Quoting myself:
So, the Xbox One:
It's not backwards compatible.
It may require mandatory installs and "second install fees" (not confirmed).
It requires Kinect to be attached at all times
Its name is stupid.
Its hardware is decent, but nothing groundbreaking.
It's not going in my house.
Fail.
It's a glorified remote with an old VHS chassis.
Kinda makes me want to grow sideburns and wear bell bottoms. If I buy one in a moment of weakness, Ill paint it Red with a big white stripe and have the Starsky and Hutch 70's theme song running in the background.
Technically, its not mind blowing. It's a Kinect tv remote, nothing more. Ill keep my PC and buy a PS4 for the games.
It's not backwards compatible.
Neither is the PS4. Backwards compatibility is a very computationally expensive feature - to such an extent that nearly every case of native backwards compatibility support involves simply stuffing all of the hardware from the previous console into the new one.
It may require mandatory installs and "second install fees" (not confirmed).
Mandatory installs is a fantastic idea, and it ships with a 500 GB hard drive.
I don't know what the "second install fees" will be, but I can't even remember the last time I bought a used game. I also believe that there are some really good justifications for charging consumers to transfer games, so this doesn't bother me one bit.
It requires Kinect to be attached at all times
It ships with a Kinect sensor. Why is this a problem?
Its name is stupid.
Oooooookay.
Its hardware is decent, but nothing groundbreaking.
Again, its hardware is essentially on-par with the PS4. They both sport 8 gb of memory, they both run an 8-core AMD CPU.
I'm seeing a lot of bandwagoning going on here, and not a lot of thought behind it. Unless you're planning on skipping this console generation entirely by sticking to PC gaming - in which case, what could they possibly have advertised that would lure you away from PCs?
Fail.
It's a glorified remote with an old VHS chassis.Kinda makes me want to grow sideburns and wear bell bottoms. If I buy one in a moment of weakness, Ill paint it Red with a big white stripe and have the Starsky and Hutch 70's theme song running in the background.
Technically, its not mind blowing. It's a Kinect tv remote, nothing more. Ill keep my PC and buy a PS4 for the games.
I...
Wait...
What?
It's basically identical to the PS4. Like, functionally equivalent. We won't have any idea which is more practically powerful until five years from now when we start hitting the limits of the hardware.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This video sums my thoughts perfectly
Second install fees means that you can't borrow your game to a friend without him paying money for it. That is evil.
People don't like kinect.
500GB is nothing. I have filled my 2TB hard drive to the brim with stuff.
Nothing could ever lure me away from being PC first. But, the thought of sitting down in front of a big TV, popping a disc in the console and just playing seems more and more appealing as i grow older and have less and less free time.
By the way, everyone should watch this video about the new Kinect technology.
I mean, come on. That stuff is incredible.
This video sums my thoughts perfectly
He has very little to say and manages to do so in a way that paints himself as a huge jerk. You can do much better with your thoughts than that. You don't want him as your brain's spokesperson.
Second install fees means that you can't borrow your game to a friend without him paying money for it. That is evil.
Okay. Why is it evil?
People don't like kinect.
Kinect is incredibly popular. In fact, it's so incredibly popular that it literally holds the Guinness World Record for being the fastest selling consumer electronics device of all time.
So unless by "people" you mean "the exact subset of people who don't like Kinect", then no.
500GB is nothing. I have filled my 2TB hard drive to the brim with stuff.
Cool! You get to keep your 2 TB hard drive!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In other news, fans of Pepsi still claim that Coke Zero tastes like ass and that they don't intend to purchase the new product.Console wars are so stupid they make edition wars look like a noble pursuit for truth and harmony.
"The true measure of how much I appreciate something I like is by showing everyone how much I hate everything else!"
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. Why is it evil?
Because it's my game. I bought it, thus i own it. As long as i respect copyright by not multiplying it, i can do whatever i damn want with it. If that means giving it to my friend so he can play it, it's mine, thus nobody's business what i do with my things.
As for Joe, in his defense, he has been up for 40+ hours and pissed out of his mind. I'm sure a more coherent video is coming. But his point stands. PS4 is going to murder Xbox one. Murder.
Used Kinect several times on a friend's console. Not impressed. Kinect was the fastest selling consumer electronic device because it was pretty novel and well advertised. It turned out to be pretty much rubbish, but mostly because of software running motion recognition. The device in on itself is very cool.
