He has a voyeurism fetish obviously. Why anyone in their right mind would ever buy something that could potentially cost you more money by making you purchase additional user licenses to watch a movie with a large group of people is beyond me.
They should accept the inevitable. Everyone considers iTunes a normal concept but it was revolutionary 10 years ago.
I don't consider the DRM and intrusive nature of iTunes to be normal. In fact, it's one of the major reasons why I avoid using the program.
No one complains they don't own the movies they watch on Netflix.
Because no one is paying to buy movies on Netflix.
No one seems to realize sharing your game library with 10 people online is a lot easier than handing one disc over to a friend physically.
But the Xbone is moving to stop people from handing discs over to friends physically.
No one talks about how Steam has been running a similar system for ages with no possibility for sharing, and how publishers can offer lower prices and massive sale through that platform.
I can still play my steam games when the internet goes out. I don't need to get my wrist stamped every 24 hours to play my games on Steam.
It is the publishers who set those prices, not Steam, so it is very likely that Xbox will have similar price stratgies with their authentication in place for developers.
Similarly to all the huge sales they've had previously on their current online store, right?
The lack of internet connectivity worldwide is not my concern.
It's not mine either. But it sure as hell should be Microsoft's.
Bottom line, it the product isn't suited for you, it doesn't mean people that can use it should not have access to it because there are people who don't.
Except that that technology doesn't actually benefit you in any way, and only goes to hurt other (formerly) potential consumers.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Meanwhile, in a place where comsumers might not come first but are at least respected:
Region free PS4!
Freedom to trade/sell/keep/break games at will.
No mandated activation or authentication!
And no camera that's watching you all the time that you cannot unplug.
Starfarer wrote: Everyone considers iTunes a normal concept but it was revolutionary 10 years ago. No one complains they don't own the movies they watch on Netflix.
That's because Netflix is a rental service. People do complain about the limitations put in place on iTunes downloads. Quite a lot of people don't use iTunes as a result of those limitations. Just as quite a lot of peope will baulk at having an always-on video camera permanently connected to the internet in their loungeroom.
Being a new way of doing things doesn't automatically make something a good way of doing things.
No one seems to realize sharing your game library with 10 people online is a lot easier than handing one disc over to a friend physically.
Unless, of course, what you are trying to do is play a game at your friend's house...
I think people are making a mountain out of a mole hill over this online every 24hrs thing. I would say that it would practically effect very few people here. Yes I know if you are in the armed forces or a student it will affect you but you can't please all the people all the time.
I suspect that, due to the nature of companies and capitalist economies, microsoft and game publishers will try to eat their cake and have it too. They'll impose restrictions similar to steam that curb customer digital rights for the products they buy (or specifically don't buy as they're selling "licenses" to play now instead of games) but they likely won't be willing to offer the types of deals they do on steam ($40-50 new AAA titles releases with massive price drops in the first year after release and then massive sales 1-2 years after that). They pretty much forced to on PC because of the ease of piracy but that won't be the case with the walled gardens of console ecosystems (especially with these new restrictions).
overtyrant wrote: I think people are making a mountain out of a mole hill over this online every 24hrs thing. I would say that it would practically effect very few people here. Yes I know if you are in the armed forces or a student it will affect you but you can't please all the people all the time.
Well, I think most people who are annoyed by this requirement are annoyed more by the principle of it than the idea that it is actually going to be a bother on a daily basis. It is the principle of the unneccesary restriction placed on us for no real reason that I find annoying. And what about the people who live in places that have unreliable internet? they will not buy an xdone just for that restriction... so MS is giving up potential money in order to ....... what? assert its "authouriti" over the masses? I suppose you think most people are making too much of the PRISM thing that is going on here in the US too.... The fact is, that there is no practical reason to require the 24 hr check in thing in order for the system to even function... it is ridiculous
overtyrant wrote: I think people are making a mountain out of a mole hill over this online every 24hrs thing. I would say that it would practically effect very few people here. Yes I know if you are in the armed forces or a student it will affect you but you can't please all the people all the time.
Well, I think most people who are annoyed by this requirement are annoyed more by the principle of it than the idea that it is actually going to be a bother on a daily basis. It is the principle of the unneccesary restriction placed on us for no real reason that I find annoying. And what about the people who live in places that have unreliable internet? they will not buy an xdone just for that restriction... so MS is giving up potential money in order to ....... what? assert its "authouriti" over the masses? I suppose you think most people are making too much of the PRISM thing that is going on here in the US too.... The fact is, that there is no practical reason to require the 24 hr check in thing in order for the system to even function... it is ridiculous
You already get a DLC check any time you're playing an online game. When I play any of my 360 games--I have a brief DLC check while it 'authenticates' if I'm on Live.
I'm not sure why the idea of "unreliable internet" gets brought up. Is your internet so unreliable that it goes out for days at a time?
The point that was brought up about armed forces is a valid one, and I was surprised to see Microsoft take the "Too Bad" approach as they've seemingly done well with armed forces members playing while on deployment.
I'm not sure why the idea of "unreliable internet" gets brought up. Is your internet so unreliable that it goes out for days at a time?
My internet goes out for hours if there is a heavy rainstorm. No big deal right... it's only a few hours, right? What if I didn't turn on my xbox the day before because I had a long shift and was tired? Now my xbone hasn't phoned home for over 30 hours and the day I am actually free I can't use it for anything game related even if NONE of the games I want to play actually need the internet. It's not just people who have internet that is out for days at a time frequently that this DRM check it system screws over. Unless you turn on your xbox every single day, even a temporary outage of a few hours can ruin an evening that you *thought* you could use to finish off a game. The 24 hour check is nothing more than forced and heavy handed DRM with no real justifiable in game reason to exist.
I'm not sure why the idea of "unreliable internet" gets brought up. Is your internet so unreliable that it goes out for days at a time?
My internet goes out for hours if there is a heavy rainstorm. No big deal right... it's only a few hours, right? What if I didn't turn on my xbox the day before because I had a long shift and was tired? Now my xbone hasn't phoned home for over 30 hours and the day I am actually free I can't use it for anything game related even if NONE of the games I want to play actually need the internet. It's not just people who have internet that is out for days at a time frequently that this DRM check it system screws over. Unless you turn on your xbox every single day, even a temporary outage of a few hours can ruin an evening that you *thought* you could use to finish off a game. The 24 hour check is nothing more than forced and heavy handed DRM with no real justifiable in game reason to exist.
THIS....
Your Xbox may do a DLC check now, but if your net is out, it can still play the game. The XBone though, if your net is out for whatever reason (weather, technical difficulties, lines down, whatever) your wonderful new system is a $500 brick until it comes back... that is the point
I'm not sure why the idea of "unreliable internet" gets brought up. Is your internet so unreliable that it goes out for days at a time?
My internet goes out for hours if there is a heavy rainstorm. No big deal right... it's only a few hours, right? What if I didn't turn on my xbox the day before because I had a long shift and was tired? Now my xbone hasn't phoned home for over 30 hours and the day I am actually free I can't use it for anything game related even if NONE of the games I want to play actually need the internet. It's not just people who have internet that is out for days at a time frequently that this DRM check it system screws over. Unless you turn on your xbox every single day, even a temporary outage of a few hours can ruin an evening that you *thought* you could use to finish off a game. The 24 hour check is nothing more than forced and heavy handed DRM with no real justifiable in game reason to exist.
THIS....
Your Xbox may do a DLC check now, but if your net is out, it can still play the game. The XBone though, if your net is out for whatever reason (weather, technical difficulties, lines down, whatever) your wonderful new system is a $500 brick until it comes back... that is the point
Exactly there are circumstances beyond our control. I live in an area with really bad weather in the fall and the Internet is one of the first things to go. I'd like to be able to play my 500$ system during that half of the year (winters often bad too)
A concern I haven't heard yet is what happens after xbone? Like as in the next gen console for xbox after the one?
When the servers shut down will you lose access to everything you..umm... rented the license that allowed to you borrow it off the internet temporarily every 24 hours so you could play the game you didn't actually own?
at least with the PS4, I probably wont have to worry about that in the future, just like I dont worry about it with my ps3, xbox360, ps2, ps-x, gameboy, etc, you get the idea
I'm not sure why the idea of "unreliable internet" gets brought up. Is your internet so unreliable that it goes out for days at a time?
My internet goes out for hours if there is a heavy rainstorm. No big deal right... it's only a few hours, right? What if I didn't turn on my xbox the day before because I had a long shift and was tired? Now my xbone hasn't phoned home for over 30 hours and the day I am actually free I can't use it for anything game related even if NONE of the games I want to play actually need the internet. It's not just people who have internet that is out for days at a time frequently that this DRM check it system screws over. Unless you turn on your xbox every single day, even a temporary outage of a few hours can ruin an evening that you *thought* you could use to finish off a game. The 24 hour check is nothing more than forced and heavy handed DRM with no real justifiable in game reason to exist.
We really have no idea how the 'check in' even works, other than its once every 24 hours. Personally, I think that is too often, and I'm not a fan.
It could 'start counting' once you starting playing, if it 'checked in' before you last turned your box off. It is not necessarily every day at 2am, or something like that. We have no idea how it is structured other than 'per 24 hours'. It is not well done, regardless.
This is purely to accommodate for discs(really edge case gak too, which is dumb); I personally think they should have just gone 100% digital, but of course retailers wouldn't want to play in that case.
Dear lord. You are either trolling, working for Microsoft or blindly loving anything they do. Noone with a sane mind would even consider their actions moving anything forward.
I don't personally see the problem with have the 24 hour check other than the "THE MAN, HE JUST WANTS TO CHECK ON ME ALL THE TIME"
For the most part people are going to have some for of Internet available to them. Heck i can turn my phone into a wireless network hub for 5 devices, and share my 4g. Nothing stopping you hooking up the xbox to your phone for a quick DRM check.
The arguments. for " what about people in countrys without internet" If they don't even have internet in there country they most probably don't even know what an xbox is anyway.
It is a quick check for the most part anybody buying a £400 Xbone is going to have a stable internet connection, trouble with your internet? go outside and do something.
i am not a fan of Xbox, but some of the reasons for hating it are stupid.
The main reason and only reason i think the xbox will be hated is for the non sharing aspect of it. ( and to comment on someones post about steam doesn't let you share, yes it does. you can swap and sell games on steam now. heck you can even sell achievements you have earned on steam now for some reason)
Comrade wrote: A concern I haven't heard yet is what happens after xbone? Like as in the next gen console for xbox after the one?
Next generation, turning on your Xbox will alert Microsoft HQ. They will then send a representative to your house, who will sit and watch you while you play, and you can't play til he gets there. You are required to provide him with a sandwich and a beverage of his choice. If he sees you playing a borrowed game, he poops in the disc drive.
Comrade wrote: A concern I haven't heard yet is what happens after xbone? Like as in the next gen console for xbox after the one?
Next generation, turning on your Xbox will alert Microsoft HQ. They will then send a representative to your house, who will sit and watch you while you play, and you can't play til he gets there. You are required to provide him with a sandwich and a beverage of his choice. If he sees you playing a borrowed game, he poops in the disc drive.
This is current-gen. Replace "representative" with Kinect
Yes! That's the reason why the Xbone is so incredibly bully despite having the same hardware as the PS4: it has a fully functionable digestion replacement inside that requires not only energy to run, but also sandwiches and liquor.
Friend of mine's been having problems with his phone lines. He can't even make a call out, let alone use his internet. He'd have a very expensive black brick in his house if he had an XBone. If he had a PS4, he could play it to his heart's delight.
For the most part people are going to have some for of Internet available to them. Heck i can turn my phone into a wireless network hub for 5 devices, and share my 4g. Nothing stopping you hooking up the xbox to your phone for a quick DRM check.
The arguments. for " what about people in countrys without internet" If they don't even have internet in there country they most probably don't even know what an xbox is anyway.
It is a quick check for the most part anybody buying a £400 Xbone is going to have a stable internet connection, trouble with your internet? go outside and do something.
i am not a fan of Xbox, but some of the reasons for hating it are stupid.
Be a good fellow and mail me your phone then for free because the US phone plan and phone I use can't do that. As for "countrys without internet", don't be obtuse. I just gave a normal and common first world example of not being able to play your games because of a few hours weather related outage simply because of the ridiculous 24 hour DRM check. If it's rained enough that my internet goes out, what should I exactly go do outside? LARP the singing in the rain dance number? The reasons people don't like the choices microsoft are making with the xbone are not stupid but rather rooted in consumer rights that microsoft is unilaterally taking away with no recompense.
That's part of the issues alot of gamers are having with it... it's not primarily a "gaming console" anymore. It's a fancy cable box that doesn't have DVR functionality and a highdef webcam that you can't turn off while the console is on... that happens to play games. Core gamers are the demographic that MS seems to be pissing off whereas the soccer mom crowd that would be into the cable and social features they intro'ed the xbone with are frankly not going to buy the machine for $500 upon release.
As for the console wars comments, I am for all intents and purposes an xbox fanboy as I have ONLY owned xbox consoles for the past 10 years. I only want one gaming machine taking up space under my TV and I'm very disappointed that MS is screwing this up so badly for the customers who have supported them for so long.
For the most part people are going to have some for of Internet available to them. Heck i can turn my phone into a wireless network hub for 5 devices, and share my 4g. Nothing stopping you hooking up the xbox to your phone for a quick DRM check.
The arguments. for " what about people in countrys without internet" If they don't even have internet in there country they most probably don't even know what an xbox is anyway.
It is a quick check for the most part anybody buying a £400 Xbone is going to have a stable internet connection, trouble with your internet? go outside and do something.
i am not a fan of Xbox, but some of the reasons for hating it are stupid.
