Xbox One - General Discussion (NO DISCUSSION REGARDING PS4 - MOD WARNING Post 6903)

Captain Chaos

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Can someone please explain to me why the Xbox isn't for hardcore gamers?

The "jack of all trades, master of none" come to mind the way MS show of the X1. Sony just show games and games only with a bit of bluray movies.

That's where the view point comes from from what I can see.

ShiverinEskimo

Seems to me like it's not a case of it being not for hardcore gamers but rather it being not just for hardcore gamers.

I mean if the Xbox 360 was for hardcore gamers, and the Xbox One does everything the Xbox 360 does and more, then really it caters to hardcore gamers just as much but also appeals to non-gamers or, shudder, 'casual gamers'.

jaffusmax

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Seems to me like it's not a case of it being not for hardcore gamers but rather it being not just for hardcore gamers.

I mean if the Xbox 360 was for hardcore gamers, and the Xbox One does everything the Xbox 360 does and more, then really it caters to hardcore gamers just as much but also appeals to non-gamers or, shudder, 'casual gamers'.

It all boils down to a Stigma being attached to a console regarding casual gaming and once there very hard to remove if possible at all!

Slugs

You do realise you're all bandying around terms without any actual definition of them. After all, what stops Fifa being classified as a Hardcore game?

FutureGuy

What an embarassing day for Microsoft. Right now, they can still take their console and stick it. They have now copied Sonys stance, but at the cost of removing many of it's original redeeming features. :rolleyes:

The smugness out of the MS camp over the last few weeks has been disgusting. I thought Sony were bad with the PS3 launch but Mattrick and co. have brought it to a whole new level.

And now this grovelling attempt to make it look like they "listened" to what we wanted. They knew exactly what we wanted when they made these idiotic moves. They knew we would NOT want a ridiculous set of DRM rules but they imposeed them anyway. The knew that we did NOT want a machine that had to connect every X hours or days, but they imposed it anyway. Now they have a more expensive, less powerful machine that probably won't maximize the benefit of the cloud as it's something not all players will be tied to.

They are changing because they knew they had a disaster on their hands and because Sony did things right this generation.

ShiverinEskimo

I'm just not sure what the criteria are. It's a criticism I've seen levelled at it - that it's not for hardcore gamers. Surely the only difference between a hardcore and casual gamer is spare time?

I mean I grew up with consoles and PC gaming. But then this thing called a girlfriend got in the way, then she turned into a Fiancé, before I knew it I was building a house and celebrating my 30th. Now I guess rather than a hardcore gamer, I'm employed and busy. But that doesn't stop me pumping hundreds of hours into the likes of Skyrim and Borderlands 2.

Honestly don't know how the Xbox One changes any of the above or prevents me from being either hardcore or casual.

WolfForager

A quick read for those who have already forgiven MicroSoft.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-20-microsoft-sticking-with-xbox-one-kinect-requirement-despite-ditching-drm

An excerpt:

Microsoft restores game ownership and expects us to smile

I started off my original post about game ownership by quoting something I wrote during E3 in 2012. "If we are entertained by what Microsoft chooses to do for its own gain," I suggested, "then that is simply a happy coincidence." The coincidence was over, I concluded, because Xbox One's original DRM policies were devastating. All I can conclude today is that the coincidence has been extended. To judge by what Microsoft said at E3, it has probably been done so reluctantly. I see nothing to suggest that the desire behind its original decisions has changed, and until Microsoft convinces me that it understands the significance to gaming of ownership and legacy, I will find it hard not to be pessimistic.

DirkVoodoo

I am encouraged by the turn around. Gamers have voiced their discontent. Shame on those who initially supported what would have signalled the end of basic rights for consumers of consoles. You don't have to bow down and take what is inflicted upon you by the corporate giants like Microsoft.

Ok, I sound like some kind of Boards Guevara here, but I think that while this is a victory for consumers saying "No!" to ridiculous restrictions, I still won't by an Xbox One. Who is to say this won't make its way into the console's life further down the line?

I'm still flabbergasted by the "fanboys" who clung so strongly to the idea of Microsoft being a "great company" and the Xbox One an amazing console that they couldn't see the wood from the trees.

If Microsoft cared about you, this wouldn't have happened in the first place and it shows the basic lack of respect shown to you as a consumer. You should be thankful that others might have saved you from what would have been a stepping stone in the removal of consumer ownership.

FlyingIrishMan

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

I'm just not sure what the criteria are. It's a criticism I've seen levelled at it - that it's not for hardcore gamers. Surely the only difference between a hardcore and casual gamer is spare time?

