perhaps the easiest way around having to connect all the time is verify the disk in the drive if you own it. Installing the game would allow you to play without putting the disk in but have to connect to servers to verify but in offline mode, it could be as simple as having the actual disk in the drive.
we do not know if that would be possible or not at this point. but i suspect that as an anti piracy precaution validation on there servers will be mandatory. an internet connection is 'required'. its not optional. disks can be copied very easily.
while disks can be copied easily it works for them now. Sure there are mod chips, flashed, etc but for common end users this could be a good solution.
I am reserving judgement until it comes out. If they do indeed require constant net connections it will be a blow to them in my opinion as military guys and many other people that don't have constant net connections will switch to PS4 (as long as they don't follow suit)
I heard this helps immensely, having two physically different locations, one to work and one to play. There are games that I play on the PC because they're either not on the consoles or just don't work (like flight sims). I'd like to have a different PC in another location, where I can do actual work. Buying another PC would be spendy though
This is my next step with my PC's. It will be expensive but the productivity boost of having a computer with ZERO games on it will be nice. Plus having the ability to sit down at the pc and know that it is either 'work time' or 'play time'.
As for the Xbox One. I don't watch TV and motion controls are, very cool, gimmicks. So they have alot of convincing to do at E3 for me.
We need to really talk about the important stuff: what has Rare been working on? I know a lot of people are predicting a new Killer Instinct but I really would love to see a new Conker game.
I hope Rare is doing stuff that isn't just kinect casual stuff. I do fear no matter what they do.. it might not be as good as it used to be. All the core people and leads and designers from the old days are long gone now.
When I look at the "one," I wonder what ever happened to gaming.
For the life of me I cannot understand why so many people have this attitude towards the new Xbox. When new smartphones come out, do people say "What ever happened to making phone calls?" No, because smartphones can still call people, they just have more features now that the majority of users seem to love. Nothing has happened to gaming. The Xbox One can still play video games. Why would they hold a press conference to tell gamers that a video game console can play video games. Everybody seems to be ignoring the fact that this was a hardware demo, and it was clearly stated that the games will be shown at E3.
Anyway, I thought this video has some pretty cool info. I really wasn't a fan of the original Kinect, but it seems like the new one has improved in every way.
I wouldn't go as far as to call the dashboard+voice functionality hardware though, they've been very unspecific about the actual hardware.
True, maybe hardware wasn't the right word. It was more to show of the new functionality of the Xbox, things that weren't directly gaming related.
I wonder if it would be possible to sell a "light" version, one that would only play games and not include all the extra stuff. I think that would really stop a lot of the complaints that they're getting.
I wonder if it would be possible to sell a "light" version, one that would only play games and not include all the extra stuff. I think that would really stop a lot of the complaints that they're getting.
They wont sell a light version though, they want everyone to have a Kinect, they spent a lot of money on it, devs would be less likely to use it if not everyone had it, and the Kinect seperates their system from PS4 and PC games.
They wont sell a light version though, they want everyone to have a Kinect, they spent a lot of money on it, devs would be less likely to use it if not everyone had it, and the Kinect seperates their system from PS4 and PC games.
Agreed, apart from some of the technical flaws of the current-gen Kinect hardware, I really think that knowing only a portion of the market even had one really made it tough to justify developing any sort of functionality for it within many games. Not to say they're forced to now, but at least if they do want to use it, they know that everyone with an XBO will have one.
Not sure if this was posted, but it seems like MS isn't being too hot with both Gamers and Dev's alike, and is going as far as managing entire branch direction to the 'home' market.
I'm pretty sure by now everyone is tiring of the debate - let's focus on art, music and creativity, we won't know until E3 drops, so lets relax our minds grab a cup of tea and pass the popcorn around.
I like the Xbox One... I just found actual game content to be lacking but I'll look forward to E3 for that and I liked that the PS4 is pretty much running a similar direction to that of the PS3.
Guess I was pretty silly for hoping console wars wouldn't cross to the newer generation. Even saw people who're defending the new Xbox being called 'corporate apologists'
apparently the dumb bros hypothesis is not working out.
The dumb bros are dumb by definition and just follow what they hear on social medias. I'm pretty sure this will get even after E3 when Halo and Gears of War fanboys get their trailer.
We need to really talk about the important stuff: what has Rare been working on? I know a lot of people are predicting a new Killer Instinct but I really would love to see a new Conker game.
YES! I really hope they're working on another conker game or at least a proper sequel to banjo kazooie, been far too long since we saw something that was more that just a casual kinect game come out of rare.
