Xbox One

PS One > Xbox One

968941_157030457817241_920415947_n.jpg
 
JerzeyLegend said:
RSMV, I expect more of you than to feed misconstrued information from fear mongering trolls.
Click to expand...
I'm just taking articles from r/games and reposting them here cause its the xbox one thread. What else am I supposed to post? If you have any "non fear mongering articles" then let me see em cause all the articles Ive seen dont vary much from this. There is hardly any good news articles covering it in a good light and if it is it probably doesn't cover much of the problems that people have with it. Im just posting probable problems and or news coming out for it. And I dont even know if half of this stuff is true cause Microsoft is handling this PR wise horribly.
 
rsmv2you said:
The fuck I'm just taking articles from r/games and reposting them here cause its the XBOX ONE THREAD. The fuck else am I supposed to post. By all means if ya wanna post "true" articles be my guest cause I haven't see any up to whatever your standards of that may be.
Click to expand...

No need to be so hostile Rsmv, Sheesh. I believe Jerezy's point is that you're looking into these articles too much. So far it's been a PR nightmare for Microsoft with conflicting information from the companies employees and they shouldn't be taken so far out of context such as the post regarding privacy. I'd honestly await till E3 and after launch until you make drastic assumptions about a product that is still subject to change before release.
 
Skryter said:
No need to be so hostile Rsmv, Sheesh. I believe Jerezy's point is that you're looking into these articles too much. So far it's been a PR nightmare for Microsoft with conflicting information from the companies employees and they shouldn't be taken so far out of context such as the post regarding privacy. I'd honestly await till E3 and after launch until you make drastic assumptions about a product that is still subject to change before release.
Click to expand...
I was editing my comment, I read jerzeys post wrong/realized my post was a little hostile... Plus its late..sorry


Skryter said:
I'd honestly await till E3 and after launch until you make drastic assumptions about a product that is still subject to change before release.
Click to expand...
True but still this was to give people a first impression of what the xbox one is. So far the general reaction based off confirmed information doesn't look the best, at least for me it doesn't.
 
rsmv2you said:
I was editing my comment, I read jerzeys post wrong/realized my post was a little hostile... Plus its late..sorry



True but still this was to give people a first impression of what the xbox one is. So far the general reaction based off confirmed information doesn't look the best, at least for me it doesn't.
Click to expand...
That's because nobody is using the officially released information, they're all doing exactly as you're doing and putting way too much faith in unofficial sources that already provide conflicting stories.
 
TheGurw said:
That's because nobody is using the officially released information, they're all doing exactly as you're doing and putting way too much faith in unofficial sources that already provide conflicting stories.
Click to expand...
Point taken. Still half the official released info is being conflicted by other official released info. I posted those articles in the heat of info coming out and should probably edit them to not sound so "confirmed" but I'll leave them.. Also I'm posting these articles regardless with a what if aspect cause right now any info on questionable topics could be true and not posting anything just results in same discussion. And I'm posting them for discussion, not for confirmation purposes.
 
JerzeyLegend said:
So I read some more posts here....

This is a console. This isn't a PC. Stop trying to get the two on a level playing field. It isn't going to happen (not for awhile). Since Microsoft has started development of this console, we have seen nearly two GPU generation releases. This isn't going to have bleeding edge hardware. It's just impossible. It's a console, it's primary directive is to play console games, and is optimized to do just that.
Click to expand...
Did you watch the reveal? Because they didn't talk much about games, it was about how the new "system" (I'm not wholly convinced it's a game console) can do all of these other things not related to gaming at all. Most of the games they mentioned were sports titles. A few third party developers announced afterwards their games would be released on the Xbox1 (XB1?), but that wasn't any huge news.

It was revealed yesterday. It still has three seasons before it's released (I'm assuming by XMas). That's PLENTY of time to tweak the design, layout, software, and any last minute hardware tweaks. While I agree that first impression leaves the most lasting, it was simply a reveal. More like a teaser reveal. Here's the xbox, here's some of what it can do, now wait until E3. PS4 did the same thing. At least we know what the Xbox looks like.
Click to expand...
You're right, and I'm reserving final judgment until after E3. This first impression wasn't a very good one (neither was Sony's, IMO) and it's leaving me less excited than I was Monday for the new system. One point I read was that this reveal was merely meant to showcase the other things the XB1 can do, and E3 will be focused soley on games. My qualm with this is that most of the people who watched this reveal were the gamers! It left a lot of people feeling a little turned off by the XB1, and that means there is a bit more ground MS will have to make up for in a couple of weeks.

