Xbox One on the way. DRM removed, more details to come.

[TimboSliceGB]

The ultimate problem with this system is that it relies on Live being 100% flawless and unhackable. As someone who got a 360 at launch, lived through multiple Live outtages(5 RROD) over the years, and knows a couple people that got the Fifa hack, the X1 will be no different. Live will go down and millions of people will own expensive bricks.

live has never been hacked EVER like psn was i can't remember anytime the last 4 years since i got live for first time live was ever down for more then couple hours. i trust microsoft in thier security then i ever did and will with sony. microsoft has been doing security like live for 30 years and sony pays 3rd party company to run their servers and security.

It was Christmas week three of four years ago. It was down for several days.

that was thanks to cod mw2 overcrowding their servers but they have 300 k servers should not be issue

 

[spatenfloot]

the question i have is when they say play on cloud does that mean the game is streaming which we seen from onlive most internets can't handle that or do you need to download it and if someone has slow dsl could take hours if not days to download a full game.

The cloud means it will need to be constantly connected to play the game since it requires online resources.

you can play games offline just have to reconnect to server every 24 hours

Not if a game requires the cloud. Using the cloud for a game means you have to be connected to it.

 

[spydey]

the question i have is when they say play on cloud does that mean the game is streaming which we seen from onlive most internets can't handle that or do you need to download it and if someone has slow dsl could take hours if not days to download a full game.

The cloud means it will need to be constantly connected to play the game since it requires online resources.

you can play games offline just have to reconnect to server every 24 hours

Won't work in 15 years when I want to play my games and Microsoft has moved on. I still play my Dreamcast.

 

[dgwillia006]

I feel like Sony and Microsoft must be in cahoots to kill the Xbox, and create some sort of super skynet monopoly with the Playstation. Otherwise, I don't see how they could remotely think any of this is a good idea.

I know I sure as hell ain't getting one at launch, I'll probably just mooch one off my cousin since gets Xbox consoles like crazy anyway.

 

[Donut2922]

It seems pretty certain that EA and Activision (perhaps Ubisoft) will require an initial activation to play on PS4 as well. However, Sony first party games will not require it. Sony has also stated that you DO NOT need to connect to the internet at all, which means any DRM is likely disc based.

I'm expecting PS4 to follow suit but how do you enforce DRM without some sort of internet connection? I have slim hopes PS4 will offer us an "out"

 

[TimboSliceGB]

It seems pretty certain that EA and Activision (perhaps Ubisoft) will require an initial activation to play on PS4 as well. However, Sony first party games will not require it. Sony has also stated that you DO NOT need to connect to the internet at all, which means any DRM is likely disc based.

I'm expecting PS4 to follow suit but how do you enforce DRM without some sort of internet connection? I have slim hopes PS4 will offer us an "out"

sony has been so tight lip about things yes they said no online all the time they never said no online needed at all. i think ms did the best thing they could release all this before e3 so we know it all and focus on all the games which is what e3 is for.

 

[spatenfloot]

It seems pretty certain that EA and Activision (perhaps Ubisoft) will require an initial activation to play on PS4 as well. However, Sony first party games will not require it. Sony has also stated that you DO NOT need to connect to the internet at all, which means any DRM is likely disc based.

I'm expecting PS4 to follow suit but how do you enforce DRM without some sort of internet connection? I have slim hopes PS4 will offer us an "out"

As I said, if they don't require internet verification, it would have to be disc based. Sony has patents for this sort of thing. Each disc would have a unique identifier which could be checked to ensure it was a legit copy. Basically, it makes you put the disc in the machine which is no different from previous consoles. We'll probably know more about what methods they use sometime after their E3 presentations are over.

 

[matrix9280]

I feel like Sony and Microsoft must be in cahoots to kill the Xbox, and create some sort of super skynet monopoly with the Playstation. Otherwise, I don't see how they could remotely think any of this is a good idea.

Microsoft in the past 10 years has been raped pretty hard by piracy. I think this is Microsoft's reaction to that. Microsoft's gross overreaction to that.

 

[Blaster man]

Hey, I've got 300,000 horses.  I can beat an airplane now right?

 

[TimboSliceGB]

It seems pretty certain that EA and Activision (perhaps Ubisoft) will require an initial activation to play on PS4 as well. However, Sony first party games will not require it. Sony has also stated that you DO NOT need to connect to the internet at all, which means any DRM is likely disc based.