What does keeping my hard drive has to do with the fact that games today go from 10GB and up? and that a 500GB hard drive is going to fill up. Fast.
Because it's my game. I bought it, thus i own it. As long as i respect copyright by not multiplying it, i can do whatever i damn want with it.
Yeah, I'm going to stop you right there.
Saying, "I bought it, thus I own it," doesn't make it true. You don't get to unilaterally set the terms of your purchase. The publisher decides exactly what it is you are giving them money for. In some cases, that takes the form of the ability to do whatever you want with the game software. In some cases, however, it grants you a non-transferable personal license to use that software.
If that means giving it to my friend so he can play it, it's mine, thus nobody's business what i do with my things.
You don't own that software. You own a license to a single copy of that software. And there are a lot of really good reasons why that is the case. Can you think of a few?
As for Joe, in his defense, he has been up for 40+ hours and pissed out of his mind. I'm sure a more coherent video is coming. But his point stands. PS4 is going to murder Xbox one. Murder.
I don't see any indication of that. Neither seems to have a marketable advantage over the other. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either working for one of the two companies, or is talking out of their ass.
Used Kinect several times on a friend's console. Not impressed.
That's fine.
Kinect was the fastest selling consumer electronic device because it was pretty novel and well advertised. It turned out to be pretty much rubbish, but mostly because of software running motion recognition. The device in on itself is very cool.
The Kinect continues to sell well. Microsoft understands its broad appeal, and they're leveraging that to sell the base console now.
What does keeping my hard drive has to do with the fact that games today go from 10GB and up? and that a 500GB hard drive is going to fill up. Fast.
I think most people who own Xboxes have under 25 full titles in their library. For those who anticipate a much higher need for storage space, I'm sure they'll release larger hard drives, just as they have with the 360 and PS3.
|
|
Most of what you said, i have no counter argument against.
I can't think of a single reason to be honest, except that they want MOAR MONEYZ! (which i, in part, understand, since the only reason that they make consoles is to earn money, but some things are ridiculous)
Name a few more reasons if you have the time, i would like to read them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of what you said, i have no counter argument against.
I can't think of a single reason to be honest, except that they want MOAR MONEYZ! (which i, in part, understand, since the only reason that they make consoles is to earn money, but some things are ridiculous)
Name a few more reasons if you have the time, i would like to read them.
Okay.
Imagine you buy a toaster. The people responsible for that toaster get some of the money you paid for it, and you now own the toaster. You can do (nearly) anything you want with it. You can legally sell it to someone else. And it is ethical to do so, because you are giving up the use of that toaster. You will no longer be able to make toast.
Now imagine you buy a video game. The people responsible for that game get some of the money you paid for it, but you don't own that game. It is a copy of a piece of intellectual property for which you own a license for its use. You could sell it to someone else (assuming you had a way to transfer it, such as handing them the game's DVD), but you don't have the legal right to do so. This is because it is not expected that you will get indefinite use out of a video game. Most games receive a certain amount of play (a full single-player playthrough, for instance) and are then largely ignored. Game publishers (and developers, and retailers, etc.) depend on people purchasing their game from them in order to generate revenue. If you have a friend who wants to play a video game you own, by giving him that game you are ensuring that the people responsible for that game do not receive any benefit from his having experienced it. Effectively, multiple people were able to enjoy the full extent of the product, while only paying for a single person's use.
Mind you, there is some industry disagreement on whether this ultimately benefits or hurts publishers/developers/retailers, but that's something for the industry to figure out. The ethical thrust of the matter is that you paid for the ability to enjoy the experience the game offers, but by finishing that experience and passing it to another individual to enjoy to the same degree, you are depriving the people responsible for the game of their ability to be compensated for someone enjoying the product of their labor.
So there are clear legal and ethical arguments for charging a "second install fee" or whatever they decide to call it. You don't necessarily have to agree with all of those arguments, but I find very little support for calling such a practice "evil". At worst, it's pretty run-of-the-mill capitalism.
I think most people would agree if they spend money on a toaster, or a video game, or whatever, you bought it, you own it, you should be able to do what you want with it.
You didn't buy the actual game, you don't own the actual game. What "most people" think isn't really important.
I spent my money on something, I own it.