The online requirement? I'm fine with that. When masses stop pirating, then the DRM will stop. It doesn't require constant connection, and won't shut down when you're crap internet goes down.
Click to expand...
I'm glad that MS isn't requiring the console be always on, but the idea of always on games isn't very appealing. My internet connection is fine, but my bandwidth is finite, and I don't want to have things I'm not currently using hogging any of it regardless of how minimal that usage may be.

Charging a fee when you buy a used game? That's kind of shitty, but I approve if these two conditions are met: The fee is minimal (say $5), and Microsoft passes a portion of the fees to the developers. The used game market is all profit for the stores. They pay out very little and then turn around and sell it for 200% in most cases. Now, say borrowing a game from a friend, perhaps MS can make it so that if someone on your friends list plays a game attached to your account, it will let them play it. Since you want to compare PC to console, Steam does NOT allow you to do this at all. Perhaps Xbox can allow guest passes to be handed out. :3 Now this move hurts lower class families who might have saved up enough to get a console, but can't afford new releases. Or the collector gamer who wants to go down Nostalgia Lane and find some old goodies later in the consoles life. I'm sure they will find some sort of balance, or reasonable price.
Click to expand...
Those two conditions probably won't be met. The fee that is being talked about probably won't be as much as a new game, but I doubt it'll be that low. I really can't speak about the latter part of that comment, because that would probably need to be something explicitly mentioned in the agreements between MS and the other publishers/developers. This and the piracy comment irk me, and here's why: I've got my own physical copy of the game. I've purchased it, and therefore I own it and have the right to do whatever I wish with my physical copy of the game, with exception of making copies of it and selling them. However, if I wanted to sell my own physical copy of the game, I could sell it and the buyer would then be able to play this game without issue. That's how almost every other media product licensing works (including books) and the fact that MS and others are beginning to try to infringe upon that is also an infringement upon my lawful rights. U.S. law has always assumed a "first sale" rule on copyrighted work. This means that a buyer can resell their rightfully purchased copyrighted work later. Adding this barrier to permit second-hand buyers of these games to play them inhibits my ability to sell these games, if I so choose.

Backwards compatibility? Why is this all of a sudden some sort of requirement for consoles? N64 wasn't backwards compatible with SNES. Gamecube didn't play N64 games. Sony got you all spoiled with that illusion of grandeur, and it didn't work for them, or anyone who tried backwards compatibility. It's merely a novelty that we play with for a few days, weeks, maybe months, and then never touch again. If you have the last console, use that. Even cheap shit TVs come with multiple inputs. Hell, the Xbox one has HDMI in. Plug your XBox 360 into the XBox One and you can have a harmonious Xbox centipede.
Click to expand...
Fair point, and I agree.

The Kinect is a vast improvement over the last. It can see up to 7 people I last read. Has much more skeletal recognition, such as fingers, and can even see when your eyes are closed (Kinect Staring Contest Game anyone?). It can see you in near dark, has a wider angle, and better dept location. So I feel any arguments here are invalid.

It's an improvement, simply put. Stronger and faster than Xbox 360. What else was it supposed to do?
Click to expand...
The Kinect seems to be the most-improved device for the whole console, and that's a bit dissapointing. I think the Kinect is an awesome tool, and it can have a lot of cool applications. My concern is the console, and its capabilities for gaming. From that perspective, there wasn't much here that MS offered that I can't find better on a PC. I've already got a cable box, I've already got a BluRay player, I've already got a computer to browse Facebook, and watch Netflix (hell, I can even do that crap on my TV!) so why do I want that on my console, too? It's neat, and if I already didn't have some of these devices (or if they were near the end of their life cycle) I'd probably be a bit more interested in the XB1 right now than I am currently. Show me some actual gameplay of these next-gen games, not pre-rendered footage, and I'll pay a bit more attention.

I don't mean to be dumping on you specifically, Jerzey, but your post was the best that I could put my counter-points to (good post). Microsoft's message wasn't very clear during their reveal, and because of that there were many questions that people had for them that they weren't ready to answer. It's been a bit of a disaster for them, but they have E3 to clear things up and make a stronger message. That's typically where most early adopters will make their decision to buy or not. Like I said earlier, I'm reserving final judgment until E3 but this wasn't what I was expecting, and I want to see how the games look.
 
We can all agree on this one valid point: Whoever is in charge of doing presentations for both Sony and Microsoft... need to be fired. With E3 so fucking close, they BOTH could have waited, and it would have also raised the value of going to E3 even further.
 
moondoggy23 said:
Did you watch the reveal? Because they didn't talk much about games, it was about how the new "system" (I'm not wholly convinced it's a game console) can do all of these other things not related to gaming at all. Most of the games they mentioned were sports titles. A few third party developers announced afterwards their games would be released on the Xbox1 (XB1?), but that wasn't any huge news.