I'm expecting PS4 to follow suit but how do you enforce DRM without some sort of internet connection? I have slim hopes PS4 will offer us an "out"

As I said, if they don't require internet verification, it would have to be disc based. Sony has patents for this sort of thing. Each disc would have a unique identifier which could be checked to ensure it was a legit copy. Basically, it makes you put the disc in the machine which is no different from previous consoles. We'll probably know more about what methods they use sometime after their E3 presentations are over.

this thing is not about legit copy of games it's about game companys making money off 2nd hand game sales which would require some kind of activation online code.

I feel like Sony and Microsoft must be in cahoots to kill the Xbox, and create some sort of super skynet monopoly with the Playstation. Otherwise, I don't see how they could remotely think any of this is a good idea.

Microsoft in the past 10 years has been raped pretty hard by piracy. I think this is Microsoft's reaction to that. Microsoft's gross overreaction to that.

it's all about companys making money on 2nd hand game sales nothing else

 

[Jodou]

It was Christmas week three of four years ago. It was down for several days.

that was thanks to cod mw2 overcrowding their servers but they have 300 k servers should not be issue

Guess this would be a bad time to point out M$ is using a lot of smoke and mirrors with uptalking 300k servers. Virtual servers are shit and should not be counted among proper servers when talking about supporting a huge userbase like this.

 

[matrix9280]

It seems pretty certain that EA and Activision (perhaps Ubisoft) will require an initial activation to play on PS4 as well. However, Sony first party games will not require it. Sony has also stated that you DO NOT need to connect to the internet at all, which means any DRM is likely disc based.

I'm expecting PS4 to follow suit but how do you enforce DRM without some sort of internet connection? I have slim hopes PS4 will offer us an "out"

As I said, if they don't require internet verification, it would have to be disc based. Sony has patents for this sort of thing. Each disc would have a unique identifier which could be checked to ensure it was a legit copy. Basically, it makes you put the disc in the machine which is no different from previous consoles. We'll probably know more about what methods they use sometime after their E3 presentations are over.

this thing is not about legit copy of games it's about game companys making money off 2nd hand game sales which would require some kind of activation online code.

I feel like Sony and Microsoft must be in cahoots to kill the Xbox, and create some sort of super skynet monopoly with the Playstation. Otherwise, I don't see how they could remotely think any of this is a good idea.

Microsoft in the past 10 years has been raped pretty hard by piracy. I think this is Microsoft's reaction to that. Microsoft's gross overreaction to that.

it's all about companys making money on 2nd hand game sales nothing else

Okay. If you say so.

 

[Erad30]

Anyone wanna take bets on how long before some disturbed kid straight up murders their parents for yelling "Xbox Off!" and ruining their game? Hell my wife would probably straight up murder me if I did that...

 

[dgwillia006]

Anyone wanna take bets on how long before some disturbed kid straight up murders their parents for yelling "Xbox Off!" and ruining their game? Hell my wife would probably straight up murder me if I did that...

Hah. I'm pretty sure the new troll tactic is gonna be yelling "XBOX OFF!" into your headset and hoping someone isn't using their headset and has voice controls enabled.

 

[matrix9280]

Well if they're dumb enough to buy the system said murder wouldn't necessarily be undeserved.

 

[Corvin]

Anyone wanna take bets on how long before some disturbed kid straight up murders their parents for yelling "Xbox Off!" and ruining their game? Hell my wife would probably straight up murder me if I did that...

Hah. I'm pretty sure the new troll tactic is gonna be yelling "XBOX OFF!" into your headset and hoping someone isn't using their headset and has voice controls enabled.

Which will be likely since it's rumored no headset will be included. Of course, each game could put in a kill command so that doesn't happen. Or maybe "xbox off" will only work in the dash and not a global command.

 

[kklems]

Wow one has to really wonder what they are thinking.  I guess they are after more of the casual audience who might not know or care about the restrictions when they buy the console but I can't see supporting the new xbox platform. 

 

[dmaul1114]

the question i have is when they say play on cloud does that mean the game is streaming which we seen from onlive most internets can't handle that or do you need to download it and if someone has slow dsl could take hours if not days to download a full game.

The cloud means it will need to be constantly connected to play the game since it requires online resources.

you can play games offline just have to reconnect to server every 24 hours

Won't work in 15 years when I want to play my games and Microsoft has moved on. I still play my Dreamcast.

It definitely sucks for collectors who keep their consoles.

