentioned, as are all the other policies on used games/connectivity. And digital does seem to be the way we (by which I mean, they ) are going anyway - Microsoft has just decided to take another large step towards that physical media-free world.

With your second paragraph, you again seem to miss the point despite answering it yourself The Xbox One is not a games console, which seems to be the way you're still thinking of it. It is supposed to be a media hub which also happens to have the ability to play games. The point of owning it will not be to play games (or, rather, I mean not just or even most of the time play games), but to instead use it instead of whatever other systems currently comprise your media hub. Its selling points are *supposed* to be that it does all this in one system, does it more efficiently, does more things concerned with media, and does it better all at the same time.


Don't misunderstand me. I am not a defender of the Xbox One. I want a games console, and I want one which doesn't purport to "enable" me to do things which I used to be able to do without any restrictions whatsoever (like "enabling" me to give a game I purchased to a friend - seriously, fuck off Microsoft PR). And considering that pretty much all the things they played up in their reveal concern the US and the US only (how are they going to get the TV licensing rights or whatever from all the various European countries? Are they even going to try?), the Xbox One currently does not attract me at all. I have never been a big fan of the Playstation (admittedly, for 'petty' reasons, like not liking the controller and blaming them for the death of the Dreamcast ), but right now I'd either switch or, more likely, this current generation will be my last console generation.

This post has been edited by Khellendros: 10 June 2013 - 02:16 PM

[Silencer]

Khellendros, on 10 June 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

Silencer, on 09 June 2013 - 01:10 AM, said:

Khellendros, on 08 June 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

All this stuff about only being able to 'gift' a game once, to someone who's been on your friends' list for at least 30 days, and only being able to sell or buy used games if the publisher agrees and only with 'participating retailers' (so presumably no personal sales/buys over EBay and the like), makes a great deal more sense if you think about the Xbox One in this way:

It is a digital-only console. All games have to be installed before you can play them, so the disc is there just because it's still usually quicker to install large games from a disc than it is to download. Furthermore, MS have said that every game will be available to download digitally on its release day. And like most/all games you buy digitally, you cannot trade them, sell them, or buy them used. What Microsoft is attempting is slight pandering in response to the expected negative reaction, but in reality I don't foresee any great market in this, as most publishers are unlikely to agree to do it (unless they are now going to get a large cut from those 'participating retailers').

Of course, in my opinion, there should be no real reason why you shouldn't be able to trade or re-sell downloaded games that you've purchased just because there is no material property, but that's a different argument

This makes little more sense however - computer games have had to be installed to the computer since time immemorial, and frankly wiping out one considerable advantage consoles had over computers (i.e. didn't have to install the game, and could resell the disk) is hardly a step *forward* in terms of making your consumers like you. It may make the publishers love them, but consumers are going to hate it.

Honestly, I almost never resell my games. I just pile them up and maybe eventually sell them with the console like I did my PS2 and PS2 games. But the point is actually that there is now no reason to own an Xbox One over a computer save for exclusive titles! It is, essentially, a moderately weak, overly limited, DRM-heavy, TV-connected computer. So what point in buying one, then? My laptop can do more than it can by virtue of running Windows 7 non-modified-for-consoles and having a keyboard and mouse. And it doesn't have idiotic treat-your-consumers-like-pirates DRM built into it. >.>

You answered your own question. Going digital is a step forward in pleasing the large publishers, as you yourself mentioned, as are all the other policies on used games/connectivity. And digital does seem to be the way we (by which I mean, they ) are going anyway - Microsoft has just decided to take another large step towards that physical media-free world.

Which is great and all; my point was rather that consumers (you know, the people with purchasing power, etc) are NOT going to like it. Therefore it is a stupid move. And because it is so, we actually need to do something about it by, you know, NOT buying the Xbox One, unless we *want* it to become mainstream or are OK with it doing so. M$ should learn that it's first, last, and only major concern is pleasing the people, not the publishers who the people all already hate (if they've got a bit of sense).

Quote

With your second paragraph, you again seem to miss the point despite answering it yourself The Xbox One is not a games console, which seems to be the way you're still thinking of it. It is supposed to be a media hub which also happens to have the ability to play games. The point of owning it will not be to play games (or, rather, I mean not just or even most of the time play games), but to instead use it instead of whatever other systems currently comprise your media hub. Its selling points are *supposed* to be that it does all this in one system, does it more efficiently, does more things concerned with media, and does it better all at the same time.