I mean I grew up with consoles and PC gaming. But then this thing called a girlfriend got in the way, then she turned into a Fiancé, before I knew it I was building a house and celebrating my 30th. Now I guess rather than a hardcore gamer, I'm employed and busy. But that doesn't stop me pumping hundreds of hours into the likes of Skyrim and Borderlands 2.

Honestly don't know how the Xbox One changes any of the above or prevents me from being either hardcore or casual.

I think it just boils down to the fact that Sony are focusing on making a game console with great games and a good service, whilst MS are focusing on making a media box for the whole family that can play games.

Meesared

FutureGuy wrote: »

What an embarassing day for Microsoft. Right now, they can still take their console and stick it. They have now copied Sonys stance, but at the cost of removing many of it's original redeeming features. :rolleyes:

The smugness out of the MS camp over the last few weeks has been disgusting. I thought Sony were bad with the PS3 launch but Mattrick and co. have brought it to a whole new level.

And now this grovelling attempt to make it look like they "listened" to what we wanted. They knew exactly what we wanted when they made these idiotic moves. They knew we would NOT want a ridiculous set of DRM rules but they imposeed them anyway. The knew that we did NOT want a machine that had to connect every X hours or days, but they imposed it anyway. Now they have a more expensive, less powerful machine that probably won't maximize the benefit of the cloud as it's something not all players will be tied to.

They are changing because they knew they had a disaster on their hands and because Sony did things right this generation.

I think to be honest Microsoft were wrong footed by Sony, in that they expected Sony to have some sort of DRM on the PS4. They seen what happened at E3 and realised changes needed to be made.

Meesared

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

I think it just boils down to the fact that Sony are focusing on making a game console with great games and a good service, whilst MS are focusing on making a media box for the whole family that can play games.

Its a non point though, what it comes down to is how good the games are, and we don't have much information on that at the minute.

FAILSAFE 00

miralize wrote: »

It still takes up room. The ps4 has it built into the system, is a faster system in general and is smaller.

The kinect is interesting, but the fact that the ps4 hasnt bundled it, signals to me at least, that sony have given up on it. And if half (or over half) of the gamers dont have it (ps4 users) it will mean that publishers/developers have to put in the time to build a game for a select group of people.Which I think, they wont do, as they generally like having money.

You'd swear it's gigantic the way your talking about it and you have wear the power brick around your neck like a chain while playing. Playstation can't have anything like the Kinect because they dont own the IP of such a device hence PlayStations delightful glow sticks tracking movement.

I haven't seen any evidence that the PS has a faster system than Xbox One. I have seen the specs are a bit better. Has we know from console history it isn't the must powerful hardware that wins, its what you you do with it

e.g exclusive game agreements, better operating systems and features.

Holy moly, I am going to have to take a wall out to fit this Xbox thing in

yoyo

Meesared wrote: »

I think to be honest Microsoft were wrong footed by Sony, in that they expected Sony to have some sort of DRM on the PS4. They seen what happened at E3 and realised changes needed to be made.

Being honest, I was also shocked that Sony didn't have any DRM either. Remember Sony are the guys that brought out the Rootkit Music CD protection, the controversial Securom protection (PC games and software> Online Key activation and Disc checking) and recently the Cinavia protection on DVD/BluRays they strongly supported.
Fair play to them all the same for not implementing DRM on the PS4 and also pressuring Microsoft to drop it as a result. I think Sim City 2013 should be an excellent example of how cloud DRM "works" so well..

Nick

ShaunC

jaffusmax wrote: »

Now to deal with that spy cam that they plan to install in every users home!

Oh my god, you mean there are going to be millions of MS employees watching me sitting on the couch playing my X1 and occasionally scratching my balls and shouting at the tv "I shot you first"........God they will get bored quickly watching me:D
Maybe I should throw a towel over the "spycam" and play loud music when I want to talk to someone like in the movies, that'll teach them;)

evolutionqy7

ShaunC wrote: »

Oh my god, you mean there are going to be millions of MS employees watching me sitting on the couch playing my X1 and occasionally scratching my balls and shouting at the tv "I shot you first"........God they will get bored quickly watching me:D
Maybe I should throw a towel over the "spycam" and play loud music when I want to talk to someone like in the movies, that'll teach them;)

Ah don't even bother, all the PS fan boys ran out of things to talk so they came back for round 3 of bashing something without having a clue about it. Seeing as everyone had their hands on both consoles.