You're right, and I'm reserving final judgment until after E3. This first impression wasn't a very good one (neither was Sony's, IMO) and it's leaving me less excited than I was Monday for the new system. One point I read was that this reveal was merely meant to showcase the other things the XB1 can do, and E3 will be focused soley on games. My qualm with this is that most of the people who watched this reveal were the gamers! It left a lot of people feeling a little turned off by the XB1, and that means there is a bit more ground MS will have to make up for in a couple of weeks.


I'm glad that MS isn't requiring the console be always on, but the idea of always on games isn't very appealing. My internet connection is fine, but my bandwidth is finite, and I don't want to have things I'm not currently using hogging any of it regardless of how minimal that usage may be.


Those two conditions probably won't be met. The fee that is being talked about probably won't be as much as a new game, but I doubt it'll be that low. I really can't speak about the latter part of that comment, because that would probably need to be something explicitly mentioned in the agreements between MS and the other publishers/developers. This and the piracy comment irk me, and here's why: I've got my own physical copy of the game. I've purchased it, and therefore I own it and have the right to do whatever I wish with my physical copy of the game, with exception of making copies of it and selling them. However, if I wanted to sell my own physical copy of the game, I could sell it and the buyer would then be able to play this game without issue. That's how almost every other media product licensing works (including books) and the fact that MS and others are beginning to try to infringe upon that is also an infringement upon my lawful rights. U.S. law has always assumed a "first sale" rule on copyrighted work. This means that a buyer can resell their rightfully purchased copyrighted work later. Adding this barrier to permit second-hand buyers of these games to play them inhibits my ability to sell these games, if I so choose.


Fair point, and I agree.


The Kinect seems to be the most-improved device for the whole console, and that's a bit dissapointing. I think the Kinect is an awesome tool, and it can have a lot of cool applications. My concern is the console, and its capabilities for gaming. From that perspective, there wasn't much here that MS offered that I can't find better on a PC. I've already got a cable box, I've already got a BluRay player, I've already got a computer to browse Facebook, and watch Netflix (hell, I can even do that crap on my TV!) so why do I want that on my console, too? It's neat, and if I already didn't have some of these devices (or if they were near the end of their life cycle) I'd probably be a bit more interested in the XB1 right now than I am currently. Show me some actual gameplay of these next-gen games, not pre-rendered footage, and I'll pay a bit more attention.

I don't mean to be dumping on you specifically, Jerzey, but your post was the best that I could put my counter-points to (good post). Microsoft's message wasn't very clear during their reveal, and because of that there were many questions that people had for them that they weren't ready to answer. It's been a bit of a disaster for them, but they have E3 to clear things up and make a stronger message. That's typically where most early adopters will make their decision to buy or not. Like I said earlier, I'm reserving final judgment until E3 but this wasn't what I was expecting, and I want to see how the games look.
Click to expand...

Great argument.

Let's only touch on your piracy argument. Yes. Once you own something, you can do with whatever you want with it. They aren't impeding on that liberty. You install it to your xbox, it creates a license for that system (so everyone who is on that Xbox can play). You can freely play.

When you hand it off to be sold. They aren't impeding on that either.

The person who buys it used is getting shit on. EA already has this system in place and it didn't work out for them. So much outcry happened that they decided to drop the system. Microsoft is going to have one hell of a time with this, because either they are going to have to make developers put a serial in every game, or put markers on the disc. What about people who steal the serial keys? This also kills the rental market like Gamefly and such.

Now... here is why I WANT some sort of system like this in place, but it's a pipe dream so bare with me. I want the developers, especially ones of GOOD titles to be able to continue making money even after the game has entered mostly used market. SOME developers work hard, and they make awesome gems of a game. Those people should continue to make money, hell even tens of years from now when someone is going old school. Like I said, it's a pipe dream.

I love these discussions. Always a pleasure Moondoggy.
 
JerzeyLegend said:
Great argument.

Let's only touch on your piracy argument. Yes. Once you own something, you can do with whatever you want with it. They aren't impeding on that liberty. You install it to your xbox, it creates a license for that system (so everyone who is on that Xbox can play). You can freely play.

When you hand it off to be sold. They aren't impeding on that either.

The person who buys it used is getting shit on. EA already has this system in place and it didn't work out for them. So much outcry happened that they decided to drop the system. Microsoft is going to have one hell of a time with this, because either they are going to have to make developers put a serial in every game, or put markers on the disc. What about people who steal the serial keys? This also kills the rental market like Gamefly and such.

