The Official Xbox One Thread

[BoberFett]

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/microsoft-defends-the-xbox-ones-licensing-used-game-policies/

Sounds like it is exactly as I believe.

What? That article basically said nothing. That was a PR attempt to smooth over the ill will they've created.

"Relax guys, you think it's bad, but it's not. You'll thank us someday."

 

[AMDZen]

Dead Rising is what got me to get a 360.

Then I bought all cross-platform games for it because I already had it, then picked up a PS3 later for exclusives.

As we end this generation and I go back and scramble to find out of print exclusives for PS3 I started regretting getting a 360 first for one game.

I missed Tales of Graces f among others. PS3 was clearly the console for me, too bad I didn't see it earlier. Fortuneately for me I won't be missing the launch euphoria for some of the best games on the system at he end of it's life (Ni no Kuni and The Last if Us alone would get me to buy a PS3 if I didn't have one).

Don't get me wrong, I prefer 360 for "shooters" like Fallout 3 and Borderlands and superior online play.

I guess what I'm saying is anti consumer practices aside, I'd still be once bitten twice shy roaring history with buying a Xbox first for Dead Rising again :awe:

Exactly. You can't get drawn into the launch games for Xbone being better because PS4 will eventually have better games. Its a no brainer

And frankly, shooters like Fallout 3 and Borderlands are for the PC. Period. Playing an FPS on a console is terribad

 

[Tweak155]

What? That article basically said nothing. That was a PR attempt to smooth over the ill will they've created.

"Relax guys, you think it's bad, but it's not. You'll thank us someday."

Lol, yeah. It's easy to ignore the other sides of the argument to look good. But hey, you can't blame them for trying.

 

[smackababy]

Another person who didn't follow the argument, shocker. I never argued sequels couldn't innovate, and I never argued a console having exclusives is not a good reason to buy.

Please do tell me what you are arguing then because:

I would argue you're making a decision on playing mainly games you've been able to play previously (if that isn't apparent by now). Unfortunately we haven't seen any *real* innovation yet.

sounds an awful lot like, because some of the exclusives we have seen are sequels, they will lack innovation.

And this:

I'm saying you could be gaining short term happiness, but long term failure, so you shouldn't focus on one reason to buy a console. Obviously you should be confident they will continue to produce those exclusives you look forward to as well (which should be assumed when this is your decision in buying).

is pretty confusing as to what exactly you are arguing.

How is buying a console based on games available immediately and showcasing a line up of future titles short sighted? I don't see it. I buy consoles based on one thing: games I want to play being available.

Sony has not shown any games only available on their console yet, MS has. Therefore, I choose to buy the Xbox One.

 

[purbeast0]

For launch isn't what I was arguing. There will be exclusives on both eventually. And because of the IP's on both sides, you have a pretty good idea of what those will be.

well you said has which means currently, not what they will eventually have, so i was clearing it up for people.

 

[purbeast0]

i would argue that the "drivatar" on forza 5 is *real* innovation for the x1 that they've shown us.

 

[smackababy]

This is incorrect any way because Dead Rising and Dead Rising 2 came to the PC eventually. I can reasonably assume DR3 will too. Gears of War also was released on PC eventually.

So those aren't exclusive.

God of war games are indie games? Color me shocked. God of War has never come out on PC.

PS4 has just as many exclusives as Xbone or even more, and personal preference does play a roll but I don't need fantasy integration, that is what my phone is for while watching the game. I don't need it to use real estate on my screen.

The only thing Xbone has going for it is Killer instinct for me any way, Halo was good - I've had enough of it and don't need more. God of War games are better in every way to the 3rd person exclusives on Xbox IMO.

Dead Rising never came to PC. God of War is not announced for the PS4. We don't know if or when any God of War will come out for the PS4. Right now, the only exclusives announced have been awful on Sony's side.

 

[sze5003]

MS didn't really show a lot either. Halo, madden, forza, dead rising. Killer instinct was what I got interested about and titan fall. The other games, all stuff people have heard of before. Sony showed of some 1886 game and the sorcerer neither which I was interested in but that doesnt mean uncharted won't come later or other games I originally bought a ps3 for.
I don't see a point in an argument for buying a system for someone's favorite games. That's why I bought a ps3 originally. Now I'm going with the features Sony kept to and actually listened to consumers. But saying one console is better because of it's exclusives is pretty pointless right now.