Be a good fellow and mail me your phone then for free because the US phone plan and phone I use can't do that. As for "countrys without internet", don't be obtuse. I just gave a normal and common first world example of not being able to play your games because of a few hours weather related outage simply because of the ridiculous 24 hour DRM check. If it's rained enough that my internet goes out, what should I exactly go do outside? LARP the singing in the rain dance number? The reasons people don't like the choices microsoft are making with the xbone are not stupid but rather rooted in consumer rights that microsoft is unilaterally taking away with no recompense.
If there is a way for the british to teleport the phone to my US location, he should feel free to utilize it. Otherwise, regular royal mail will suffice for him to prove his point. I'm quite flexible that way.
For the most part people are going to have some for of Internet available to them. Heck i can turn my phone into a wireless network hub for 5 devices, and share my 4g. Nothing stopping you hooking up the xbox to your phone for a quick DRM check.
The arguments. for " what about people in countrys without internet" If they don't even have internet in there country they most probably don't even know what an xbox is anyway.
It is a quick check for the most part anybody buying a £400 Xbone is going to have a stable internet connection, trouble with your internet? go outside and do something.
i am not a fan of Xbox, but some of the reasons for hating it are stupid.
Be a good fellow and mail me your phone then for free because the US phone plan and phone I use can't do that. As for "countrys without internet", don't be obtuse. I just gave a normal and common first world example of not being able to play your games because of a few hours weather related outage simply because of the ridiculous 24 hour DRM check. If it's rained enough that my internet goes out, what should I exactly go do outside? LARP the singing in the rain dance number? The reasons people don't like the choices microsoft are making with the xbone are not stupid but rather rooted in consumer rights that microsoft is unilaterally taking away with no recompense.
Mail?
Is this the dark ages?
Warboss.. I don't think you understand how the 24 hour check works. It checks once every 24 hours, not every second. Having an outage for a couple of hours would not effect that at all, because... you know.. you have 24 hours.
Warboss.. I don't think you understand how the 24 hour check works. It checks once every 24 hours, not every second. Having an outage for a couple of hours would not effect that at all, because... you know.. you have 24 hours.
I don't think you understand how it works. Please check my completely normal example posted last page for how an outage of a few hours can disable your xbone.
Warboss.. I don't think you understand how the 24 hour check works. It checks once every 24 hours, not every second. Having an outage for a couple of hours would not effect that at all, because... you know.. you have 24 hours.
I don't think you understand how it works. Please check my completely normal example posted last page for how an outage of a few hours can disable your xbone.
I dont think you understand how to understand what it is to understand
I've never been offline with my Ps3 or my Xbox, so maybe I am just lucky
pities2004 wrote: A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, the xbox 360 and PS3 were coming out, people took sides and said Xbox is better, NO PS3 is better.
None of that mattered as both systems were successful to this present day.
Buy which one you want better and leave it at that,
Personally i'm buying both because I can
Before the xbox 360 and PS3 launched it was super annoying when the fan boys took to eachothers throats.
It's a freaking gaming console get over it.
The 1% has spoken!
NOW BEGONE WITH YOUR GRIPES ABOUT CONSUMER RIGHTS PEASANT! *clap* *clap*
pities2004 wrote: A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, the xbox 360 and PS3 were coming out, people took sides and said Xbox is better, NO PS3 is better.
None of that mattered as both systems were successful to this present day.
Buy which one you want better and leave it at that,
Personally i'm buying both because I can
Before the xbox 360 and PS3 launched it was super annoying when the fan boys took to eachothers throats.
It's a freaking gaming console get over it.
The 1% has spoken!
NOW BEGONE WITH YOUR GRIPES ABOUT CONSUMER RIGHTS PEASANT! *clap* *clap*
I've never been offline with my Ps3 or my Xbox, so maybe I am just lucky
I can recall at least a dozen times over the past 6 years that xbox live itself wasn't working through no fault of my own or my local internet provider.. with one or two outages lasting several days. As for the PS3, the online service was unavailable for over a month after it was hacked. You're either incredibly lucky, naive, only game during leap years, or lying.
I've never been offline with my Ps3 or my Xbox, so maybe I am just lucky
I can recall at least a dozen times over the past 6 years that xbox live itself wasn't working through no fault of my own or my local internet provider.. with one or two outages lasting several days. As for the PS3, the online service was unavailable for over a month after it was hacked. You're either incredibly lucky, naive, only game during leap years, or lying.
You're either incredibly short sighted or raging, I did not mention once that I was on every day did I?
I've never been offline with my Ps3 or my Xbox, so maybe I am just lucky
I can recall at least a dozen times over the past 6 years that xbox live itself wasn't working through no fault of my own or my local internet provider.. with one or two outages lasting several days. As for the PS3, the online service was unavailable for over a month after it was hacked. You're either incredibly lucky, naive, only game during leap years, or lying.
You're either incredibly short sighted or raging, I did not mention once that I was on every day did I?
Let's get this back on track.
Did you miss the part about the PS3 being offline for over a month? That's not "every day". You posted an incredibly unlikely counterpoint of never being offline with either console to the issue of 24 hour DRM checks so I addressed it since my experience is that the service *will* inevitably be unavailable globally multiple times per year during the lifecycle of the console and locally (due to weather, outages, etc) many more times than that in addition. If anything is short sighted, it's using your example of apparently not using your PS3 for months at a time yet being always online as an example of why the 24hr DRM check is no big deal. In the end, despite what it may seem, I'm not raging but probably more accurately whining. I'm disappointed by what I see as boneheaded and arrogant decisions on the part of MS that take their playerbase for granted (much like sony did to their detriment in the buildup and first few years of the PS3). I discussed it with about a dozen friends over xbox live this week (all of whom are long time 360 players) and only a single one is interested in getting an xbone. A few have said that they're currently much more interested in the PS4 at the moment whereas others are existing PC gamers who will just switch exclusively to that platform instead. The only guy who said he's interested in buying the xbone is the gamer who buys *every* console every generation. While anecdotal, that's hardly a good precedent and frankly it seems to be a sentiment expressed across the internet currently.
I've never been offline with my Ps3 or my Xbox, so maybe I am just lucky
I can recall at least a dozen times over the past 6 years that xbox live itself wasn't working through no fault of my own or my local internet provider.. with one or two outages lasting several days. As for the PS3, the online service was unavailable for over a month after it was hacked. You're either incredibly lucky, naive, only game during leap years, or lying.
You're either incredibly short sighted or raging, I did not mention once that I was on every day did I?
Let's get this back on track.
Did you miss the part about the PS3 being offline for over a month? That's not "every day". You posted an incredibly unlikely counterpoint of never being offline with either console to the issue of 24 hour DRM checks so I addressed it since my experience is that the service *will* inevitably be unavailable globally multiple times per year during the lifecycle of the console and locally (due to weather, outages, etc) many more times than that in addition. If anything is short sighted, it's using your example of apparently not using your PS3 for months at a time yet being always online as an example of why the 24hr DRM check is no big deal. In the end, despite what it may seem, I'm not raging but probably more accurately whining. I'm disappointed by what I see as boneheaded and arrogant decisions on the part of MS that take their playerbase for granted (much like sony did to their detriment in the buildup and first few years of the PS3). I discussed it with about a dozen friends over xbox live this week (all of whom are long time 360 players) and only a single one is interested in getting an xbone. A few have said that they're currently much more interested in the PS4 at the moment whereas others are existing PC gamers who will just switch exclusively to that platform instead. The only guy who said he's interested in buying the xbone is the gamer who buys *every* console every generation. While anecdotal, that's hardly a good precedent and frankly it seems to be a sentiment expressed across the internet currently.
I have a very good internet provider so none of this bothers me.
It's not like Microsoft is saying "if you do not turn on your console every 24 hours it will explode" You don't have to use it every day.
This whole thread has turned into the Xbox *Xbone* hate thread, while the Ps4 thread is perfectly fine.
This whole thread has turned into the Xbox *Xbone* hate thread, while the Ps4 thread is perfectly fine.
Why not take this show else where?
The place to discuss issues with the xbone is precisely in the xbone thread and not the PS4 thread despite your disagreement with the sentiments posted. If you'd like to only read positive responses to the xbone announcements, I'd suggest you subscribe to the offical xbone twitter feed instead of following the thread here.
This whole thread has turned into the Xbox *Xbone* hate thread, while the Ps4 thread is perfectly fine.
Why not take this show else where?
The place to discuss issues with the xbone is precisely in the xbone thread and not the PS4 thread despite your disagreement with the sentiments posted. If you'd like to only read positive responses to the xbone announcements, I'd suggest you subscribe to the offical xbone twitter feed instead of following the thread here.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote: Rule one folks, lets not start losing it over which console is best please, leave that to dedicated fanboy boards if you will. Dislike, anger direct at the companies for decision making etc is fine, taking pot shots at one another because you prefer console a over console b is not!
Just to make clear: I don't want to look all smarty-pants here with a snarky comment, I just want to make clear that Microsoft does not market the XBone as a gaming, but as a "multimedia" console.
So, here's a list of confirmed games for the Xbox One so far:
Exclusives (Xbox One only)
Below (Roguelike Dungeon explorer)
Crimson Dragon (Rail Shooter)
Dead Rising 3 (Open-World Zombie Survival)
D4 (Murder Mystery)
Fantasia: Music Evolved (Rythm Game)
Forza Motorsport 5 (Racing)
Halo (Probably Halo 5, though might be an alternate in the franchise - FPS)
Killer Instinct (Old school stage Fighting)
Kinect Sports Rivals (Sports-Based minigame collection)
LocoCycle (Racing)
Minecraft: Xbox One Edition (Minecraft. Again.)
Quantum Break (Murder Mystery Action RPG with a TV tie in?)
Ryse: Son of Rome (Tactical Hack & Slash)
Sunset Overdrive (Shooter on Acid)
Zoo Tycoon (Business Simulator)
And the rest (Will be available in another format, be it PC, PS4 or WiiU)
Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag (Stealth Action-Adventure)
Battlefield 4 (FPS)
Call of Duty: Ghosts (FPS)
Carmageddon: Reincarnation (Vehicle Combat)
The Crew (Racing)
Cyberpunk 2077 (RPG)
Destiny (Action RPG)
Diablo 3 (RPG)
Dragon Age: Inquisition (RPG)
Dying Light (Zombie Survival Horror)
The Elder Scrolls Online (RPG/MMO)
The Evil Within (Survival Horror)
FIFA 14 (Racing)
Final Fantasy 15 (RPG)
Just Dance 2014 (Dance game)
Kingdom Hearts 3 (RPG)
Madden NFL 25 (Sport)
Mad Max (Action Adventure Shooter with Vehicle Combat and RPG elements)
Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain (Stealth Action Adventure)
Mirror's Edge 2 (Action Adventure Platformer)
NBA 2K14 (Sport)
NBA Live 14 (Sport)
Need for Speed: Rivals (Racing)
Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare (Third Person Shooter + Tower Defence)
Project Spark ('Game Maker')
Skylanders: Swap Force (Platform)
Sniper Elite 3 (Tactical Shooter)
Thief (4) (Stealth)
Titanfall (FPS)
Tom Clancy's The Division (MMO-Action RPG Shooter)
Trials Fusion (Racing)
UFC (Fighting)
Watch Dogs (Action-Adventure, Stealth)
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (Action-RPG, Hack And Slash)
Wolfenstein: The New Order (FPS)
Zumba Fitness: World Party (Fitness)
Honest question: why are people or rather certain people so manic about Halo 5? I played all Halos except of Halo 4 and they all felt like your everyday shooter with a few cutscenes slapped on.
CoD gets a lot of hate for it being virtually the same in every iteration and I don't see why Halo is, according to its fans, so much different.
As I said above: I don't want to say whether it was a good or bad game. I had fun playing the games. I just do not see why Halo gets praised whereas CoD gets looked down upon.
Sigvatr wrote: As I said above: I don't want to say whether it was a good or bad game. I had fun playing the games. I just do not see why Halo gets praised whereas CoD gets looked down upon.
Its the internet.
There are plenty of people who love both. Don't get so caught up in one group 'looking down' on some game.
Sigvatr wrote: As I said above: I don't want to say whether it was a good or bad game. I had fun playing the games. I just do not see why Halo gets praised whereas CoD gets looked down upon.
Its the internet.
There are plenty of people who love both. Don't get so caught up in one group 'looking down' on some game.
I think COD is fine, but I'm not crazy about it.
Ah, okay, thanks! Yeah, I also enjoyed both games. I preferred Halo for its over-arching story ark and CoD for its cinematic presentation. Just thought there was something "super special" about the games I missed.
I heard mixed opinions on Halo 4, some friends of ours did not like the alien stuff in it. Got an idea of the overall perception of it? Worse, as good, better than the previous ones?
/e: feth yeah, Doom. Still a very solid game. Preferred Hexen / Heretic, I was more into fantasy stuff when I was younger. Blood for it being badass.
I said this a few pages back, but for me Halo's appeal is it's engaging universe and (from my perspective) good storyline. I've read almost all of the books, and it's just a cool world.
For me, Halo (1) was far from the first shooter I've ever played, but I'd quite confidently say it's the best (that or Half Life 1/2). Foremost, it's just damn good fun. I've had few gaming experiences more fun than bombing round in a Warthog with a friend; online or single player, or in Halo 1, 2, or 3. Add to that the excellent game-play, with interesting and varied weaponry, as well as similarly interesting and characterful enemies, and the general FPS-aspect of it has a lot going for it. The application of Spartan-armour makes it even more fun too: enabling you to go charging in there, taking hits and bashing heads (something that really suits my playstyle). The Marines are fun, levels varied, AI impressive, vehicles balanced, and the multiplayer possibly the best I've experienced. On top of this, I feel it has a great atmosphere and an even greater storyline. The idea of the covenant, the twist of the flood, the betrayal of Guilty Spark, it was all great. The books really added to this too.