As far as the X-bone goes, I was really looking forward to the press conference but got let down by their focus on the casual more tv-centric audience. I think they'd have done a lot better and would have gotten a much more positive response if they had at least addressed the gamer side of things, but I guess they're saving that all for E3 which just makes me ask the question, why have a press conference so close to E3? Kind of felt like a massive teaser when people were expecting a proper reveal.
I wouldnt mind seeing the Xbox one modded into a PC instead, but as a console for gaming..yeah no thanks. I already regret the Xbox 360... cant even use the internet browser without paying money. The PS3 on the other hand was a great multi-media center that didnt cost a dime outside of buying the hardware.
I would rather consoles just die out at this point. PC gaming is ultimately the best gaming experience, even when using a tv.
Competition breeds innovation. Wanting one console to "win" is akin to shooting yourself in the foot. Don't shoot yourself in the foot.
The competition already begun though, and gamers will reward the console that caters to their needs.
Microsoft seems to be a bit too sure about the crowd they won over with the 360 with its solid focus on games and the best platform for multiplayer on consoles, and now they risk losing that grip due to wanting more than just gamers.
Nintendo lost their fantastic dominance with their new market found with the wii, and now they have an entire crowd that are not into buying new hardware such as the wii-u, or have any understanding of it.
"What ever happened to making phone calls?" No, because smartphones can still call people, they just have more features now that the majority of users seem to love.
Ha good point, the specs of both consoles look pretty similar so I dont see why one is "better" at games than the other.
Guess I was pretty silly for hoping console wars wouldn't cross to the newer generation. Even saw people who're defending the new Xbox being called 'corporate apologists'
Right It's pretty disappointing; I kind of expect it on YT comments but I thought PC would be different; clearly I was wrong.
I'm mostly concerned with what has been said about their approach to used games. If they follow through on it, they're going to make the Xbox One the biggest hardware flop in gaming history (more so than the Saturn). I'm certain that if they try to choke off the secondary market for games, they're almost assuredly going to take a huge hit in the primary market. A lot of people that buy new games do so because they know they can trade it in later. If they don't have that option, buying games is going to become a riskier investment for consumers.
I came in expecting them to mostly drop information regarding just the hardware and any already internal features attached to the hardware.
I had noe xpectation they were going to game crazy.
I understand why people may be upset regarding the lack of games, but MS was for the longest time saying this was the hardware reveal.
You get to be excited or disappointed when E3 rolls around for the games. BUT you can be happy or disappointed about the hardware since it was strictly that, just for the hardware.
You can be disappointed when they mentioned sweet-fuck-all about the hardware in the 'hardware reveal', and instead focused time on insignificant aspects of the operating system. That does not inspire confidence as far as I'm concerned.
I've been doing some thinking about all this for the past few days and something hit me. It doesnt matter what games they show at E3 it could be amazing new IP's or new iterations on cuirrent titles. It's irrelevant.
The complaints aren't leveled at games, people ARE complaining that the reveal didnt really discuss them, but they said from the get go that the conference wouldnt be about games per se.
People hate the hardware itself. People dont like the Xbox One and the accompanying business strategy. So unless Microsoft is going to do a complete 180 on hardware and strategy (not going to happen in a few weeks)then it doesnt matter what they they show at E3 in terms of games.
Well, that's one of the issues somewhat clarified? I feel like they didn't plan on doing this, but due to the backlash had to scramble and decide that no, there won't be a fee.
Well, that's one of the issues somewhat clarified? I feel like they didn't plan on doing this, but due to the backlash had to scramble and decide that no, there won't be a fee.
Thats a shame, considering the used game market does quite a bit of damage to the industry as a whole. Then again it may just continue to encourage developers to focus more on PC gaming.
People hate the hardware itself. People dont like the Xbox One and the accompanying business strategy.
I don't think people hate the hardware, we know it's pretty much the same than on the PS4, the controller stays the same, Kinect gets better and Sony has the same thing with their dual cameras. You can't hate the hardware, you can hate how it was unveiled though, and you can also hate how MS is not clear enough on some subjects, but here again, Sony hasn't said anything yet.
Let's wait until we have the full picture on both sides and then players will choose.
one step forward 6 steps back. what they also clarified is this,
authentication on the console's hard drive tied to the game is then verified regularly through an internet connection.
which means that you can not play a game without a constant connection to there servers over the internet. when combine with an always on microphone and video surveillance system this turd is so large it will not fit in your bathtub.
