How will you choose between MS & Sony's new consoles?

Mr Freeze

Up until this XBOX One reveal, I could definitely be filed under XBOX Fanboy, but I don't ever get into these XBOX vs PS arguments (not online anyways).

I was left cold by yesterdays reveal.

I don't want this Kinect controlled All in One nonsense, it should be a gaming platform first, and anything else it can do is a bonus.

So I have gone from definitely getting the next gen XBOX to, better wait and see how this One turns out, not off to a good start, its games I want, nothing more.

Captain Chaos

Liam O wrote: »

No, you're certainly not being fanboyish :rolleyes:

Never actually seen someone contradict themselves so quickly.

That statement has no value.

Fanboyish would be: I'm not even going to consider the One or see what it's about but I'm getting a PS4 no matter what Sony throw out there.

There is an example.

Genghiz Cohen

_Puma_ wrote: »

And with one Decision, likely put in place to satisfy their publishing "partners" (Starts with an E and ends with an A), Microsoft have signed Xbox Ones death warrant.

If you have a publisher you ain't indie.

So a better, more accurate and more eye catching headline would be "No indie games on XBox One".

valleyoftheunos

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Up until this XBOX One reveal, I could definitely be filed under XBOX Fanboy, but I don't ever get into these XBOX vs PS arguments (not online anyways).

I was left cold by yesterdays reveal.

I don't want this Kinect controlled All in One nonsense, it should be a gaming platform first, and anything else it can do is a bonus.

So I have gone from definitely getting the next gen XBOX to, better wait and see how this One turns out, not off to a good start, its games I want, nothing more.

I wouldn't worry, none of the TV ****e will work outside the US anyway.

NotorietyH

_Puma_ wrote: »

And with one Decision, likely put in place to satisfy their publishing "partners" (Starts with an E and ends with an A), Microsoft have signed Xbox Ones death warrant.

This is definitely going to be a major factor for me. Some of my favourite games of the last few years have been indie games.

_Puma_

BizzyC wrote: »

Traditionally I was always an Xbox man, but it's wide open for PS4 to wow me now.

If they have backwards compatibility, reasonable DRM and some good looking games, I'll be switching over.

If you are a Xbox man why would backwards compatibility matter to you? Just on observation.. Did you own a PS3 and have a stack of games?

But ya what I would expect is new games, like GT6&BF4 will have Backwards compatibility initially through Gakai. The back catalogue will then be added over time. As is widely known the PS4 is using a new architecture so unless they build all the old games from the ground up and put them available for download, the only possible backwards compatibility is through Gakai. It will not be the backwards compatibility like the PS2 and PS1 because this is just not possible/Economically viable.

Sony have come out and said that it is possible to play second hand games, ie) no restrictive DRM for single player anyway.

valleyoftheunos

Backwards compatibility is a red herring, everyone wants it at first but ultimately never uses it. I have a stack of PS3 games, should I ever want to play them again I'll play them on my PS3.

Mr Freeze

They mustn't care about electricity bills in the states either, no way am I going to have my Sky Box on, and my XBOX on, and watch Sky through my XBOX.

That makes absolutely no sense to me, the only thing gained is a kinect controlled TV guide (would not use that anyways) and using your voice to switch between the xbox and tv, instead of pressing source on your remote. Are we that lazy now? Well I'm not.

My next comments would border on racism, so I won't type them.

sarumite

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Backwards compatibility is a red herring, everyone wants it at first but ultimately never uses it. I have a stack of PS3 games, should I ever want to play them again I'll play them on my PS3.

I have a stack of PS2 games, many I would like to play had I been able to. I have bought some PS2 games on the PS3 digitally eventhough I own physical discs of the same game. I don't have room for several consoles set up at once.

That said, I didn't expect backwards compatibality this time around, so I don't care so much.

shreddedloops

Interesting comment on the Digital Foundry Spec Analysis: "so Xbox One has HDMI in. So in theory you could plug a PS4 into it?"

:P

_Puma_

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

If you have a publisher you ain't indie.

So a better, more accurate and more eye catching headline would be "No indie games on XBox One".

Exactly. The Indie and Crowd funding scene is turning into a major threat for big publishers. However for some publishers like Valve, with Steam, they embrace the Indy scene, whereas with Microsoft (To be more accurate their publishing partners such as Microsoft studios and EA)they are fighting it.

NotorietyH

_Puma_ wrote: »

Exactly. The Indie and Crowd funding scene is turning into a major threat for big publishers. However for some publishers like Valve, with Steam, they embrace the Indy scene, whereas with Microsoft (To be more accurate their publishing partners such as Microsoft studios and EA)they are fighting it.

