The Official Xbox One Thread

[smackababy]

really curious to see what the Rare title is. my wishes would be a new killer instinct, but i don't see that happening. my guess is it will be conker.

I don't know. The FGC has been growing quite a bit. With the success of SF4 in 09 and MK + Injustice being very popular, a new KI might sell. Capcom is reviving DarkStalkers and there is a new Guilty Gear on the way.

 

[purbeast0]

I don't know. The FGC has been growing quite a bit. With the success of SF4 in 09 and MK + Injustice being very popular, a new KI might sell. Capcom is reviving DarkStalkers and there is a new Guilty Gear on the way.

yeah, but ms has a track record with rare that basically ran them into the ground. so it's just hard to believe they would do something smart like revive killer instinct.

 

[Nemesis13]

http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming...x-and-can-finally-make-a-new-killer-instinct/

 

[lupi]

I abhor the exclusivity crap and glad is waned a bit over the last generation. That in itself is a reason to wish they fail here.

 

[American Gunner]

I'm not a fighting game fan at all, but I do think it would be smart for them to bring back KI. Fighters are doing pretty good right now, and if the d-pad on the next controller is a lot better, it could handle fighters.

 

[American Gunner]

I abhor the exclusivity crap and glad is waned a bit over the last generation. That in itself is a reason to wish they fail here.

This may be the dumbest thing I've heard. Why would anyone be mad about exclusives?

 

[purbeast0]

http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming...x-and-can-finally-make-a-new-killer-instinct/

unless they were working on a new ki long before they knew this court thing would be settled, then there is no way we'll see a ki game at launch.

 

[smackababy]

This may be the dumbest thing I've heard. Why would anyone be mad about exclusives?

One could argue exclusives hurt gamers because they are forced to buy every console to play them. It really does make little sense for Nintendo to let Mario games be made on the Xbox One or the PS4 though, from a business standpoint. Exclusives are usually first party titles anyway. A few aren't, but they don't stay exclusives for long. Demon's Souls is a good example. It was PS3 only, but the sequel was PS3, Xbox, and PC (eventually). They have stated Dark Souls 2 will be developer concurrently for all 3 systems.

 

[purbeast0]

One could argue exclusives hurt gamers because they are forced to buy every console to play them. It really does make little sense for Nintendo to let Mario games be made on the Xbox One or the PS4 though, from a business standpoint. Exclusives are usually first party titles anyway. A few aren't, but they don't stay exclusives for long. Demon's Souls is a good example. It was PS3 only, but the sequel was PS3, Xbox, and PC (eventually). They have stated Dark Souls 2 will be developer concurrently for all 3 systems.

exclusives are the reason we have competition between the consoles. without them, i personally think gaming would get stale as hell. exclusives are what keep the different platforms trying to 1-up eachother, which in the end run is what is best for us.

 

[Nintendesert]

Never in those two countries, but I had quite a few co-workers and tons of acquaintances. Not a lot of need for software developers, but that didn't stop me from volunteering quite a bit. Qatar was the closest I got, but I wouldn't really call UAE a place lacking in anything.

Ah ok, because even over commercial provided internet a lot of stuff was blocked and the connection was pretty horrible. Considering how much the XBone would need to stream it wouldn't surprise me to see that it would be blocked over there too. They never liked the bandwidth killers.

They would also block porn.

I however don't think deployed troops need to be accounted for at all when designing a system. The entirety of the demographic of young troops with lots of disposable income and playing games would though. I'm not sure how much not being able to use the XBone overseas would affect their buying habits overall. I will say I never saw a PS3 in Iraq or Afghanistan, I always saw people playing on 360's in tents or buildings or wherever they could. This from major bases to patrol bases to everywhere in between.

There's a lot of downtime when you're not on a patrol or doing your job. You can only work out so much before you just want to relax. Lots of movie watching and game playing out there no matter the job.

 

[Nemesis13]

unless they were working on a new ki long before they knew this court thing would be settled, then there is no way we'll see a ki game at launch.

At launch no, but as a future exclusive title probably.

 

[Aikouka]

really curious to see what the Rare title is. my wishes would be a new killer instinct, but i don't see that happening. my guess is it will be conker.

I am afraid that it will probably be another Viva Piñata.

With the success of the current Kinect, I think MS figures there are people who just don't want to pay the $150 extra for it (like me, because I'd hack it for PC use and just goof around with it). And if they want to push the voice commands / person sensing further, having the install base 100% of Xbox One users having Kinects helps that. They don't have to worry about adoption rates to hit a point where developers feel it is worth it.

