The Official Xbox One Thread

[smackababy]

Geoff Keighley even pointed out that while the One is not BC, there is a very good chance that if an arcade game is also on pc, we might see them port over to the one because of the infrastructure. It would be nice if they could figure out a way to bring us some of our arcade games.

I think all the XBLA games use DirectX anyway (at least the old SDK included the libraries for XNA stuff), so it should be rather trivial to port them. But will we still own them or have to rebuy them? That is the important question we should be asking.

 

[badb0y]

Geoff Keighley even pointed out that while the One is not BC, there is a very good chance that if an arcade game is also on pc, we might see them port over to the one because of the infrastructure. It would be nice if they could figure out a way to bring us some of our arcade games.

Won't it be easy to port PC games over to both the Xbone and PS4 by the virtue of them having similar architectures to begin with?

 

[Arkaign]

Won't it be easy to port PC games over to both the Xbone and PS4 by the virtue of them having similar architectures to begin with?

I would have to think so, as a matter of fact dev for PC/Xbone/PS4 should be hugely easier cross-platform as a whole compared to now with PC/PS3/360 all being drastically different.

 

[American Gunner]

I think all the XBLA games use DirectX anyway (at least the old SDK included the libraries for XNA stuff), so it should be rather trivial to port them. But will we still own them or have to rebuy them? That is the important question we should be asking.

This is the key right here. It would really piss me off if I had to rebuy them, and I would just skip it since my 360 isn't going anywhere.

 

[smackababy]

I would have to think so, as a matter of fact dev for PC/Xbone/PS4 should be hugely easier cross-platform as a whole compared to now with PC/PS3/360 all being drastically different.

Well, since the Xbox One and PC use Direct X and the PS4 uses OpenGL, it will take some work to convert them, but it shouldn't be much of a problem. Xbox One to PC is probably as easy as a different compiled version though. Maybe some UI tweaks and resolution / graphics options.

 

[BladeVenom]

Well, since the Xbox One and PC use Direct X and the PS4 uses OpenGL, it will take some work to convert them, but it shouldn't be much of a problem. Xbox One to PC is probably as easy as a different compiled version though. Maybe some UI tweaks and resolution / graphics options.

PC also uses OpenGL. Mac, Linux, Android, and iOS also use OpenGL.

 

[smackababy]

PC also uses OpenGL. Mac, Linux, Android, and iOS also use OpenGL.

Yes, however, the number of games that use OpenGL is about 1:10,000 compared to DirectX. I don't think it would be that hard to convert DirectX to OpenGL, but development for ports wil probably be Xbox One version to PC, due to there being very little difference.

 

[BladeVenom]

Yes, however, the number of games that use OpenGL is about 1:10,000 compared to DirectX.

With the Wii, Wii U, DS, 3DS, PS3, PS4, Vita, Linux, Android, iOS, and Mac all using versions of OpenGL, I'm pretty sure there's actually more OpenGL games than DirectX.

 

[smackababy]

With the Wii, Wii U, DS, 3DS, PS3, PS4, Vita, Linux, Android, iOS, and Mac all using versions of OpenGL, I'm pretty sure there's actually more OpenGL games than DirectX.

Considering almost every PC game since 1995 has used DirectX, I'd beg to differ.

 

[HeXen]

Maybe so, it's easy to think of stuff like SF2, MK, Madden, Populous, Lemmings, Batman Forever, Out of this World, Flashback, NBA Jam, etc. Even games like Contra and Castlevania were unique to each system with different great entries. Sports titles were usually better on Genesis, fighting games were usually better on SNES. But you're right, there were a lot of exclusives to each system. Somehow it didn't feel that way. Maybe that was because it was so cheap to do both systems back in the day.

Sega had a bad period in the early 90's due to losing a major lawsuit. They were releasing a lot of low quality 4 meg titles. That is why we got more 4 meg games like Golden axe 2 or Outrun Europa which were rather short and dull looking while Snes was releasing the 24 megabit Super Metroid and games like Donkey Kong Country that really pushed gaming to new places. Capcom was releasing some great arcade ports like Knights of the round..etc and Sega got largely ignored. I also believe Nintendo got all the SNK neo geo ports.