Moot for me as I ditch them to help fund new console purchases, don't really replay old games, and try to get rid of things I don't actively use (so boxing up old consoles is a no-no for my OCD). But this movement bodes poorly for collectors for sure.

I feel like Sony and Microsoft must be in cahoots to kill the Xbox, and create some sort of super skynet monopoly with the Playstation. Otherwise, I don't see how they could remotely think any of this is a good idea.

I know I sure as hell ain't getting one at launch, I'll probably just mooch one off my cousin since gets Xbox consoles like crazy anyway.

Or Sony is doing something fairly similar (or at least allowing third parties to with their games), and hence is just being quiet while MS takes all the heat for a while.

It seems pretty certain that EA and Activision (perhaps Ubisoft) will require an initial activation to play on PS4 as well. However, Sony first party games will not require it. Sony has also stated that you DO NOT need to connect to the internet at all, which means any DRM is likely disc based.

I'm expecting PS4 to follow suit but how do you enforce DRM without some sort of internet connection? I have slim hopes PS4 will offer us an "out"

All they said was that the console would work without ever going online. That's pretty dodgy, as I've said a few times, and doesn't preclude the possibility of certain games from certain developers not working if they're not activated online, check in every day etc.

 

[KillerRamen]

It's really sad... I had some great times with the Xbox brand, but I shan't be buying the Xbox One. I don't like the insane DRM, I don't like the required internet connection and I don't like the always-on required Kinect. It being revealed today that Microsoft has been giving personal information to the NSA doesn't help either.

 

[nightmare452]

I'll be honest, and I am quite possibly alone in this. But I don't mind any of the things they announced so far. For me, used games have never been a huge issue/system seller. I have more Steam games than I can probably play, but I have bought them throughout the years with never the intention to resell them, knowingly that I will lose the money if they ever go offline.

The 24 hr check in I can live with. Yeah, if my Internet goes down for a few days, or Xbox Live is down, I won't be able to play my games. They way I see it personally, it's a sign from a higher power that tells me to go outside, read a book, or do something else. If I can't play one week out of the year from these interruptions, that one week that I might not be able to play won't deter me from the other 51 weeks of gaming that I would be enjoying.

I understand that MS is aiming for a higher tier of consumer. They don't care for the consumer out in the middle of nowhere who has a bad Internet and borrows games from others, they aim for the one that has a great connection and buys new. Is it unfair, yes, but they aren't making the system for everyone, just for everyone under they target audience. Unfortunately, consumers will end up paying more. I do not trust publishers to lower prices and pass the saving from a no used games market to us. No, they want more $. That's a much bigger issue for me, games should have a wider pricing structure, not every game is a $60 game.

My only real deciding factor was never any of these details. My two main things that will decide what system I'll get are:
1) what type of online subscription service you will have, what will it offer, and what will it cost me,
2) what is the standard price of the systems.

If one system (either PS4 or XB1) is $399 and the other is $499, I'll get the cheaper one. If one offers free online mp and the other doesn't, I'll go with the free mp. If they both charge the same, and cost the same, then it's the software that sells me, nothing more. All this is smoke screen to me, I want to see the games that I will want to play this year.

 

[matrix9280]

I'll be honest, and I am quite possibly alone in this. But I don't mind any of the things they announced so far. For me, used games have never been a huge issue/system seller. I have more Steam games than I can probably play, but I have bought them throughout the years with never the intention to resell them, knowingly that I will lose the money if they ever go offline.

The 24 hr check in I can live with. Yeah, if my Internet goes down for a few days, or Xbox Live is down, I won't be able to play my games. They way I see it personally, it's a sign from a higher power that tells me to go outside, read a book, or do something else. If I can't play one week out of the year from these interruptions, that one week that I might not be able to play won't deter me from the other 51 weeks of gaming that I would be enjoying.

I understand that MS is aiming for a higher tier of consumer. They don't care for the consumer out in the middle of nowhere who has a bad Internet and borrows games from others, they aim for the one that has a great connection and buys new. Is it unfair, yes, but they aren't making the system for everyone, just for everyone under they target audience. Unfortunately, consumers will end up paying more. I do not trust publishers to lower prices and pass the saving from a no used games market to us. No, they want more $. That's a much bigger issue for me, games should have a wider pricing structure, not every game is a $60 game.

My only real deciding factor was never any of these details. My two main things that will decide what system I'll get are:
1) what type of online subscription service you will have, what will it offer, and what will it cost me,
2) what is the standard price of the systems.