Good article on Sony's indie developer relationship here that was linked in an article someone else posted above.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-04-27-sonys-indie-initiative-how-the-hardware-giant-is-courting-small-team-talent

What's interesting is that in terms of specs the two machines are very close, and a lot of the talk before the reveals was would they basically be the same machine, but I think Sony is making a big push to be the gaming enthusiast machine whereas Microsoft are going for multimedia entertainment. So there might be a bigger difference between the two than people first guessed.

gizmo

_Puma_ wrote: »

Exactly. The Indie and Crowd funding scene is turning into a major threat for big publishers. However for some publishers like Valve, with Steam, they embrace the Indy scene, whereas with Microsoft (To be more accurate their publishing partners such as Microsoft studios and EA)they are fighting it.

Yep, EA really hate crowd funded indie games being sold via digital distribution.

o1s1n

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Backwards compatibility is a red herring, everyone wants it at first but ultimately never uses it. I have a stack of PS3 games, should I ever want to play them again I'll play them on my PS3.

The big issue now though is the rate at which modern consoles break down.

Thankfully I can still play all my Megadrive/Snes/ps1/ps2/Saturn/Dreamcast etc etc games on original hardware as the hardware still works.

I doubt PS3 or 360 hardware will last as long (sure a lot of it didn't even last within the console's official lifespan) - might end up being left with a load of games and no way of playing them.

ShadowHearth

Liam O wrote: »

No, you're certainly not being fanboyish :rolleyes:

Never actually seen someone contradict themselves so quickly.

Lol what? I would love to know your definition of fanboism, because you clearly have a weird concept of it.

On topic: the Indy scene is canned on Xbox. Looks like they completely lost me now. Unless Microsoft pulls out a clown out of their arses on e3 stage, I am not going near it.

ShooterSF

Pushtrak wrote: »

So, you don't mind the having to be online once every 24 hours? That is something I'd see reasonable to worry about. The preowned games not being a concern I can understand if you buy new generally anyway.

As long as they dont expect me to fork out for a wifi dongle again I dont mind. Can't remember the last time I haven't had internet access for 24 hours. Now if it forces updates on me and I can't play while they're downloading then I'll take issue.

o1s1n wrote: »

The big issue now though is the rate at which modern consoles break down.

Thankfully I can still play all my Megadrive/Snes/ps1/ps2/Saturn/Dreamcast etc etc games on original hardware as the hardware still works.

I doubt PS3 or 360 hardware will last as long (sure a lot of it didn't even last within the console's official lifespan) - might end up being left with a load of games and no way of playing them.

By the time today's consoles are in anyway rare I'd expect PC emulation to have become viable and with the 360's controller having become the unofficial PC controller it'll be fine. DLC loss would be the only issue.

_Puma_

gizmo wrote: »

Yep, EA really hate crowd funded indie games being sold via digital distribution.

The whole point of Crowd source funding is to cut out costs such as major publishers funding a game and then taking a huge cut of the games revenue. I would see that as merely trying to cash in on the recent popularity of crowd source funding while trying to compete with steam. I would very interested in seeing the terms of contract for that.

And of course they are not against selling Indy games via digitial distribution, as long as they get their cut!

Pushtrak

ShooterSF wrote: »

As long as they dont expect me to fork out for a wifi dongle again I dont mind. Can't remember the last time I haven't had internet access for 24 hours. Now if it forces updates on me and I can't play while they're downloading then I'll take issue.

You haven't had to bring your console anywhere for some amount of time, be it a couple of days or longer where you haven't had internet access? That's very lucky.

Where I'm living now, I can't get my consoles connected. I'll be moving soon, either staying in Cork or going back to Limerick for the summer. Next year, I'll be weighing up similar options. I have no idea what the future holds beyond that point, it could be a similar situation for a few more years. More internet down time than I'd like is a practical consideration I'm all too well aware of. That's before even considering if there was to be some issue with the ISP being down or something.

gizmo

_Puma_ wrote: »

The whole point of Crowd source funding is to cut out costs such as major publishers funding a game and then taking a huge cut of the games revenue. I would see that as merely trying to cash in on the recent popularity of crowd source funding while trying to compete with steam. I would very interested in seeing the terms of contract for that.

And of course they are not against selling Indy games via digitial distribution, as long as they get their cut!

Microsoft's policy of not dealing with developers without publishers dates back to the launch of XBLA so to say it's part of some fight against the indie and crowd funding movement is simply incorrect.

It is, however, a completely backward ass move, especially since Sony have made such fantastic moves with courting indie devs in the last year or so, so I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised if they have a change of heart on the subject during the lifetime of the console.