Okay. Go on iTunes. Pay $0.99 for the most popular song on the service. Now take that song, copy it, and sell it for $0.25 on your new website.
Or you could accept that giving someone money does not mean that you are the owner of whatever they hand you in return.
Alternatively, go to an Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Give them money. They will give you a car. Now see how long it takes them to be upset that you haven't returned it. Better yet, try selling that car to someone else!
Come on, guys. Is this really the sum total of all the thought you've put into this?
Yeah, as long as i respect the laws regarding copyrights (no multiplication, presenting the work in it's entirety or parts thereof as my own), it's mine.
There are multiple problems with this. First, copyright also encompasses what you can do with the IP you are granted license to. Second, no, it's not yours.
If they sell me a license, I'm not going to buy. As simple as that.
Sure you are. You do it all the time.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well if they GIVE me a car, then it is mine. ;) If I rent a car, then I would return it. Renting something is not the same as buying it. I go to a store, I buy a game, it is mine.
So if Paizo said we all have to just give back all our Pathfinder books to them because they own the rights, thats OK right? We never bought the books, according to you.
So all the food I bought, all the toilet paper I bought and used, I have to return because I never really owned it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well if they GIVE me a car, then it is mine. ;) If I rent a car, then I would return it. Renting something is not the same as buying it. I go to a store, I buy a game, it is mine.
So if Paizo said we all have to just give back all our Pathfinder books to them because they own the rights, thats OK right? We never bought the books, according to you.
So all the food I bought, all the toilet paper I bought and used, I have to return because I never really owned it?
Exactly! Now get to regurgitating your food, how dare you assume that food belongs to you!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I buy a work of art, and allow my friends to look upon it, should I then pay the artist more because I've done this? If I buy a book, and lend it to a friend, is he on the hook for paying a portion of the cover price when he reads it?
Let's remember it's our corrupt governments who let gigantic multinationals who don't pay taxes anyway to ream us as much as they can, as often as they can. The whole IP thing is law, so legally, Scott is correct. Morally, it's bloody bankrupt.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Xbox is a no buy for the lending reasons above. If I'm "somewhat" interested in a game my buddy has and he brings it over for me to check out and I got a message to pay for just trying it, yeah, I'd be pissed.
I prefer the Sony exclusives (Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank for examples) to X-Box exclusives, which is why I'll buy the PS4. I have the PS3 and 360 here, the 360 never gets use. I just told my 19 year old gamer stepdaughter a couple of days ago she could have it to replace her aging one. I bought GoW 1-3, and Halo 4 and Halo Reach based on reviews. I couldn't stay with them, she can have them too. :)
Like Hama, I'm a PC gamer first and foremost, but I still prefer some games that are PC and console to stay on the console. Dead Space and Batman: Arkham are perfect examples of games I prefer on the console.
The only thing that seems better on the X-Box is XB Live. Seems more competitive, but for the shooters and such I'm still PC/Mouse and Keyboard, so Xbox live and PS Network don't mean crap to me. I'm pro co-op campaigns though. :)
As usual, YMMV.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine you buy a toaster. The people responsible for that toaster get some of the money you paid for it, and you now own the toaster. You can do (nearly) anything you want with it. You can legally sell it to someone else. And it is ethical to do so, because you are giving up the use of that toaster. You will no longer be able to make toast.
Now imagine you buy a video game. The people responsible for that game get some of the money you paid for it, but you don't own that game. It is a copy of a piece of intellectual property for which you own a license for its use. You could sell it to someone else (assuming you had a way to transfer it, such as handing them the game's DVD), but you don't have the legal right to do so. This is because it is not expected that you will get indefinite use out of a video game. Most games receive a certain amount of play (a full single-player playthrough, for instance) and are then largely ignored. Game publishers (and developers, and retailers, etc.) depend on people purchasing their game from them in order to generate revenue. If you have a friend who wants to play a video game you own, by giving him that game you are ensuring that the people responsible for that game do not receive any benefit from his having experienced it. Effectively, multiple people were able to enjoy the full extent of the product, while only paying for a single person's use.
So, I can't make my morning toast, and then let my neighbor borrow the toaster? Or if I do, she'll have to pay a toast fee? Or, since the XBox One is the toaster, can I make toast and then sell it? Thus giving up my rights to bread, the games?