As said, no one really cares a if you are going to buy it or not.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. I don't buy an iPhone yet you don't see me going on apples forums saying their phone sucks and I bought a Samsung...

WolfForager

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

You'd swear it's gigantic the way your talking about it and you have wear the power brick around your neck like a chain while playing. Playstation can't have anything like the Kinect because they dont own the IP of such a device hence PlayStations delightful glow sticks tracking movement.

I haven't seen any evidence that the PS has a faster system than Xbox One. I have seen the specs are a bit better. Has we know from console history it isn't the must powerful hardware that wins, its what you you do with it

e.g exclusive game agreements, better operating systems and features.

Holy moly, I am going to have to take a wall out to fit this Xbox thing in

Well you're wrong there. The last gen MS went with a simple (comparatively) PowerPC set up whereas Sony went with "The Cell". The Cell as a CPU was a helluva alot better than the 360 CPU and was coupled with a split pool of RAM and an underwhelming GPU. Now the plan for Sony's set up was for devs to use the Cell to do pretty much everything, assigning tasks that would normally be given to the GPU to the CPU and therefore freeing up the GPU to do more Graphics based calculations. Fantastic in theory but in practice it didn't work out so great, devs spent years trying to figure out the Cell set up and the only devs that were able to get a firm grip on it were Sony's own 1st party studios. So devs got fed up with Sony's ridiculous set up and started designing games for the 360's more simple set up and porting them to the PS3, therefore 360 games often ended up looking better than their PS3 counterparts.

However as I said, Sony's 1st party devs were quite adept at coding for the Cell and this can be seen in the quality of the visuals in the Uncharted, Gran Turismo and Killzone games. If you compare these games to the 360 exclusives, you'll see that the PS3 was in fact the more powerful console.


TLDR: PS3 was more powerful, Sony were just bat **** insane. Ken Kutaragi!


Now regards PS4 vs Xbone, they are both using a more traditional PC type set up. In terms of GPU PS4 has 1.84 Teraflops vs 1.2TF on the Xbone. In terms of RAM both are using 8Gb but Sony are using GDDR5 and MS are using DDR3. GDDR5 has higher bandwidth and Sony are only using 1Gb for the system OS versus MS's 3Gb, essentially leaving the PS4 with an extra 2Gb or high speed RAM to mess around with. Not much is known about the CPUs of either console but they are using the same ATI Jaguar design so they're probably pretty similar.

So Sony have the more powerful console and as it is more of a linear power advantage than the previous gen there will be graphical differences (in Sony's favour) in the next gen of multi-plat games.

Slugs

Oh my god, you mean there are going to be millions of MS employees watching me sitting on the couch playing my X1 and occasionally scratching my balls and shouting at the tv "I shot you first"........God they will get bored quickly watching me
Maybe I should throw a towel over the "spycam" and play loud music when I want to talk to someone like in the movies, that'll teach them

You know, if you'd asked someone 40 years ago - Heck, maybe even 20 - 10 years ago - how they felt about a company placing a camera in their house which was always on and always listening, they'd have told you it was Orwellian and that it would never happen. Not only is it now happening, people are paying for the ****ing privilege of it.

I'm not going to convince you or try to argue with you that you should have more concern for your privacy, that's your own personal opinion. However, the fact remains that by purchasing this console and allowing microsoft permission to observe your home, you are placing your privacy in the hands of a MNC who, as clearly shown from these events, are more concerned about making $ then your rights and privacy. The NSA scandal has shown that government officials want to know as much about you as they can, and people purchasing this technology is giving them another avenue to pursue.

Even on a more benign level, you are giving Microsoft free marketing information that they normally have to pay for. Your reaction to advertising, television and games can now be recorded, analysed and profited from, while you're still paying the company €6 a month for the "privilege".

Oh and the towel over the cam? That'll last for a week, maybe two, before you just grow weary of it. "Ah sure, I don't give a **** what they can see. I have nothing to hide..."

ShiverinEskimo

WolfForager wrote: »

Well you're wrong there. The last gen MS went with a simple (comparatively) PowerPC set up whereas Sony went with "The Cell". The Cell as a CPU was a helluva alot better than the 360 CPU and was coupled with a split pool of RAM and an underwhelming GPU. Now the plan for Sony's set up was for devs to use the Cell to do pretty much everything, assigning tasks that would normally be given to the GPU to the CPU and therefore freeing up the GPU to do more Graphics based calculations. Fantastic in theory but in practice it didn't work out so great, devs spent years trying to figure out the Cell set up and the only devs that were able to get a firm grip on it were Sony's own 1st party studios. So devs got fed up with Sony's ridiculous set up and started designing games for the 360's more simple set up and porting them to the PS3, therefore 360 games often ended up looking better than their PS3 counterparts.