Personally, I think the original's $150 price tag is probably quite a bit high, and I assume Microsoft did that because it was meant to be a bit more niche. However, it gained a large install base, which helps pay for the intangibles like R&D. Also, I would also guess that the R&D for the newer Kinect is based on the original (especially given the increase in processing power and available cores), which helps reduce costs.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I sat down with a buddy and had a long conversation about how both MS and Sony should be handling this. Here's what we came up with:

1) The Issue
We believe the underlying conflict here is company/developer revenue vs. consumer satisfaction. On one end, you can have a strict DRM system where each account must have a license to play said game (i.e. maximum developer revenue, minimum consumer satisfaction), or you have the other end of the spectrum where there are no restrictions on ownership and you are free to lend your copy of the game as many times as you'd like (maximum consumer satisfaction, minimum developer revenue). The question becomes: is there a suitable middle ground where both parties can be reasonably satisfied?

2) Used Games
We believe that the whole idea of selling a "used" copy of a digital game is silly to begin with, considering that there is really no such thing as "used" code: a new copy of the game will run just as well as a "used" copy. However, with consoles, people are used to having a physical medium for their games and typically speaking would want to have the option of selling games they no longer play. From what I understand, games will still come in discs; the game will run from the disc (and will be installed onto the HD over time), but each disc has a unique license tied to it which can only be tied to one account at any given time. In the strictest sense, this approach eliminates the used game market entirely - you buy a game at market value, you play it, you beat it, you are stuck with it forever. Very Steam-esque. But remember, console gamers are used to being able to sell their games back (and so is GameStop).

So MS and Sony cannot realistically go down this route without pissing off too many people. The polar opposite is equally bad as well; they cannot realistically stick with the old game model and let people share/pirate games since this will result in large financial losses to both MS/Sony and developers.

We believe the best alternative is to allow used licenses to be sold to other consumers at a reduced cost. Person A bought "Next Gen Game 4" for $60 on release and wants to sell it back. S/he trades in his/her license to that game for $XX% of the current market value of the game and Person B may decide to purchase Person A's license for $(XX% + Y), where Y represents some kind of profit margin the developer/MS/Sony/Gamestop (DMSG) will be gaining on this sale. Person A benefits by being able to sell back games they no longer want to play, Person B gains by being able to purchase a game for lower than full price, and DMSG will gain from this since they all get a cut of the profit. Isn't this profit less than what they would be gaining if there were no used games? Yes (with the exception of Gamestop; they would be massively boned if they could no longer profit off of selling used games), but it does strike a compromise between everyone's interests. The next question is why would anyone buy a game at full price if they can purchase someone else's ex-license? The answer is they wouldn't, but keep in mind there should be only a limited number of used licenses at any given time, which ensures that some people will be paying retail price. Of course, as with all licenses, these used licenses should be heavily safeguarded to ensure people don't try to capitalize on bogus CD keys.

3) Borrowing/Lending
Borrowing/lending is going to be impossible if MS/Sony implement an always-on DRM system. Under this system, the only time your friend would be able to play your game at his/her discretion is if you give him/her your account details so that he/she may log in using your account to play your game. This is unacceptable for some people. Most of us probably do not want to have to share account details just to let a friend borrow a game. Again, MS/Sony would do this to prevent financial losses from pirating and for good reasons imo.

We came up with this solution to satisfy both parties:
- You are allowed to freely borrow a friend's game a limited number of times (X) over a fixed period of time (Y). There will also be a cap on how long you may borrow a friend's game.

- Permissions to borrow games will be in the form of allowances. The number of allowances refreshes back to X amount every Y days, and the value of X varies depending on the premium level of your account. Standard accounts do not come with this privilege; you must pay extra to borrow games. Realistically, the pricing on this account upgrade should be set at a level where you would have to consistently use most of your allowances in order to break even. Think of it as having a season pass to your favorite amusement park. The cost of a day pass is $40 and the cost of the season pass is $80. Go twice and you break even; go more and you save money. Most people end up going just once, which is why season passes are profitable in the long-run. Serious gamers will love this option, and casual gamers will stick to buying a few select games.

- Assuming the borrower has an available allowance to borrow a game, the lender temporarily forfeits his/her license and may no longer play his/her copy of said game until the time limit expires. The time limit should be set to the same value as Y, i.e. when allowances refresh. If the borrower wishes to continue playing said game, they must make another request to borrow said game. Their game progress should be stored on the cloud under their account so no progress would be lost during the discontinuity in ownership.