Ah, but therein lies the problem (for the record, I do know that I'm answering my own questions - rather I'm challenging why those steps have been taken when they are clearly idiotic from a consumer perspective). It doesn't fit the bill. It's still a game console (and woe befall them if they fail on that front - they may not think so, but gamers are their primary market, and regardless of how stable it has been in the past, if they lose it, the Xbox One will fail miserably) to most people...especially the people they are now trying to sell it to, and it doesn't do a better job than those other systems which people either already have (therefore do not want to change) or do not have (and therefore do not want to spend 500USD on). M$ is therefore risking shooting themselves in the foot twice - first with gamers, second with their new target audience who frankly don't give them the time of day.

Quote

Don't misunderstand me. I am not a defender of the Xbox One. I want a games console, and I want one which doesn't purport to "enable" me to do things which I used to be able to do without any restrictions whatsoever (like "enabling" me to give a game I purchased to a friend - seriously, fuck off Microsoft PR). And considering that pretty much all the things they played up in their reveal concern the US and the US only (how are they going to get the TV licensing rights or whatever from all the various European countries? Are they even going to try?), the Xbox One currently does not attract me at all. I have never been a big fan of the Playstation (admittedly, for 'petty' reasons, like not liking the controller and blaming them for the death of the Dreamcast ), but right now I'd either switch or, more likely, this current generation will be my last console generation.

Precisely. And if every gamer thought rationally like that, we'd have a sure-fire chance of saying a bit "NO" to M$ and their offensive practices. I doubt it will transpire though, because too many people seem not to care if companies treat them as criminals and take away their former capabilities to sell them back to them (even when those same people would scream bloody murder if their government did it to them). Still, I can't see the One selling too well, if the PS4 doesn't do the same things. Sony will have a boom year, and M$ will suffer the third console curse (which their current angle of attack seems to be setting themselves up for from the outset), and be very sorry and come back next gen with a better offering.

[Mentalist]

Started watching Spike stream form beginning (missed it live b/c of work).

announced so far:

PS vita F2P strategy

Lego Super Heroes

Kinect Sport rivals for the XBone

MGS5, cool. good move.

World of Tanks on 360? interesting, but will M$oft finally take the plunge into cross-platform gaming? because then the dreaded "Mouse v Controller targetting/accuracy" factor will come into play.

European Indie dev making an artful platformer--not bad.
Dark Souls 2--looks very nice indeed.

Ryse looks nice, but So. Many. Combat. QTEs. Also, surrounded by 5 guys, not one goes for the legs or otherwise figths dirty. And ofc, they wait for you to finish a killing move.

reboot of Killer Instinct. Cool, they've brought a game back that fans wanted. I know next to nothing about fighting games, but if they brought back smth fans liked, that's always a good thing.

Sunset overdrive--Stylistic, but basically just another MMO shooter?

Forza--it's not about graphics... but see how realistic it looks! The AI avatar that models how a human plays is neat, I will admit.

Minecraft...ok.

Quantum break--no gameplay. The time-collapsing hting looks cool, but I don't get the TV/game intermesh. Also, no gameplay.

d4? I have no idea what this is.

Project Spark--neat idea, really. Only concern is whether the god-like power to change stuff will make the game boring.

aaand the stream got cut off. resumed on GT.
Social stuff. endless social stuff.

Crimson Dragon--a flying shooting game.

Dead Rising 3--an open-world game--"oh crap, that's the only way out!" lol. Also, "calling in supporT? I suppose this isn't a game designed purely for Single-player.

Witcher 3--WANT! but this isn't an exclusive, thank God.

Battlefield 4--funny tech hiccups. Also, can't even tell who they are shooting at.

What lies below--a rogue-like. Hmm, cool

New Halo-ok, makes sense.

Tiatnfall--cool, but no gameplay. Ok, nvm, there's gamplay. It's like CoD, but with mechs and jetbacks. Cool, though not my cup of tea.

[BlackMoranthofDoom]

The list of exclusives for the console is decent and there is a solid lineup of third party titles, but Microsoft just blew the conference. Not only does the console require a connection every 24 hours, restricts used games and requires kinect to run but it's price tag is a whole $100 above the PS4's). So once the servers for the system go down it will effectively become useless as a gaming platform.