Nobody is denying Microsoft's right to do so, but it is kind of a dick move. I assume it's a way to make a profit off the secondary games market, and gain profits back from Game Stop. Well, ok, start by fighting Game Stop. Dig into their pockets and not mine. Offer a competing trade in service, or whatever. Nobody trading in their used games is getting a good deal, why punish them further other than just to make a buck.
And if this is a software issue, why is it a hardware solution? Your further example goes onto a song from iTunes, but not a CD, which I could buy (used even), burn and add to iTunes, and then sell or give to a friend. Rinse and repeat. So, where is Microsoft following an established example again?
As far as I've heard, backwards compatibility is pretty much a thing of the past for consoles. You want to play older games, get a PC and buy oldskool games from GOG.
Mind, it's all academic to me as I won't buy the new consoles (well, I have a DS and the 3DS but that's not really "next gen consoles"... just nextgen handhelds I guess...)... I didn't even buy anything from the latest generation. If I want to download games, have to download patches, have to have my machine online sometimes, and deal with games buggy on release, I'll stick to my PC. Just my choice, not saying it's better than anyone else's.
Indeed, I hope anyone who purchases any gaming system has fun playing it, as that's the point. If a gaming system ends up not being fun (and we have yet to see) that will be a sad day for gamers.
Used game sales has been known to be a major money loser for a long time, and has often been believed to be why much DRM exists... less to prevent stealing (which will happen no matter what) and more to prevent second hand games. Not going to jump into the ethics of it, just noting what it is--used games lose publishers money, so they'll find a way to stop it. If they're smart, though, they'll offer free demos so people can have a fair try before you buy option.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For whatever it's worth, I was reading an article about the new XBox and mention was made of a supported trading/resale system for the codes needed to use the games. Presumably, such a feature would address the concerns relating to reselling/trading/etc.
Not that I have a dog in this fight. I'm a late adapater of consoles generally, and I finally broke down and bought a 360 a year ago. I'll probably get a PS4 before I get an Xbox (and I'll probably get a WiiU over a PS4 because I have young kids and always seem to fall for Nintendo despite myself).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not backwards compatible.Neither is the PS4. Backwards compatibility is a very computationally expensive feature - to such an extent that nearly every case of native backwards compatibility support involves simply stuffing all of the hardware from the previous console into the new one.
It may require mandatory installs and "second install fees" (not confirmed).Mandatory installs is a fantastic idea, and it ships with a 500 GB hard drive.
I don't know what the "second install fees" will be, but I can't even remember the last time I bought a used game. I also believe that there are some really good justifications for charging consumers to transfer games, so this doesn't bother me one bit.
It requires Kinect to be attached at all timesIt ships with a Kinect sensor. Why is this a problem?
Its name is stupid.Oooooookay.
Its hardware is decent, but nothing groundbreaking.Again, its hardware is essentially on-par with the PS4. They both sport 8 gb of memory, they both run an 8-core AMD CPU.
I'm seeing a lot of bandwagoning going on here, and not a lot of thought behind it. Unless you're planning on skipping this console generation entirely by sticking to PC gaming - in which case, what could they possibly have advertised that would lure you away from PCs?
At least you are consistent in backing the wrong horse, Scott.
At least you are consistent in backing the wrong horse, Scott.
The one trend I've observed is that whenever a horde of angry nerds materializes, I tend to disagree with their position.
I'm okay with this.
EDIT: And let's be clear - this has nothing to do with this being an Xbox (as opposed to a Playstation). I own both consoles and like both of them to a roughly equal degree (full disclosure: I've had my 360 for longer). If Sony had come forward with a similar policy, I'd be defending that, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well if they GIVE me a car, then it is mine. ;) If I rent a car, then I would return it. Renting something is not the same as buying it. I go to a store, I buy a game, it is mine.
Says who?
You?
So if Paizo said we all have to just give back all our Pathfinder books to them because they own the rights, thats OK right? We never bought the books, according to you.
You realize that Paizo absolutely gets to set limits on how their intellectually property is used, right? When you buy one of their PDFs, there are limitations placed on you regarding how the content within may be used.
Thanks for mentioning that.
So all the food I bought, all the toilet paper I bought and used, I have to return because I never really owned it?
Did you license that toilet paper or food?
Are you really following what's being said, here? Or are you just kind of pretending to?
If I buy a work of art, and allow my friends to look upon it, should I then pay the artist more because I've done this?
