Xbox one is coming


Video Games

1,101 to 1,150 of 1,540 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Uzzy wrote:

Oh please, the magical 'share games with ten family members' rubbish was a PR concoction that dazzled people into thinking that Microsoft were offering some kind of free games magicland where you got to play AAA titles as soon as they were released for free.

Not only was it never fully explained or defined, the publishers would never in a million years have stood for it.. and even more damning, it could still have existed as an optional opt-in program. Want to use this awesome feature, then you'll have to be always online.

Not to mention I can currently "share" the game with 10 family members. The 10 family members who use the same console. If anything they were probably going to limit access to the game to 10 accounts linked to a single machine.

Again, the goal is to provide a service people want to pay money for. No one is making them add limitations customers don't want.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yay edition wars!
Never underestimate the ability of the gaming community (or any internet geek community, for that matter) to get angry at something new that changes something they've grown comfortable with and accustomed to. That is a limitless capacity.

Yourself excluded, of course!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
If you want to backtrack your statement, with it's lack of empathy and regard for the situations of others, feel free.

I don't see my "lack of empathy" as any more ostentatious than yours for arguing against my ideal sharing or licensing paradigm. I want what I want and you want what you want, and neither of us is going to be fully satisfied if the other gets his way. The only real difference is that you're arguing in favor of continuing a policy that is already in effect, and I'd like to see a new policy.

You, however, are getting your way. If you want to be a jerk about it, to boot, go ahead.

Just curious, do you have PROOF of what the family sharing looked like? Not speculation, actual proof?

You can still share your games with family, you just share the disc. Is that slightly less convenient than digital sharing? Yes, but you can still do it.

Microsofts plan was eroding our rights as consumers. I think it'd be great if our rights were instead strengthened, because then you would be able to share your digital copies the way you wanted.

I'd rather see our rights as consumers protected, than rely on the good graces of corporate execs to 'allow' us to use the products we purchase. I'm also tired of those execs crying and whining about how they aren't making money and the used game market is killing their business, when Microsoft clearly had a deal worked out with GameStop, hence the 'authorized dealers'.

So I agree, it's too bad the family plan went away, but I still want to see proof that you could designate anyone as a family member.


Irontruth wrote:


So I agree, it's too bad the family plan went away, but I still want to see proof that you could designate anyone as a family member.

Uh... did they have your family tree handy? Do they have your Social Security Number? Do family all have the same last name (these days especially)? Do they have a clan tag? :) Just how would they go about identifying family except by your word? Curious how you think they would do that except by a customer identifying them...


R_Chance wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


So I agree, it's too bad the family plan went away, but I still want to see proof that you could designate anyone as a family member.
Uh... did they have your family tree handy? Do they have your Social Security Number? Do family all have the same last name (these days especially)? Do they have a clan tag? :) Just how would they go about identifying family except by your word? Curious how you think they would do that except by a customer identifying them...

They currently do it by payment and billing.


ciretose wrote:
Not to mention I can currently "share" the game with 10 family members. The 10 family members who use the same console. If anything they were probably going to limit access to the game to 10 accounts linked to a single machine.

They had already stated, explicitly, that the accounts would not need to be linked to the same machine. One of the examples used was a child away at college with his own Xbox One accessing his family's games. Spokespeople in the last week had also made it clear that it was not limited to actual family members.


Irontruth wrote:
You can still share your games with family, you just share the disc. Is that slightly less convenient than digital sharing? Yes, but you can still do it.

It's not slightly less convenient. It's dramatically less convenient. It denies me access to my games while they're borrowing them, it means I have to physically transfer the disc, it means that my friends have to physically transfer the disc back to me, etc.

Quote:
So I agree, it's too bad the family plan went away, but I still want to see proof that you could designate anyone as a family member.
Phil Spencer wrote:
You don't have to send in your birth certificate. You define what a family unit is and the people who connect to you and how that library works.

Sovereign Court

Scott Betts wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
You can still share your games with family, you just share the disc. Is that slightly less convenient than digital sharing? Yes, but you can still do it.

It's not slightly less convenient. It's dramatically less convenient. It denies me access to my games while they're borrowing them, it means I have to physically transfer the disc, it means that my friends have to physically transfer the disc back to me, etc.

