XBox One AND PS4 Discussion

[Macca00]

So MS should treat the Kinect like the Sega CD add on, eh?


....aaaaaand how well did THAT work out?

It makes much more sense to create the core unit without add-ons that splinter the market.

Of course, that's unless you're afraid the boogie man is watching you through the camera all the time, and is secretly devising a plot to take over your brain, steal your girlfriend, kill your dog, and send the black helicopters to transport you to the mothership...

LOL

[Jimmydeicide]

Ahh damn i thought the entertainment was gonna be over now, clearly not. what is clear is im goin ps4 cos xbone has lost the plot and how the hell is it going to work right now isnt it already being made ? so just a quick software update and boom xbox720 ... oooh hockeys on later chumps.

[dbdynsty25]

Well the more powerful system stuff to me is irrelevant. I believe the PS3 was more powerful then the 360 no? How did that work out?

The PS3 was more powerful (allegedly, since the cell processor and emotion engine crap hasn't been used anywhere else), yet impossible to code for, so it suffered from a development standpoint because the 360 was more "PC-like". Both consoles this next gen will have the same architecture, yet the PS4 will have a faster GPU and faster RAM...so it should have a higher ceiling. It'll be like the 360 to PS3 comparison is today...just the opposite. I definitely don't think it'll be irrelevant. There's a reason everyone bought the 360 version of games instead of the PS3...better looking and usually smoother. The PS4 will have that same distinction in my estimation based on what I know about the PC architecture they are built on.

[Danimal]

Well the more powerful system stuff to me is irrelevant. I believe the PS3 was more powerful then the 360 no? How did that work out?

The PS3 was more powerful (allegedly, since the cell processor and emotion engine crap hasn't been used anywhere else), yet impossible to code for, so it suffered from a development standpoint because the 360 was more "PC-like". Both consoles this next gen will have the same architecture, yet the PS4 will have a faster GPU and faster RAM...so it should have a higher ceiling. It'll be like the 360 to PS3 comparison is today...just the opposite. I definitely don't think it'll be irrelevant. There's a reason everyone bought the 360 version of games instead of the PS3...better looking and usually smoother. The PS4 will have that same distinction in my estimation based on what I know about the PC architecture they are built on.

Good points i hand't considered.

I think the whole debate here is kind of funny. We know most of us will end up with both systems anyway.

[Rodster]

IIRC one of the big reasons why the 360 games looked and played better was the head start the 360 had over the PS3. I think it was about 1 year lead. Developers had no choice but to base their code for the 360 first and get it to work on the PS3.

It was a role reversal to the previous gen with the PS2 and Xbox. The PS2 had about a 1 year lead and the Xbox had the better hardware and the games typically played better and were smoother on the PS2. There were some PS2 games like Gran Turismo 3/4 that looked far better than your typical Xbox game.

I think this time around games on both machines are really going to be too close to call.

[DivotMaker]

IIRC one of the big reasons why the 360 games looked and played better was the head start the 360 had over the PS3. I think it was about 1 year lead. Developers had no choice but to base their code for the 360 first and get it to work on the PS3.

The biggest reason 360 games looked better than PS3 was the Dev tools for the PS3 were lacking for most of the PS3's early years and the PS3 SPE's were a nightmare to program for. Another reason, the 360 GPU was more powerful and much easier to code for than the PS3's according to most hardware and software development experts. The 360 GPU was a custom designed GPU while the PS3 gpu was a mostly off the shelf nVidia gpu.

[webdanzer]

I just think the current vehement sentiment against DRM is based on paranoia, half-information, and entitlement. Half-information is MS's own fault, but I think it's short-sighted and closed-minded thinking of many in the gaming community to be so resolutely against a product no has even used.

As one who was against the DRM in the way that Microsoft was proposing it, I find this statement insulting and belittling. Just because many internet gamers are a loud and obnoxious bunch, it does not mean that they cannot have a legitimate argument against something they find unpalatable.

Ideally, consumers should be given a choice between the digital DRM model and the disc based model, which is something the revised Microsoft policy now offers (Though I was not against MS releasing the 'Bone as-was,' since Sony was providing a better choice for me. Would have been interesting to see that play out.)

But because I value unrestricted access to my games online and off, and maintaining game ownership over not having to get up off the couch to swap discs or go to the store to buy them, it does not mean I am entitled, unknowledgeable, or paranoid.