So yeah, for me, it was the gameplay, the soundtrack, the story and the overall ridiculous amounts of fun that made Halo great, IMHO.
Halo 2 and 3 were worse (almost inevitably so), but they were still good games in a great universe. Halo ODST is a seriously under-estimated game IMHO; possessing a really immersive atmosphere and sensation of loneliness that I've never seen matched, as well as another brilliant soundtrack. Halo 4, however, was disappointing for me.
Edit: Oooph, Hexen, that was great! Doom too, but such fond memories of Hexen and Heretic.
Sigvatr wrote: As I said above: I don't want to say whether it was a good or bad game. I had fun playing the games. I just do not see why Halo gets praised whereas CoD gets looked down upon.
Its the internet.
There are plenty of people who love both. Don't get so caught up in one group 'looking down' on some game.
I think COD is fine, but I'm not crazy about it.
Ah, okay, thanks! Yeah, I also enjoyed both games. I preferred Halo for its over-arching story ark and CoD for its cinematic presentation. Just thought there was something "super special" about the games I missed.
I heard mixed opinions on Halo 4, some friends of ours did not like the alien stuff in it. Got an idea of the overall perception of it? Worse, as good, better than the previous ones?
/e: feth yeah, Doom. Still a very solid game. Preferred Hexen / Heretic, I was more into fantasy stuff when I was younger. Blood for it being badass.
I personally really enjoyed the story arc of Halo 4, of course I also read all the books and am a total lore nut (for whatever I'm into really, encyclopedic knowledge of 40k and all that). If you don't pay attention, and don't watch the terminals (which are sort of hidden, terrible idea, AND you have to watch them on the internet instead of 'in-game'), its hard to grasp what is going on outside of the Master Chief/Cortana drama, that is pretty easy to grab.
The gameplay is good, and I really enjoy the multiplayer, but the new enemy class I don't think set the world on fire. It certainly looks cool, but feels like more of a chore to fight sometimes(knights); I much prefer fighting the Covenant that we've been fighting for 3 other games, heh. The levels don't feel as "sandbox-y" to me as Halo 3, but I think they pushed the graphical fidelity (its very pretty!) instead of making a larger world like in 3 (when everyone bitched it was Sub-HD). In the end, it plays a bit more like Halo 2, than Halo 3, in that it is quite corridor-y instead of the larger sandbox feel of 3 and CE; IMO.
I understand it was a new team and all, and I'd say they made a solid Halo game, but not the best; which is still 3 in terms of campaign. The multiplayer right now is pretty great though, definitely better than 3 (omg that horribly inconsistent battle rifle)! If you have a team and can vote on the gametypes and maps you WANT to play, its probably the best Halo so far.
As an aside, Halo has been very formative for me as an artist; the graphical style really left an impression on me. I also own just about every Halo art book that exists.
Sigvatr wrote: Honest question: why are people or rather certain people so manic about Halo 5? I played all Halos except of Halo 4 and they all felt like your everyday shooter with a few cutscenes slapped on.
CoD gets a lot of hate for it being virtually the same in every iteration and I don't see why Halo is, according to its fans, so much different.
I wouldn't say Halo was my first memorable fps (that goes to blood...or hexen), but I loved the first one immensely. Then the second one dropped, which had a bunch of neat new features (like dual wielding). Then after that it just seemed like with every new game it was just the same rehashed game over and over again. The last Halo game I slightly enjoyed while starting to feel mentally tired of the game was ODST. Reach was horrifically boring, and halo 4 was just a big fat wad of meh.
Funny thing is CoD is kind of the same, but it got a little better for me as it become more cinematic.
But yeah, practically identical in how they turned out (and continue to do so), yet halo is lauded as the greatest thing since air while CoD has a reserved spot in the darkest pits of hell. Makes no sense.
But yeah, practically identical in how they turned out (and continue to do so), yet halo is lauded as the greatest thing since air while CoD has a reserved spot in the darkest pits of hell. Makes no sense.
Really, it totally depends on the community you are interacting with.
This is extremely hyperbolic, and if you talk to an actual person instead of the internets that has played both, they probably wouldn't respond in such a way as you described.
But yeah, practically identical in how they turned out (and continue to do so), yet halo is lauded as the greatest thing since air while CoD has a reserved spot in the darkest pits of hell. Makes no sense.
Really, it totally depends on the community you are interacting with.
This is extremely hyperbolic, and if you talk to an actual person instead of the internets that has played both, they probably wouldn't respond in such a way as you described.
Funny thing about assuming is that you can be pretty wrong in your assessment.
My experience comes from my time on xbox live and psn talking to friends. Continue thinking you know where I draw my experience from if you wish though.
I read that article earlier. I try really hard to like microsoft. I really do. I've even forgiven them for Windows 8, mainly because the alternative is still apple. But they totally failed this time and my wallet will show it.
daedalus-templarius wrote:Well, I'm sorry your friends are equivalent to the caricatures on the internet.
Mine are not. They like games, and don't like games; that's about it.
Halo 4 was a little meh to me. I agree with daedalus about the Prometheans being pretty boring or tedious to fight, they all seemed rather same-y. Even though there were about the same number of Covenant enemy types, they still had more weapons, more color variety, and much more character. The environments weren't anything groundbreaking either, 3 is definitely my favorite, followed by Reach.
Yeah they were pretty but they all sort of started to blur together by the end. I can remember a couple of places from it but mostly just the ones where I died a whole bunch, nothing that just stood out to me as much as some from 3 or Reach. That could just be because I've played those a lot more, though, now that I think about it haha.
To be honest, the single player of Halo 4 did not really "wow" me like the earlier entries did.
I think that was more because of the fact that they decided it to be an "artificial world" that looked like an artificial world.
The Spartan Ops/Multiplayer though? Those were some gorgeous locales.
Halo got one thing right in my mind above all others, and its not the thing you'd think was a gelling factor but in mind its certainly a key consideration. The music.
The score of that game has a habit of pulling you in, and it set the bar as far as I'm concerned for music in shooters that many others have followed since combat evolved.
On top of that the story, while not going to win any originality awards, is constant and enjoyable, and the rapport between Cortana and Chief is maintained well throughout the series with some stand out lines of dialogue between them.
Game play wise, Halo introduced some concepts that where not the norm before it, but its really not above any other shooter out there, its the music and the strongly crafted tale that brings fans back again and again.
If either of those things do nothing for you.. that why you don't get why it has so many fans. .
So, Phil Spencer has put out something a bit more regarding the "check in".
Microsoft's Phil Spencer discussed a few advantages that come with having a fully connected gaming console, including games like Titanfall that do such a good job of mixing single- and multiplayer design and gameplay. Like Microsoft's materials state, everyone who has an Xbox One has a broadband connection, or at least that's the assumption. If you don't have a good online connection, you're not the target market.
This is a fairly radical thing for a company aiming for a wide audience to try; as many Americans without solid internet connections will be excluded. Or at least until we improve the online infrastructure in the United States. Still, they're planning for the internet to go out from time to time, hence the 24-hour time period you can play between checking in with Microsoft.
“We know the internet is not infallible, that’s why we put a system in place that if you lose your connection for a period of time, your offline games will continue to work,” Spencer said. “We have no way of simulating online multiplayer without a connection, but the games that are offline will continue to work, because we understand that there can be faults, but really the box is built as a digitally native, connected device.”
No internet, no go. But that check in process only takes a tiny amount of data, so if things go bad you can always re-authorize your games with… your phone? I asked about the size of the files needed to keep the console working.
“I’ve been asked this a number of times, so we should probably get some clarity out there. You should think about this on the order of kilobytes and not megabytes, in terms of the update check,” Spencer said. “In fact you can do it on your phone, you can tether your phone to the box if you’re just going to update. You’re probably not going to play multiplayer Titanfall through your phone, or stream a Netflix movie through your phone, but if you think about the update cycle, and to make sure the content you have is available to you, that update is a kilobyte-type transaction, very small.”
So it sounds like you don't have to worry about the daily update hurting your data cap, and the process will take only a short time even on slow devices. This is a problem, and solution, that's pretty futuristic. If your next-gen console doesn't work because your internet is down, use your pocket computer's connection.
Or, you know, Microsoft could remove the check, or do it weekly. Or monthly. Or not at all. Just throwing out a simpler solution.
Minx wrote: So it seems the 24h between (drm) checks is actually an advantage compared to the traditional drm check right before any usage, ie. starting a game.
Especialy considering that this should do away with all the old DRM they have tried for consoles, which IMO was always more of a hassle anyway.
Not that fussed over the used games thing either, the only reason I ever buy a used game is when I can't find a new copy, now with it all going digital on day 1 too, I don't have any reason to even bother buying used games.
The sole reason I'm not getting Xbox One (or at least untill I get some proper info on it's implementation) is the Kinect being mandatory. I don't want the thing in my house, I don't want to pay for something I have no intention of using and I don't like having that gak forced on me. So unless they release a version without it I probably won't get the xbox one.
I will almost certainly get Titanfall for the 360. Assuming the port doesn't absolutely gut the mechanics. I can deal with dipping framerate, less particle effects, smaller maps and smaller player counts.
Or, you know, Microsoft could remove the check, or do it weekly. Or monthly. Or not at all. Just throwing out a simpler solution.
I do understand the need for a checkin type system if they're getting rid of some (but not all) of the other DRM types but the 24hr time period is just a needless hassle that is too potentially inconvienent. Didn't play my xbox yesterday, internet goes out today for a few hours = can't play anything at all.... that's unacceptable. While a weekly or monthly check wouldn't help people that are permanently without internet for long periods of time, at least weekly checks would largely get rid of inconvienencing players with fickle internet service or a temporary outage beyond their control. If they did that and added backward compatibility, I'd gripe about the remaining stuff but at least would be on board for the xbone.
Barring any bad gameplay videos and shocking announcements, I expect to get Titanfall for the 360 despite it being the inferior tech version. I did read though that they're farming out the 360 port ot a secondary company with all the risks that may entail.
A weekly drm check is probably not acceptable by the publishers.
Didn't play my xbox yesterday, internet goes out today for a few hours = can't play anything at all
It's most likely enough for the machine to connect to the internet on its own during some kind of standby mode. No need to actually play a game every 24 hours for the check to pass. So, if you have an internet outage you can play for another 24 hours starting from the outage instead of being forced to stare at the trying to reach drm server screen (inside that 24h window).
.
I think we all have been a little negative on the online requirement and rightfully so, but their is an up side. If you have a console where everyone is guaranteed to have it hooked up to the internet, then you can finally make multiplayer games that are just multiplayer. Right now, anyone who want's to base their game about co-op, or any form of online component has to deal with the fact that a very very small minority of console owners actually plug their console into an Ethernet port . Even games like borderlands the vast majority play it solo. When your working with a customer base that is already plugged into the internet, you can finally have the all of your players playing your co-op games the way you intended them to be played.
nomotog wrote: I think we all have been a little negative on the online requirement and rightfully so, but their is an up side. If you have a console where everyone is guaranteed to have it hooked up to the internet, then you can finally make multiplayer games that are just multiplayer. Right now, anyone who want's to base their game about co-op, or any form of online component has to deal with the fact that a very very small minority of console owners actually plug their console into an Ethernet port . Even games like borderlands the vast majority play it solo. When your working with a customer base that is already plugged into the internet, you can finally have the all of your players playing your co-op games the way you intended them to be played.
Silver linings right?
There already exist multiplayer only games on current consoles, both downloadable and retail, with no single player or coop. I wouldn't call a very small minority of console owners plugging in at least on the xbox side if 46 million have done it out of 75 million sold (at least from the date of the article below). Anecdotaly, every person I've known in real life who owns an xbox has it plugged in to broadband internet (although not all opt to pay for gold). Obviously the true answer is much more nuanced (gold vs silver, people who plugged in once or only yearly to update dashboards, etc) but I'd hazard a guess that at least on the 360 side that it's not a "very very small minority" and the xbox demographic is what this thread is focused on.
The one truely good thing I can say about the xbone without conditions is that the standard harddrive is coming back. Microsoft had a standard harddrive in the original xbox but got rid of it in the 360. Game makers had to make sure for the first several years that their games worked without any sort of storage other than the paltry 64mb memory card and that definitely held them back in terms of capability. Having a permanent form of storage will also help with the relatively long load times of blu ray drives as well.
SilverMK2 wrote: Steam is vastly improved compared to what it is, but then again they aren't selling me games for £50 that are completed in 5 hours...
Well it sounds like they want to sell them for less if things go well.
That's a very large if, with no guarantees of any kind that they will if things do go well. If they really wanted to kill gamestop, they could have just sold their games direct to hard drive/account for less than the hard copy.
Fortunately, I'll still have a wallet if they decide to offer steam-like savings years from now.
SilverMK2 wrote: Steam is vastly improved compared to what it is, but then again they aren't selling me games for £50 that are completed in 5 hours...
Well it sounds like they want to sell them for less if things go well.
That's a very large if, with no guarantees of any kind that they will if things do go well. If they really wanted to kill gamestop, they could have just sold their games direct to hard drive/account for less than the hard copy.
Fortunately, I'll still have a wallet if they decide to offer steam-like savings years from now.
There's a very big point made in that big posting though: places like Wal-Mart, Amazon, GameStop, and Best Buy are very heavily entrenched in the market for video games. You probably see more sales via Amazon than GameStop at this point but there's no real denying that as long as a physical disc is used(which does still allow for trade-in/resale/swapping to friends) you'll have to deal with retail chains having a bit more power than the publishers/developers.