Thats a shame, considering the used game market does quite a bit of damage to the industry as a whole. Then again it may just continue to encourage developers to focus more on PC gaming.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this basically make it Steam, but on a console?
So much hate, I don't get it. I'm pretty sure a lot of people owning the Eyetoy camera or first kinect left it on without even thinking about it, and now that it's mandatory, everyone is pissed off. If they wanted to spy on you, they could have done it a long time ago.
I mean do you realize the fantastic meltdown you would see if someone would discover that Kinect is actually spying on you ? We are talking class action and Billions in damages. This is just not happening, MS is not taking chances on that I'm sure.
Oh and hey, you have an always on camera and microphone on your laptop and phone too.
@J0NNYquid: Steam does not allow reselling your licenses, so it's better than Steam in some ways for the player, worse for the developer.
MrHobo is correct. and reasons a rather important point. people can, and do dislike the hardware. because its abusive, anti-consumer and immoral. it does not take a super nerd to figure that out.
what you cannot do is discount peoples opinions as irrelevant with flimsy reasoning because it confirms your bias. that sort of thinking leaves you ill equipped to deal with reality when it hits you over the head.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this basically make it Steam, but on a console?
By "it" you mean account bound games? Steam as a part of Valve has proven to be very trustworthy and fairly non-intrusive. You also have PC game culture in which expectations are not tied to reselling and buying used games. For PC gamers, the game itself is software and you buy the license to run the said software, just like one might buy the license to run Maya or Photoshop.
Steam is also multi-platform...where as microsoft as a publisher tied to hardware will restrict their games to their hardware only.
Ultimately I think it would have been beneficial for Microsoft to continue their anti-used game stance as not only would it encourage exclusive games but also help get gamers used to the idea of software being account/person bound like it is on the PC. By continuing the usual console approach of running games on a disc and letting certain retailers abuse and refuse to restock new retail games, they only end up hurting themselves and pushing the appeal of PC gaming and steam.
Looking forward to the Steam box as well (Steambased PC/linux console)
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this basically make it Steam, but on a console?
i can install xbone on any free/open source linux desktop/laptop/tablet i have buy self published indie games for 5$ dollars disconnect and play all i want?
edit:
in addition install what ever the fuck else i want. wipe and reinstall my system from scratch for free, upgrade hardware, download torrents etc.
what is xbone good for? microsoft has already told us what xbone is good for.
Thats a shame, considering the used game market does quite a bit of damage to the industry as a whole. Then again it may just continue to encourage developers to focus more on PC gaming.
That's a bit of a hasty claim considering some of those new games sales probably wouldn't have happened if the consumer didn't have the ability to sell it off after beating it and make back most of what they paid, which they can then apply to the purchase of another game. People expect to be able to resell console games. That's why people pay the excessive prices. Take that away and you'll find consumers far more risk adverse to paying $60 for the latest title.
It's also not fair to deride the used market as harmful. I keep hearing people say that developers should get a cut of used game sales. Okay, then car makers should get a cut of used car sales and device makers should get a cut of used electronics sales. Every industry has a secondary market and it's no different with games. The used market hurts the game industry about as much as used cars hurt Ford or used electronics hurts Samsung.
Maybe publishers should be getting into running their own used game market?
Ultimately I think it would have been beneficial for Microsoft to continue their anti-used game stance as not only would it encourage exclusive games but also help get gamers used to the idea of software being account/person bound like it is on the PC.
Actually, it wouldn't. What it would do is encourage people to do what they do with PC games that are DRM'd like that. They break the DRM and use it any way they like. Every layer of restriction added to games just drives people to find ways around them so they can actually avoid the massive inconvenience it causes, all the while it makes people stop caring about the laws governing their entertainment. The people it's supposed to stop can blow right through it like it's not even there, which means the paying customers are saddled with buggy DRM issues that prevent them from playing something they graciously paid for. All of this effort to wage war against the industry's own customers by trying to destroy the used market and DRM the hell out of games will only serve to erode every bit of respect left for the industry until people just don't care enough to pay for the games. Then the only developers that will make any money will be on Kickstarter offering their customers something the AAA industry rarely ever offered their customers: respect.
Actually think about it a bit, you can't compare used games to used cars. A used game is functionaly identical to a new one - a used car is not.
"yep, this copy of COD has 10,000 hours on it, the jump sticks sometimes and it runs a little slower than it used to but it's still got some life left in it!"