If one system (either PS4 or XB1) is $399 and the other is $499, I'll get the cheaper one. If one offers free online mp and the other doesn't, I'll go with the free mp. If they both charge the same, and cost the same, then it's the software that sells me, nothing more. All this is smoke screen to me, I want to see the games that I will want to play this year.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

 

[webkatt]

So all in all it is confirmed that that TimboSlice is a MS troll. I don't see any other way he can defend all the shit MS does.

I was expecting some sort of give on his part but as he is paid my MS, his suport is unwavering.  Can we get a ban on this douche?

 

[Erad30]

Actually that's one more thing-Stuff that we already pay for like Netflix & Hulu+ will most likely still be behind this arbitrary paywall that is Xbox Live. That's beyond ludicrous when virtually no other devices charges me to access that stuff.

 

[TimboSliceGB]

So all in all it is confirmed that that TimboSlice is a MS troll. I don't see any other way he can defend all the shit MS does.

I was expecting some sort of give on his part but as he is paid my MS, his suport is unwavering. Can we get a ban on this douche?

ban me for what? being a gamer and hoping for great game systems. i already said tonight i don't agree with the 24 hour always on garbage. why do i deserv a ban might ask?

Actually that's one more thing-Stuff that we already pay for like Netflix & Hulu+ will most likely still be behind this arbitrary paywall that is Xbox Live. That's beyond ludicrous when virtually no other devices charges me to access that stuff.

i think ms needs to have a ps plus like system i have grown to love ps plus i already used up all my 250 gb ps3 hard drive since having ps plus from back in december

 

[nightmare452]

I'll be honest, and I am quite possibly alone in this. But I don't mind any of the things they announced so far. For me, used games have never been a huge issue/system seller. I have more Steam games than I can probably play, but I have bought them throughout the years with never the intention to resell them, knowingly that I will lose the money if they ever go offline.
The 24 hr check in I can live with. Yeah, if my Internet goes down for a few days, or Xbox Live is down, I won't be able to play my games. They way I see it personally, it's a sign from a higher power that tells me to go outside, read a book, or do something else. If I can't play one week out of the year from these interruptions, that one week that I might not be able to play won't deter me from the other 51 weeks of gaming that I would be enjoying.
I understand that MS is aiming for a higher tier of consumer. They don't care for the consumer out in the middle of nowhere who has a bad Internet and borrows games from others, they aim for the one that has a great connection and buys new. Is it unfair, yes, but they aren't making the system for everyone, just for everyone under they target audience. Unfortunately, consumers will end up paying more. I do not trust publishers to lower prices and pass the saving from a no used games market to us. No, they want more $. That's a much bigger issue for me, games should have a wider pricing structure, not every game is a $60 game.
My only real deciding factor was never any of these details. My two main things that will decide what system I'll get are:
1) what type of online subscription service you will have, what will it offer, and what will it cost me,
2) what is the standard price of the systems.
If one system (either PS4 or XB1) is $399 and the other is $499, I'll get the cheaper one. If one offers free online mp and the other doesn't, I'll go with the free mp. If they both charge the same, and cost the same, then it's the software that sells me, nothing more. All this is smoke screen to me, I want to see the games that I will want to play this year.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

It means they are aiming to build a system for high end consumers. Example, an ipad/MacBook is not made for everyone, they are expensive, they are design on purpose by Apple for the consumers that want their gadgets to looks smooth, high tech, and with different OS. It's not a better device per se, but its meant for a specific type of costumer. MS is aiming for that strategy. Where they prefer to alienate the people with no/low Internet and that buy/sell used games, cause they believe that by aiming for only the ones that can use the system as they intend, they will get more profit in the long term. It's just a business strategy for them.

If you were a company, wouldn't you want a device that can check on your costumers 24/7, so you can collect data, sell ads and verify that your product is being sold by you? Would you want costumers that blindly buy your stuff at a high price (like Apple) regardless of what it is you sell? That is what MS is banking on here. That's what I believe anyway. I'm not defending their practice or that its good for us, no, it's bad for our wallets, but I can certainly understand that it's what they want to do.

 

[Erad30]

Aiming for higher consumers. That worked really well for PS3 at the start of the last gen...