They HAVE to play nice with retailers, there is literally no way around it.
If they went full digital, they'd get a ton of pushback about even putting the consoles on the shelves I imagine. They just can't do it, even if we want them to.
At least, not yet.
They already do digital sales on 360 for games, just not nearly as often as stuff like Steam. Some of the deals are pretty good actually.
I think the more they try to make the 24 hr check seem like a minor deal the more I'm starting to hate them for doing it. "Think in kilobytes, not megabytes" they say, but if it's such a small and insignificant thing why do we even need it in the first place other than to be an annoyance?
I'm curious if any enterprising technicians will ever figure out a way to crack open the case and screw with the inner settings in a way that makes the suicide check disappear.
Isn't that how Steam and any other online retailer, where you don't just buy a serial but get a licence bound to your shop account, handle it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Necroshea wrote: I think the more they try to make the 24 hr check seem like a minor deal the more I'm starting to hate them for doing it. "Think in kilobytes, not megabytes" they say, but if it's such a small and insignificant thing why do we even need it in the first place other than to be an annoyance?
That's a question for the game publishers. They most likely want some form of online drm. The 24 hour thing is for our convenience (as far as i understood); without it you would have to connect every time you want to play and not just once every 24h. I doubt the other gaming platforms have less drm.
Minx wrote: Isn't that how Steam and any other online retailer, where you don't just buy a serial but get a licence bound to your shop account, handle it?
'Cept this appears to apply to every game you have, including the ones you own physical copies of. Steam can ban me, but I can still play Half-Life 2 without connecting to them.
Minx wrote: That's a question for the game publishers. They most likely want some form of online drm. The 24 hour thing is for our convenience (as far as i understood); without it you would have to connect every time you want to play and not just once every 24h. I doubt the other gaming platforms have less drm.
Yeah, 'cause needing to connect and re-authenticate every day when you're playing completely offline single player games sure is "convenient".
Minx wrote: Isn't that how Steam and any other online retailer, where you don't just buy a serial but get a licence bound to your shop account, handle it?
'Cept this appears to apply to every game you have, including the ones you own physical copies of. Steam can ban me, but I can still play Half-Life 2 without connecting to them.
But nowadays you don't own physical copies any more. You get a licence (with attached agreement and legal fine print) that can be revoked following the rules you agree to prior to using said licence.
Minx wrote: That's a question for the game publishers. They most likely want some form of online drm. The 24 hour thing is for our convenience (as far as i understood); without it you would have to connect every time you want to play and not just once every 24h. I doubt the other gaming platforms have less drm.
Yeah, 'cause needing to connect and re-authenticate every day when you're playing completely offline single player games sure is "convenient".
I assumed that every new and expensive game will have some form of online drm check regardless of single- or multi-player mode. But perhaps that is not true yet and some publishers still use physical discs as some primitive drm or copy protection scheme. In my defense i haven't bought a game on a physical medium in years and instead got them all via steam, etc.
Isn't that how Steam and any other online retailer, where you don't just buy a serial but get a licence bound to your shop account, handle it?
Nope. Even if your Steam account is banned, you have full access to your game. Hell, if it doesn't actually use your Steam account for multiplayer, you can still even play online.
Isn't that how Steam and any other online retailer, where you don't just buy a serial but get a licence bound to your shop account, handle it?
Nope. Even if your Steam account is banned, you have full access to your game. Hell, if it doesn't actually use your Steam account for multiplayer, you can still even play online.
Looking through my steam folder it seems you are right. My apologies then. Although i suspect it won't be long until the larger publishers go the route of online licence servers for the piracy protection.
Minx wrote: Isn't that how Steam and any other online retailer, where you don't just buy a serial but get a licence bound to your shop account, handle it?
'Cept this appears to apply to every game you have, including the ones you own physical copies of. Steam can ban me, but I can still play Half-Life 2 without connecting to them.
But nowadays you don't own physical copies any more. You get a licence (with attached agreement and legal fine print) that can be revoked following the rules you agree to prior to using said licence.
Really? Cause I'm pretty sure I own all of my 360 games in physical form. I'm not renting a license from anybody, those are my games.
Minx wrote: Isn't that how Steam and any other online retailer, where you don't just buy a serial but get a licence bound to your shop account, handle it?
'Cept this appears to apply to every game you have, including the ones you own physical copies of. Steam can ban me, but I can still play Half-Life 2 without connecting to them.
But nowadays you don't own physical copies any more. You get a licence (with attached agreement and legal fine print) that can be revoked following the rules you agree to prior to using said licence.
Really? Cause I'm pretty sure I own all of my 360 games in physical form. I'm not renting a license from anybody, those are my games.
It seems i extrapolated erroneously from online bought licences on steam. My apologies.
I would be willing to believe that if the price stayed the same, instead of jumping at LEAST $30 in the transition....
I don't think we're reading the same price lists.
Look at the US prices. They're staying the same or roughly the same(some games are listed as $59.96 on Amazon rather than $59.99).
Minx wrote: Isn't that how Steam and any other online retailer, where you don't just buy a serial but get a licence bound to your shop account, handle it?
And that makes it okay?
That's a question for the game publishers. They most likely want some form of online drm. The 24 hour thing is for our convenience (as far as i understood); without it you would have to connect every time you want to play and not just once every 24h. I doubt the other gaming platforms have less drm.
You should really reread this. 'Our convenience' is served by inconveniencing us how?
Also consoles had less DRM. Until now. And again, so what if other platforms have it? The PC community has done little more than complain about DRM for years because it sucks. Some countries don't assure due process. Would you support the US government completely suspending it?
Minx wrote: Isn't that how Steam and any other online retailer, where you don't just buy a serial but get a licence bound to your shop account, handle it?
And that makes it okay?
That's a question for the game publishers. They most likely want some form of online drm. The 24 hour thing is for our convenience (as far as i understood); without it you would have to connect every time you want to play and not just once every 24h. I doubt the other gaming platforms have less drm.
You should really reread this. 'Our convenience' is served by inconveniencing us how?
Also consoles had less DRM. Until now. And again, so what if other platforms have it? The PC community has done little more than complain about DRM for years because it sucks. Some countries don't assure due process. Would you support the US government completely suspending it?
As a non american, yes.
But honestly, yeah, I really don't give two gaks about the drm and all that. It's the kinect that ruins it.
If for no other reason the kinect is baffling because of its influence on the price. If that thing wasn't required they could be cost competitive with Sony, but instead they demand everyone, including those of us not interested, pay for and use a peripheral.
Actually curious what the logic was in the design meetings XD. I have a feeling a lot of face palm worth quotes could be pulled
That's a question for the game publishers. They most likely want some form of online drm. The 24 hour thing is for our convenience (as far as i understood); without it you would have to connect every time you want to play and not just once every 24h. I doubt the other gaming platforms have less drm.
You should really reread this. 'Our convenience' is served by inconveniencing us how?
Also consoles had less DRM. Until now. And again, so what if other platforms have it? The PC community has done little more than complain about DRM for years because it sucks.
That comment started with the wrong assumption of prevalent online drm on consoles. Apparently that isn't true yet but it seems they (MS and partnering publishers) want to push that concept. So, if every game demands an online check during start-up a once every 24 hour check seems more convenient, regardless of how we might feel about drm and online checks.
LordofHats wrote: If for no other reason the kinect is baffling because of its influence on the price. If that thing wasn't required they could be cost competitive with Sony, but instead they demand everyone, including those of us not interested, pay for and use a peripheral.
Actually curious what the logic was in the design meetings XD. I have a feeling a lot of face palm worth quotes could be pulled
I'm assuming that it's to do with the fact they want Kinect to become this huge thing gaming wise, but lots of games didn't bother with it on the 360 after its launch as there seemed to be no sign they where a dominant item out there in the market.
By putting it in the box from the get go, they are hoping more developers make use of it as we 'all' have it.
Still don't think it'll make them any more popular, and Microsoft should have taken a loss and sold the console at the same price as the PS4 if they want it that badly.
I think a drastically improved kinect with developers actually pushing things for it might have a better impact.
Don't forget the crazy amount of those things they sold. Obviously people like them, albeit perhaps not those of us here (core gamers mostly). I like mine... occasionally.
The voice commands in ME3 worked pretty well! But then you have something like Steel Battalion that was an absolute cluster-feth.
LordofHats wrote: If for no other reason the kinect is baffling because of its influence on the price. If that thing wasn't required they could be cost competitive with Sony, but instead they demand everyone, including those of us not interested, pay for and use a peripheral.
Actually curious what the logic was in the design meetings XD. I have a feeling a lot of face palm worth quotes could be pulled
I'm assuming that it's to do with the fact they want Kinect to become this huge thing gaming wise, but lots of games didn't bother with it on the 360 after its launch as there seemed to be no sign they where a dominant item out there in the market.
I think it's less "they want Kinect to become this huge thing gaming wise" and more "they want to move towards Kinect and similar peripherals" for more things that see everyday use.
Look at what we saw with the Kinect "hacks". You had them being used at hospitals by doctors for manipulating x-rays and other information, all kinds of things that nobody would have thought of.
One of the interviews had a Microsoft guy talking about how their 'vision' is to make it so that Tony Stark's hands free interface is a reality. I wish I could find it again.
By putting it in the box from the get go, they are hoping more developers make use of it as we 'all' have it.
Not necessarily. They're trying to get people to make use of it more than now. By making it so that you HAVE to use the Kinect, it means that people who had no reason to buy one before have one.
Still don't think it'll make them any more popular, and Microsoft should have taken a loss and sold the console at the same price as the PS4 if they want it that badly.
In which case Sony would have just adjusted their price again and undersold them.
daedalus-templarius wrote: I think a drastically improved kinect with developers actually pushing things for it might have a better impact.
Don't forget the crazy amount of those things they sold. Obviously people like them, albeit perhaps not those of us here (core gamers mostly). I like mine... occasionally.
Which is a shame, because I was so looking forward to Steel Battallion.
But as I said before - roughly 1 in 12 of all Xbox 360 games require kinect to play, and 1 in 10 of all 360 games can use kinect (including the kinect only titles), so it's hardly that small a pool to choose from.
There was an article on Cracked recently that brought up a point about why making the Kinect mandatory is a bad idea. It assumes that you have just tons of free space available to use it. I live in a crappy college apartment, I don't have the room to use the Kinect even if I wanted to. I'm willing to bet that plenty of other people don't have the space in their gaming area for it either. They're making unreasonable assumptions about their customers and deliberately shrinking their audience.
MandalorynOranj wrote: There was an article on Cracked recently that brought up a point about why making the Kinect mandatory is a bad idea. It assumes that you have just tons of free space available to use it. I live in a crappy college apartment, I don't have the room to use the Kinect even if I wanted to. I'm willing to bet that plenty of other people don't have the space in their gaming area for it either. They're making unreasonable assumptions about their customers and deliberately shrinking their audience.
The new one actually works MUCH better in small spaces than the old one. The demos showing what it sees are pretty wild; definitely not nearly as limited as the USB1.0 ancient hardware kinect for the 360.
That 95% of people prefer the PS4 is almost unbelievable. I question how impartial the poll is, but it does look fairly reasonable and has 40,000 votes.
I agree that the PS4 getting 95% is unbelievable and I say that as a vocal critic of what the xbone is forcing on us. I think a more telling statistic I saw (but can't find the link at the moment) is that the PS4 preorders are about 50% higher among US retailers than the xbone. Considering North America has always been the victorious stomping ground of the xbox 360 whereas the PS4 has generally sold better pretty much on every other continent, that is a bit more telling but still realistic gauge of consumer response.
Did Microsoft ever say why they made Kinect a forced purchase? It just doesn't strike me as a good idea...quite the contrary. It appears to be very stupid. They got lots of bad press out of it, they cannot compete with the PS4 (that's another thing: it's now cheaper AND more powerful!) and they further alienate potential new customers.
Sigvatr wrote: Did Microsoft ever say why they made Kinect a forced purchase? It just doesn't strike me as a good idea...quite the contrary. It appears to be very stupid. They got lots of bad press out of it, they cannot compete with the PS4 (that's another thing: it's now cheaper AND more powerful!) and they further alienate potential new customers.
It appeals to non-core gamers, which appears to be a market segment they are vigorously pursuing.
I think its debatable that it appeals to non-core gamers. It appeals to kinect fans which are present in core gamers and non-core gamers. Microsoft I feel has horribly misread their consumer data on several fronts with the XBone.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Honestly I'm of the Yahtzee school of thought when it comes to motion controls. They're horrible. Stop making them.
Agreed 100%. The Wii was cool for a hot minute, but when the Move and the Kinect came out, I was completely done with it. Similar to the resurgance of 3D movies - cool at first, but now just another way for Devs to make money.
Sigvatr wrote: Did Microsoft ever say why they made Kinect a forced purchase? It just doesn't strike me as a good idea...quite the contrary. It appears to be very stupid. They got lots of bad press out of it, they cannot compete with the PS4 (that's another thing: it's now cheaper AND more powerful!) and they further alienate potential new customers.
I believe I heard in an interview it was way to get third party developers interested in it. The reason we don't have any good kinect games is because almost no core gamers have one. By including it with the console they guarantee that everyone has one which in turn will encourage developers to make better games for it.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Honestly I'm of the Yahtzee school of thought when it comes to motion controls. They're horrible. Stop making them.
Agreed 100%. The Wii was cool for a hot minute, but when the Move and the Kinect came out, I was completely done with it. Similar to the resurgance of 3D movies - cool at first, but now just another way for Devs to make money.
Funny, cos as fun as the Kinect is (and as much as we enjoy it), we got the Wii after we got the Kinect, and we've been getting tons of use out of it.