Now... here is why I WANT some sort of system like this in place, but it's a pipe dream so bare with me. I want the developers, especially ones of GOOD titles to be able to continue making money even after the game has entered mostly used market. SOME developers work hard, and they make awesome gems of a game. Those people should continue to make money, hell even tens of years from now when someone is going old school. Like I said, it's a pipe dream.

I love these discussions. Always a pleasure Moondoggy.
Click to expand...
For now, when I sell a game, there is no impediment for the second-hand user. Microsoft is looking to change that for the second-hand user, which will then influence the price I can get for a pre-owned game (either at GameStop or selling on Criagslist/eBay). I'm not looking to make a profit selling my pre-owned games, I just want to try to mitigate and diminish the loss I took when I bought the game to begin with. Adding these restrictions to pre-owned games limits what I may be able to get reselling, and it will also limit what I could get if I traded it in at a store like GameStop. Trying to cut profits out the second-hand market to make more of your own is going to wind up hurting the entire game industry. This whole issue needs some better clarification from MS, but what they seem to be offering is going to be a dealbreaker for me and probably a lot of other people.

I think the idea of developers getting (for lack of a better term) royalties for their work over time is a difficult concept to implement into games, or any other copyrighted work, really. Writers, artists, and musicians all miss out on the secondary market after their work's initial sale. That's the life of someone in the entertainment business. For some, the current business model is to sign a contract with a publisher/distributer to print or recreate the work for mass distribution for a percentage of the sales, in exchange for money to help that person create the work. Independent game developers lose out of that cash cow of signing with a publisher, but in turn can ask for lower prices for their work, and also add in links in their games for donations so they can make more games. Large developers (like BioWare or Dice) are unable to ask for donation because of their contract with the publisher. Whatever money they make from said game, a portion of that must go to that publisher. Having the option to give my money directly to the developer because they made a game I thoroughly enjoy is a great idea, and I'd be inclined to pay more if that were the case and sometimes I do pay a little bit extra for an Indie game that I probably wouldn't have otherwise because it's to keep that company/person afloat to make more games I enjoy. It's cliched, but ultimately you vote with your wallet, and that's what gets companies' attention.

Perhaps this whole sub-topic should be made into it's own thread. I think we should digress back to the original topic. Xbox One: Meh.
 
The only console I own currently is the Wii. The reason i own that is because my kids play it constantly. For some reason they dig the Wii Fit. I play the bowling game on the party pack thing that's it.

I have a PC and a laptop for all my gaming needs. I already have so many games that i can't play them all. Also if i want to play any console game i can just download an emulator and play it.

I'm not bashing consoles I just already have the "next gen" gaming system every time I add an upgrade to my power tower. It's already "always on". I can TV, Call of duty, Skype, sports, porn, art, social, video chat, and porn on my power tower. I just don't see a convincing reason to spend the couple hundred dollars on this. Also as a person with a limited income this s one of those "yeah not in the budget till they work the suck out of them" because lets be honest. The first ones always break, overheat, have tiny hard drives compared to later models, and only come in one color.
 
Not to go too far off-track, but still Xbox One related, I think they might do the whole "charge for multiplayer access" thing. However, you'd still be able to play single-player, etc.

Also I'm curious to see if anyone is going to exploit this thing and drop a full on Windows 8 install on it. I assume the x86-x64 architecture will allow for shit tons of hacks/mods/etc.
 
Wooty said:
?? E3 is a media expo. There is not supposed to be any "value" of going to E3.
Click to expand...

The masses are going to go regardless, but building anticipation and saving it for E3 would have made it a much more worthwhile event. More newsworthy and feature filled.

It shouldn't be a bland expo of game releases. While we aren't the people who are going, everything is still for us anyway.
 
JerzeyLegend said:
Not to go too far off-track, but still Xbox One related, I think they might do the whole "charge for multiplayer access" thing. However, you'd still be able to play single-player, etc.
Click to expand...

As you already know, multiplayer on the XBOX Live system is already a pay per year issue. No Gold Membership = no multiplayer for you.
They already have this model in place and know for sure they would never discontinue a linear year-over-year revenue stream like that.

For me this was the dealbreaker for the XBOX Live system. At least with the Sony Playstation network you can multiplayer with no fee which is brilliant for games such as Little Big Planet. Of course - i never put my CC in their stupid database (saved me from getting hacked).

Unfortunately, I'm not Microsoft's target audience AT ALL. Many of you who know me well realize that about 99% of my time is not playing multiplayer games - I am definitely a fan of the singleplayer campaigns. When I do play the rare multiplayer game is exclusively on the PC. The only game I ever played on the XBOX 360 in multiplayer was the HALO series, and that's IT.

The platform of choice for me now is hand-held - DS Lite, DSiXL, iPhone, and Nexus 7 tablet. There is where the golden age of 2-D pixel art has moved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top