 

[n8rockerasu]

Did you guys see this yet: http://www.joystiq.com/2013/06/06/how-game-licensing-works-on-the-xbox-one/

I'm pretty sure that violates the first sale doctrine. MS is really screwing themselves on the XBO. I won't be buying one for this reason and my concern about privacy intrusion (see the news today about government snooping on our online data). Hopefully Sony is smart with the PS4 and rails against MS at E3, or I may be stuck with my old systems and PC gaming for the next 10 years!

What still gets me is why is it that we're ONLY hearing about all the bad things concerning these changes? Because as many have pointed out, it really isn't all that much different from what Steam does. The HUGE difference, however, is that games on Steam are tremendously cheap. If Microsoft really thinks the time has come to go all digital and to kill off used games sales and whatnot, why is this paradigm-shifting information not being buffered by headlines about how much cheaper it is going to make games?

Unless, this is the only part of the equation changing... We all know that numerous developers went belly up this past generation, and used games sales has gotten a large dose of the blame for that (though it's convenient to overlook horrible game ideas and just blame used game sales...I'm looking at you, Udraw tablet). If the developers and MS think that just playing hardball and killing off used game sales (not to mention packaging, production, and distribution costs when things do go all digital) will strong arm people into paying $60 for these games, I feel like they'll be running themselves straight toward a cliff.

People may not jump ship immediately, but even those who are willing to pay those prices (or are forced to due to a whiny 14 year old who needs his CallaDoody), there's no way they'll buy as many games as they did when recouping the money through selling off those new games when they were done with them was there. And this will STILL hurt developers. Sales will dry up, the industry will stagnate, and everyone will see what a horrible idea this was. Unless MS is prepared to start selling big name games for under $10 within a couple months of launch, they won't even come close to touching Steam. But if that is the plan, then why the hell hasn't THAT information gotten leaked yet?

 

[dmaul1114]

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Stupid term he/she used. But it does seem MS and the publishers pushing for this just want to cater to customers with money and good internet connections who pay for live, buy games new at $60, buy lots of DLC, don't buy used etc.

They don't want the cheap asses that mainly buy used games, borrow games from friends, don't buy digital games or DLC etc.

And I guess from a business standpoint that's understandable as they mostly lose money on console sales and that type of uber cheap ass isn't spending much money with them.

Still sucks though.

 

[Erad30]

That's just the thing, people DON'T trust Microsoft to follow the Steam model. MS has been extremely terrible with pricing their digital offerings just look at games on demand. And I'm pretty sure publishers set prices and sales on Steam. Microsoft dictates all of that stuff on their console.

 

[TimboSliceGB]

i know this don't mean alot because can't change people mind but trully all you might think im a ms fanboy im really really not. i just was waiting till things came out to judge and i do hate that 24 hour thing was true but i think the used game thing will not be as bad as people were thinking and i do like that you can put up to 10 people on your "family" list and they can play any game 

 

[nightmare452]

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Stupid term he/she used. But it does seem MS and the publishers pushing for this just want to cater to customers with money and good internet connections who pay for live, buy games new at $60, buy lots of DLC, don't buy used etc.

They don't want the cheap asses that mainly buy used games, borrow games from friends, don't buy digital games or DLC etc.

And I guess from a business standpoint that's understandable as they mostly lose money on console sales and that type of uber cheap ass isn't spending much money with them.

Still sucks though.

Not a stupid term. A higher tier of consumer for MS is the one you just described. One that's always online, buys new, etc. That's who they are catering to, if others get affected, then for MS, they are acceptable loses.

And yes, it sucks for most of us, myself included. But I want to see other things which matter more to me before condemning the system entirely.

 

[dmaul1114]

That's just the thing, people DON'T trust Microsoft to follow the Steam model. MS has been extremely terrible with pricing their digital offerings just look at games on demand. And I'm pretty sure publishers set prices and sales on Steam. Microsoft dictates all of that stuff on their console.

The thing is that this is all up to publishers. MS can't control what third parties charge for their games.

Activision, EA, Ubisoft etc. want to keep charging $60 for their games and cut down on used sales, lending, renting etc., so that's the way it's going to go.

And MS/Sony can't really drop prices on their first party games as they'll just piss off the third party publishers and lose chances for exclusivity deals on DLC etc. that help move consoles.

 

[TimboSliceGB]

ms has always been after the higher end customer. i know when i was in highschool xbox when it first came out was way higher priced as ps2 and the rich kids had the xbox while not so rich kids had ps2s

 

[KrebStar]

Here's hoping "participating retailers" isn't code for just Gamestop.