Mostly Light Gun games, and Budokai ( ) but some others too
Seems most of my immediate gaming circle are more concerned about their gamer score carrying over, than any issues they might have with what Microsoft is doing.
Sigvatr wrote: Did Microsoft ever say why they made Kinect a forced purchase? It just doesn't strike me as a good idea...quite the contrary. It appears to be very stupid. They got lots of bad press out of it, they cannot compete with the PS4 (that's another thing: it's now cheaper AND more powerful!) and they further alienate potential new customers.
It appeals to non-core gamers, which appears to be a market segment they are vigorously pursuing.
Unfortunately many of their other policies with the console don't. The 500 dollar price tag is going to be especially daunting to a non-core gamer. So is the limitation on sharing or easily obtaining cheaper used games. It's sending a bit of a mixed message.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote: Seems most of my immediate gaming circle are more concerned about their gamer score carrying over, than any issues they might have with what Microsoft is doing.
edit - also, launch day achievement.. I needs it!
It's been what? 8 years now? And I still don't even know what a gamerscore means.
Granted, I don't own a 360, but I still don't even know what the PS3 equivalent does or why it matters.
Aye.. I have gone back to games I would have long since tossed in the bin, in an attempt to earn one more achievement, for more of those points. To continue to stand above my two brothers gamerscores.
It literally makes no sense, but more than once, I have sat looking down my game list not for which game I'd like to play, but which one I can earn an unlock from.
Well these days I don't give a hoot about achievements anymore. Hell, I've even disabled the pop up message on my xbox because it tends to ruin any form of immersion. Used to be addicted to it though.
Besides, if I want that, I'll just play Dark Souls.
With over 20 playthroughs shared between the PS3 and PC versions of Dark Souls, I still don't know what achievements I've unlocked. Some games just beg to be played.
I have yet to figure out how to turn off the trophy notice for the PS3. I would like to know, if anyone has that information.
It is quite annoying to go through what is meant to be a poignant or revelatory scene or sequence in a game, only to see the trophy notice pop across the screen and make me remember that I'm only playing a game.
Funny Things in Video Games: The newest Witcher game, being based on a character written by a Polish author and heavily influenced by Polish folklore and developed by a Polish developer will not be playable in Poland on the XBone.
Heh, I noted on my facebook page I have issue with the Daenerys comparison, because she's awesome and the wiiU is a piece of.. [redacted by the inquisition] hehe.
edit - although its still not as funny as the men in black glasses clip. I'm still chuckling about that one while I'm thinking about it days later.
Furthermore, I am interested in how Microsoft tackles the legal issue overall as according to EU law, it is illegal to not allow second-hand selling of games.
Furthermore, I am interested in how Microsoft tackles the legal issue overall as according to EU law, it is illegal to not allow second-hand selling of games.
Maybe they convince everyone it's akin to renting a movie. Iirc you are not allowed to sell a rented movie Or they go the usual route of bribinglobbying to get a special snowflake treatment.
.
Not really. You agree to the terms of usage, you're aware of what you can/can't do.
If you choose not to actually read the TOU? That's your own fault.
Furthermore, I am interested in how Microsoft tackles the legal issue overall as according to EU law, it is illegal to not allow second-hand selling of games.
Where do you keep getting this idea that you cannot sell games?
You will be able to "gift" games to people who have been on your Friends list for more than 30 days.
You will be able to sell games, but it is more complex than just going to a shop and getting some cash back. It involves transferring the licenses, Microsoft getting involved, and something like a 10% cut for the developer and a 10% cut for the publisher.
Furthermore, I am interested in how Microsoft tackles the legal issue overall as according to EU law, it is illegal to not allow second-hand selling of games.
There's going to be a lot of murky legal waters in the EU. Apparently, a stipulation of the EULA is that you're not allowed to file a class action lawsuit. Not something that I think would go over well anywhere, really.
Sigvatr wrote: The EULA is completely meaningless legal-wise if it conflicts with the law itself. Local law always trumps EULAs.
Potentially.
It depends on how the EULA is crafted. It could very well be that Microsoft's legal team has drafted an EULA for each region.
Personally? I'm fine with people having their accounts banned being unable to access their content. It is so obnoxious right now that if someone gets their gamertag banned for utilizing glitches/exploits on Battlefield 3, if they start a new gamertag and are not having their Xbox banned rather than just the gamertag--they can immediately get back in, with no punishment. They start off back at rank 1...but they have ALL of their unlocked weapons, gadgets, etc available to them right away.
Aye, EULA's have already been deemed not worth the text typed in UK law. It is a literal waste of time Microsoft having it. Law has stepped in here and noted that effective blackmail to access an online account (i.e you sign or can't play) will not trump a legal standpoint, consumer law trumps it.
Now on saying that, if you'll find a UK law firm willing to try and take a class action against a US company.. that's another story.
Iirc, we have a precedence. Someone played a Bioware game and since his account was banned, he could no longer play the game. I don't know if it went in front of a court, but in the end, they had to lift the ban so that he could play again and just restricted his forum access.
Sigvatr wrote: Iirc, we have a precedence. Someone played a Bioware game and since his account was banned, he could no longer play the game. I don't know if it went in front of a court, but in the end, they had to lift the ban so that he could play again and just restricted his forum access.
If I'm remembering right, the dispute was that he was banned from using his BioWare and Origins account, but he could still utilize his console based account as Microsoft were not the ones who banned him.
That does not necessarily mean that an EULA between you and Microsoft specifically stating that you cannot utilize glitches within a game would be illegal however. It means that Microsoft are likely going to have to take over from the company based "anti-cheat teams".
I remember a lot of people starting up with the whole "It's illegal!" garbage after BioWare started banning people for the rocket glitching, and I distinctly remember it being that the people who were "banned" could only play the basic campaign, without any of the DLC because the DLC requires you to be signed into Origins.
Sigvatr wrote: The EULA is completely meaningless legal-wise if it conflicts with the law itself. Local law always trumps EULAs.
Potentially.
It depends on how the EULA is crafted. It could very well be that Microsoft's legal team has drafted an EULA for each region.
Personally? I'm fine with people having their accounts banned being unable to access their content. It is so obnoxious right now that if someone gets their gamertag banned for utilizing glitches/exploits on Battlefield 3, if they start a new gamertag and are not having their Xbox banned rather than just the gamertag--they can immediately get back in, with no punishment. They start off back at rank 1...but they have ALL of their unlocked weapons, gadgets, etc available to them right away.
Making them unable to access online/multiplayer content is perfectly reasonable, but having someone get banned from XBL and be unable to play their single-player games? That's a little harsh.
Sigvatr wrote: The EULA is completely meaningless legal-wise if it conflicts with the law itself. Local law always trumps EULAs.
Potentially.
It depends on how the EULA is crafted. It could very well be that Microsoft's legal team has drafted an EULA for each region.
Personally? I'm fine with people having their accounts banned being unable to access their content. It is so obnoxious right now that if someone gets their gamertag banned for utilizing glitches/exploits on Battlefield 3, if they start a new gamertag and are not having their Xbox banned rather than just the gamertag--they can immediately get back in, with no punishment. They start off back at rank 1...but they have ALL of their unlocked weapons, gadgets, etc available to them right away.
Making them unable to access online/multiplayer content is perfectly reasonable, but having someone get banned from XBL and be unable to play their single-player games? That's a little harsh.
Sigvatr wrote: In multiplayer games, you ruin the experience for other players. You can do whatever you want in single-player games.
And?
If you've agreed to an EULA saying you will not modify the game and then use a save editor--it does not matter if the game is single player or not, you've tampered with the game files.
There's a difference, IMO, between a 'cheat' like the old Konami Code and using coalesced files and save editors.
The EULA means absolutely nothing. In it, the developer could ask everyone who agrees to pay 500$ per month and still, nobody would have to pay since it breaks the law.
Furthermore, I don't see anything bad coming from someone changing stuff if it only affects singleplayer.
Unfortunately, just because Europe seems to think that an EULA is not binding does not mean that an EULA written with Europe in mind will not pass legal muster.
Kanluwen wrote: Unfortunately, just because Europe seems to think that an EULA is not binding does not mean that an EULA written with Europe in mind will not pass legal muster.
Of course not, but none of us ever said so
An EULA is below the law priority-wise, thus when there's a conflict between law and EULA, the EULA isn't worth more than 2-layered toilet paper. And in the matter at hand, that's not being able to sell used games and / or banning a user account thus rendering him not able to play the game.
Kanluwen wrote: Unfortunately, just because Europe seems to think that an EULA is not binding does not mean that an EULA written with Europe in mind will not pass legal muster.
Of course not, but none of us ever said so
An EULA is below the law priority-wise, thus when there's a conflict between law and EULA, the EULA isn't worth more than 2-layered toilet paper. And in the matter at hand, that's not being able to sell used games and / or banning a user account thus rendering him not able to play the game.
And that will help you 2-5 years later after you've been banned but finally won in an EU court against microsoft (and that's assuming you've got the funds to carry on the fight that long).
Kanluwen wrote: Unfortunately, just because Europe seems to think that an EULA is not binding does not mean that an EULA written with Europe in mind will not pass legal muster.
Of course not, but none of us ever said so
An EULA is below the law priority-wise, thus when there's a conflict between law and EULA, the EULA isn't worth more than 2-layered toilet paper. And in the matter at hand, that's not being able to sell used games and / or banning a user account thus rendering him not able to play the game.
Kanluwen wrote: Unfortunately, just because Europe seems to think that an EULA is not binding does not mean that an EULA written with Europe in mind will not pass legal muster.
Of course not, but none of us ever said so
An EULA is below the law priority-wise, thus when there's a conflict between law and EULA, the EULA isn't worth more than 2-layered toilet paper. And in the matter at hand, that's not being able to sell used games and / or banning a user account thus rendering him not able to play the game.
You're aware that you CAN sell used games, right?
only if specifically allowed by the publisher for that title and publishers have been the biggest critics of the used game industry this console generation. The backlash though against the xbone may convince some of them to maintain the status quo for a bit though. EA is already backtracking away from its anti-used game policy and they were one of the pioneers of the "online pass" aimed specifically at used games.
Kanluwen wrote: Unfortunately, just because Europe seems to think that an EULA is not binding does not mean that an EULA written with Europe in mind will not pass legal muster.
Of course not, but none of us ever said so
An EULA is below the law priority-wise, thus when there's a conflict between law and EULA, the EULA isn't worth more than 2-layered toilet paper. And in the matter at hand, that's not being able to sell used games and / or banning a user account thus rendering him not able to play the game.
You're aware that you CAN sell used games, right?
only if specifically allowed by the publisher for that title and publishers have been the biggest critics of the used game industry this console generation.
No, all titles will be able to be sold.
The only difference is that GameStop is getting screwed and that you will only be able to sell titles a certain amount of times--with the license included--transferring to someone else.
Past that? You cannot resell. From what I understand, you can sell Microsoft Studio titles one time and other developer titles are up to their publishers.
Has this been posted yet?
Kotaku is reporting that one of the new Xbox One showcase cames, Ryse: Son of Rome isn't even a real game, the horrible Quicktime events seen in the video play themselves without influence from the gamer.
I’m on the battlefield. I’m stomping through the corpses of my comrades swinging my sword at anything that moves. I begin a combo, I slash twice and then whooom slow motion is initiated, gak is about to get ‘cinematic’. A button prompt hovers elusively above the sword I’m about to drive into the throat of my enemy… argh I’m too slow! The prompt flickers, disappears.
I missed it. Damn.
But then somehow, for some reason, I still complete the cinematic ‘kill’.
What?
Maybe it’s a bug I think, but no. Next time I deliberately press the wrong button. The kill goes ahead, no consequences. Then I try hitting no buttons whatsoever. The kill goes ahead. I put the controller on the table in front of me, the kill goes ahead.
What is going on here?
I ask one of the Crytek people hovering at the booth – is this a bug? Why am I completing kills when I hit the wrong button prompt? Or, worse, no button at all. Turns out it was a deliberate design choice.
“We don’t want the player to feel frustrated,” I am told.
Sigvatr wrote: In multiplayer games, you ruin the experience for other players. You can do whatever you want in single-player games.
And?
If you've agreed to an EULA saying you will not modify the game and then use a save editor--it does not matter if the game is single player or not, you've tampered with the game files.
There's a difference, IMO, between a 'cheat' like the old Konami Code and using coalesced files and save editors.
What about someone who gets banned not for hacking the game, but for being verbally abusive or a general ass? I definitely agree that these people should be banned from online play, but they shouldn't have their 500 dollar machine turn into a brick just because they're a jerk.
Kanluwen wrote: Personally? I'm fine with people having their accounts banned being unable to access their content. It is so obnoxious right now that if someone gets their gamertag banned for utilizing glitches/exploits on Battlefield 3
I can understand a banhammer if someone is modding their console to cheat, but banning someone and revoking all of their games because the devs released a game with holes in it is ridiculous. Glitches and exploits falls on the devs to fix, not microsoft to police.
Sigvatr wrote: In multiplayer games, you ruin the experience for other players. You can do whatever you want in single-player games.
And?
If you've agreed to an EULA saying you will not modify the game and then use a save editor--it does not matter if the game is single player or not, you've tampered with the game files.
There's a difference, IMO, between a 'cheat' like the old Konami Code and using coalesced files and save editors.
If I buy a vintage car, tell the guy I won't modify it, and then do modify it, he can piss off; it's my car, I'll do what I want with it. The moment the money exchanged hands, he no longer has any say in what happens to it. Just because you make something, doesn't mean other people can't modify it.