That's a bit of a hasty claim considering some of those new games sales probably wouldn't have happened if the consumer didn't have the ability to sell it off after beating it and make back most of what they paid, which they can then apply to the purchase of another game.
You cannot prove that. That is merely a confirmation bias on your part. What one can objectively prove is that the used game market 1) discourages restocking of new retail games 2) worse than piracy 3) takes per game profit away from publishers and developers.
PC gamers, over the course of many years, still buy games without being able to resell them. Despite all those "predictions of doom" for the PC gaming market, its stronger than ever.
Gamers will buy games they want to play, regardless if they can sell it or not to a retailer.
You say that people will sell it off after beating it and thus make their money back. Think about that for a second. What in that encourages developers to make single player titles? Would you as a publisher/developer put money into making a game that will be beaten in a day or two and then resold to fill up shelf space in which any sale will not generate profit? No. Its already been objectively verified that publishers are forcing development turn to online based games and missing content in which to sell as DLC in order to decrease the chances of used game sales and make back lost profit.
That does NOT help the gamer, nor does it free up the developer to make a variety of game types.
People expect to be able to resell console games.
Some people feel entitled to everything, doesnt mean they should get it. Some gamers dont even care about the EULA but they are happy to agree to it. Whos fault is it then? The game maker or the entitled consumer?
That's why people pay the excessive prices. Take that away and you'll find consumers far more risk adverse to paying $60 for the latest title.
Remove used games and you can decrease the price. Games cost less on the PC for two reasons, 1) No SDK fee for the console to worry about and 2) no used game market cannibalizing the market.
If you think $60 is bad, It cost more than that when new NES games were coming out. Also consider this, current hardware for consoles initially sells at a loss. Why? Because console gamers have it in their head that hardware shouldnt cost too much, thus the sum of parts isnt usually covered by the asking price. The console publishers expect to make up for those losses via software sales.
This comes right back to what games are. Software and software is what? License based.
It's also not fair to deride the used market as harmful. I keep hearing people say that developers should get a cut of used game sales.
Its not fair to make an objective statement? It is harmful. Many developers and even studio founders are stating as much. You calling them liars? Are they not fair? Last time I checked, they are the ones working 10-12 hours a day, relying on a publisher to pay them and often lose their jobs at the end of every project.
It is a FACT the used game market, no industry, is harmful. This is not debatable, its not sentiment based. Just because its inconvenient to the gamer who got into the bad habit of hurting the industry they are a fan of by buying and selling used games, doesnt mean its not true.
Okay, then car makers should get a cut of used car sales and device makers should get a cut of used electronics sales. Every industry has a secondary market and it's no different with games. The used market hurts the game industry about as much as used cars hurt Ford or used electronics hurts Samsung.
That argument is the most used and always proven false. Its a big fallacy. Software is not hardware. You cannot compare a car, a physical good, which is sold mostly for the sum of its physical parts, to software. Cars have a life span, they lose value the more mileage is on them and eventually fall apart. Manufacturers still make profit based on the parts sold to keep the said vehicles running.
Dont forget that the courts ended up siding with Autodesk and not Vernor who wanted to sell re-used copies of CAD software he picked up at a yard sale. The license doesnt magically transfer and since software is license based its not about the disk, but the intellectual property held within it.
A game exists in a non physical form, you can get it via software download, it can be duplicated an infinite amount of times without lose to the original. Can you make that same claim with car? You wont be able to.
Maybe publishers should be getting into running their own used game market?
Publishers already have reacted to the used game market, and its not good for the consumer. DLC was invented to recoup losses. So now you have games like Mass Effect 2 shipping with content missing unless you either A) buy new, in which you get "free" DLC, or pay $15 to get it if you bought it used.
You see publishers pushing more types of DRM, even to the point where it hurts the consumer. You see them restricting consoles even more. This whole thread is proof of this. Just using basic services on the xbox forces you to pay.
Now imagine if publishers and developers got paid per game sold. Imagine if 10 people played skyrim and the publisher got paid for everyone one of those 10 copies purchased new or used. Imagine a world where movie theaters actually charged per person to see a movie... Imagine thats how it is now, because it is. What if you could go to a theater, buy a ticket, watch the movie, then walk out and resell that movie ticket to someone else in line, who then re-uses it to watch the same movie..over and over.
Look at the bigger picture. Games only have a primary market, there is no secondary.