This is the first time I feel that a console offers no advantage over its main competitor, while being more expensive. I'll give them props for the controller though as I do like the design of it. It's a shame really, because I think the console has the potential to be great if they remove all these restrictions.

[Stalker]

I'm really interested in the Family/friends sharing program,and think Microsoft should have mentioned it more. Rumor is that every game you purchase you can always play and still share that game with one additional friend the same time. The other friends on your designated sharing list can access any other game that isn't being shared. Sounds great, if true.

Additionally, the 24hr check is quick and easy enough to do on a smartphone. Still invasive, but probably not as bad as I initially thought. Apparently the goal is to help get to a digital steam like platform, and sell cheaper games.

Edit- also awful, apparently if your account gets banned you lose the license to every game bought and linked to the console.

This post has been edited by Stalker: 15 June 2013 - 06:47 AM

[Mentalist]

As if the "Don't have internet? Use a 360!" line wasn't bad enough...

http://www.escapistm...ucate-Consumers

Now look, I appreciate Microsoft's honesty as much as the next guy... but waht kind of PR is it to tell people who have issues about your product "I guess you're too smart to fall for this. But we'll still succeed, because there's a huge market of uninterested people out there who'll blindly buy what we sell!".

It's like M$oft realized it lost its core gamers, but thinks it's too big to fail. Normally, I'd agree that can be the case.

But if you then proceed to goad these same "core" (read: passionate and opinionated) gamers by saying "it's ok, we'll still make millions without you", you risk provoking them to actively advertise against you.You get people saying not just "I'm switching from a 360 to a PS4), but also "and i'm telling all my friends that have 360s why they shouldn't have anything to do with the Xbone".

It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out. one thing for sure: M$oft really needs a new PR team,
asap.

ETA: Stalker, if they are moving towards a Steam-like system, they NEED to be trumpeting everywhere they can about the fact that their games will be cheaper. It's a very real advantage, if true, and they need to use that. THough given my experience with the GaFWL store, i'm doubtful. I;m pretty sure they took my money for Minerva's Den DLC for Bioshock 2. But I'm not willing to look to deep into it, because every time I try to get GaFWL to work, I end up with a few more grey hairs, some 5 hours later.

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 15 June 2013 - 07:38 AM

[Tattersail_]

What happens if you go on holiday for two Weeks? There is no way you're going to log into your xbox every day

[Stalker]

Mentalist said:

1371281673[/url]' post='1063334']

ETA: Stalker, if they are moving towards a Steam-like system, they NEED to be trumpeting everywhere they can about the fact that their games will be cheaper. It's a very real advantage, if true, and they need to use that. THough given my experience with the GaFWL store, i'm doubtful. I;m pretty sure they took my money for Minerva's Den DLC for Bioshock 2. But I'm not willing to look to deep into it, because every time I try to get GaFWL to work, I end up with a few more grey hairs, some 5 hours later.

My understanding is that this would be a while out , so that may be why it isn't being mentioned. As of now games will still be $59.99. I think their PR department is a mess, as does everyone, I would be focusing on the exciting aspects of the console and try to sell units that way.

As of now, I see no reason to upgrade to the next gen f consoles upon launch.

[Khellendros]

Ganoes Paran, on 15 June 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

What happens if you go on holiday for two Weeks? There is no way you're going to log into your xbox every day

Lol Tatts, you don't need to use it every day to keep it functioning! What they mean is that if you are playing games on it, you have to go online at least once every 24 hours, or it will block you from being able to play games, until such time as you do go online next.

[Silencer]

Stalker, on 15 June 2013 - 06:44 AM, said:

I'm really interested in the Family/friends sharing program,and think Microsoft should have mentioned it more. Rumor is that every game you purchase you can always play and still share that game with one additional friend the same time. The other friends on your designated sharing list can access any other game that isn't being shared. Sounds great, if true.

Additionally, the 24hr check is quick and easy enough to do on a smartphone. Still invasive, but probably not as bad as I initially thought. Apparently the goal is to help get to a digital steam like platform, and sell cheaper games.

Edit- also awful, apparently if your account gets banned you lose the license to every game bought and linked to the console.

*ahem* "Do on a smartphone" is not entirely accurate.

You have to tether your phone to your console to complete the check-in, you can't just do it, you know, on your phone.

The sentiment is that it's a tiny data transfer, not a massive update. That's kinda beside the point of - they're checking to make sure you haven't lent your game to a friend or stolen games or sold them.