I want devs to make as much money as they can, but speaking of the E word, I think the most entitled folks are the publishers and developers who feel they 'deserve' any proceeds from consumer product exchanges after the first-sale.

[webdanzer]

Is it confirmed that the Xbone does not come with a headset?

I've seen things like this:

http://www.handytips.info/1150/xbox-one ... t-headset/

But nothing really 'official.'

[vader29]

Is it confirmed that the Xbone does not come with a headset?

I've seen things like this:

http://www.handytips.info/1150/xbox-one ... t-headset/

But nothing really 'official.'

Yeah that is something that doesn't make sense, so if we use the Kinect to chat and don't turn down the tv volume are we going to hear an echo of everyone's gameplay and if you turn down the volume too low you won't hear anyone chatting anyhow?

[LAking]

This pretty much sums up why I'm sad to see MS buckle and do a 180.

http://www.gamesradar.com/6-great-featu ... m-changes/

[Danimal]

That's a good article and frankly since yesterday its become very apparent the people complaining loudest had no intention of buying a XB1 to begin with.

What's done is done.

[vader29]

This pretty much sums up why I'm sad to see MS buckle and do a 180.

http://www.gamesradar.com/6-great-featu ... m-changes/

But they could still do all of that with the games that are downloaded digitally and then owners would have the option of still buying games on disc if they chose or download digital games. Give people options and you get more customers and make more money, go one way or the other after showing what was originally planned and you piss off half of your customers, why is that so hard to understand?

[Danimal]

This pretty much sums up why I'm sad to see MS buckle and do a 180.

http://www.gamesradar.com/6-great-featu ... m-changes/

But they could still do all of that with the games that are downloaded digitally and then owners would have the option of still buying games on disc if they chose or download digital games. Give people options and you get more customers and make more money, go one way or the other after showing what was originally planned and you piss off half of your customers, why is that so hard to understand?

Maybe they will. They said the sharing will not be available at launch.

[Spooky]

This pretty much sums up why I'm sad to see MS buckle and do a 180.

http://www.gamesradar.com/6-great-featu ... m-changes/

Agree with this article 110%. The people up in arms about this stuff are the same people that almost die when Facebook makes a major update. I also actually feel bad for the game publishers. You know, the ones that pour millions and millions of $$$ into the game only to see places like Gamestop make almost as much money from it. The more money that gets to the publisher the bigger budget they have to make better games. DRM would help control that.

[vader29]

If you haven't seen it, this was a great discussion of the Microsoft presser at e3 with the gametrailers round table.

http://www.gametrailers.com/full-episod ... -the-grade

[GameSeven]

I just think the current vehement sentiment against DRM is based on paranoia, half-information, and entitlement. Half-information is MS's own fault, but I think it's short-sighted and closed-minded thinking of many in the gaming community to be so resolutely against a product no has even used.

As one who was against the DRM in the way that Microsoft was proposing it, I find this statement insulting and belittling. Just because many internet gamers are a loud and obnoxious bunch, it does not mean that they cannot have a legitimate argument against something they find unpalatable.

I get that many of the vocal majority are sensitive to the 'entitled' label, but lest we not forget that Microsoft's 'arrogance' has been tossed around carelessly as well, as recently as last page of this thread.

And while 'entitlement' may be extreme, so were the tactics of the affronted. Reason went out the window to hyperbole. Rather than allow MS to better articulate their vision, internet groupthink was rapid in its condemnation. A selection of quotes from around the net would make the most ardent hate-monger proud.

In the end, we saw a gamer population, en masse, rally around a foe that was nebulous, at best. Shouting from blogs and rooftops, mockery and outright ridicule, and elevating their competitor to a 'champion' of gamers were the methods of the masses who declared "give me more of what I'm used to." Never mind that Sony's network compromises were far more egregious than anything that happened to XBL. Never mind that Sony released a patch *just this week* that bricked several of their 6+ year old systems.

Sony stood up and said, "we won't change a thing" and people lauded them, notwithstanding that some of their first party titles embraced Online Pass mechanisms.

I've nothing against people judging with their wallet, but this was a case of gamers being judge and jury on a platform who's details had *barely* seen the light of day.

I don't think MS's vision is altogether dead. I doubt they'd invest heavily in such an architecture just to abandon it. They will, likely, try to sell the populace on the merits of a more gradual changeover.