Actually, it wouldn't. What it would do is encourage people to do what they do with PC games that are DRM'd like that. They break the DRM and use it any way they like. Every layer of restriction added to games just drives people to find ways around them so they can actually avoid the massive inconvenience it causes, all the while it makes people stop caring about the laws governing their entertainment. The people it's supposed to stop can blow right through it like it's not even there, which means the paying customers are saddled with buggy DRM issues that prevent them from playing something they graciously paid for. All of this effort to wage war against the industry's own customers by trying to destroy the used market and DRM the hell out of games will only serve to erode every bit of respect left for the industry until people just don't care enough to pay for the games. Then the only developers that will make any money will be on Kickstarter offering their customers something the AAA industry rarely ever offered their customers: respect.
Wrong! Publishers currently only assume they will make profit within the first month maybe 2 of a game's launch. There is nothing to encourage them to pump out quality, only quantity. The difference is quality vs quantity. After a month or two, the game is already taking up shelf space as a used title and the retailers refuse to order more new copies. The retailer makes more money off used, where they can get paid 10+ times for one game as opposed to the publisher who only gets paid once. IN short quality suffers when the first month or two is the only time a publisher can expect to make some ounce of profit from new titles.
Secondly, yes DRM hurts everyone. Used games and piracy dont help encourage a lack of DRM, only more forms of it. Back when games were sold on floppy disks, you often had to have some 100+ page user manual to go along with it, as each session of the game would require you to enter a code from some randomly picked page number.
Here's the thing. Piracy is highest in nations that either the game cost too much or isnt even available. Some think that the north america is high on the piracy charts, when in fact its at the bottom. Where piracy runs rampant is in places game accessibility is low. In addition to that, pirates are not necessarily consumers. Used game buyers are. Pirates wont spend money on X product, but the used game buy will spend money. Used games are worse because they give it to someone who has nothing to do with the development of the software.
So no its not a simple PC DRM issue or console price issue. It all goes back to consumers and dont forget, consumers vote with their wallets. If console gamers want to fund the used game industry, then thats the same as voting for the behavior console publishers will follow with.
I'm a gamer, I love games but at the same time I am smart enough to know that if you want to keep games you enjoy alive, you dont do what hurts the industry. As an artist, I want people to respect the work I put into my art, and as such I give the same in return.
It does come down to respect, but I think your concept of respect is backwards.
The used market hurts the game industry about as much as used cars hurt Ford or used electronics hurts Samsung.
I sincerely think we're better off separating digital information from physical material. There's too many distinctions to try and correlate them only when its convenient (not to mention it can introduce flaws to the argument; ford isn't selling a $25k license for example, but 5000lbs of truck).
Respect? if gamers in the pc platform don't respect nor the indie developers... and they don't respect the developers by downloading the games without paying a cent. Man, Tomb Raider is already at 12 euros in some deals... and do the people buy the game? the answer: no. Do-they-play/Did-they-play the game? answer: yes.
I think this Xbone have been designed to please developers.
I'm also a gamer, and i don't care about DRMs. The fact is that i have a huge collection of games, almost all of the them with draconian DRMs (example: ubisoft games), and i didn't notice them. With Prince of Persia (the last one), we were forced to be online, and i did not notice anything . It may be i'm very customed to always online games such as mmos.
I don't like this X-Box, but it's more because i already own a PC and because i find it quite expensive for what it offers.
As others have said, is very soon to talk. Who knows... at the end the x-bone might be a success with great titles. I have my hopes on this E3, and with games like Destiny.
Replies
Seems like a pretty decent and fair way to do it.
we do not know if that would be possible or not at this point. but i suspect that as an anti piracy precaution validation on there servers will be mandatory. an internet connection is 'required'. its not optional. disks can be copied very easily.
I am reserving judgement until it comes out. If they do indeed require constant net connections it will be a blow to them in my opinion as military guys and many other people that don't have constant net connections will switch to PS4 (as long as they don't follow suit)
Gamestops stock has dropped 19% as a result of the XBox One used games policy.
This is my next step with my PC's. It will be expensive but the productivity boost of having a computer with ZERO games on it will be nice. Plus having the ability to sit down at the pc and know that it is either 'work time' or 'play time'.
As for the Xbox One. I don't watch TV and motion controls are, very cool, gimmicks. So they have alot of convincing to do at E3 for me.
For the life of me I cannot understand why so many people have this attitude towards the new Xbox. When new smartphones come out, do people say "What ever happened to making phone calls?" No, because smartphones can still call people, they just have more features now that the majority of users seem to love. Nothing has happened to gaming. The Xbox One can still play video games. Why would they hold a press conference to tell gamers that a video game console can play video games. Everybody seems to be ignoring the fact that this was a hardware demo, and it was clearly stated that the games will be shown at E3.