I've not heard any news that it is part of the goal to become a digital platform like Steam and reduce the price of games from M$, anywhere. Can you pop up a link? Besides which, I'd still rather not have the invasive always-online requirement such digital distribution will inevitably require (they were most likely going to do it this generation, if post-launch comments were anything to go by, but backed off).

And let's not forget that the used games thing is actually not up to M$ - they just "enable" you to be able to trade your games - it's actually down to the publishers whether that ability is present for their games or not. Or, again, do you have links to the contrary?

[Illuyankas]

The family sharing thing is that for up to ten friends and family, any one of them can play any of the games on your Sharing List. As in one game can be played by one person, so if you buy Halo 5, come back from work and your dick cousin you hate but had to put on your list because he's family is playing it, you can't do shit about it.

Also tethering costs more money regularly from most phone companies.

Also Steam competes with piracy which is free, companies aren't going to have massive deep sales to compete with non-free things out of the goodness of their heart when it's done now to extend the profitability of games at various price points, and Steam has an offline mode.

Also your library of games from the 360 explicitly won't transfer over to the Xbone.

Fuck it, it's quotes from interested parties time:

Quote

The only thing an Xbox One can do that a PS4 can't is same screen multitasking and a stupid overlay on your already existing cable or satellite box. Everything else is on the PS4 AND YOU DONT NEED TO BUY PS+. Netflix, Hulu, HBOGo, Sony Pictures, Sony Music. I think you can still set your PS4/PS3 up to stream music on your computer. What the fuck is he talking about saying that PS4 isn't an all in one box.

Quote

As people were saying a few pages back, this is an interesting case where a console (or, rather, the policies attached to a console) failing would be a solid victory for consumers all round. For only $100 more than the competition, Microsoft are offering us the chance to buy physical media in stores that officially still belongs to them, and unless we check in at least once daily, they can and will take it all away from us.

Weirdly enough, despite owning a lot of purely digital stuff on the PS3, it still functions fine without an active internet connection even after several days offline. Clearly, Microsoft's DRM is so much more advanced.

Quote

For me, it's this terrible terrible attitude:

"Fortunately we have a product for people who aren't able to get some form of connectivity; it’s called Xbox 360."

Man, fuck that shit - who honestly believes rewarding this kind of attitude is a good way of dealing with customers? Ok, DRM, whatever, whatever, whatever. But don't tell me that I'm wrong to be pissed off or "Imagining outcomes that are worse than what we believe it’s going to be in the real world". Fuck that.

Pitch to me as a consumer, give me a reason to spend my money and if there's something I don't agree with try to pitch it in such a way that I will accept it - always online lets us do -something- that we wouldn't be able to do with a system that didn't require a check in. "We check in every 24 hours and if you're online you can play games" is not a valid reason - we check in every 24 hours and if you're online you can play games and get a lot of free shit above and beyond what the competitors are promising, plus free cigarettes and alcohol" is (well, hyperbole aside).

But this attitude? This "I'll shit in your mouth and tell you you like it"? That's no way to get or retain customers. I've always had an attitude that If a company doesn't want my money (ie telling me to go elsewhere if I don't 100% agree with their business model) there is absolutely no way they can have it.

At this point, the attitude has turned me off much much more than the hardware or even price.

Quote

Sony stated that they'll be offering their server support for multiplayer games and those games will require PS+ to play BUT if the publisher provides the servers PS+ accounts won't be required, you will be able to play those games with no additional fees.

Quote

The ps4 also lets the devs use all 8 cores, while the xbone only lets them use 6 because 2 are reserved for OS stuff. Apparently the ps4 has a dedicated ARM chip to handle any OS related things.

Quote

GameStop is thrilled that ebay, amazon marketplace, garage sales and old fucking fashioned sharing have been effectively killed off leaving them king of shit hill. (being an accepted Xbone reseller)

Quote

For the One, on a technical level this is how buying a physical new game and playing single player works:

On every console except the Xbox One
- Insert disc
- Disc is analysed for data to find out what game it is
- Launch game
- Disc is analysed to make sure it's the correct region code and a legit copy
- Game launches

The main point of failure is the disc integrity, but so far it's a pretty proven method that pretty much never screws up if you don't scratch your disc.