I'm not saying I had wholly embraced MS's positions to this point, but I would have liked to have been more optimistic than many of my gamer brothers. I'm not saying it *would* have led to a better outcome, but that it *could* have. Sadly, vocal opposition will make this less likely. Had MS been a leader in installed base, the economy of scale would make a Steam-like service, with more aggressive pricing, more likely. If the penetration of PS4 far exceeds XB1, they will be less able to make this a reality, IMHO.

Admittedly, while I saw little consequence to their reversal other than placating the masses, separating the markets for digital content and disc content is unfortunate. Zeppo already articulated it pretty well, but if I want to take advantage of TRU's B2G1 sales, I'm stuck with the disc-based implications.

[wco81]

This pretty much sums up why I'm sad to see MS buckle and do a 180.

http://www.gamesradar.com/6-great-featu ... m-changes/

Agree with this article 110%. The people up in arms about this stuff are the same people that almost die when Facebook makes a major update. I also actually feel bad for the game publishers. You know, the ones that pour millions and millions of $$$ into the game only to see places like Gamestop make almost as much money from it. The most money that gets to the publisher the bigger budget they have to make better games. DRM would help control that.

The game sharing features were never spelled out. I think people are assuming it was going to be more generous than would have turned out to be the case. Let's see, the publishers hate used games sales and rentals but were going to enable sharing in a way that makes it more likely people would use the features and hurt sales?

At least with rentals the way they are, Gamefly and other rental firms buy more copies to rent. With sharing, one person buys a copy and share that copy with up to 10 others? Why is that better for the publishers and developers?

I don't feel bad for the publishers at all. They make money regardless. It's the developers who are laid off when projects end or games don't sell as well as they forecasted. But let's get real. If EA finds a way to get a percentage of each used game transaction, will they give a significant portion to developers? Or will they simply do whatever the shareholders want with the additional revenues, which is either to pay more dividends or pay bonuses to executives. If a sale of a used NHL 15 netted EA $10, how much of that would have gone to the grunts in Vancouver, as opposed to the executives at EA headquarters down in California? Of course, MS probably would have got a cut of that transaction, probably bigger than anything the grunts would be getting.

Maybe better than what they get under the current system. But really, if developers working on games which gross tens or hundreds of millions aren't getting paid enough, maybe they should be looking at other career options. It's not like there is a lack of opportunities for people who can code.

First-sale rights are more important than making sure publishers and console manufacturers getting their cut.

[Leebo33]

This pretty much sums up why I'm sad to see MS buckle and do a 180.

http://www.gamesradar.com/6-great-featu ... m-changes/

Agree with this article 110%. The people up in arms about this stuff are the same people that almost die when Facebook makes a major update. I also actually feel bad for the game publishers. You know, the ones that pour millions and millions of $$$ into the game only to see places like Gamestop make almost as much money from it. The most money that gets to the publisher the bigger budget they have to make better games. DRM would help control that.

Not sure why the blame is on the consumer and not the game companies and console makers. This article says "less potential for price drops." Are they serious? A game like Bioshock Infinite is already $39.99 and has a resale value dropping the total cost even further. Last year I bought NCAA 13 for $45 from Amazon and had it delivered for free on release day. Sold it for $25 for a total cost of $20. I do stuff like this all the time and I haven't walked into a GameStop in years. Most titles can be had at substantial discounts or gift cards already. I'm not willing to pay substantially more for games just so I don't have to swap a disk that is sitting 10 feet away from my system. A paradign shift this major needed better promotion and specifics on how it would end up being at least cost neutral or introduce REAL change (all you can eat gaming like Spotify?). Right now the message to the average person is pay $60 for new games for a little convience but little else in the near term (tell me what the power of the cloud really means to me in November when I am paying for this thing).

[TheTruth]

I just think the current vehement sentiment against DRM is based on paranoia, half-information, and entitlement. Half-information is MS's own fault, but I think it's short-sighted and closed-minded thinking of many in the gaming community to be so resolutely against a product no has even used.

As one who was against the DRM in the way that Microsoft was proposing it, I find this statement insulting and belittling. Just because many internet gamers are a loud and obnoxious bunch, it does not mean that they cannot have a legitimate argument against something they find unpalatable.

I get that many of the vocal majority are sensitive to the 'entitled' label, but lest we not forget that Microsoft's 'arrogance' has been tossed around carelessly as well, as recently as last page of this thread.