Anyway, I thought this video has some pretty cool info. I really wasn't a fan of the original Kinect, but it seems like the new one has improved in every way.
[ame="
I wouldn't go as far as to call the dashboard+voice functionality hardware though, they've been very unspecific about the actual hardware.
True, maybe hardware wasn't the right word. It was more to show of the new functionality of the Xbox, things that weren't directly gaming related.
I wonder if it would be possible to sell a "light" version, one that would only play games and not include all the extra stuff. I think that would really stop a lot of the complaints that they're getting.
They wont sell a light version though, they want everyone to have a Kinect, they spent a lot of money on it, devs would be less likely to use it if not everyone had it, and the Kinect seperates their system from PS4 and PC games.
Agreed, apart from some of the technical flaws of the current-gen Kinect hardware, I really think that knowing only a portion of the market even had one really made it tough to justify developing any sort of functionality for it within many games. Not to say they're forced to now, but at least if they do want to use it, they know that everyone with an XBO will have one.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1f0pnn/was_told_to_resubbit_this_to_rgames_xbox_forums/
I like the Xbox One... I just found actual game content to be lacking but I'll look forward to E3 for that and I liked that the PS4 is pretty much running a similar direction to that of the PS3.
Guess I was pretty silly for hoping console wars wouldn't cross to the newer generation. Even saw people who're defending the new Xbox being called 'corporate apologists'
The dumb bros are dumb by definition and just follow what they hear on social medias. I'm pretty sure this will get even after E3 when Halo and Gears of War fanboys get their trailer.
YES! I really hope they're working on another conker game or at least a proper sequel to banjo kazooie, been far too long since we saw something that was more that just a casual kinect game come out of rare.
As far as the X-bone goes, I was really looking forward to the press conference but got let down by their focus on the casual more tv-centric audience. I think they'd have done a lot better and would have gotten a much more positive response if they had at least addressed the gamer side of things, but I guess they're saving that all for E3 which just makes me ask the question, why have a press conference so close to E3? Kind of felt like a massive teaser when people were expecting a proper reveal.
I would rather consoles just die out at this point. PC gaming is ultimately the best gaming experience, even when using a tv.
The competition already begun though, and gamers will reward the console that caters to their needs.
Microsoft seems to be a bit too sure about the crowd they won over with the 360 with its solid focus on games and the best platform for multiplayer on consoles, and now they risk losing that grip due to wanting more than just gamers.
Nintendo lost their fantastic dominance with their new market found with the wii, and now they have an entire crowd that are not into buying new hardware such as the wii-u, or have any understanding of it.
Ha good point, the specs of both consoles look pretty similar so I dont see why one is "better" at games than the other.
Right It's pretty disappointing; I kind of expect it on YT comments but I thought PC would be different; clearly I was wrong.
I had noe xpectation they were going to game crazy.
I understand why people may be upset regarding the lack of games, but MS was for the longest time saying this was the hardware reveal.
You get to be excited or disappointed when E3 rolls around for the games. BUT you can be happy or disappointed about the hardware since it was strictly that, just for the hardware.
The complaints aren't leveled at games, people ARE complaining that the reveal didnt really discuss them, but they said from the get go that the conference wouldnt be about games per se.
People hate the hardware itself. People dont like the Xbox One and the accompanying business strategy. So unless Microsoft is going to do a complete 180 on hardware and strategy (not going to happen in a few weeks)then it doesnt matter what they they show at E3 in terms of games.
FIXED! this is the real deal :P
http://www.gamnesia.com/news/xbox-one-doesnt-require-used-game-fees-just-an-authentication-check
Thats a shame, considering the used game market does quite a bit of damage to the industry as a whole. Then again it may just continue to encourage developers to focus more on PC gaming.
Let's wait until we have the full picture on both sides and then players will choose.
which means that you can not play a game without a constant connection to there servers over the internet. when combine with an always on microphone and video surveillance system this turd is so large it will not fit in your bathtub.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this basically make it Steam, but on a console?
I mean do you realize the fantastic meltdown you would see if someone would discover that Kinect is actually spying on you ? We are talking class action and Billions in damages. This is just not happening, MS is not taking chances on that I'm sure.
Oh and hey, you have an always on camera and microphone on your laptop and phone too.