Quote:
So I agree, it's too bad the family plan went away, but I still want to see proof that you could designate anyone as a family member.
Phil Spencer wrote:
You don't have to send in your birth certificate. You define what a family unit is and the people who connect to you and how that library works.

You wouldn't need the disc. You'd have the game installed on the console.


Hama wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
You can still share your games with family, you just share the disc. Is that slightly less convenient than digital sharing? Yes, but you can still do it.

It's not slightly less convenient. It's dramatically less convenient. It denies me access to my games while they're borrowing them, it means I have to physically transfer the disc, it means that my friends have to physically transfer the disc back to me, etc.

Quote:
So I agree, it's too bad the family plan went away, but I still want to see proof that you could designate anyone as a family member.
Phil Spencer wrote:
You don't have to send in your birth certificate. You define what a family unit is and the people who connect to you and how that library works.
You wouldn't need the disc. You'd have the game installed on the console.

What? That's not how it's going to work. You need the disc in your machine to play non-downloaded titles.

Xbox One Update wrote:
Also, similar to today, playing disc based games will require that the disc be in the tray.


Scott Betts wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
You can still share your games with family, you just share the disc. Is that slightly less convenient than digital sharing? Yes, but you can still do it.

It's not slightly less convenient. It's dramatically less convenient. It denies me access to my games while they're borrowing them, it means I have to physically transfer the disc, it means that my friends have to physically transfer the disc back to me, etc.

Quote:
So I agree, it's too bad the family plan went away, but I still want to see proof that you could designate anyone as a family member.
Phil Spencer wrote:
You don't have to send in your birth certificate. You define what a family unit is and the people who connect to you and how that library works.

You're right, you do have to physically transfer the disc.

Would you say it's more or less convenient when you want to transfer it to an 11th person?

There's trade off's, I acknowledge that.

Thanks for finally providing an actual piece of information on the family plan, not just paraphrasing and making us take you at your word.

I admit, it does sound cool the way it would have worked and it's too bad they backtracked it. They COULD have kept it though if they had really wanted. Keep the disc tied to the license, but allow the gifting method to happen unlimited times.

If they had just removed the limit of "gift, but only once", that would have solved the used game issue and ownership completely.

Also, I know you think the always-on is cool, here's the thing. The benefit of an always on connection HASN'T gone away. All that's been removed is the REQUIREMENT. You can still access Xbox LIVE exactly the same way you would have when that was still a requirement.

I think constant internet connections are cool too, I just don't like being REQUIRED to have one to play a single-player game. If you doubt the downfall of such a program, I recommend looking up some articles on the latest SimCity and Diablo 3 involving server downtime.

Liberty's Edge

Irontruth wrote:

Just curious, do you have PROOF of what the family sharing looked like? Not speculation, actual proof?

This may be the best we can get on what the family plan would have been.

So on the family share plan, if you are not the primary owner of the game, you can play the borrowed game for an hour max.

Sounds great to me. As opposed to having the disc and playing for as long as I want.


Irontruth wrote:

You're right, you do have to physically transfer the disc.

Would you say it's more or less convenient when you want to transfer it to an 11th person?

Less convenient, obviously, but seeing as how there is no conceivable situation under which I'd want to transfer it to an eleventh person, and seeing as how, even if I did, I'd still be benefiting more from the ease of lending it to the first ten, I don't really care.

I can't remember ever lending a game to even five people, much less eleven.


Personally I thought the share plan was lame.

Regardless requiring 24-hour check-ins for playing installed disc games without the disc and playing a game that was shared with you is not mutually exclusive with playing a disc game with the disc in indefinitely offline or playing a purchased digital download of the game offline.

Furthermore they could have kept their used game policies for digital downloads and left disc based games with the more traditional format.

Really someone at Microsoft needs to just sit down and think for a bit before writing up policy.


Scott Betts wrote:


What? That's not how it's going to work. You need the disc in your machine to play non-downloaded titles.

Y'know, it's kinda funny.

What happened to "The system is designed around these features, we can't just flip a switch to get rid of them!" stuff when all this first happened?

It seems like it would be easier for them and less like throwing a mini-tantrum to leave the features intact that people liked and hell even leave the ones some didn't as OPTIONS rather than seemingly building the console again from the ground up.