 

[Tweak155]

Please do tell me what you are arguing then because:
sounds an awful lot like, because some of the exclusives we have seen are sequels, they will lack innovation.

And this: is pretty confusing as to what exactly you are arguing.

How is buying a console based on games available immediately and showcasing a line up of future titles short sighted? I don't see it. I buy consoles based on one thing: games I want to play being available.

Sony has not shown any games only available on their console yet, MS has. Therefore, I choose to buy the Xbox One.

While I'm done arguing, I will clarify something I've said to make it more clear.

Regarding innovation, I meant the sequels they've selected to go with which are exclusives haven't really shown innovation in their previous iterations (obviously this is opinion). You even had a nod to this when you chose to use Ultima as your example. Why didn't you use the Halo series, or one of the others that are actually being released? It was almost like a subconscious acknowledgement.

As far as my second quote, you're taking it out of context. I've explained previously the original quote which stemmed this discussion was postulated in a manner of buying one console *instead* of the other. This is an important piece of the puzzle. If you take the PS4 out of your decision in buying the XB1 (which in itself would indicate you wouldn't waste your time buying the PS4), the argument makes no sense.

This will be my last clarification / addition to the argument. It has become a dead topic.

 

[Tweak155]

i would argue that the "drivatar" on forza 5 is *real* innovation for the x1 that they've shown us.

I thought this at first, but then I wonder why this is a good / cool thing? I can't come up with anything - what's your view?

 

[DaveSimmons]

So far the pro-PS4 arguments here are "there will be good exclusives . . . .eventually"

Probably. Almost certainly, based on PS3 history and how Sony is favoring indies while MS ignores them (except Minecraft).

But that's an argument to buy a PS4 in 2014 or 2015 after those games show up.

If you want to play Forza for example, you can buy it then enjoy it for the next year while you wait for those PS4 games.

If you only can ever buy one more console then maybe you'd want to wait and see if more PS4 games show up, but otherwise it does make sense to buy the console that has games you want, even if the console is second-rate.

 

[exdeath]

Exactly. You can't get drawn into the launch games for Xbone being better because PS4 will eventually have better games. Its a no brainer

And frankly, shooters like Fallout 3 and Borderlands are for the PC. Period. Playing an FPS on a console is terribad

Fallout 3 + VATS makes it play like an RPG and makes console play doable.

Borderlands? Well I hate controllers vs mouse but a) with everything being cross-platform for console, mouse speed is handicapped and feels just as squishy and slow anyway with arbitrary max turn speed b) I stated playing FPS on consoles and accepted "good enough" starting with the Bioshock DRM controversy.

 

[Tweak155]

So far the pro-PS4 arguments here are "there will be good exclusives . . . .eventually"

Probably. Almost certainly, based on PS3 history and how Sony is favoring indies while MS ignores them (except Minecraft).

But that's an argument to buy a PS4 in 2014 or 2015 after those games show up.

If you want to play Forza for example, you can buy it then enjoy it for the next year while you wait for those PS4 games.

If you only can ever buy one more console then maybe you'd want to wait and see if more PS4 games show up, but otherwise it does make sense to buy the console that has games you want, even if the console is second-rate.

Who has argued to buy PS4 for the exclusives? I may have missed it - please quote.

 

[BoberFett]

I won't be buying another one, and I'm cancelling my account. For whatever reason I'm leaving gaming, but I know someone interested.

Is my Xbone and more importantly $5000 in games worth anything? Can the account at least be sold or transferred?

No? Then fuck MS.

Until content providers accept that consumers demand tangible value to the things they purchase, including virtual property and digital downloads, these DD and DRM schemes will fail. Nobody wants to walk away from their $5000 video games or WoW account of 3 years and hundreds of hours any more than they world a $30,000 car.

And THAT is the problem. This isn't about piracy and developer IP rights, this is about DELIBERATELY and OPENLY removing ALL tangible value and property rights and ownership from the consumer. Sony chose the word "devalue" very carefully.