Artists typically operate with the expectation that the sale of their work means that quite a few people will look at it.
If you buy a print of an artwork, there are certainly limitations placed on what you can do with that print.
If I buy a book, and lend it to a friend, is he on the hook for paying a portion of the cover price when he reads it?
Arguably, he should be compensating the author. The realities of the book trade make this prohibitive, but that doesn't mean it's not something worth considering.
EDIT: There is a separate argument to be made that encouraging the spread of knowledge (here, in book form) is its own good, and that encouraging it is more worthwhile than ensuring the opposing right (that of the author to be compensated) is protected. This is one of the ways we justify the existence of libraries.
Let's remember it's our corrupt governments who let gigantic multinationals who don't pay taxes anyway to ream us as much as they can, as often as they can. The whole IP thing is law, so legally, Scott is correct. Morally, it's bloody bankrupt.
Ethically, it's actually quite sound.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Xbox is a no buy for the lending reasons above. If I'm "somewhat" interested in a game my buddy has and he brings it over for me to check out and I got a message to pay for just trying it, yeah, I'd be pissed.
Game companies came up with a completely legal solution to that issue decades ago.
They're called demos.
It's not backwards compatible.Neither is the PS4. Backwards compatibility is a very computationally expensive feature - to such an extent that nearly every case of native backwards compatibility support involves simply stuffing all of the hardware from the previous console into the new one.
"Neither does the competitor" and "It requires effort to do" hardly makes it less of a downside.
Mandatory installs is a fantastic idea
No it isn't.
and it ships with a 500 GB hard drive.
So?
I don't know what the "second install fees" will be
"According to Wired, if owners want to use the disc with a second account they'll be asked to pay a fee and install the game from the disc"
but I can't even remember the last time I bought a used game.
Yippee for you I guess?
I also believe that there are some really good justifications for charging consumers to transfer games, so this doesn't bother me one bit.
Like what?
And it better not be the old "But the publishers don't get more money for selling the same copy multiple times" schtick either.
It ships with a Kinect sensor. Why is this a problem?
Because it's more to haul around or lose if you need to move it, and it serves NO PURPOSE to require a motion sensor/voice command to use it. Optional use? Cool. Forcing me to have the Kinect sensor to use the console at all? Not cool. It's just a ploy to get more money from people accidentally breaking the Kinect sensor and then having to go out and buy a new one just to play their console, whether the games or other features even utilize the Kinect sensor or not.
On top of that, as it is currently, the Kinect does not work in small rooms, so better hope they fix that s#$% before you pick it up or you're screwed.
Again, its hardware is essentially on-par with the PS4. They both sport 8 gb of memory, they both run an 8-core AMD CPU.
And?
I'm seeing a lot of bandwagoning going on here, and not a lot of thought behind it.
You disagree/have different experiences/think this is a good idea =/= "Everyone else is bandwagoning".
Unless you're planning on skipping this console generation entirely by sticking to PC gaming
I'm thinking about it. If the PS4 has the same kind of stuff going on I probably will.
- in which case, what could they possibly have advertised that would lure you away from PCs?
There are these things called "console exclusives". They're usually pretty good.
But the newest Halo is not worth all the b**%~!$! that has already been confirmed and anything else that might BE confirmed in the near future.
Yeah, I'm definitely out on this gen of consoles if that is where they're going. I've been finding them less interesting the past couple years and the lack of a used game market is the nail in the coffin for my interest.
Scott, restrictions on reselling have regularly been struck down in the courts. Instead of focusing on how to protect their precious profits, companies should be investing in new technology that reduces the man hours needed to make a video game.
That's the real problem for the industry IMO. They've increased the polygons on models, but they haven't figured out a way to streamline the process and make their programming time more efficient.
"Neither does the competitor" and "It requires effort to do" hardly makes it less of a downside.
Let's put it this way, then: if done properly, it would likely involve shoving an extra 360's worth of hardware into the Xbox One.
Would you be okay paying an extra $100 for the Xbox One to offset the cost of that extra hardware?
More importantly, would most consumers?
No it isn't.
It reduces load times, allows for larger textures, lessens memory impact, and frees you from the need to swap discs out.
So tell us why it isn't a good idea.
So?
As we've already discussed, it's likely that a 500 gb hard drive can cover the installation needs of the majority of Xbox owners. And those who eventually find it inadequate will, in all likelihood, be able to purchase larger drives.