@J0NNYquid: Steam does not allow reselling your licenses, so it's better than Steam in some ways for the player, worse for the developer.
what you cannot do is discount peoples opinions as irrelevant with flimsy reasoning because it confirms your bias. that sort of thinking leaves you ill equipped to deal with reality when it hits you over the head.
lest we forget the lessons of sweet billy?
By "it" you mean account bound games? Steam as a part of Valve has proven to be very trustworthy and fairly non-intrusive. You also have PC game culture in which expectations are not tied to reselling and buying used games. For PC gamers, the game itself is software and you buy the license to run the said software, just like one might buy the license to run Maya or Photoshop.
Steam is also multi-platform...where as microsoft as a publisher tied to hardware will restrict their games to their hardware only.
Ultimately I think it would have been beneficial for Microsoft to continue their anti-used game stance as not only would it encourage exclusive games but also help get gamers used to the idea of software being account/person bound like it is on the PC. By continuing the usual console approach of running games on a disc and letting certain retailers abuse and refuse to restock new retail games, they only end up hurting themselves and pushing the appeal of PC gaming and steam.
Looking forward to the Steam box as well (Steambased PC/linux console)
i can install xbone on any free/open source linux desktop/laptop/tablet i have buy self published indie games for 5$ dollars disconnect and play all i want?
edit:
in addition install what ever the fuck else i want. wipe and reinstall my system from scratch for free, upgrade hardware, download torrents etc.
what is xbone good for? microsoft has already told us what xbone is good for.
[ame="
That's a bit of a hasty claim considering some of those new games sales probably wouldn't have happened if the consumer didn't have the ability to sell it off after beating it and make back most of what they paid, which they can then apply to the purchase of another game. People expect to be able to resell console games. That's why people pay the excessive prices. Take that away and you'll find consumers far more risk adverse to paying $60 for the latest title.
It's also not fair to deride the used market as harmful. I keep hearing people say that developers should get a cut of used game sales. Okay, then car makers should get a cut of used car sales and device makers should get a cut of used electronics sales. Every industry has a secondary market and it's no different with games. The used market hurts the game industry about as much as used cars hurt Ford or used electronics hurts Samsung.
Maybe publishers should be getting into running their own used game market?
Actually, it wouldn't. What it would do is encourage people to do what they do with PC games that are DRM'd like that. They break the DRM and use it any way they like. Every layer of restriction added to games just drives people to find ways around them so they can actually avoid the massive inconvenience it causes, all the while it makes people stop caring about the laws governing their entertainment. The people it's supposed to stop can blow right through it like it's not even there, which means the paying customers are saddled with buggy DRM issues that prevent them from playing something they graciously paid for. All of this effort to wage war against the industry's own customers by trying to destroy the used market and DRM the hell out of games will only serve to erode every bit of respect left for the industry until people just don't care enough to pay for the games. Then the only developers that will make any money will be on Kickstarter offering their customers something the AAA industry rarely ever offered their customers: respect.
"yep, this copy of COD has 10,000 hours on it, the jump sticks sometimes and it runs a little slower than it used to but it's still got some life left in it!"
You cannot prove that. That is merely a confirmation bias on your part. What one can objectively prove is that the used game market 1) discourages restocking of new retail games 2) worse than piracy 3) takes per game profit away from publishers and developers.
PC gamers, over the course of many years, still buy games without being able to resell them. Despite all those "predictions of doom" for the PC gaming market, its stronger than ever.
Gamers will buy games they want to play, regardless if they can sell it or not to a retailer.
You say that people will sell it off after beating it and thus make their money back. Think about that for a second. What in that encourages developers to make single player titles? Would you as a publisher/developer put money into making a game that will be beaten in a day or two and then resold to fill up shelf space in which any sale will not generate profit? No. Its already been objectively verified that publishers are forcing development turn to online based games and missing content in which to sell as DLC in order to decrease the chances of used game sales and make back lost profit.
That does NOT help the gamer, nor does it free up the developer to make a variety of game types.
Some people feel entitled to everything, doesnt mean they should get it. Some gamers dont even care about the EULA but they are happy to agree to it. Whos fault is it then? The game maker or the entitled consumer?
Remove used games and you can decrease the price. Games cost less on the PC for two reasons, 1) No SDK fee for the console to worry about and 2) no used game market cannibalizing the market.
If you think $60 is bad, It cost more than that when new NES games were coming out. Also consider this, current hardware for consoles initially sells at a loss. Why? Because console gamers have it in their head that hardware shouldnt cost too much, thus the sum of parts isnt usually covered by the asking price. The console publishers expect to make up for those losses via software sales.