As for EA's part in this, they're doing it on Origin for precisely the same reason as Valve are doing it - expand the number of titles on your platform, increase its popularity and make money off every sale. There's nothing altruistic about this from either perspective, it's simply good business.

COYVB

Pushtrak wrote: »

Where I'm living now, I can't get my consoles connected to the net. I have fast broadband, but the consoles just can't connect. This isn't an issue as I largely play single player games. Even though I'll be moving soon, I don't want to own a console that will have the imposition that if I am 24 hours without getting it online, I'll be the proud owner of a brick.

Slightly off topic, but it you have fast internet, why can't you connect your consoles?

ShooterSF

Pushtrak wrote: »

You haven't had to bring your console anywhere for some amount of time, be it a couple of days or longer where you haven't had internet access? That's very lucky.

Where I'm living now, I can't get my consoles connected. I'll be moving soon, either staying in Cork or going back to Limerick for the summer. Next year, I'll be weighing up similar options. I have no idea what the future holds beyond that point, it could be a similar situation for a few more years. More internet down time than I'd like is a practical consideration I'm all too well aware of. That's before even considering if there was to be some issue with the ISP being down or something.

Nope. I couldn't move into a house/apartment where internet access was going to be a huge problem unless it was a last resort. I do just about everything bar exercise through my computers etc. That might change later in life, who knows, but for now it would not be an issue to me to have my console phone home every 24 hours. I do realise that it might and probably is an issue to others and can see why they would not buy the console for that reason.

Varik

Pushtrak wrote: »

You haven't had to bring your console anywhere for some amount of time, be it a couple of days or longer where you haven't had internet access? That's very lucky.

It's also rather common, most people don't carry their consoles around with them and can do without for a while.

Pushtrak

COYVB wrote: »

Slightly off topic, but it you have fast internet, why can't you connect your consoles?

I'm living in student accommodation, and we don't have access to the router. I don't even know who the ISP is. Every time I try to connect I get an MTU error or an IP error. The MTU error is related to bandwidth. The only way to try to remedy that is to try take some devices off the connection, and with 300 people connecting on however many devices, yeah...

I'm not going to be able to do much on my end. I've tried getting it to work wired on the 360, and wired/wirelessly on the PS3. No luck. I've left my consoles away from here at the moment. I have exams currently, with my final one tomorrow. I had intended to get some work done in preparation for the exams, but I think my posting so much tells a different story.

I'm only in my current place for one more week, but the long term considerations of wanting a console that I will not have to worry about my online status is the highest priority for the console. And I find it a ridiculous situation that this has come to be the case.

Retr0gamer

Pushtrak wrote: »

I'm living in student accommodation, and we don't have access to the router. I don't even know who the ISP is. Every time I try to connect I get an MTU error or an IP error. The MTU error is related to bandwidth. The only way to try to remedy that is to try take some devices off the connection, and with 300 people connecting on however many devices, yeah...

I'm not going to be able to do much on my end. I've tried getting it to work wired on the 360, and wired/wirelessly on the PS3. No luck. I've left my consoles away from here at the moment. I have exams currently, with my final one tomorrow. I had intended to get some work done in preparation for the exams, but I think my posting so much tells a different story.

I'm only in my current place for one more week, but the long term considerations of wanting a console that I will not have to worry about my online status is the highest priority for the console. And I find it a ridiculous situation that this has come to be the case.

Ring computer services and let them know what ports you needed opened for it. In DCU they accomodated people for XBox Live and PSN.

_Puma_

gizmo wrote: »

Microsoft's policy of not dealing with developers without publishers dates back to the launch of XBLA so to say it's part of some fight against the indie and crowd funding movement is simply incorrect.

It is, however, a completely backward ass move, especially since Sony have made such fantastic moves with courting indie devs in the last year or so, so I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised if they have a change of heart on the subject during the lifetime of the console.

As for EA's part in this, they're doing it on Origin for precisely the same reason as Valve are doing it - expand the number of titles on your platform, increase its popularity and make money off every sale. There's nothing altruistic about this from either perspective, it's simply good business.

On the PC I can see your point, although I believe Origin was created as simply a reaction to the market and this is more of it, trying to get a slice of the pie. Good business and all that.

Unfortunately for EA the Xbox does not have Origin. Maybe it is to do with Microsoft's policy, which would be a completely stupid move and they change it in the future, but the cynic in me thinks there is more to it. EA are not exclusive in this either, Microsoft Studio is another major player. It would not be in the publishers(like Valve & EA) interests to see Indie games flourish without out some sort of publishing deal, bad for business. However we don't see Valve signing major content deals with Microsoft, like EA have, and it could be increasingly likely that the two companies futures are becoming intertwined.