"According to Wired, if owners want to use the disc with a second account they'll be asked to pay a fee and install the game from the disc"
I've read the article (which is now on its third update, with conflicting reports of whether or not these fees will even exist), but like I said, I don't know what the fees will be. I don't think anyone outside Microsoft does.
Yippee for you I guess?
I guess so.
Like what?
My discussion with Hama outlines some of them. Please read the thread.
And it better not be the old "But the publishers don't get more money for selling the same copy multiple times" schtick either.
So you don't get how digital IP works, or what?
Because it's more to haul around or lose if you need to move it,
You poor thing.
and it serves NO PURPOSE to require a motion sensor/voice command to use it.
It doesn't require those things. You will still be able to navigate using a controller.
Optional use? Cool. Forcing me to have the Kinect sensor to use the console at all? Not cool.
The Kinect sensor needs to be plugged in. It doesn't need to be actively used.
It's just a ploy to get more money from people accidentally breaking the Kinect sensor and then having to go out and buy a new one just to play their console, whether the games or other features even utilize the Kinect sensor or not.
Have you given this even 30 seconds of thought?
On top of that, as it is currently, the Kinect does not work in small rooms, so better hope they fix that s&*% before you pick it up or you're screwed.
The new Kinect sensor works in much smaller areas now. You could have easily looked that up.
And?
And so it seems silly to criticize its level of hardware. The nature of consoles means that they have significantly lower hardware demands than PCs do. And since their direct competitor isn't bringing anything more significant to the table, this is just pointless griping. No, it's not as on-paper powerful as a high-end PC. That's fine; it doesn't need to be.
You disagree/have different experiences/think this is a good idea =/= "Everyone else is bandwagoning".
No, people merely quoting each others' ignorant arguments is what makes it bandwagoning.
I'm thinking about it. If the PS4 has the same kind of stuff going on I probably will.
By and large, the two are functionally interchangeable. I'm liking the media platform and interactivity features of the Xbox One at the moment, but there are plenty of ways that could change. I will probably end up purchasing both consoles.
There are these things called "console exclusives". They're usually pretty good.
Wait, so console exclusives are a turn-on for you, while mandatory installs are a turn-off?
How does that even work, in your head?
But the newest Halo is not worth all the b%++&~*$ that has already been confirmed and anything else that might BE confirmed in the near future.
There's been very little BS, you've just got your pitchfork out over things you know relatively little about, and lord knows that pitchfork doesn't want to go back in the shed.
Scott you tend to believe in the permanency of Monopolies.
No, I believe in the probability of industry giants remaining industry giants (Microsoft is, at this point, a pretty ideal illustration of exactly what a monopoly isn't).
Microsoft is going the way of WoTC.
Are you under the impression that WotC is struggling?
Because you'd be very wrong.
Yeah, I'm definitely out on this gen of consoles if that is where they're going. I've been finding them less interesting the past couple years and the lack of a used game market is the nail in the coffin for my interest.
Scott, restrictions on reselling have regularly been struck down in the courts. Instead of focusing on how to protect their precious profits, companies should be investing in new technology that reduces the man hours needed to make a video game.
That's the real problem for the industry IMO. They've increased the polygons on models, but they haven't figured out a way to streamline the process and make their programming time more efficient.
Yes, they have. The proliferation of middleware engines is evidence of this. The reality is that producing bleeding-edge titles requires a crap-load of man-hours, many of those spent invested in the development of new engines to take advantage of ever-developing hardware capabilities.
"Neither does the competitor" and "It requires effort to do" hardly makes it less of a downside.Let's put it this way, then: if done properly, it would likely involve shoving an extra 360's worth of hardware into the Xbox One.
Would you be okay paying an extra $100 for the Xbox One to offset the cost of that extra hardware?
Definitely.
More importantly, would most consumers?
Most consumers who actually thought about it would. The cost to repair/replace an old console plus the space saved by only needing a single one for all your games kinda evens out.
This doesn't apply to people who don't replay old games...but many, many people do so.
It reduces load times, allows for larger textures, lessens memory impact, and frees you from the need to swap discs out.So tell us why it isn't a good idea.
These are all things that installing games does.
These are not things that FORCING someone to install a game does.