And while 'entitlement' may be extreme, so were the tactics of the affronted. Reason went out the window to hyperbole. Rather than allow MS to better articulate their vision, internet groupthink was rapid in its condemnation. A selection of quotes from around the net would make the most ardent hate-monger proud.

In the end, we saw a gamer population, en masse, rally around a foe that was nebulous, at best. Shouting from blogs and rooftops, mockery and outright ridicule, and elevating their competitor to a 'champion' of gamers were the methods of the masses who declared "give me more of what I'm used to." Never mind that Sony's network compromises were far more egregious than anything that happened to XBL. Never mind that Sony released a patch *just this week* that bricked several of their 6+ year old systems.

Sony stood up and said, "we won't change a thing" and people lauded them, notwithstanding that some of their first party titles embraced Online Pass mechanisms.

I've nothing against people judging with their wallet, but this was a case of gamers being judge and jury on a platform who's details had *barely* seen the light of day.

I don't think MS's vision is altogether dead. I doubt they'd invest heavily in such an architecture just to abandon it. They will, likely, try to sell the populace on the merits of a more gradual changeover.

I'm not saying I had wholly embraced MS's positions to this point, but I would have liked to have been more optimistic than many of my gamer brothers. I'm not saying it *would* have led to a better outcome, but that it *could* have. Sadly, vocal opposition will make this less likely. Had MS been a leader in installed base, the economy of scale would make a Steam-like service, with more aggressive pricing, more likely. If the penetration of PS4 far exceeds XB1, they will be less able to make this a reality, IMHO.

Admittedly, while I saw little consequence to their reversal other than placating the masses, separating the markets for digital content and disc content is unfortunate. Zeppo already articulated it pretty well, but if I want to take advantage of TRU's B2G1 sales, I'm stuck with the disc-based implications.

Nice post! Agree 100%

[wco81]

Not sure why the blame is on the consumer and not the game companies and console makers. This article says "less potential for price drops." Are they serious? A game like Bioshock Infinite is already $39.99 and has a resale value dropping the total cost even further. Last year I bought NCAA 13 for $45 from Amazon and had it delivered for free on release day. Sold it for $25 for a total cost of $20. I do stuff like this all the time and I haven't walked into a GameStop in years. Most titles can be had at substantial discounts or gift cards already. I'm not willing to pay substantially more for games just so I don't have to swap a disk that is sitting 10 feet away from my system. A paradign shift this major needed better promotion and specifics on how it would end up being at least cost neutral or introduce REAL change (all you can eat gaming like Spotify?). Right now the message to the average person is pay $60 for new games for a little convience but little else in the near term (tell me what the power of the cloud really means to me in November when I am paying for this thing).

Prices are dropping faster now because it's the end of a generation and sales have been down for the past year or two. The other part of it may be that a lot of the people who bought consoles and games in the past are now spending money on phones and tablets and the software for those devices.

What's different about this console launch is that mobile devices attract a lot of spending from many of the households which used to spend money on consoles and games.

I don't think anyone knows for sure if the sales of $60 console games will ever be as big as it was say 3 years ago or whenever the peak of software sales was.

Download games reduce the costs for publishers, since they don't have to pay to press discs or ship them. But there's no evidence that they were going to immediately pass on the cost savings to the consumers.

What would have driven prices down is demand. You can get Vita and Wii U games for lower prices because the demand for those systems is low. Low demand would push prices down for these next gen consoles, regardless of whether the games came on disc or by download.

[Spooky]

This pretty much sums up why I'm sad to see MS buckle and do a 180.

http://www.gamesradar.com/6-great-featu ... m-changes/

Agree with this article 110%. The people up in arms about this stuff are the same people that almost die when Facebook makes a major update. I also actually feel bad for the game publishers. You know, the ones that pour millions and millions of $$$ into the game only to see places like Gamestop make almost as much money from it. The most money that gets to the publisher the bigger budget they have to make better games. DRM would help control that.

The game sharing features were never spelled out. I think people are assuming it was going to be more generous than would have turned out to be the case. Let's see, the publishers hate used games sales and rentals but were going to enable sharing in a way that makes it more likely people would use the features and hurt sales?

At least with rentals the way they are, Gamefly and other rental firms buy more copies to rent. With sharing, one person buys a copy and share that copy with up to 10 others? Why is that better for the publishers and developers?