Also, Megaphone + "Xbox Off" + Suburban neighborhood = Youtube gold

 

[nightmare452]

That's one big problem in the games industry for me. It's not all the 24 online check or DRM stuff, it's that publishers still got this idea that all games should be universally $60. We desperately need a better pricing structure. For me, the reasons games/companies fail isn't that the games are bad, it's that the game isn't priced as it should be. Example, I would have bought the latest Transformers game from High Moon, but I didn't cause it was $60. Had it been $40, I would have gladly bought it day one (game was fantastic by the way). Just finished Metro: Last Light, and that's another example of a game I rented, instead of bought cause at $60, it's just to much for essentially a single player experience.

The main concern is, I don't trust MS, or EA, or Activision to change that model and provide us with tier pricing anytime soon.

ms has always been after the higher end customer. i know when i was in highschool xbox when it first came out was way higher priced as ps2 and the rich kids had the xbox while not so rich kids had ps2s

Yeah, I remember those days in college. I was thankfull enough that my dad could buy me the Xbox, the everyone else had PS2s. I then got a broadband connection just to play Halo 2 online (I used to do Halo CE LAN parties in college, good times). Been an XBL Gold member ever since.

 

[dmaul1114]

Here's hoping "participating retailers" isn't code for just Gamestop.

I doubt it as that probably wouldn't be legal.

It will probably be open to any stores that opt in and get the needed software etc. from MS.

I wouldn't think it would be different/more complicated than stores having to have the software to activate Xbox Live/PSN/Nintendo points cards to be able to sell them. Just have to have the software for their point of sale system to connect to the servers and register/deactivate game licenses just like point cards etc.

 

[WolfmanASTN]

Although I'd don't like the having to check in every 24 hours bit, one thing that I really like about the Xbox One is how they said you would be able to attach up to 10 of your friend's/family's accounts to yours, so anyone that is part do your Xbox Live "Family" will have access to any games you bought on any console they play on as long as they are connected to the Internet. I can definitely see me and a few friends setting up a small group with that so we could play each ither's games over the cloud.

(Also, pretty much any big company that offers an online service has been giving your info to the government or some other party without your permission. There hasn't been any real privacy since 9/11. I don't understand how people could be so shocked by this when it's been happening for over a decade)

 

[dmaul1114]

Although I'd is like the having to check in every 24 hours bit, one thing that I really like about the Xbox One is how they said you would be able to attach up to 10 of your friend's/family's accounts to yours, so anyone that is part do your Xbox Live "Family" will have access to any games you bought on any console they play on as long as they are connected to the Internet. I can definitely see me and a few friends setting up a small group with that so we could play each ither's games over the cloud.

But apparently only the main account holder and one of the 10 sub accounts can play at the same time. So it's not like the old PSN game share where five or whatever people could get the game and all play at the same time.

 

[Jodou]

What still gets me is why is it that we're ONLY hearing about all the bad things concerning these changes? Because as many have pointed out, it really isn't all that much different from what Steam does. The HUGE difference, however, is that games on Steam are tremendously cheap. If Microsoft really thinks the time has come to go all digital and to kill off used games sales and whatnot, why is this paradigm-shifting information not being buffered by headlines about how much cheaper it is going to make games?

The difference there is that Steam is digital only. I'm largely anti-Steam for that reason alone and never buy games from them outside of $5 sales of non-retail box. This is more a marriage of concepts that PC gamers have dealt with since CD-keys were introduced to combat piracy. The problem now is that Xbox One is just a shitty PC in terms of freedom and console gamers are rejecting this first glimpse of things to come. You're not wrong in the similarities, but it beggars the question of why not just get a PC instead?

Come E3, price may no longer be a talking point considering cost of PCs these days.

 

[webkatt]

so at the end of the day the rumors are all 100% true.

the only main difference is the family share thing.

how in the hell is TimboSlice okay with this crap? from his previous post he defended it by saying wait until it's offical or whatever.

now it's all official.

used games are dead.

there is no lending/borrowing.

24 hour mandatory connection required.

publishers can choose to not allow thier games to be set as "used"

and if he start barking up the sony tree i'm gonna lose my shit. we are discussing MS not sony.

 

[dmaul1114]

[quote name="Jodou" post="10600962" timestamp="1370584510"][quote name="n8rockerasu" post="10600893" timestamp="1370582386"]
You're not wrong in the similarities, but it beggars the question of why not just get a PC instead?
 [/quote]

Consoles are still easier to integrate into a home theater. They blend in better for those of us who care (or have significant others who care) about the living room being neat and things looking nice together. No need to keep a wireless keyboard and mouse stashed somewhere in The living room etc. All this assuming gaming on the big screen of course. I have zero intersect in gaming at a desk after working at it all day, nor to game on a monitor instead of my big screen. Obviously not a issue for people who are fine playing at their desk on a monitor.