I can buy a hot dog, take it home, put ranch dressing on it (Not something you can order with a hot dog), and the 5 star restaurant can take a hike.
I can buy a computer from Best Buy, and put a better graphics card in it. Nothing best buy can do.
I can buy a house/land, and then tear down the house and build a small business/pool/whatever.
I can buy Spehss Mahreens and make them Hello Kitty Marines; GW can't do jack GAK unless I play "on their servers" in a tournament.
I can buy a Chainsaw, remove the chain, make some spacial modifications, and have the most bad ass feather duster ever. No one can say anything.
I can buy a movie, make a video with clips in it, and am protected by law under Fair Use.
I can buy a game, Modify it, play it by myself, but then get banned and lose the 1200 dollars I've spent on the system, games, and downloads, JUST because it's games.
None of those examples have me selling the product/handing it out to other people, which is where the law is able to actually step in. Yet the big wigs at Microsoft seem to think that they own the idea of the game. I can do anything I want with anything on my property, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. I should be able to modify my single player games as I want; I paid for them, and it's a GOOD, not a SERVICE.
So why are you so adamantly against it being the same with video games?
And before anyone says "You can't just download a car out of thin air", I'll just say "wait for 3D printers to become cheap."
Kanluwen wrote: Unfortunately, just because Europe seems to think that an EULA is not binding does not mean that an EULA written with Europe in mind will not pass legal muster.
Of course not, but none of us ever said so
An EULA is below the law priority-wise, thus when there's a conflict between law and EULA, the EULA isn't worth more than 2-layered toilet paper. And in the matter at hand, that's not being able to sell used games and / or banning a user account thus rendering him not able to play the game.
You're aware that you CAN sell used games, right?
only if specifically allowed by the publisher for that title and publishers have been the biggest critics of the used game industry this console generation.
No, all titles will be able to be sold.
The only difference is that GameStop is getting screwed and that you will only be able to sell titles a certain amount of times--with the license included--transferring to someone else.
Past that? You cannot resell. From what I understand, you can sell Microsoft Studio titles one time and other developer titles are up to their publishers.
Microsoft themselves disagree with your blanket statement. You have NO RIGHT to sell your xbox one games; it is an option that may be granted by the publishers at their leisure and they have no obligation to do so.
Trade-in and resell your disc-based games: Today, some gamers choose to sell their old disc-based games back for cash and credit. We designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers.
Kanluwen wrote: The publishers enabling sale is not relevant.
The discs and licenses can be sold/passed on.
Sigh... your ignorance is both astounding and apparently impenetrable to the facts straight from the microsoft xbox website. I have no idea how you can stand by your unequivocal and absolute statement when microsoft has clearly stated that the ability to sell used xbox games is conditional and dependent entirely on the whims of other corporate entities.
Kanluwen wrote: The publishers enabling sale is not relevant.
The discs and licenses can be sold/passed on.
Sigh... your ignorance is both astounding and apparently impenetrable to the facts straight from the microsoft xbox website. I have no idea how you can stand by your unequivocal and absolute statement when microsoft has clearly stated that the ability to sell used xbox games is conditional and dependent entirely on the whims of other corporate entities.
Kanluwen wrote: The publishers enabling sale is not relevant.
The discs and licenses can be sold/passed on.
Sigh... your ignorance is both astounding and apparently impenetrable to the facts straight from the microsoft xbox website. I have no idea how you can stand by your unequivocal and absolute statement when microsoft has clearly stated that the ability to sell used xbox games is conditional and dependent entirely on the whims of other corporate entities.
Can discs be resold?
Absolutely... and they make great coasters and frisbies if their publisher won't allow used game sales. But of course, your original statement said "titles" and your second one "titles and licenses"... Are you trying to move the goal posts all the way down the field by rephrasing the statements (plural) in terms of just the physical discs now that have no use if sale of the tagged license isn't allowed?
Kanluwen wrote: The publishers enabling sale is not relevant.
The discs and licenses can be sold/passed on.
Sigh... your ignorance is both astounding and apparently impenetrable to the facts straight from the microsoft xbox website. I have no idea how you can stand by your unequivocal and absolute statement when microsoft has clearly stated that the ability to sell used xbox games is conditional and dependent entirely on the whims of other corporate entities.
Can discs be resold?
Absolutely... and they make great coasters and frisbies if their publisher won't allow used game sales. But of course, your original statement said "titles" and your second one "titles and licenses"... Are you trying to move the goal posts all the way down the field by rephrasing the statements (plural) in terms of just the physical discs now that have no use if sale of the tagged license isn't allowed?
What publisher is not going to allow used game sales at this point?
Please, find me a statement from these publishers that they will not be allowing used game sales.
The WHOLE POINT of this new system is that the publishers and developers take a cut and so does Microsoft.
Why would they bother implementing this system and forcing it upon retailers if the system was not going to be used?
What publisher is not going to allow used game sales at this point?
Is that a serious question? It's not like publishers rail about used game sales all the time or anything.
Please, find me a statement from these publishers that they will not be allowing used game sales.
Find me one that says they will (i.e. this is not an argument). You could just point out that EA executives have pointed to not wanting to use the feature but they haven't come out and said anything nor have Ubisoft or Activision as far as I know and that's practically half the AAA game's industry right there. Given the history of the publishers and their complaints about used games it is not irrational for people to see these ending in the worst case scenario especially since the companies in question aren't saying much.
What about someone who gets banned not for hacking the game, but for being verbally abusive or a general ass? I definitely agree that these people should be banned from online play, but they shouldn't have their 500 dollar machine turn into a brick just because they're a jerk.
Unfortunately, microsoft has been very inconsistent with their messaging regarding this over the past week. I saw a youtube video interview with Major Nelson where he said you would only be excluded from online play for douchebaggery but the xbox twitter feed explicitly stated you'd lose all your licenses (which in the case of the xbone means all access).
What publisher is not going to allow used game sales at this point?
Is that a serious question? It's not like publishers rail about used game sales all the time or anything.
They rail about the fact that the publishers do not get a cut.
There's a difference there, would you not agree?
Please, find me a statement from these publishers that they will not be allowing used game sales.
Find me one that says they will (i.e. this is not an argument). You could just point out that EA executives have pointed to not wanting to use the feature but they haven't come out and said anything nor have Ubisoft or Activision as far as I know and that's practically half the AAA game's industry right there. Given the history of the publishers and their complaints about used games it is not irrational for people to see these ending in the worst case scenario especially since the companies in question aren't saying much.
That's a fair point, but at the same time this is EA, Ubisoft, and Activision we are discussing.
They will likely have some kind of 'rule' in place which makes it so that the price of a used game is so close to that of a new game--or even more than a new game--that it will be detrimental to the used game sellers.
Kanluwen wrote: They will likely have some kind of 'rule' in place which makes it so that the price of a used game is so close to that of a new game--or even more than a new game--that it will be detrimental to the used game sellers.
So no matter which way you cut it, it's still detrimental to the consumers and the players, and that's the problem with the policy in the first place.
Kanluwen wrote: They will likely have some kind of 'rule' in place which makes it so that the price of a used game is so close to that of a new game--or even more than a new game--that it will be detrimental to the used game sellers.
So no matter which way you cut it, it's still detrimental to the consumers and the players, and that's the problem with the policy in the first place.
How is that "detrimental to the consumers and players"?
No matter how GameStop spins it--they're going to be vomiting money unless they can sucker people into buying a used game. What person is going to buy a USED game and the license associated with it when they can buy the same game, brand new, for cheaper?
Where is the idea that brand new games are cheaper coming from?
It's speculation on my part, mostly hinging upon the idea that "Gamestop are greedy and will not enjoy having fingers in their pie".
If GameStop is going to sell used games to retain their normal profit margins, they're going to have to adjust prices in relation to the fact that they will no longer be getting 100% of that profit. The developers are getting 10%, publishers 10%, and Microsoft 20%.
That's 40% of that used game's profit gone on that resale. Consider that the information we have right now points towards "each game can only be resold by a shop one time", and it's a huge middle finger to GameStop who make their bank on peddling the newest games used to people.
The reason why Gamestop makes so much money off of used games is because it has to. New videogames sales make very little money for the retailer (I've heard numbers less than 2%).
If we're going to talk about greed here, look at Microsoft and the publishers who demonize used game sales, but then turn around and offer exclusive content to be sold at Gamestop.
And it's not like used sales are killing the industry, it's only been growing. This is just a money grab.
Fafnir wrote: The reason why Gamestop makes so much money off of used games is because it has to. New videogames sales make very little money for the retailer (I've heard numbers less than 2%).
Are we talking about for GameStop exclusively?
If so: of course "new game sales make very little money" for them. Their whole system is built around used games. They do everything they can to keep new videogames on the shelves, rather than selling them.
If we're going to talk about greed here, look at Microsoft and the publishers who demonize used game sales, but then turn around and offer exclusive content to be sold at Gamestop.
And it's not like used sales are killing the industry, it's only been growing. This is just a money grab.
It's a money grab that is justified. The average triple A title is sold anywhere from 2 to 5 times from GameStop, depending on if it is a multiplayer or a singleplayer title and the staggering of their downloadable content releases.
Game stop really isn't going to be hurt by this. As much as publishes complain, they still bend over backwards to be friends with gamestop. Also I doubt games could exist without game stop.
Fafnir wrote: At the end of the day, this will hurt independent retailers the most, since they likely won't be approved used game retailers for the X1.
Well it will hurt consumers the most, but small retailers and video rental will be next in line. That's what really disappoints me about the way the business fights used games. They ever actually go after gamestop. If gamestop really is killing your business, then there are ways you can fight back and force gamestop to play nice. The problem is the publishers only punish the consumers.
Kanluwen wrote: They will likely have some kind of 'rule' in place which makes it so that the price of a used game is so close to that of a new game--or even more than a new game--that it will be detrimental to the used game sellers.
So no matter which way you cut it, it's still detrimental to the consumers and the players, and that's the problem with the policy in the first place.
How is that "detrimental to the consumers and players"?
No matter how GameStop spins it--they're going to be vomiting money unless they can sucker people into buying a used game. What person is going to buy a USED game and the license associated with it when they can buy the same game, brand new, for cheaper?
I... think you just reinforced my point... When all prices are higher, that doesn't mean people buy more new games necessarily, it means people buy (and play) less games. Game developers are a business, and they deserve to make money, but they are also artists, and want people to experience what they make. If used games cost about the same as new, then what that means is that people will take less risks on a new developer. They don't have an established pedigree behind them, so why should I toss 60 bucks on something that may or may not be good? I'm totally willing to risk 15 or 20 though, and hey, maybe now I have a new trusted developer that I will buy new from! I can tell you for sure that of the last 10 games I bought, maybe three of them were new, and of the used ones I think I would have been willing to pay full price for maybe two or three of them.
Yes, Sony. This was NOT Microsoft's decision. It was Sony who forced Microsoft to take this step. Sony stepped in for gamers while Microsoft spit at their faces.
Yes, Sony. This was NOT Microsoft's decision. It was Sony who forced Microsoft to take this step. Sony stepped in for gamers while Microsoft spit at their faces.
This could be the biggest backtrack in gaming history: Microsoft will reverse course on their DRM policies for Xbox One, dropping their 24-hour Internet check-in requirement and all restrictions on used games.
They had no other choice. They could have either taken this route or lost the console war. And when you're faced with total defeat...M$ decided to fall on their knees, begging for forgiveness.
Sigvatr wrote: Sony could have gone the same way M$ did. They decided not to. Without that decision, we'd have ridiculous DRM restrictions on consoles now.
So yes, that's Sony. Send nice E-Mails to their support.
Let's not pretend that it's Sony doing something for the gamers though.
They've known about Orbis since Microsoft licensed it from them. This is simply Sony playing to a crowd, and people buying into it as the "gamer friendly" angle.
Sigvatr wrote: Sony could have gone the same way M$ did. They decided not to. Without that decision, we'd have ridiculous DRM restrictions on consoles now.
Then you should thank Microsoft. The internet's reaction to the Xbone helped them make their decision to not do similiar things they were mulling over.
Sigvatr wrote: Sony could have gone the same way M$ did. They decided not to. Without that decision, we'd have ridiculous DRM restrictions on consoles now.
So yes, that's Sony. Send nice E-Mails to their support.
This is simply Sony playing to a crowd, and people buying into it as the "gamer friendly" angle.
Sony can both take advantage of the situation and be gamer friendly if their opportunism benefits the gamer. That was kind of the point. Play to what gamers wanted i.e. giving them what they want i.e. being friendly too them and in exchange they get to sell more consoles.
Then you should thank Microsoft. The internet's reaction to the Xbone helped them make their decision to not do similiar things they were mulling over.
They would have likely never backed off had Sony gone the same route. I'm all for pointing out that Sony was just taking advantage of the situation to score themselves points but lets also be real and just admit that Sony's decision had a major impact on the direction of this next generation of consoles. Had both Sony and Microsoft gone the same route I find it unlikely either would have backed off no matter the outrage.
Kudos to Microsoft for having the balls to realize they needed to back off. XBone is back on the table. I don't like the kinect but depending on games I'll consider living with it.
Last week at E3, the excitement, creativity and future of our industry was on display for a global audience.
For us, the future comes in the form of Xbox One, a system designed to be the best place to play games this year and for many years to come. As is our heritage with Xbox, we designed a system that could take full advantage of advances in technology in order to deliver a breakthrough in game play and entertainment. We imagined a new set of benefits such as easier roaming, family sharing, and new ways to try and buy games. We believe in the benefits of a connected, digital future.
Since unveiling our plans for Xbox One, my team and I have heard directly from many of you, read your comments and listened to your feedback. I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your assistance in helping us to reshape the future of Xbox One.