I've read the article (which is now on its third update, with conflicting reports of whether or not these fees will even exist)
Hence the (not confirmed) in the first quote.
but like I said, I don't know what the fees will be. I don't think anyone outside Microsoft does.
Oh, you mean exact amounts? Yeah nobody knows yet.
My discussion with Hama outlines some of them. Please read the thread.
I started writing this just before I went off to my brother's 8th grade commencement ceremony, those posts weren't there yet.
It doesn't require those things. You will still be able to navigate using a controller.
The Kinect sensor needs to be plugged in. It doesn't need to be actively used.
Exactly.
Which is precisely why it's a terrible idea to require it to be plugged in for the console to work.
Have you given this even 30 seconds of thought?
Have you?
The new Kinect sensor works in much smaller areas now. You could have easily looked that up.
My bad, last I checked it was still a hope, not a certainty.
And so it seems silly to criticize its level of hardware. The nature of consoles means that they have significantly lower hardware demands than PCs do. And since their direct competitor isn't bringing anything more significant to the table, this is just pointless griping. No, it's not as on-paper powerful as a high-end PC. That's fine; it doesn't need to be.
It's still a "Con" though a minor one.
No, people merely quoting each others' ignorant arguments is what makes it bandwagoning.
Who am I supposedly quoting, exactly?
By and large, the two are functionally interchangeable. I'm liking the media platform and interactivity features of the Xbox One at the moment, but there are plenty of ways that could change. I will probably end up purchasing both consoles.
I can generally only afford one to buy at launch. Last gen it was the PS2, this gen it was the 360. All I'm saying is that currently the PS4 is looking like the better option. For more reason than this, yes, but this is a nudge in that direction.
Wait, so console exclusives are a turn-on for you, while mandatory installs are a turn-off?
I like good games, yes. Why do you ask?
You can't play exclusives on PC. Both systems have good exclusives and I'd like to play at least some of them.
Therefore I will likely buy one of the consoles, partly because of the exclusives.
There's been very little BS, you've just got your pitchfork out over things you know relatively little about, and lord knows that pitchfork doesn't want to go back in the shed.
You may not think of it as bad but it is stuff I do not like, in any way, shape, or form.
I don't particularly care what the supposed reasons are for these features, they are still ultimately pointless and annoying features.
When you buy one of their PDFs....I said book, not PDF. Do not change what I said.
Go ahead and explain why the distinction is important. It'll be enlightening.
I purchase consoles to play games that I really want to experience--Mass Effect got me into the 360. Until I see a game I simply gotta play (and none has been announced yet that I feel this way about) the features/limitations of any new console are irrelevant for now. And anyway, I never buy the first "edition" of new gen electronics--I wait until the kinks have been smoothed out...
Most consumers who actually thought about it would.
I don't think they would.
Clearly, Microsoft doesn't think so either. And they're in a much better position to know than you or I.
This doesn't apply to people who don't replay old games...but many, many people do so.
These are all things that installing games does.
These are not things that FORCING someone to install a game does.
Then I guess sacrifices will have to be made.
Exactly.
Which is precisely why it's a terrible idea to require it to be plugged in for the console to work.
What is precisely why?
What are you worried about happening?
Have you?
Yes, which I why I know that it's ridiculous to believe that Microsoft is shipping a Kinect sensor with every Xbox One so that they can gouge consumers on repairs. The Kinect, like the rest of the console, will be covered under warranty. It's also one of the least likely components to need repair, since most people won't even touch it post-setup. It will sit on top of or below the set and do its thing. The negative press Microsoft will receive if the Kinect sensor regularly fails will far outweigh any benefit they might get from charging for repairs (see: RRoD).
It's still a "Con" though a minor one.
How is it a "con" at all?
Who am I supposedly quoting, exactly?
I wasn't singling you out. This was a reference to the thread in general, but specifically to Hama and |dvh|.
I can generally only afford one to buy at launch. Last gen it was the PS2, this gen it was the 360. All I'm saying is that currently the PS4 is looking like the better option. For more reason than this, yes, but this is a nudge in that direction.
And that's fine. But don't rag on the Xbox One for reasons like this. These are bad reasons. If their games lineup sucks, rag on that (though we won't have a clear understanding of it until E3). If the hardware is terrible, rag on that (it's not). But by all accounts it looks like the Xbox One is going to be a really solid piece of gaming (and entertainment in general) hardware.
I like good games, yes. Why do you ask?