Retr0gamer

Richard Leadbetter's tech analysis of the system:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-spec-analysis-xbox-one

Dyr

Have the pimp my console memes started yet?

"Yo dawg, we heard you like TV on your TV so we've put a TV in yo xbox so you can watch TV on yo...ermmm ..TV?"

TPD

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Backwards compatibility is a red herring, everyone wants it at first but ultimately never uses it. I have a stack of PS3 games, should I ever want to play them again I'll play them on my PS3.

I played more Dreamcast games on my Wii than I did Wii games :P

gizmo

_Puma_ wrote: »

On the PC I can see your point, although I believe Origin was created as simply a reaction to the market and this is more of it, trying to get a slice of the pie. Good business and all that.

Indeed. By Riccitiello's own admission, EA failed to see the shift to digital distribution and were left in the dust by Valve et al. It's nice to see them finally step up their game but as is quite evident, they still have a lot of work to do.

_Puma_ wrote: »

Unfortunately for EA the Xbox does not have Origin. Maybe it is to do with Microsoft's policy, which would be a completely stupid move and they change it in the future, but the cynic in me thinks there is more to it.

There really isn't, they simply want to "protect" their platform as they have always done. For instance, they do the same on Windows Phone with the games utilising the Live service needing to be published by them in the event that there is no other publisher involved. However, you're free to release your game on their platform and through their store without a publisher should you wish, you just don't have access to Live.

_Puma_ wrote: »

EA are not exclusive in this either, Microsoft Studio is another major player. It would not be in the publishers(like Valve & EA) interests to see Indie games flourish without out some sort of publishing deal, bad for business. However we don't see Valve signing major content deals with Microsoft, like EA have, and it could be increasingly likely that the two companies futures are becoming intertwined.

EA's presence at their recent reveal was almost wholly down to the money involved in their forthcoming exclusivity deal for the various sports franchises. If you remember back to E3 2011 it was Sony they stood by as they announced exclusive content for various titles. Companies like that won't be relied upon by platform holders for long term planning.

As for Valve, they don't need to sign those kinds of deals, they already have content creators agreeing to them taking a ~30% cut from every sale on Steam despite the fact that the PC is an open platform where you don't need a publisher. :pac:

Mitch Connor

Dravokivich wrote: »

Dav got in there!





It's been stated that the first persons license will be de-activated and the game removed. What the second person is doing, is re-purchasing their license, at retail price from the xbox market. All the disc is, is an installer you don't need to download.

From my understanding the second person doesn't have to pay retail price for the license because it is now 'free' in the cloud service. They may have already paid Gamestop, for example, for the game, so they don't have to pay for the license on the cloud. They'll simply enter it in, as the first person did, and it will activate just as the first persons did. Maybe MS will be completely evil and demand retail price for the second activation of the license - but from what Phil Harrison (i think that was his name) said yesterday, that isn't the case. The 'fee' being spoken of was someone wanting to new license for a game already licensed to another console/account - so 2 licenses active for one disc; this makes sense and seems fair enough to me. If you don't need the disc to play the game it makes sense MS would employ a way of stopping you from installing on your machine then giving it to a mate to install on theirs.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-05-22-phil-harrison-tries-again-to-clarify-game-ownership-second-hand-sales-and-always-online-in-xbox-one

It is making sense to me and backing up what I was saying about the possibility of signing into a friends Xbox with your own profile (stored in the cloud service). No fee required here.

I can come to your house and I can put the disc into your machine and I can sign in as me and we can play the game," he explained.

You can't both own the disc and both play it at the same time on different consoles.

The bits are on your hard drive. At the end of the play session, when I take my disc home - or even if I leave it with you - if you want to continue to play that game [on your profile] then you have to pay for it. The bits are already on your hard drive, so it's just a question of going to our [online] store and buying the game, and then it's instantly available to play.

"The bits that are on the disc, I can give to anybody else, but if we both want to play it at the same time, we both have to own it. That's no different to how discs operate today."

I do have an issue here with regards not being able to BORROW a game from a friend.

He won't be drawn on an online-pass type scenario where you buy second hand in the shop and pay for the license again at home.

I have read elsewhere people think you could deactivate your own license and then a friend could activate it on their machine - but if this online pass scenario comes to pass, then you'd have to pay €10 (figure pulled from my ass) to activate the license again.

What I would say is that it is EXTREMELY unlikely that you would have to pay full price for a new license on a second hand game (where it has been deactivated from the previous owners account) because that would kill the trade business for Gamestop and they have been told what the plan is and don't seem to be kicking up a fuss over it. Worst I can see is a price point similar to the online passes we currently see for games. Not ideal, not something I am fond of, but a world away from the full retail worst case scenario's being thrown around.