You told us how much you loved the flexibility you have today with games delivered on disc. The ability to lend, share, and resell these games at your discretion is of incredible importance to you. Also important to you is the freedom to play offline, for any length of time, anywhere in the world.
So, today I am announcing the following changes to Xbox One and how you can play, share, lend, and resell your games exactly as you do today on Xbox 360. Here is what that means:
An internet connection will not be required to play offline Xbox One games – After a one-time system set-up with a new Xbox One, you can play any disc based game without ever connecting online again. There is no 24 hour connection requirement and you can take your Xbox One anywhere you want and play your games, just like on Xbox 360.
Trade-in, lend, resell, gift, and rent disc based games just like you do today – There will be no limitations to using and sharing games, it will work just as it does today on Xbox 360.
In addition to buying a disc from a retailer, you can also download games from Xbox Live on day of release. If you choose to download your games, you will be able to play them offline just like you do today. Xbox One games will be playable on any Xbox One console -- there will be no regional restrictions.
These changes will impact some of the scenarios we previously announced for Xbox One. The sharing of games will work as it does today, you will simply share the disc. Downloaded titles cannot be shared or resold. Also, similar to today, playing disc based games will require that the disc be in the tray.
We appreciate your passion, support and willingness to challenge the assumptions of digital licensing and connectivity. While we believe that the majority of people will play games online and access the cloud for both games and entertainment, we will give consumers the choice of both physical and digital content. We have listened and we have heard loud and clear from your feedback that you want the best of both worlds.
Thank you again for your candid feedback. Our team remains committed to listening, taking feedback and delivering a great product for you later this year.
Also you don't need to connect it online and install every game. You just need an initial setup to configure the console to the cloud much like you did with current consoles (excluding the cloud) and then you can play game as normal like you do now. I think this is a big game changer
Sigvatr wrote: Sony could have gone the same way M$ did. They decided not to. Without that decision, we'd have ridiculous DRM restrictions on consoles now.
Then you should thank Microsoft. The internet's reaction to the Xbone helped them make their decision to not do similiar things they were mulling over.
Sony forced Microsoft to take that step. Microsoft did not give a single pooh about gamers. They wanted to treat them like trash. Force them into DRM hell. Only buy full-price limited licenses. And then? Sony slapped them in their face...from left to right. And what did Microsoft do? They pulled a 180. They gently bent over.
In the end, thanking Sony alone isn't true either. They simply took advantage of how poorly M$ understands the market. It's Sony's decision and, most of all, the massive uproar by the gamers. Special thanks to the guys at the Sony E3 conference. I'd imagine M$ CEOs raging when they saw it.
Yes, Sony. This was NOT Microsoft's decision. It was Sony who forced Microsoft to take this step. Sony stepped in for gamers while Microsoft spit at their faces.
Yes, Sony. This was NOT Microsoft's decision. It was Sony who forced Microsoft to take this step. Sony stepped in for gamers while Microsoft spit at their faces.
I got to say even though this is a good thing. I am disappointed this didn't end in blood. If MS had gone to release whit this it would have killed them and put the fear of gamers back into the publishers and console makers.
Well, this changes everything. At this point there's actually a choice to be made. I'm glad the things keeping me from getting the Xbone are gone, but it is still pricier and has the Kinect. I'm not against the Kinect itself so much, just against it being mandatory and jacking up the price.
But hey, this is great news, looks like I may be playing Halo 5 after all!
This is altogether a great development. Glad Microsoft did the right thing.
I still don't particularly want one though, that big lump with a camera on it still strikes me as a waste of money. I don't really enjoy music/rhythm games, which are the only things that kinect can enrich. I also still think the future of games according to Sony is brighter.
How is it possibly too late? We still have FIVE months until those two plastic boxes with wires inside them come out. Did people forgive Playstation when it was hacked? Yes. Do people still use McAfee? Yes.
OK MS fethed up however E3 was just round one of the console wars. More can change up until the day they ship the console out! I am by no standard an Xbox one fanboy since I own both current gen consoles.
However some of the blind remarks that certain people make with analysing the true current situation is really irritating. At the end of the day it is a machine for playing games on! Your iphone has a camera that faces you, so does your laptop. I don't see people complaining about that.
It almost seems that the first problem that MS created has been used as a scapegoat to just undermine any further improvements they make just since people listen to what ever they are told to these days. I feel that people are not making their own decisions. Majority of people I know are basing their decisions on what X and Y have on YouTube or other websites and have not really realized what they want. If you see it there are both consoles that pretty much play the same games at pretty much the same graphics level.
We get it daed, you're a big X-Box fan and have been excusing/apologising for the shortcomings of the system since it was first announced. None of us can really figure out why you took this tact, choosing to defend ludicrious decisions like 24-hour check-ins and no trading games and whatnot, making it out as if these problems were minor, but at the end of the day we had one system offering all of these restrictions and one offering none, and you've chosen to laugh and ridicule those that don't want those restrictions.
And now Microsoft backtracks heavily with a massive mea culpa, and you're still laughing at those who disagreed with you?
We get it daed, you're a big X-Box fan and have been excusing/apologising for the shortcomings of the system since it was first announced. None of us can really figure out why you took this tact, choosing to defend ludicrious decisions like 24-hour check-ins and no trading games and whatnot, making it out as if these problems were minor, but at the end of the day we had one system offering all of these restrictions and one offering none, and you've chosen to laugh and ridicule those that don't want those restrictions.
And now Microsoft backtracks heavily with a massive mea culpa, and you're still laughing at those who disagreed with you?
No, I never defended their policies; as a matter of fact I thought they were foolish; I mean, other than the 10 person sharing circle. I thought Sony had a great E3, and I think their system looks quite solid; I personally want them BOTH to have success, because good competition is good for us.
I am making light of the fact he claims we should be falling to our knees and kissing Sony's feet for delivering us from the EVIL EMPIRE of M$.
I'm laughing because of the language used in here, and how ridiculous it is.
"THANK SONY, THEY SAVED GAMERS"
"TOO LITTLE M$, YOU LOSE THIS GENERATION"
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, this is just a tiny microcosm of the internet outrage machine.
So don't tell me I'm defending gak when I'm not, thanks. Just because I haven't been RAILING against said policies publicly, doesn't mean I don't like them.
Is it just me or is daedalus just being ignored by most people. It is funny how this is the strange thing that is happening to Microsoft right now. Daedalus and MS are making good points - just no one wants to listen to them for some reason...
Vivster wrote: Is it just me or is daedalus just being ignored by most people. It is funny how this is the strange thing that is happening to Microsoft right now. Daedalus and MS are making good points - just no one wants to listen to them for some reason...
nop, COD fanbody babby
real talk: Thankfully after this move, people in Portugal(and plenty of other countries that weren't going to be included at launch) can actually get an xbox because their crazy region locks and absurd 24hr checkin/always on is gone. A fellow on another forum I frequent mentioned this.
You could ask the same thing regarding Sony. I don't trust either of them in general, they'd both like the used games market to die, and it probably will next generation, if not by the end of this one.
One of my biggest issues over the whole E3 situation. was Sony making cheap points with no substance, when their prior actions and murmuring indicate they'd love to do exactly the same thing Microsoft was proposing.
Because of the overwhelmingly negative and vocal reaction to the xbone's DRM (among many other things), you can *NOW* sell used games. Now if only they'd add in backward compatibility, I'd get one and just put up with KinectHAL.
Sigvatr wrote: Sony could have gone the same way M$ did. They decided not to. Without that decision, we'd have ridiculous DRM restrictions on consoles now.
Then you should thank Microsoft. The internet's reaction to the Xbone helped them make their decision to not do similiar things they were mulling over.
Sony forced Microsoft to take that step. Microsoft did not give a single pooh about gamers. They wanted to treat them like trash. Force them into DRM hell. Only buy full-price limited licenses. And then? Sony slapped them in their face...from left to right. And what did Microsoft do? They pulled a 180. They gently bent over.
In the end, thanking Sony alone isn't true either. They simply took advantage of how poorly M$ understands the market. It's Sony's decision and, most of all, the massive uproar by the gamers. Special thanks to the guys at the Sony E3 conference. I'd imagine M$ CEOs raging when they saw it.
wowsmash wrote: Well that at least has changed my mind from no purchase to purchase later on down the road. Depending on how the system performs.
It wasn't to clear on the kinect though. Is it still mandatory or optional now?
KGB Kinect is still mandatory. Only the online check-in and selling of used games has changed from my quick reading. Still no backward compatibility as well.
Perkustin wrote:This is altogether a great development. Glad Microsoft did the right thing.
I still don't particularly want one though, that big lump with a camera on it still strikes me as a waste of money. I don't really enjoy music/rhythm games, which are the only things that kinect can enrich. I also still think the future of games according to Sony is brighter.
Rail Shooters / Lightgun games (which I would love to see some more of on the xbox tbh)
I feel that console Real Time Strategies would benefit from a Kinect interface aswell, but again, haven't seen anyone try that.
Potentially a classic style RPG would work nicely too.
We have more than enough disjointed activity games.
Also, while not to my (or probabley your) taste (though to my fiancees) - those cutsey puke animal games like Kinectimals work pretty well with it.
Oh - and there's fitness things too.
And a lot of games that don't benefit from a pure kinect interface, can benefit from a partial one. i.e. Voice Commands, or even certain gestures for in game actions.
Happy they removed the Region lock... rest.. yeah, didn't really care about that anyway.
I am amused by the praise of sony though. They didn't do anything, they didn't change anything, they are just keeping the system we have now (which at it's core is broken too).
I still have small spattering of respect for MS for at least trying to jumpstart the full digital way of doing thins, sad they messed it up though.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Keep in mind that the Kinect's HAL functions are less of an issue if you don't have to connect to the internet.
Plus if their earlier statements about the settings for the thing are still to be believed, you can completely turn the Kinect off, even the "listening for you to say Xbox on" mode. Unfortunately, that then leaves you with a small brick you payed 100 dollars for...
H.B.M.C. wrote: Keep in mind that the Kinect's HAL functions are less of an issue if you don't have to connect to the internet.
True, hadn't thought of that. If I got one, my plan was to leave the entire thing unplugged from the power source when not being used (both xbox and kinect).
All disc-based games can be played without ever connecting online, and the 24-hour connection requirement has been dropped, according to an update to a May post concerning questions about the new device, due to be released this fall.
Additionally, there will be no limitations to using and sharing games, Don Mattrick, president of the Interactive Entertainment Business division, says in the post. People will be able to share, trade or resell their games in the same way they do for Xbox 360 games
Now people can only get upset about the price difference
All disc-based games can be played without ever connecting online, and the 24-hour connection requirement has been dropped, according to an update to a May post concerning questions about the new device, due to be released this fall.
Additionally, there will be no limitations to using and sharing games, Don Mattrick, president of the Interactive Entertainment Business division, says in the post. People will be able to share, trade or resell their games in the same way they do for Xbox 360 games
Now people can only get upset about the price difference
We get it daed, you're a big X-Box fan and have been excusing/apologising for the shortcomings of the system since it was first announced. None of us can really figure out why you took this tact, choosing to defend ludicrious decisions like 24-hour check-ins and no trading games and whatnot, making it out as if these problems were minor, but at the end of the day we had one system offering all of these restrictions and one offering none, and you've chosen to laugh and ridicule those that don't want those restrictions.
And now Microsoft backtracks heavily with a massive mea culpa, and you're still laughing at those who disagreed with you?
No, I never defended their policies; as a matter of fact I thought they were foolish; I mean, other than the 10 person sharing circle. I thought Sony had a great E3, and I think their system looks quite solid; I personally want them BOTH to have success, because good competition is good for us.
I am making light of the fact he claims we should be falling to our knees and kissing Sony's feet for delivering us from the EVIL EMPIRE of M$.
I'm laughing because of the language used in here, and how ridiculous it is.
"THANK SONY, THEY SAVED GAMERS"
"TOO LITTLE M$, YOU LOSE THIS GENERATION"
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, this is just a tiny microcosm of the internet outrage machine.
So don't tell me I'm defending gak when I'm not, thanks. Just because I haven't been RAILING against said policies publicly, doesn't mean I don't like them.
He's not wrong, if you want to rage, go ahead and nerd rage but don't berate your fellow Dakkanauts
We get it daed, you're a big X-Box fan and have been excusing/apologising for the shortcomings of the system since it was first announced. None of us can really figure out why you took this tact, choosing to defend ludicrious decisions like 24-hour check-ins and no trading games and whatnot, making it out as if these problems were minor, but at the end of the day we had one system offering all of these restrictions and one offering none, and you've chosen to laugh and ridicule those that don't want those restrictions.
And now Microsoft backtracks heavily with a massive mea culpa, and you're still laughing at those who disagreed with you?
No, I never defended their policies; as a matter of fact I thought they were foolish; I mean, other than the 10 person sharing circle. I thought Sony had a great E3, and I think their system looks quite solid; I personally want them BOTH to have success, because good competition is good for us.
I am making light of the fact he claims we should be falling to our knees and kissing Sony's feet for delivering us from the EVIL EMPIRE of M$.
I'm laughing because of the language used in here, and how ridiculous it is.
"THANK SONY, THEY SAVED GAMERS"
"TOO LITTLE M$, YOU LOSE THIS GENERATION"
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, this is just a tiny microcosm of the internet outrage machine.
So don't tell me I'm defending gak when I'm not, thanks. Just because I haven't been RAILING against said policies publicly, doesn't mean I don't like them.