Because you seem to be celebrating the oft-questioned practice of hardware exclusive (or, worse, timed exclusive) game titles while condemning things like preventing unlicensed used game transfers. Since both are roughly equally defensible, it seemed odd to me that you refer to one as a selling point and the other as repulsive.
You may not think of it as bad but it is stuff I do not like, in any way, shape, or form.
I don't particularly care what the supposed reasons are for these features, they are still ultimately pointless and annoying features.
Just because you personally do not expect to use them does not mean that they are pointless. And you don't know anywhere near enough about the console's setup to know whether or not they will be annoying. The ability to sell used game licenses online once you're finished with a game actually sounds pretty empowering.
What is precisely why?
What are you worried about happening?
What is the reason for having an outside component be necessary for the console itself to function? ESPECIALLY when it's not going to be USED in normal operation.
Because you seem to be celebrating the oft-questioned practice of hardware exclusive (or, worse, timed exclusive) game titles
As long as there are competing companies there will be a difference in products provided. That's just how it works.
Saying I like HBO because they have shows other channels don't isn't "celebrating" TV show exclusivity any more than my previous comment was "celebrating" console exclusives.
while condemning things like preventing unlicensed used game transfers. Since both are roughly equally defensible, it seemed odd to me that you refer to one as a selling point and the other as repulsive.
"Unlicensed used game transfers" is quite a mouthful.
How about we use the (more accurate) word: Lending.
Yes, they have. The proliferation of middleware engines is evidence of this. The reality is that producing bleeding-edge titles requires a crap-load of man-hours, many of those spent invested in the development of new engines to take advantage of ever-developing hardware capabilities.Yeah, I'm definitely out on this gen of consoles if that is where they're going. I've been finding them less interesting the past couple years and the lack of a used game market is the nail in the coffin for my interest.
Scott, restrictions on reselling have regularly been struck down in the courts. Instead of focusing on how to protect their precious profits, companies should be investing in new technology that reduces the man hours needed to make a video game.
That's the real problem for the industry IMO. They've increased the polygons on models, but they haven't figured out a way to streamline the process and make their programming time more efficient.
Let me see if I have this right.
I claim games are too expensive because they require too many man hours.
You respond that I'm wrong, they're too expensive because they require too many man hours.
Yes, I had the precise technical aspect wrong, but you had to go about correcting me in a dickish manner.
Is that the gist of your reply?
ON the bright side: "When Kotaku's Stephen Totilo pressed Harrison on the specifics of how long you could be offline before the Xbox One stopped you from playing a single-player game, Harrison responded with, 'I believe it’s 24 hours.'"
So while an always online console is still bumf#+* stupid (...even though it's completely unclear whether it's always online or not at this point), at least if it is, temporary outages won't screw everything.
Yes, they have. The proliferation of middleware engines is evidence of this. The reality is that producing bleeding-edge titles requires a crap-load of man-hours, many of those spent invested in the development of new engines to take advantage of ever-developing hardware capabilities.Yeah, I'm definitely out on this gen of consoles if that is where they're going. I've been finding them less interesting the past couple years and the lack of a used game market is the nail in the coffin for my interest.
Scott, restrictions on reselling have regularly been struck down in the courts. Instead of focusing on how to protect their precious profits, companies should be investing in new technology that reduces the man hours needed to make a video game.
That's the real problem for the industry IMO. They've increased the polygons on models, but they haven't figured out a way to streamline the process and make their programming time more efficient.
Let me see if I have this right.
I claim games are too expensive because they require too many man hours.
No, you said that video game companies were spending too many man-hours because they refused to invest in lowering the labor requirements for producing new games. I agreed that they're spending a lot of man-hours, but I pointed out that this is primarily because it takes a lot of man-hours to produce a modern, bleeding-edge game, and that game developers are already spending a lot of money on middleware products that reduce the amount of labor they need to put into a new title.
If they could reduce the amount of time and money it takes to make games, they would. They're not stupid. Making bleeding-edge games requires developing new technologies, and that's an expensive process - moreso today than ever before.
|
When I bought my Xbox 360, it had been out for about two years. I bought it and about 6 pre-owned games to get me started. I bought some DLC for those prowned games.
This iteration is going to try and kill the secondhand market by charging a fee just to play a game? That's vindictive, that punishes consumers.
I might jump to the PS4 for my next console.