This comes right back to what games are. Software and software is what? License based.
Its not fair to make an objective statement? It is harmful. Many developers and even studio founders are stating as much. You calling them liars? Are they not fair? Last time I checked, they are the ones working 10-12 hours a day, relying on a publisher to pay them and often lose their jobs at the end of every project.
It is a FACT the used game market, no industry, is harmful. This is not debatable, its not sentiment based. Just because its inconvenient to the gamer who got into the bad habit of hurting the industry they are a fan of by buying and selling used games, doesnt mean its not true.
That argument is the most used and always proven false. Its a big fallacy. Software is not hardware. You cannot compare a car, a physical good, which is sold mostly for the sum of its physical parts, to software. Cars have a life span, they lose value the more mileage is on them and eventually fall apart. Manufacturers still make profit based on the parts sold to keep the said vehicles running.
Dont forget that the courts ended up siding with Autodesk and not Vernor who wanted to sell re-used copies of CAD software he picked up at a yard sale. The license doesnt magically transfer and since software is license based its not about the disk, but the intellectual property held within it.
A game exists in a non physical form, you can get it via software download, it can be duplicated an infinite amount of times without lose to the original. Can you make that same claim with car? You wont be able to.
Publishers already have reacted to the used game market, and its not good for the consumer. DLC was invented to recoup losses. So now you have games like Mass Effect 2 shipping with content missing unless you either A) buy new, in which you get "free" DLC, or
You see publishers pushing more types of DRM, even to the point where it hurts the consumer. You see them restricting consoles even more. This whole thread is proof of this. Just using basic services on the xbox forces you to pay.
Now imagine if publishers and developers got paid per game sold. Imagine if 10 people played skyrim and the publisher got paid for everyone one of those 10 copies purchased new or used. Imagine a world where movie theaters actually charged per person to see a movie... Imagine thats how it is now, because it is. What if you could go to a theater, buy a ticket, watch the movie, then walk out and resell that movie ticket to someone else in line, who then re-uses it to watch the same movie..over and over.
Look at the bigger picture. Games only have a primary market, there is no secondary.
Wrong! Publishers currently only assume they will make profit within the first month maybe 2 of a game's launch. There is nothing to encourage them to pump out quality, only quantity. The difference is quality vs quantity. After a month or two, the game is already taking up shelf space as a used title and the retailers refuse to order more new copies. The retailer makes more money off used, where they can get paid 10+ times for one game as opposed to the publisher who only gets paid once. IN short quality suffers when the first month or two is the only time a publisher can expect to make some ounce of profit from new titles.
Secondly, yes DRM hurts everyone. Used games and piracy dont help encourage a lack of DRM, only more forms of it. Back when games were sold on floppy disks, you often had to have some 100+ page user manual to go along with it, as each session of the game would require you to enter a code from some randomly picked page number.
Here's the thing. Piracy is highest in nations that either the game cost too much or isnt even available. Some think that the north america is high on the piracy charts, when in fact its at the bottom. Where piracy runs rampant is in places game accessibility is low. In addition to that, pirates are not necessarily consumers. Used game buyers are. Pirates wont spend money on X product, but the used game buy will spend money. Used games are worse because they give it to someone who has nothing to do with the development of the software.
So no its not a simple PC DRM issue or console price issue. It all goes back to consumers and dont forget, consumers vote with their wallets. If console gamers want to fund the used game industry, then thats the same as voting for the behavior console publishers will follow with.
I'm a gamer, I love games but at the same time I am smart enough to know that if you want to keep games you enjoy alive, you dont do what hurts the industry. As an artist, I want people to respect the work I put into my art, and as such I give the same in return.
It does come down to respect, but I think your concept of respect is backwards.
I sincerely think we're better off separating digital information from physical material. There's too many distinctions to try and correlate them only when its convenient (not to mention it can introduce flaws to the argument; ford isn't selling a $25k license for example, but 5000lbs of truck).
I think this Xbone have been designed to please developers.
I'm also a gamer, and i don't care about DRMs. The fact is that i have a huge collection of games, almost all of the them with draconian DRMs (example: ubisoft games), and i didn't notice them. With Prince of Persia (the last one), we were forced to be online, and i did not notice anything
I don't like this X-Box, but it's more because i already own a PC and because i find it quite expensive for what it offers.
As others have said, is very soon to talk. Who knows... at the end the x-bone might be a success with great titles. I have my hopes on this E3, and with games like Destiny.