Aside from the fact that there were quite a number of multi platform titles that were completely different from each other, like Beavis and Butthead and many more that were somewhat different like TMNT or Shadow of the beast. Then you had this bs called Blast Processing vs Nintendo's Super FX chip games.

Sports games, I dunno but SNES was no slouch with ones like Super bases loaded and Tecmo bowls and many others seemed mostly the same from what I recall but I wasn't much of a sports fan.

I had both systems and I rarely played the Genesis after the SNES was released. I did like the Sega CD however due to some of the PC adventure game ports like Monkey island or Willy beamish. I also preferred Genesis game music most of the time.

 

[zerocool84]

8-16 bit was more exclusive than any other generation. That's what made it worth owning each console.

Its harder to swallow today when the systems are four times as expensive and have 99% the same games.

Its one thing to have two $99 toys with 30 unique games each, its another to have to buy another $400 "DVD player" to pick up the 3-4 exclusives you want.

We need MORE exclusives to make it worth the cost of entry. I hate having 3 systems just to play the 5 exclusives I want while everything else is exactly the same.

This generation is extremely boring and cookie cutter.

And yet the games back then were more expensive then today. I remember buying Phantasy Star IV and damn that was an expensive game, it was like $90.

 

[Aikouka]

Well, since the Xbox One and PC use Direct X and the PS4 uses OpenGL, it will take some work to convert them, but it shouldn't be much of a problem. Xbox One to PC is probably as easy as a different compiled version though. Maybe some UI tweaks and resolution / graphics options.

Yep. Just like any other application, games are merely code + assets; however, unlike Microsoft Word, I bet a game has a far greater asset:code ratio. Assets are probably fairly easy compared to code. A developer may create more variants of the same asset (mostly talking about graphical assets) for the PC, because PC games typically have a bevy of settings to cover the larger spectrum of processing power. However, code is sometimes not so simple. If they have to translate between similar languages, that's usually not too bad, but the big difference between PCs and consoles are the graphical APIs as smackababy mentioned.

I haven't really done much in the graphical world; however, I would assume that as long as the goal of a project is to develop in a multi-platform manner, the software should be designed to be extensible. One of the ways I can tell a good developer from a mediocre developer is their ability to design, and by creating a game engine in a modular fashion, it becomes a process of calling a specific graphics module that handles the necessary API. The only bad thing about doing it this way is that may obfuscate the developer from being eloquent with their work (i.e. can't do crazy shit that's unreadable but more efficient ).

 

[Dominato3r]

This is the key right here. It would really piss me off if I had to rebuy them, and I would just skip it since my 360 isn't going anywhere.

Guess what happens if you have Angry Birds on your WP8 and want to play i on your Win8 system..

There are still a lot of things that haven't been fleshed out with app purchases on Microsofts end

 

[dlock13]

This is the key right here. It would really piss me off if I had to rebuy them, and I would just skip it since my 360 isn't going anywhere.

Guess what happens if you have Angry Birds on your WP8 and want to play i on your Win8 system..

There are still a lot of things that haven't been fleshed out with app purchases on Microsofts end

So.... You're telling me it's OK that you have to rebuy your games on iOS if you're on your Mac, but it's not OK for Microsoft to make you buy something for your mobile platform/gaming system and then repurchase it on your desktop?

 

[KaOTiK]

And yet the games back then were more expensive then today. I remember buying Phantasy Star IV and damn that was an expensive game, it was like $90.

And the same answer is given each time and ignore by people. The high cost of a lot of games back then was because of the medium used. A cartridge with memory cost a lot to produce not including even the game in that cost. That is why most RPG's were more expensive, they were long and large games and because of that their cartridges cost more.

 

[raasco]

Either way, for me, next gen is a year away. Not because I can't afford it, I will just wait and see how things pan out. Maybe play one of my 40 back logged PC games...

 

[lupi]

Why the new Xbox still won't fix TV

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/04/tech/gaming-gadgets/xbox-one-tv/index.html?c=tech&page=0

 

[smackababy]

Why the new Xbox still won't fix TV

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/04/tech/gaming-gadgets/xbox-one-tv/index.html?c=tech&page=0

I am not understanding the point of the article exactly. Is it trying to educate people that a 3rd party "cable box" will still be locked out by greedy cable companies from features?