He's not wrong, if you want to rage, go ahead and nerd rage but don't berate your fellow Dakkanauts
Now people can only get upset about the price difference
... and the incoherent and contradictory babble that is the "microsoft message" on other issues (like being banned and what happens to your licenses)... and forced kinect purchase and mandatory functioning during use... and no backward compatibility. While the used game and forced online checks were the *most* idiotic "features" about the Xbone to complain about, there are other things that are still important and onerous. The removal of those two horrible ideas is a big step but there still is a ways to go before I'm convinced to buy my third in a row MS console (not counting the 6 xboxes that broke).
The policies were changed because of a systematic propaganda campaign on part of the consumer base.
Shows there's something to be said for internet movements. That Youtube video "Xbox One Reveal Highlights" probably did the greatest damage.
Anyway, everybody wins. Microsoft has another chance to crawl into the sunlight, consumer rights victory, great reopening of opportunity for developers and publishers that chose Xbox One exclusivity.
Maybe you guys could take notes when it comes to codex supplements and GW's online retailer policies. Or not. Your choice.
And I doubt it was just the outcry. In fact, I doubt the outcry was biggest reason they changed. The pre-order disparity between the XBone and the PS4 was probably the biggest kick up the ass.
Microsoft wrote:Since unveiling our plans for Xbox One, my team and I have heard directly from many of you, read your comments and listened to your feedback. I would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your assistance in helping us to reshape the future of Xbox One.
You told us how much you loved the flexibility you have today with games delivered on disc. The ability to lend, share, and resell these games at your discretion is of incredible importance to you. Also important to you is the freedom to play offline, for any length of time, anywhere in the world.
So, today I am announcing the following changes to Xbox One and how you can play, share, lend, and resell your games exactly as you do today on Xbox 360.
Yusuf Mehdi ( CVP, Marketing & Strategy, XBOX / Interactive Entertainment Microsoft Corp.) even said "No point in winning a show, because the test will be the consumer. In the long run our console will win." NOW, he said on his Twitter feed: "Thanks to each of you that took time to share feedback on Xbox One & how we can improve. These updates are for you."
This is further supported by Microsoft's press statement after switching around on the DRM policies.
Microsoft wrote:We have listened and we have heard loud and clear from your feedback that you want the best of both worlds.
Thank you again for your candid feedback. Our team remains committed to listening, taking feedback and delivering a great product for you later this year.
What you just said directly contradicts why Microsoft said they changed the policy. They said they changed it due to feedback, and this has largely been reflected in the press, going both ways, with editorials in effect "blaming" consumers for raising too much of a ruckus and damning a digital-era that they failed to understand, and news stories highlighting the effect that community outcry had upon the product.
And of course Sony changed their minds in the board rooms, with patents existing for similar technology and standing essentially on the edge of implementing identical DRM policies as the Xbox One.
Well it seems the mass outcry of we fans has caused the [REDACTION!] of most of their stupid concepts and idea, now if we can only get rid of the "need" for Kinect, guess that's for the second wave of hate mail eh?
Post announcement, the Xbone reclaimed its spot. In other words there was a direct correlation between public relations and pre orders.
Lol yeah xbox one is back on top
Not so sure about that... we'll see when the sales begin being counted... and i may still switch to PS4 simply out of spite for the junk MS tried to pull... lol
I'm still not getting one. The proof is there that Microsoft wants those features in. If they really want it, they're just a single update and EULA from making it happen. Remember how Sony axed the ability to use different OS's on the PS3? That could easily happen here.
All they have to do is wait a year or so after its released and then quietly start to reinstate those policies. Don't like it? You don't have to sign the EULA, just realize you can't use xBox online anymore. Both companies have pulled stuff like this in the past and I guarantee you we'll see it again. We may not see them outright ban used games, but I could easily see them slipping the 24 hour check in, always on Kinect, and other smaller policies over time. Almost nobody reads those EULA's anyways, they just hit yes and go make coffee or something while they wait for the update. Those EULA's also often say, roughly, "we define what this contract says. By signing it, you give us the right to alter whenever we want, however we want, and as often as we want, what the contract says."
Its the boiling frog trick. Throw it into a boiling pot and it'll hop right out, but if you put the frog in while the water is cool and slowly heat it up, they won't realize how hot it is until its too late.
MrMoustaffa wrote: I'm still not getting one. The proof is there that Microsoft wants those features in. If they really want it, they're just a single update and EULA from making it happen. Remember how Sony axed the ability to use different OS's on the PS3? That could easily happen here.
All they have to do is wait a year or so after its released and then quietly start to reinstate those policies. Don't like it? You don't have to sign the EULA, just realize you can't use xBox online anymore. Both companies have pulled stuff like this in the past and I guarantee you we'll see it again. We may not see them outright ban used games, but I could easily see them slipping the 24 hour check in, always on Kinect, and other smaller policies over time. Almost nobody reads those EULA's anyways, they just hit yes and go make coffee or something while they wait for the update. Those EULA's also often say, roughly, "we define what this contract says. By signing it, you give us the right to alter whenever we want, however we want, and as often as we want, what the contract says."
Its the boiling frog trick. Throw it into a boiling pot and it'll hop right out, but if you put the frog in while the water is cool and slowly heat it up, they won't realize how hot it is until its too late.
THIS^
It's sad how many people are heads over heels scrambling over to forgive Microsoft for the stunt they just tried to pull that included policies that SHOULDN'T have been there to begin with. New way of the future? More like a future of trying to set up a system that will drain you for as much cash as possible at every angle. Microsoft doesn't give a flaming fart what the consumers think considering they basically told them to shut up and buy an 360 if they didn't have internet. It's only because of Sony taking the opportunity to twist the knife on Microsoft's terrible PR alongside the disparity in pre-orders as well as even fidgety developers thinking of jumping off the Microsoft ship that they finally realized their gamble for more monies was denied and quickly backpedalled to seem like they were genuinely considering/listening to the public even though their clearly arbitrary restrictions should have made it obvious that they were bad ideas from the start.
Seriously what's stopping them from adding these policies back in once enough people have bought the Xbox One? Even then we still have the Kinect (Big Brother always knows) being mandatory as well as the fact that it still tries to do everything at once to the detriment of being an actual game console; hell it was shown that they used a high end PC (running on Windows 7 no less...) to run their games during their conference on E3. I think I'll stick with PS4 and rolling dice...
Sony patented similar tech last year, there is no hero in this arena, they both want it to happen, SONY just took the easy step at E3 and tried to score points.
If they thought they could implement this without a backlash, they'd do it tomorrow.
My plan is to wait about a year before getting either system. That way, I'll be able to see what promises were kept and what was broken, how each console really holds up under use, and hopefully the price will have dropped by then. My 360's still perfectly good and will keep me going til then.
MandalorynOranj wrote: My plan is to wait about a year before getting either system. That way, I'll be able to see what promises were kept and what was broken, how each console really holds up under use, and hopefully the price will have dropped by then. My 360's still perfectly good and will keep me going til then.
Sir, that is a logical and well thought out approach devoid of passion and jingoism. I am outraged, and will be doing exactly the same thing.
MandalorynOranj wrote: My plan is to wait about a year before getting either system. That way, I'll be able to see what promises were kept and what was broken, how each console really holds up under use, and hopefully the price will have dropped by then. My 360's still perfectly good and will keep me going til then.
Sir, that is a logical and well thought out approach devoid of passion and jingoism. I am outraged, and will be doing exactly the same thing.
Depends what the ongoing support for the 360 is like or whether it gets dropped like a stone in favour of the new shiny thing. I personally would never buy any console at launch, purely because the prices are outrageous - I would rather wait a bit till the tech beds in and prices fall.
Having said all that, there was a rumour doing the rounds recently that the delay/shift in the GTA 5 release date was because Rockstar were planning to make it Xbox One only rather than release on the 360. I really hope that isn't the case.
the mistake microsoft seems to have made, is that they want the high price point for dollars and to provide cloud computing, and DRM, but they aren't harping on the cloud computing.
They need a game like planetside: halo/40k edition, turned up to 11, to be announced with the console to get people on board for the insanity that cloud computing can provide and they would have been more willing to give up their used games but instead they bring out single player games that need to be online for no forseeable reason.
Grundz wrote: the mistake microsoft seems to have made, is that they want the high price point for dollars and to provide cloud computing, and DRM, but they aren't harping on the cloud computing.
They need a game like planetside: halo/40k edition, turned up to 11, to be announced with the console to get people on board for the insanity that cloud computing can provide and they would have been more willing to give up their used games but instead they bring out single player games that need to be online for no forseeable reason.
The DRM thing has been dropped, the always online 24 hour check in was also dropped.
Grundz wrote: the mistake microsoft seems to have made, is that they want the high price point for dollars and to provide cloud computing, and DRM, but they aren't harping on the cloud computing.
They need a game like planetside: halo/40k edition, turned up to 11, to be announced with the console to get people on board for the insanity that cloud computing can provide and they would have been more willing to give up their used games but instead they bring out single player games that need to be online for no forseeable reason.
The DRM thing has been dropped, the always online 24 hour check in was also dropped.
nomotog wrote: I wonder how many games will pull a sim city and use the cloud as DRM.
I'm sure some will (and EA would be amongst the most likely since they did it with your example of sim city and lied about it). I don't think though that the recent license change and removal of 24 hour check in will change who would try that though. If they're using the could as DRM, they'll likely use it constantly (even if for only tiny amounts of data).
Some of them will legitimately use it for background processing away from the action but it's not going to be used for on the fly frame to frame dependent stuff. I remember seeing a calculation that even with good internet download and upload speeds, the latency inherent between the cloud and the player as well as download speeds is nothing compared to within the console data transfer speeds. That's not to say that it won't make a difference though. In a skyrim type of game, it'll likely be used for stuff like background weather and animal patterns and townspeople (outside of interactable range) activity. What will be interesting is when a company includes the *OPTION* to use the cloud for stuff like that. I expect to see videos on youtube of the same town/scene with the cloud both on and off to see the difference.
I do think the abandonment of family sharing for digital only purchases is a reactionary mistake on the part of microsoft. If the original purchase was only digital, allowing disc swapping for *someone else* doesn't change the likelihood of the digital only person trying to steal the game. If someone buys a digital only version of a game, give them the option at purchase of the current 360 method (it's tied to one account/xbox and you must be online logged into your own account to use it elsewhere) or the xbone method (must be checked in ever 24 hours, can use it anywhere if checked in within 1 hour, share freely with 10 "family"). The check-in and inability to transfer licenses freely was an incredibly stupid idea for disc based games but it makes for a good future proof option for digital only purchases. Overall, the abandonment of forced DRM for disc games outweighs the loss of family sharing for digital purchases but the two are in no way, shape, or form opposed to each other.
The cloud (as long as it's used as an OPTION for single player stuff instead of a requirement) is another good idea on the part of microsoft that was obscured by the stink of forced DRM.
Grundz wrote: the mistake microsoft seems to have made, is that they want the high price point for dollars and to provide cloud computing, and DRM, but they aren't harping on the cloud computing.
They need a game like planetside: halo/40k edition, turned up to 11, to be announced with the console to get people on board for the insanity that cloud computing can provide and they would have been more willing to give up their used games but instead they bring out single player games that need to be online for no forseeable reason.
The DRM thing has been dropped, the always online 24 hour check in was also dropped.
It can quickly come back. Imagine Halo getting mandatory cloud features. Suddenly, DRM.
Grundz wrote: the mistake microsoft seems to have made, is that they want the high price point for dollars and to provide cloud computing, and DRM, but they aren't harping on the cloud computing.
They need a game like planetside: halo/40k edition, turned up to 11, to be announced with the console to get people on board for the insanity that cloud computing can provide and they would have been more willing to give up their used games but instead they bring out single player games that need to be online for no forseeable reason.
The DRM thing has been dropped, the always online 24 hour check in was also dropped.
It can quickly come back. Imagine Halo getting mandatory cloud features. Suddenly, DRM.
Post announcement, the Xbone reclaimed its spot. In other words there was a direct correlation between public relations and pre orders.
Lol yeah xbox one is back on top
Not so sure about that... we'll see when the sales begin being counted... and i may still switch to PS4 simply out of spite for the junk MS tried to pull... lol
I'm one of those.. maybe principled shoppers aren't that significant a factor?
The original propositions by MS with regards to pre-owned games and online registration I think spoke volumes. To me it said, this is the first step, and this is a reminder of what we are going to do if we get to monopolise this industry
I'm not that much of a hardcore gamer, and know that both machines will no doubt have games worth buying - I wasn't that bothered between the two machines previously (and have owned both of the current generation machines) - however the poor build quality of the early 360's and then the subsequent behaviour by MS at the E3 gave off more than a few warning signals.
Not to say that Sony are saints - they are anything but (and it seems to be a thing where arrogance and crappy decisions come from dominance in the marketplace - we've seen it from Nintendo, Sega, Sony and MS all in the past) but they have come off as somewhat less 'evil' than MS out of all of this.
By the way guys.. there is a thread for PS4 discussion, rather than interrupting discussion in this one:
You know. I might be the only one, but I'm kind of excited for the kinect now because it looks like it actually works and it can do all this stuff like measure your heart beat and facial expressions. That's kind of neat. I have an idea for a game that's like a first person game and rather then having a dialog system you would just make faces and that would trigger different responses from your avatar. So if someone said something stupid and you gave them a look then your character might make a sarcastic comment about what is going on, or if you chuckle they chuckle, if your surprised they are surprised too. It would be kind of neat to have your FP avatar respond in thew same way you are.
Another aspect is just game tailoring. It knows when your happy, scared or excited so you could have a game that when you laugh at an off color joke puts in more off color jokes, or if you don't laugh it cuts out the funny stuff. Maybe a horror game that tracks your heart rate to create the exact right scare. Heck it can even do things as simple as fast forwarding a cut-scene when your console hears you yawn.
.