On the Xbox One
- Insert disc
- Disc is analysed for data to find out what game it is
- Launch game
- Your console verifies that you have working internet
- Your console connects to Xbox Live's Authentication Servers
- The Auth Server asks for whatever it needs to bind the game to your account (product key, show QR code to Kinect, whatever)
- Live's Auth Servers does its song and dance to ensure the key hasn't been used yet and binds it to your account
- Game launches

Now assuming that they don't do a disc-based integrity check for legitimacy (which would be pointless), your failure points are as follows:
- Your internet connection
- Microsoft's Live Authentification servers being up and running (this is the biggie)

Using Steam as an example, major game releases have bogged down the service to the point where it was difficult to do first-time launches of some games (which is when it pulls the product key from the server). This didn't affect previously-executed games, however. Now, though, this server-check is a CONSTANT thing for ALL products, which means that any downtime in the service will have a cascading effect.

Quote

PS4:

-cheaper
-more powerful
-available worldwide
-no used game restrictions, no DRM
-more first party studios = more exclusives
-region free
-f2p games and services like netflix/hulu don't require a psn+ sub
-Indies can self publish, does NOT charge studios for game updates

Xbone:

-more expensive
-less powerful, wastes 3gb on OS, slower ram, half the shader cores of PS4.
-DRM up the ass
-Only available in certain countries.
-region locked
-you need to be a xbox live member to watch netflix/hulu
-Indies can't self publish, Charges $10000+ per game update.

Quote

There will be better Rokus and better SmartTVs (Samsung ones already have voice commands) and better television-watching tech that will evolve over the life of each console. More and more of the options that seem 'ground breaking' on the Xbox One will become standard features on tomorrow's set-top boxes - or be built into the television directly.

Microsoft's gamble is - and I am not being hyperbolic - that you will want to turn on your console with your voice, have voice commands and a small amount of wiggle commands in some games, and not want to press the input button on your television remote. In return, you will give up rented games, used games, and lending games. Also, you will give them 100 dollars more than their competitor. That's the Microsoft Deal.

The best thing for me was the Witcher 3 developers having to find out they won't even be able to play their game on the Xbone in their own country until they read the country list announcement.

Really that rumour about MS shareholders demanding an end to the gaming segment of the company for more of a focus on smartphones and tablets is looking more and more feasible. This is financial suicide.

[Silencer]

Mentalist, on 15 June 2013 - 07:34 AM, said:

But if you then proceed to goad these same "core" (read: passionate and opinionated) gamers by saying "it's ok, we'll still make millions without you", you risk provoking them to actively advertise against you.You get people saying not just "I'm switching from a 360 to a PS4), but also "and i'm telling all my friends that have 360s why they shouldn't have anything to do with the Xbone".

*points at Illy's post above*

*points at his Facebook feed for the past week or so*

*points at the internet in general*

Thanks Illy, for demonstrating clearly that for the most part, that "core" of gamers and a whole bunch of other people are pretty much actively advertising against the X1 right now. It's already happening, and Microsoft fucking deserves it, too.


Honestly, this is, to some extent (not to go all hyperbole on it or anything) a massive turning point. IF M$ gets away with this (i.e. they make profits off it), it will seal the fate of everyone for the future. If they fail, if it all goes pear-shaped on them...we might yet stop this crap from going mainstream for a while yet. Vote with your dollars, and vote against treating your customers as criminals-in-waiting, against having freedoms replaced by restrictions, and against being told what *you* want and deserve by companies.

[worry]

What keeps coming back to me is how much worse this makes the gaming experience for kids. How different (ie worse) is this for a working class kid who might want an Xbox One for Christmas vs. how it was for kids who wanted a SNES, N64, or even a 360? Obviously latchkey kids and those who play indoors because, situationally, it's likely better for them than going outside aren't exactly the disposable income types, but that doesn't mean the magic of gaming is lost on them. Getting one or two games a year isn't atypical, but being able to loan and borrow more is key. And according to the FCC, in the US about 119 million Americans don't have broadband at home (http://arstechnica.c...et-fcc-reports/ ). So a lot of these issues are bad enough for adults, but it seems to me M$ is abandoning these kids all together.

[tiam]

Ive been reading this thread and while I dont know alot about the specs or whatever why in gods name have Microsoft done this? What do they gain from me going online once a day if im playing purely single player games? From what someone previously said its a shareholder issue where there going into smart phones or whatever but I dont believe that given the sheer amount of money theyve put into this.