Consoles also still offer a unified hardware platform for five+year generations, whereas PCs require more frequent updates to keep running the latest games at decent settings as well.

So there are still differences. I could see myself getting a future Steam box perhaps. But I'd never get into regular PC gaming for the reasons above. I'd just quit gaming first. I'm not that wed to continuing past this generation anyway if its just bad DRM or Nintendo as the only options.

 

[n8rockerasu]

The difference there is that Steam is digital only. I'm largely anti-Steam for that reason alone and never buy games from them outside of $5 sales of non-retail box. This is more a marriage of concepts that PC gamers have dealt with since CD-keys were introduced to combat piracy. The problem now is that Xbox One is just a shitty PC in terms of freedom and console gamers are rejecting this first glimpse of things to come. You're not wrong in the similarities, but it beggars the question of why not just get a PC instead?


Come E3, price may no longer be a talking point considering cost of PCs these days.

I'm already progressing in that direction (becoming a PC Gamer). Your point of Xbox One games not being digital is valid...but for how long? It's fairly obvious this is the direction Microsoft (and probably Sony) want to go in. Considering that all games have to be installed to the hard drive anyway, you know as well as I do that this is just PC gaming circa 2001. The discs mean nothing to Microsoft/Developers. They already said all games will be available digitally at launch as well. And I'm sure they would prefer people NOT buy the discs, because the quicker they can phase them out, the more money they save (production, packaging, distribution). It's been speculated that the main reason they're even bothering with retail discs at all is to not completely shell shock customers and to not piss off retail stores. But it's coming. So, I'm not going to kid myself and feel good about "Well, at least the games are still on discs!" It's an empty victory.

Having said that, Microsoft SHOULD be offering deals on the level of Steam. Sure, they'll have their buy back program with "participating retailers". But anybody who thinks that these buy back values will be even remotely close to what trade-in values are today is dreaming. So, again, this feels like another meaningless gesture. What they can somewhat brag about is that you can give a game away when you're done with it. To me, this is the only legitimate argument, as it will allow people to have trades lists on sites like this one, where they can at least turn an old game into a new one.

However, Microsoft being able to use these couple points as an argument for why games aren't as cheap as they are on Steam may lose them some customers. I know it won't be good enough for me. I'd much rather pay 75% less for a game on Steam, knowing that I can't resell it, rather than be at the mercy of Microsoft's "participating retailers" or trust that I'll be able to find a trading partner for a 3 year old game that MS is still trying to sell for $60. We can all hope it won't be that bad, but regardless of who is in charge of setting prices, EA's Origin sales aren't exactly stellar, and the prices on Microsoft's own Games On Demand service haven't been mind blowing either. So, if they want people to believe in this system, they really need to start talking up the good things and doing some convincing. I'm willing to listen. I just haven't heard very many positive points about the system yet that have anything to do with playing games.

 

[TooPoor]

Dark days, my fiends, dark days.

Gone are the days of killer deals shared on CAG that in the end pays you to play games after selling back on eBay/Craigslist.

 

[n8rockerasu]

Consoles are still easier to integrate into a home theater. They blend in better for those of us who care (or have significant others who care) about the living room being neat and things looking nice together. No need to keep a wireless keyboard and mouse stashed somewhere in The living room etc. All this assuming gaming on the big screen of course. I have zero intersect in gaming at a desk after working at it all day, nor to game on a monitor instead of my big screen. Obviously not a issue for people who are fine playing at their desk on a monitor.

Consoles also still offer a unified hardware platform for five+year generations, whereas PCs require more frequent updates to keep running the latest games at decent settings as well.

So there are still differences. I could see myself getting a future Steam box perhaps. But I'd never get into regular PC gaming for the reasons above. I'd just quit gaming first. I'm not that wed to continuing past this generation anyway if its just bad DRM or Nintendo as the only options.

Most of these complaints are easy to get around if you care to make the effort to do so (micro case PC, remote control, Steam's Big Picture mode, Xbox 360 Controller for Windows, etc). You've made it abundantly clear that you're way past that point with gaming though. Some people just reach an age/financial mindset where they'll do/pay anything for convenience. Our entire society is built around this principle. You also have to acknowledge that people have different definitions of "neat and looking nice". When you start complaining about blinking lights and an extra cord or two, you're becoming a bit of an outlier. At the end of the day, we all value different things.