This is the crossroad that the battle will come to before DD can be openly embraced. At they VERY LEAST accounts should be able to be sold.

If they expect "digital property" to be throw away with no ownership, then it needs to have a throw away cost , Eg $9 like a movie ticket.

That's really what it comes down to. The IP industry wants to charge the same price as an ownership model, but wants to the control of being able to revoke access at any time for any reason that the license model gets. They need to pick one.

 

[AMDZen]

Watch Dogs on PS4 will have exclusive content. Isn't that a launch title?

 

[BoberFett]

Ironic example, given that the Sony (via SCOTUS) is the reason we can rent or record anything today.

Agreed, but that was when Sony was a company that made cool, high quality electronics. Sony Electronics and Sony Entertainment have different goals.

 

[Nemesis13]

Im I the only person that still likes Halo, And i dont think watch dogs is launch.

 

[American Gunner]

Im I the only person that still likes Halo, And i dont think watch dogs is launch.

No you are not. While I don't play online as much, I still really like the Halo series.

 

[purbeast0]

watch dogs is most definitely a launch title, for both platforms. and i do believe the ps4 has some exclusive content. i don't remember 100% what it is, but i do remember lol'ing when hearing what it was. it was something to the likes of a different character skin or car skin.

 

[purbeast0]

I thought this at first, but then I wonder why this is a good / cool thing? I can't come up with anything - what's your view?

because it won't feel like you are racing against ai but rather against human opponents.

if you've ever played gran turismo, you will know how attrocious the ai in racing games can be. you know in all the new racing games how they have the "racing line" thing now a days? well in gran turismo the cars will follow it to a T no matter what is in their way. gt is known for the worst racing ai.

 

[Tweak155]

because it won't feel like you are racing against ai but rather against human opponents.

if you've ever played gran turismo, you will know how attrocious the ai in racing games can be. you know in all the new racing games how they have the "racing line" thing now a days? well in gran turismo the cars will follow it to a T no matter what is in their way. gt is known for the worst racing ai.

Oh, wow, that is not what I took from their description - but now that you explain it that way, it makes sense that is what they were saying (I won't even describe what I thought they meant :biggrin.

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. And yeah, that's cool.

 

[smackababy]

Oh, wow, that is not what I took from their description - but now that you explain it that way, it makes sense that is what they were saying (I won't even describe what I thought they meant :biggrin.

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. And yeah, that's cool.

The way I took it, was they were going to aggregate data on how players actually race, and apply that to the AI, rather than "here is the best line, deviate from this based on <difficulty * random change>" model that currently games tend to use.

This should give us more realistic computer drivers and as the community improves, so does the difficulty, which is a good thing.

The big drawback for people will be to use this feature, requires you to be always online. While that is not a problem for me, I can see it effecting people. But the requirement for a phone home at least every 24 hours, this should eliminate some of those people.

 

[blurredvision]

The way I took it, was they were going to aggregate data on how players actually race, and apply that to the AI, rather than "here is the best line, deviate from this based on <difficulty * random change>" model that currently games tend to use.

This should give us more realistic computer drivers and as the community improves, so does the difficulty, which is a good thing.

The big drawback for people will be to use this feature, requires you to be always online. While that is not a problem for me, I can see it effecting people. But the requirement for a phone home at least every 24 hours, this should eliminate some of those people.

I'm willing to bet that 99% of X1 users will have this thing hooked up 100% of the time they're playing anything...I know I would.

 

[smackababy]

I'm willing to bet that 99% of X1 users will have this thing hooked up 100% of the time they're playing anything...I know I would.

And that is what MS is banking on. They basically made an always online console, and gave developers the "freedom" to use always online services and such (like cloud computing), but knowing that internet sometimes does stop, added a buffer for how long the console will function without internet.


I also think MS is realizing the lines between single player and multiplayer are going to be increasingly blurred. Eventually, single player will just mean playing without anyone else, but able to instantly, should you choose. Diablo 3 already started down this road.

 

[AstroManLuca]

So far the pro-PS4 arguments here are "there will be good exclusives . . . .eventually"

No, the arguments have been "it's $100 cheaper" and "it doesn't require you to be online constantly" and "you can buy and sell used games and rent games."