I don't feel bad for the publishers at all. They make money regardless. It's the developers who are laid off when projects end or games don't sell as well as they forecasted. But let's get real. If EA finds a way to get a percentage of each used game transaction, will they give a significant portion to developers? Or will they simply do whatever the shareholders want with the additional revenues, which is either to pay more dividends or pay bonuses to executives. If a sale of a used NHL 15 netted EA $10, how much of that would have gone to the grunts in Vancouver, as opposed to the executives at EA headquarters down in California? Of course, MS probably would have got a cut of that transaction, probably bigger than anything the grunts would be getting.

Maybe better than what they get under the current system. But really, if developers working on games which gross tens or hundreds of millions aren't getting paid enough, maybe they should be looking at other career options. It's not like there is a lack of opportunities for people who can code.

First-sale rights are more important than making sure publishers and console manufacturers getting their cut.

Fair enough - I guess what I am trying to say is that more control of the profits could be beneficial to the ones that are directly involved with the games creation.

I do think the gaming industry and the medium in which we consume it needs to embrace the future, not too fair from what the music industry had to endure. MS was getting closer to that IMHO.

[MizzouRah]

This pretty much sums up why I'm sad to see MS buckle and do a 180.

http://www.gamesradar.com/6-great-featu ... m-changes/

I'm with you. Now it's back to two similar consoles with one costing $100 more because it comes with a kinect.

I liked how MS was taking a risk and offering something completely different than Sony.

[webdanzer]

In the end, we saw a gamer population, en masse, rally around a foe that was nebulous, at best. Shouting from blogs and rooftops, mockery and outright ridicule, and elevating their competitor to a 'champion' of gamers were the methods of the masses who declared "give me more of what I'm used to."

See, but that infers a false dichotomy, that the only two places to go were nowhere, or to a era of market and ownership restriction to 'get to the future'. Is it really that folks are just bitter gamers clinging to gamestop receipts and anti-drm positions because they are scared of the future, or did some look at the trade off and deem MS's way of getting there as simply a bad deal?

There are other ways to move forward. In a time where competition from other avenues (tablets, phones, etc) is whittling away your market, you don't 'thank' the loyal customers who are staying with you by saddling them with additional restrictions, and blame them for the failure of your model and for taking food from the mouths of developers' children because they sell off a game when they have gotten all they want from what it offers.

[LAking]

This pretty much sums up why I'm sad to see MS buckle and do a 180.

http://www.gamesradar.com/6-great-featu ... m-changes/

Agree with this article 110%. The people up in arms about this stuff are the same people that almost die when Facebook makes a major update. I also actually feel bad for the game publishers. You know, the ones that pour millions and millions of $$$ into the game only to see places like Gamestop make almost as much money from it. The most money that gets to the publisher the bigger budget they have to make better games. DRM would help control that.

Not sure why the blame is on the consumer and not the game companies and console makers. This article says "less potential for price drops." Are they serious? A game like Bioshock Infinite is already $39.99 and has a resale value dropping the total cost even further. Last year I bought NCAA 13 for $45 from Amazon and had it delivered for free on release day. Sold it for $25 for a total cost of $20. I do stuff like this all the time and I haven't walked into a GameStop in years. Most titles can be had at substantial discounts or gift cards already. I'm not willing to pay substantially more for games just so I don't have to swap a disk that is sitting 10 feet away from my system. A paradign shift this major needed better promotion and specifics on how it would end up being at least cost neutral or introduce REAL change (all you can eat gaming like Spotify?). Right now the message to the average person is pay $60 for new games for a little convience but little else in the near term (tell me what the power of the cloud really means to me in November when I am paying for this thing).

Why do you think you will be paying "substantially more" for games? There is definitely potential for massive deals with digital distribution. We have to keep pointing to Steam. Also, as has been stated numerous times, the Xbox One was going to allow you to buy discs, tie them to your account so you wouldn't have to use the disc, and then still allow you to sell them when you were done. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

[webdanzer]

The people up in arms about this stuff are the same people that almost die when Facebook makes a major update.

Sigh. No need to continue here since most of you pro-drm guys know all about who I am, what I want, and why I made my decision.

Maybe I'll re-engage when you come to a consensus on whether you are the silent majority getting shafted by the .5% of loonies standing on street corners in their sandwich boards proclaiming the end is nigh, or whether you are the progressive digital elite who know better than the moronic majority how to lead us into a bright, shining, DRM controlled and ownership-less future.

Edit:

/Just signed up for the latest facebook update!