CapeCodRPGer wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Just curious, do you have PROOF of what the family sharing looked like? Not speculation, actual proof?

This may be the best we can get on what the family plan would have been.

So on the family share plan, if you are not the primary owner of the game, you can play the borrowed game for an hour max.

Sounds great to me. As opposed to having the disc and playing for as long as I want.

This is very disappointing, if true, and would have significantly impacted the utility of the family sharing program. If it turns out to be an accurate summary of how the family sharing program worked, I'm far less saddened by the loss of the sharing program. It may really have been too good to be true.

Then again, so far it's just an anonymous rumor post.


Marthkus wrote:
Furthermore they could have kept their used game policies for digital downloads and left disc based games with the more traditional format.

No, they couldn't have. Physical retailers would have rioted and, unfortunately the console industry remains shackled to a dying brick-and-mortar retail system.


Scott Betts wrote:
I can't remember ever lending a game to even five people, much less eleven.

I happen to remember a few times I have. Sometimes things get old. In particular my N64 collection I had going well after gamecube was relased(though eventually I did sell it, no working 64). It was kinda cool to play older games with friends over at their house or such. Saved them hunting it down too.

There are limitations on that 10 people gig, no? Such as who you can, how long, whatever. I can't just you know, hand/sell them the disk and be done with it. I'm not too keen on the policies.


MrSin wrote:
There are limitations on that 10 people gig, no? Such as who you can, how long, whatever. I can't just you know, hand/sell them the disk and be done with it. I'm not too keen on the policies.

You aren't too keen on the policies that you aren't familiar with?


Scott Betts wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Furthermore they could have kept their used game policies for digital downloads and left disc based games with the more traditional format.
No, they couldn't have. Physical retailers would have rioted.

Erm, how would that hurt the physical retailers? He didn't say toss out the physical disk. We can currently share games and sell them anytime we want, and they haven't started going into the streets complaining about the lost cash. On the other hand, I have seen insane DRM policies out of paranoia that actually hurts the innocent buyers.

Shadow Lodge

Scott Betts wrote:
MrSin wrote:
There are limitations on that 10 people gig, no? Such as who you can, how long, whatever. I can't just you know, hand/sell them the disk and be done with it. I'm not too keen on the policies.
You aren't too keen on the policies that you aren't familiar with?

Well, you seem to be amazingly keen on policies you aren't familiar with. Not sure what the big difference is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
What happened to "The system is designed around these features, we can't just flip a switch to get rid of them!" stuff when all this first happened?

Like Sim City, caught out in their lies. Amazingly enough, people don't want arbitrary restrictions imposed on discs that only exist to promote non-disc downloads. As far as I can see, MS' model succeeding would be the thing which led to the ruin of physical game stores, as it would remove discs' unique benefits distinguishing them from downloads, offering parity between discs and downloads leads to discs' demise. MS should certainly be able to offer SOME online sharing of downloaded games, which still leaves physical discs desirable. But that would be pointless from their viewpoint, because their goal was NOT to simply offer consumers 'more great features', but to transform the market, weaken/marginalize the retail channel, and get consumers used to a non-ownership subscription model... All because... they weren't satisfied with the profits they were already making. Although, again that makes more sense if everybody in the business saw PS4 dominating this generation due to launching at the same time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Aside from removing a good chunk of the negatives, I still do not see anything the Xbone has over the PS4 aside from Halo.


Of course not, they have 50% less GPU cores.
There is a reason why GPUs with more cores are produced (at a higher cost) and sold for a higher price.
"The Power of the Cloud" is not a technical feature of XBone, a developer can do the same things with the PS4 and an online server as they can with XBone.
And XBone's memory architecture just can't compare to Sony's if used for non-traditional applications,
like using GPU cores for general compute tasks (AI pathing, physics) rather than rendering the frame.
With 50% more GPU cores, PS4 has plenty to spare for things like that which enhance actual gameplay (and don't require more $$$ for art assets).
The 360 certainly had technical advantage vs. the PS3 which even launched a year later, although PS3's Cell eventually was able to be leveraged fully to change that equation. That isn't the case for the Xbone now and there is no potential upside (ala PS3/Cell).
That said, sure, there's going to be nice exclusives on XBone that MS pays for. But given that XBone doesn't offer anything unique architecturally, cross-platforms can expect the same performance gains seen on a PC when you add a more powerful graphics card.