I pretty much have the polar opposite opinion of all of that. Renting/Trading games does't hurt their bottom dollar, if anything it adds to it. The stance to do away with it (and using piracy as the scapegoat) is simply a push to maximize profit margin at customer expense, also allowing for "shorter" games that you have no way of getting rid of to spend on another game if they don't appeal to you. All while still charging a premium ($49-$69) for said games. This is the biggest difference between consoles and Steam. Steam did OK, but the biggest conversion of holdouts really burst when they started having what are considered insane deals on digital downloads.

If MS wants to sell their AAA exclusive titles for $5-$10 a few months after release I really don't care if I can trade it off or not, but since we all pretty much know that won't happen...

If they want to compare themselves to entertainment/pc's then they need to start pricing accordingly. Consoles used to sell at a loss and were only a few hundred dollars, they have since increased on average of 400% for an initial investment. Still the big difference between these and PC's can do SO much more for the amount of money involved.

 

[RedRooster]

I am afraid that it will probably be another Viva Piñata.

Good! Those games were great and they got my wife playing and accumulating achievements for me! I say bring a new one on, they could have like an open world version with the power of these new machines.

 

[Nemesis13]

http://www.playstationlifestyle.net...e-online-pass-from-all-their-existing-titles/

Yes its from a PlayStation site,but i think we should look at this as all future EA titles will have a activation fee. PS4 and X1 will most likely have a fee to play used games, EA will not walk away from easy money they were making from online passes.

 

[BladeVenom]

 

[Staples]

hilarious caption

 

[smackababy]

I fear that in a a few years people won't get the HAL 9000 reference.

 

[Topweasel]

I fear that in a a few years people won't get the HAL 9000 reference.

I will not let that happen.

 

[Topweasel]

http://www.playstationlifestyle.net...e-online-pass-from-all-their-existing-titles/

Yes its from a PlayStation site,but i think we should look at this as all future EA titles will have a activation fee. PS4 and X1 will most likely have a fee to play used games, EA will not walk away from easy money they were making from online passes.

Actually its been doing the opposite of making them money. I think they found that not only were people not buying online passes. That they weren't seeing anywhere near the amount of activations of the "free online passes" as they were expecting. Meaning that it actually created a doorway to their DLC sales that most people didn't care to open. I only activated a few games and that was because I specifically wanted to play their DLC (Mass Affect).

 

[RedRooster]

Actually its been doing the opposite of making them money. I think they found that not only were people not buying online passes. That they weren't seeing anywhere near the amount of activations of the "free online passes" as they were expecting. Meaning that it actually created a doorway to their DLC sales that most people didn't care to open. I only activated a few games and that was because I specifically wanted to play their DLC (Mass Affect).

Good point. I've got a couple games that prompted me to put in the code when I just wanted to hop on multiplayer to see what its like(it very well could've sucked me in and had me buying stuff), but since I didn't feel like making the effort I just backed out and kept playing single player or quit to play something else.

 

[HeXen]

Actually its been doing the opposite of making them money. I think they found that not only were people not buying online passes. That they weren't seeing anywhere near the amount of activations of the "free online passes" as they were expecting. Meaning that it actually created a doorway to their DLC sales that most people didn't care to open. I only activated a few games and that was because I specifically wanted to play their DLC (Mass Affect).

Doesn't mean they will stop. The reality for gamer's is the present and near future and if, they are not saying otherwise within that time space, then no one really cares.

Companies like EA are so stubborn as to wait until we have another 1983 game market crash before they even consider doing what the consumer's really want.

 

[Doppel]

I fear that in a a few years people won't get the HAL 9000 reference.

The what? :whiste:

Why would anyone be mad about exclusives?

Here's why. Know how great Uncharted are? I don't, because I don't own a PS3. The Last of Us? Looks cool. I'll never play it, don't own a PS3. I don't want to own nor do I ever really intend to own two consoles of the same gen, so I simply won't get to play these, not unless I get really damn bored this year and buy a used PS3 just to play some of the best exclusives, which I don't expect to happen.

 

[Fingolfin269]

I wanted BRD and also wanted to play Uncharted and God of War so buying a PS3 made sense to me. But to be honest if not for the exclusives I would have bought a regular player.

The funny thing about that to me now that I think about it is that last gen I considered the PS3 to be more of an entertainment box and less of a gaming one because it pushed the BRD so hard. Kind of surprising that roles seem reversed this time.

 

[lupi]

This may be the dumbest thing I've heard. Why would anyone be mad about exclusives?

If I prefer to play on one console, why shouldn't I be able to.