 

[Jack_Frost]

Timboslice has to be CheapyDs troll/alt account

so much in common

 

[dmaul1114]

Most of these complaints are easy to get around if you care to make the effort to do so (micro case PC, remote control, Steam's Big Picture mode, Xbox 360 Controller for Windows, etc). You've made it abundantly clear that you're way past that point with gaming though. Some people just reach an age/financial mindset where they'll do/pay anything for convenience. Our entire society is built around this principle. You also have to acknowledge that people have different definitions of "neat and looking nice". When you start complaining about blinking lights and an extra cord or two, you're becoming a bit of an outlier.

Oh for sure. I'm a bit OCD and a bit of a neat freak, and my fiancée is way worse, so we're definitely outliers in terms of caring about things being simple/neat/tidy and hatting clutter and having a bunch of crap around the house. We also would like to move around often, live abroad etc. so were trying to pare down possessions in general. So in that sense moving to downloaded games makes since--though I hate acing limited resell options since I don't care to replay games.

And I definitley place a premium on convenience and don't mind paying more for it. Though I'm not convinced you can build a decent looking (I. E. console like) and powerful gaming pc for what next gen consoles will go for, much less after the first price drop--and I likely won't buy u til then as I've got plenty in the backlog to keep me occupied. So that may be moot in this example.

 

[Jack_Frost]

im confused, it's up to the publisher then what's stopping them from doing it on ps4 also or if they cant then wouldn't they just not put the game on ps4?

 

[io]

After seeing all the amazing Steam deals I am finally going to build a PC myself.  My son wants it but I figure it would be a good project and a nice test to see if that is the way I want to go as well.  I partitioned part of my old 2009-era iMac as a Windows 7 machine but that is pretty low-end.  I figure on spending $600-$700 and getting a decent PC that my son can also use for video editing. 

He has been a big 360 fanboy (such that he won't touch the PS3 any more) but even he is leaning towards just wanting the PC and skipping the One.  We'll see how it all plays out - should be interesting.  In terms of E3, I guess I've heard all I need to from MS.  There isn't any gaming news that will really change that (as I'm not interested in their exclusive stuff for the most part anyway).  So the things I'm excited about are Nintendo's new games (in particular what they have in store for the new 3D Mario) and secondly how the used game/DRM on PS4 will work.

I'm sure I'll end up with both the One and PS4 eventually, but this is definitely dampening my day one enthusiasm.

 

[Ink.So.Well.]

Dark days, my fiends, dark days.

Pretty much. The only thing I'm thankful for at this point is M$ making the choice of avoiding their console entirely brain dead easy. Honestly I can't imagine seeing or hearing anything from them that could come close to changing my mind. No exclusive is worth dealing with that much nonsense though now I'm worried about what skeletons are hiding in Sony's closet regarding the PS4.

 

[GBAstar]

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Stupid term he/she used. But it does seem MS and the publishers pushing for this just want to cater to customers with money and good internet connections who pay for live, buy games new at $60, buy lots of DLC, don't buy used etc.

They don't want the cheap asses that mainly buy used games, borrow games from friends, don't buy digital games or DLC etc.

And I guess from a business standpoint that's understandable as they mostly lose money on console sales and that type of uber cheap ass isn't spending much money with them.

Still sucks though.

Not a stupid term. A higher tier of consumer for MS is the one you just described. One that's always online, buys new, etc. That's who they are catering to, if others get affected, then for MS, they are acceptable loses.

And yes, it sucks for most of us, myself included. But I want to see other things which matter more to me before condemning the system entirely.

So they are completely changing their game plan in a 180 degrees from what they did with the 360?

With the 360 they wanted a LOWER tier uneducated consumer... obviously supported by why they have a $99 down and "X" a month for two years system.

They have skimped on quality, stressed proprietary and all of a sudden they are now looking for a higher tier consumer?

Edit:

This is what I see happening. I don't see a $399 Xbox One even remotely happening at launch. What I do see is Microsoft teaming up with cable companies (Time Warner, Comcast, etc.) and offering a "Sign up for two years of "X" service with "Y" company and save $200 on your Xbox One" and after savings pay only $299.

And then the lemmings will jump and think they're getting the deal of the century.