The true "savior" for not only the Xbox One, but Apple TV and Google's offering, is that once we finally do away with the garbage model that is payed television, they can easily be upated to work perfectly with an IPTV ala carte service where the consumer doesn't get screwed as much as they already are. =(

 

[lupi]

The point probably has something to do with a discussion on when most of the spotlight demonstration given to the public for a new flagship product concerns a feature(s) that will have little actual use/benefit to the end user then you may want to have life jackets on.

 

[zerocool84]

Why the new Xbox still won't fix TV

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/04/tech/gaming-gadgets/xbox-one-tv/index.html?c=tech&page=0

It's only a glorified overlay office your cable TV. It's seriously been done to death and failed every single time.

 

[smackababy]

It's only a glorified overlay office your cable TV. It's seriously been done to death and failed every single time.

But has it been done by a company willing to spend its billions on getting media corporations on board to offer native apps? We know MS is willing to make deals with companies like the NFL, ESPN, UFC, HBO. How long before they do it with ABC, FOX, and NBC? Once the big networks are on board, I am sure a bunch of smaller ones will want in.

 

[mchammer187]

But has it been done by a company willing to spend its billions on getting media corporations on board to offer native apps? We know MS is willing to make deals with companies like the NFL, ESPN, UFC, HBO. How long before they do it with ABC, FOX, and NBC? Once the big networks are on board, I am sure a bunch of smaller ones will want in.

What kind of deals have been made. HBO Go on Xbox still requires you subscribe to HBO through Cable. UFC is nice but it is not major. ESPN requires you to subscribe through ESPN though your cable provider as well.

There is no such deal AFAIK with the the NFL. Sony made a deal with the Sunday Ticket on the PS3 though.

So none of these deals have aside from the NFL Sony Deal and the UFC has allowed you to subvert the requirement of cable programming.

If they let you subscribe to HBO Go w/o subscribing to the HBO Channel via cable that would be pretty major but I remember a quote from the President of HBO saying that would never happen. It was in response to the whole HBO vs Netflix debate.

 

[smackababy]

What kind of deals have been made. HBO Go on Xbox still requires you subscribe to HBO through Cable. UFC is nice but it is not major. ESPN requires you to subscribe through ESPN though your cable provider as well.

There is no such deal AFAIK with the the NFL. Sony made a deal with the Sunday Ticket on the PS3 though.

So none of these deals have aside from the NFL Sony Deal and the UFC has allowed you to subvert the requirement of cable programming.

If they let you subscribe to HBO Go w/o subscribing to the HBO Channel via cable that would be pretty major but I remember a quote from the President of HBO saying that would never happen. It was in response to the whole HBO vs Netflix debate.

The UFC deal is a pretty big deal. Before that, you had to either use a computer or have a cable / satellite provider to buy a PPV event for UFC event. The Sony deal, from what I was told by quite a few people, requires you to have NFL Sunday Ticket on DirecTV in order to obtain that feature on the PS3 (unless they have updated this since last season). There is an option, but it is not available for US residents only those out of country.

ESPN only requires an ESPN "subscription" for some features, not all of them. I know ESPN 3 is requires nothing. And quite a few games are streamed free (at least college football and soccer).

The HBO Go situation only requires MS to offer more money for exclusivity than the cable companies are. I would imagine people would be willing to pay HBO directly $10 for just streaming access, rather than an additional whatever to a cable company.

 

[BladeVenom]

The HBO Go situation only requires MS to offer more money for exclusivity than the cable companies are. I would imagine people would be willing to pay HBO directly $10 for just streaming access, rather than an additional whatever to a cable company.

HBO is owned by Time Warner. You think Time Warner is going to let you bypass subscribing to Time Warner Cable to get HBO?

It's not going to happen.

 

[purbeast0]

I personally don't give a crap bout any of this TV stuff I have fios for my TV needs. I never used any of that stuff in 360 and doubt ill use it on x1, if I even get one at this rate.