I don't know what TFLOPS are, but I must have more of them!


Harhar


Of course, capitalist 'ownership society' Microsoft wants to remove the idea that you own your games, that you own anything, everything is a licence... Ownership isn't good for the consumer, it's good for the corporations that own everything. Besides, MS is hardly the best flag carrier for this, as they have a history of end-of-lifing online cloud verification, etc, i.e. PlaysForSure.


Here's the concluding paragraph from ExtremeTech's June 11 hardware comparison of the PS4 and the X-Box One:

"Ultimately, with both the Xbox One and PS4 having such similar hardware, real-world performance differences will probably come down to how well the consoles make use of those eight CPU cores, GPU offloading, and differences in the memory subsystem. It’s also important to bear in mind that a huge speed-up is available when developing games for a fixed platform with known performance/latency characteristics. Realistically, we wouldn’t be surprised if games on the Xbox 720 and PS4, just like the current generation, look very similar. Likewise, games will probably look better on consoles for a few years, and then PCs will probably pull back ahead."

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/156273-xbox-720-vs-ps4-vs-pc-how-the-hard ware-specs-compare

The hardware is x86. They gave the slight hardware edge to the PS 4 up article from here, but apparently the software (again very similar) will be important. And, in the end, next to no difference in performance. They also discuss the new Sony controller v. Kinect 2. Each has advantages. The hardware is already inferior to the PC; but there are advantages to programming for a fixed set of hardware. Thus the PC pulls ahead in a couple of years.

Both processors are inferior to a current gen Core i7 btw. The GPUs are pretty much the equivalent to current AMD cards (with the edge going to Sony). The RAM is identical, but MS has some extra on die RAM tucked away to help make up the difference.

In short don't expect any significant difference in games running on either system. It will come down to game line-ups, price (+ for Sony), preference in controllers, etc. The usual in short.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And thank God for that.

I prefer a console war based in nebulous hardware comparisons and exclusive titles SO much more than debating whether or not a console is the excrement of Orwell's and Satan's love child.


Scott Betts wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Furthermore they could have kept their used game policies for digital downloads and left disc based games with the more traditional format.
No, they couldn't have. Physical retailers would have rioted and, unfortunately the console industry remains shackled to a dying brick-and-mortar retail system.

If they're so shackled, why do they constantly give Gamestop access to exclusive content? They are literally spending time and effort to promote sales at Gamestop. Why would they do this if they weren't making money?

For example, to discourage used game sales, you got a one-time code to unlock Catwoman in the latest Batman game. Unless you bought the game used from Gamestop, which was authorized to give out codes with used games.

Publishers bad mouth Gamestop, but they continue to seek out new ways of encouraging gamers to buy their game through Gamestop.


What's more likely is that Gamestop are the ones paying money to secure the Gamestop exclusives to attempt to get people to buy from them direct rather than from Steam / Amazon / etc.


This is almost 4 years old, but it's still pretty true right now as well.

That stuff isn't happening by accident. The developers of the game are purposely creating content that is sectioned off to promote sales at Gamestop.

If Gamestop is so evil, the obvious solution would be to stop putting in EXTRA effort specifically to increase Gamestop sales. Unless the amount of money being paid by Gamestop is MORE than what they cost you in lost sales, it doesn't make sense.

"Hey, here's $5 to cut off my foot. OH MY GOD WHY ARE YOU CUTTING OFF MY FOOT?!?"


To really answer that question we'd need to see behind the veil at where all the money goes and how it flows. I'd suspect that alot of the fist shaking and condemnation of the Gamestop used sales are an attempt to saber rattle and influence other bargaining rather than really trying to get them to stop it outright.


I'm down with most of that. I staked my claim a month ago (on page 1), I think the game industry is in trouble because instead of looking at their development model (development costs have quadrupled every 5-6 years the past 15 years), they're focusing on how to get a few small percentage points that won't come even close to covering their increasing costs.

Talking about the success of Skyrim.

Publisher exec's look at games like Call of Duty and World of Warcraft and want to imitate their success. EA spends more money on the Battlefield series than Activision does on Call of Duty, but Call of Duty keeps winning. I think largely because EA isn't trying to do their own thing, but rather imitate someone else. We don't get awesome works of ingenuity, but hodge podge piles of focus group analysis.

Talking about more realistic sales goals and development costs.


Quote:
EA spends more money on the Battlefield series than Activision does on Call of Duty, but Call of Duty keeps winning. I think largely because EA isn't trying to do their own thing, but rather imitate someone else.

The BATTLEFIELD series predates CALL OF DUTY, so I'm not sure how that works. And there are some fairly substantial differences between them, which is why BF3 did very well. You can't fly jet fighters or drive tanks at will in CALL OF DUTY, as far as I know.

Certainly the marketing turn EA took with BF3 seemed to suggest they were going after the CoD customers, but they are somewhat different games.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Not to mention I can currently "share" the game with 10 family members. The 10 family members who use the same console. If anything they were probably going to limit access to the game to 10 accounts linked to a single machine.
They had already stated, explicitly, that the accounts would not need to be linked to the same machine. One of the examples used was a child away at college with his own Xbox One accessing his family's games. Spokespeople in the last week had also made it clear that it was not limited to actual family members.

Which is something they can still do. You can't access cloud games without an internet connection, and if you are playing without the disc at a console that isn't yours...so they can still do a verification on those games. If it was required, they could have that specific feature require verification and being on at least once every 24 hours, or even one that only permits this for online purchases (or a secondary upsell purchase that makes the game dual accessible using a registration code..

That type of service wasn't the complaint or issue. The physical purchased disc being transferable and available in a secondary market was the issue.

They have decided not to implement a feature they promised, and are saying it is because they aren't implementing a feature people didn't want.

The two issues are largely unrelated. XBox has now taken away a feature you wanted.

Welcome to the club.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Welcome to the club.

I have a feeling that the Nine Hells will freeze before Scott admits he was wrong in anyway.

Liberty's Edge

In his defense, he is playing devil's advocate most of the time against what he views as hyperbolic nerd rage.

When you play Devil's Advocate, for obvious reasons you often find yourself having difficultly making a viable argument....


JonGarrett wrote:

It's still an inferior console with a sensor that a lot of people don't want...

There's still no real advantage to the One - the higher price for an inferior console whose predecessor had a spectacular rate of hardware failure and has an incredibly limited release in 21 countries is pretty bad - but at least it makes something remotely resembling a sane system now.

I only had one Xbox 360 die--I purchased it when Mass Effect 1 came out, and it finally died last year. My experience of Xbox consoles is that they're pretty dependable...

As to the unwanted Kinect: if the very first Xbox had been issued with some kind of motion sensor instead of it being sold as an add-on to the 360 years later, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The griping comes from being conditioned to think of the sensor as an add-on feature. Granted I don't think I'll ever use it, but there are many features on my smartphone that I never use either...

For me, backwards compatibility is the one and only sticking point. At minimum, I wish they would issue a software upgrade (like last time) or, (grumble, grumble) an add-on drive for older games.

Liberty's Edge

The XBox circle of death is a well known phenomenon. This isn't to say the PS3 was infallible. It is, frankly, an inferior machine to the XBox 360 in many ways, hence losing the last console war.

The issue with the kinect being optional is the same as the Wii Fit board being optional. If I don't plan to use the Kinect, or don't value it as a feature, why am I being forced to pay for it?

The price difference between the XBox ONE and PS4 is 100 dollars. I can pay 60 dollars to get a PS4 with a motion sensor, making that gap a much more reasonable 40 dollars.

But I have the option to just save 100 dollars.

The reason XBox is getting slammed is the classic mistake the leader in sales seems to keep making. They forgot what made them the leader and assume it will always continue.

XBox won the last round because they were cheaper and better. PS3 gambled that the Blue Ray would cover the gap in pricing, and they were wrong. They forgot that it is the game system, stupid. You buy a console to play games. If it also has cool sensors, or a blue ray player, great.

But all things being equal, you buy the cheaper one that plays the games and then maybe later you buy the cool add-ons.

And frankly, it would probably be more profitable per unit to sell the add on separately...


I just bought my third Xbox, although the first two were repaired via warranty for Red Rings of death before dying by something else. Not the best failure rate, but I've heard worse. Then again, I've heard one in six Xboxes tend to go RROD, so maybe I'm just terribly unlucky. I'm also on my second PS3. Never had a problem with my Wii, or any of my older consoles either, though.

I like the Kinnect. Mine doesn't work especially well due to space limitations, but it's fun. What I don't like as much is the extra cash. Give the choice between saving $100 (or, in all likelyhood, £100 over here) or having a Kinnect, I know which I would choose.

I'm still not too bothered by the lack of backwards comparability, at least not until the supply of cheap 360's runs out.


I'm on my 3rd Xbox, but the 2nd and 3rd are refurbished units that I got fairly cheap.

Liberty's Edge

Werthead wrote:
Quote:
EA spends more money on the Battlefield series than Activision does on Call of Duty, but Call of Duty keeps winning. I think largely because EA isn't trying to do their own thing, but rather imitate someone else.

The BATTLEFIELD series predates CALL OF DUTY, so I'm not sure how that works. And there are some fairly substantial differences between them, which is why BF3 did very well. You can't fly jet fighters or drive tanks at will in CALL OF DUTY, as far as I know.

Certainly the marketing turn EA took with BF3 seemed to suggest they were going after the CoD customers, but they are somewhat different games.

I agree that the games play very differently. The return of Commander mode plus the vehicles (including gunboats, jets, & tanks) are why I am more interested in Battlefield 4. CoD is more of a ground troop style where opponents are very evenly matched.


Ummm...no, that may be the design theory it's based on but if we've been shown anything over the years it's that the CoD developers are utter incompetents.

The opponents are only evenly matched if they're using the same weapons and Perks (which, admittedly, is usually the case because it's usually pretty obvious which weapon is completely broken compared to all of the others).

Battlefield 3 had some balance issues too, but DICE patched them with fixes. And all in all EA has managed to keep Battlefield remarkably unsullied with a lot of the things they push on other developers they own.

Liberty's Edge

Battlefield 3 was, as far as I can tell, that most unique of albatrosses - a game designed for PC that was subsequently shoehorned into console hardware that couldn't support it properly. So often the reverse is true.

I am very excited for BF4 on the consoles. When Console gamers see what PC gamers saw in the last game, PLUS commander mode, I think it may prove to put a sizable dent in CODs gravy train.

Shadow Lodge

http://www.heyuguysgaming.com/news/12507/heartbroken-xbox-one-employee-lets -rip-must-read

Seems the much touted family-sharing thing let 10 people access the game . . . For a total of 15 minutes to an hour. So it was demo sharing.


That's some seriously unbiased journalism there.


Quote:
Battlefield 3 had some balance issues too, but DICE patched them with fixes. And all in all EA has managed to keep Battlefield remarkably unsullied with a lot of the things they push on other developers they own.

DICE seem to be a pretty good developer all around. I'm just finishing up MIRROR'S EDGE and, despite a lot of flaws, it's a very solid and fun game. It also under-performed for EA, so it's good to see that DICE have leveraged EA into backing a sequel.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, what the hell?

Quote:
We have 48 million Xbox 360 users connected online nearly 24 hours a day. That is much more than any of our closet competitors and vastly more than Steam.

That'd be the Steam with 57 million users? What a cretinous statement from Microsoft.


Kthulhu wrote:

http://www.heyuguysgaming.com/news/12507/heartbroken-xbox-one-employee-lets -rip-must-read

Seems the much touted family-sharing thing let 10 people access the game . . . For a total of 15 minutes to an hour. So it was demo sharing.

Wow. That blog was seriously chuckle-worthy.

The goof MS employee who wrote it is clearly part of the problem. "Felt (he) could do a better job explaining"? If that was it, well then nice fail, buddy.


Werthead wrote:


Wait, what the hell?

Quote:
We have 48 million Xbox 360 users connected online nearly 24 hours a day. That is much more than any of our closet competitors and vastly more than Steam.

That'd be the Steam with 57 million users? What a cretinous statement from Microsoft.

Don't know where the quote is from, but I suspect the magic words are "connected online nearly 24 hours a day". I manually log in to Steam when I want to play a game. And my laptop is not on 24 hours a day...

1,101 to 1,150 of 1,540 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Video Games / Xbox one is coming All Messageboards