However as I said, Sony's 1st party devs were quite adept at coding for the Cell and this can be seen in the quality of the visuals in the Uncharted, Gran Turismo and Killzone games. If you compare these games to the 360 exclusives, you'll see that the PS3 was in fact the more powerful console.


TLDR: PS3 was more powerful, Sony were just bat **** insane. Ken Kutaragi!

Em, You just completely proved him right.

"Has we know from console history it isn't the must powerful hardware that wins, its what you you do with it"

You countered this by saying the PS3 was the more powerful machine but devs couldn't do much with it apart from 1st party (mostly exclusives - so not open to comparison) that were able to squeeze out the power.

WolfForager

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Em, You just completely proved him right.

"Has we know from console history it isn't the must powerful hardware that wins, its what you you do with it"

You countered this by saying the PS3 was the more powerful machine but devs couldn't do much with it apart from 1st party (mostly exclusives - so not open to comparison) that were able to squeeze out the power.

Ha you're right! I was going to make the point that the PS4 does have better specs, I just forgot to add that part in! I'll add it now.

And yes the best specs don't win, as seen by the Wii, but if we consider PS3 vs 360, the PS3 has sold more units LTD.

evolutionqy7

Slugs wrote: »

You know, if you'd asked someone 40 years ago - Heck, maybe even 20 - 10 years ago - how they felt about a company placing a camera in their house which was always on and always listening, they'd have told you it was Orwellian and that it would never happen. Not only is it now happening, people are paying for the ****ing privilege of it.

I'm not going to convince you or try to argue with you that you should have more concern for your privacy, that's your own personal opinion. However, the fact remains that by purchasing this console and allowing microsoft permission to observe your home, you are placing your privacy in the hands of a MNC who, as clearly shown from these events, are more concerned about making $ then your rights and privacy. The NSA scandal has shown that government officials want to know as much about you as they can, and people purchasing this technology is giving them another avenue to pursue.

Even on a more benign level, you are giving Microsoft free marketing information that they normally have to pay for. Your reaction to advertising, television and games can now be recorded, analysed and profited from, while you're still paying the company €6 a month for the "privilege".

Oh and the towel over the cam? That'll last for a week, maybe two, before you just grow weary of it. "Ah sure, I don't give a **** what they can see. I have nothing to hide..."

Of for gods sake go dig a hole in the ground and live there, there's no cameras or electricity or phones lines.

Next thing your going to say stop using the internet. Oh **** my phone has a camera that tracks my movement too. Should I stop using that too?

No one cares who you are. Your just one small dot in the world. I've got nothing to hide so put all the cameras you want

zero19

I draw a line at having cameras in the jax though.

ShaunC

Slugs wrote: »

You know, if you'd asked someone 40 years ago - Heck, maybe even 20 - 10 years ago - how they felt about a company placing a camera in their house which was always on and always listening, they'd have told you it was Orwellian and that it would never happen. Not only is it now happening, people are paying for the ****ing privilege of it.

I'm not going to convince you or try to argue with you that you should have more concern for your privacy, that's your own personal opinion.

Even on a more benign level, you are giving Microsoft free marketing information that they normally have to pay for. Your reaction to advertising, television and games can now be recorded, analysed and profited from, while you're still paying the company €6 a month for the "privilege".

Oh and the towel over the cam? That'll last for a week, maybe two, before you just grow weary of it. "Ah sure, I don't give a **** what they can see. I have nothing to hide..."

All the swearing really emphasises your argument,I guess I will have to remain calm while watching tv adverts etc. As for my criminal activity, I will have to plan with my henchmen outside the house. WHAT'S that you say, they are reading what I'm typing right now Oh shi..........

pleasant Co.

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

[/B]You countered this by saying the PS3 was the more powerful machine but devs couldn't do much with it apart from 1st party (mostly exclusives - so not open to comparison) that were able to squeeze out the power.

I'd worry that that's exactly what'll happen with the kinect, and with the x1 being quite a bit less powerful than the PS4 it might be a bit of a double whammy in that it's biggest differentiating feature doesn't get utilised and games look and perform worse.

Slugs

evolutionqy7 wrote: »

Of for gods sake go dig a hole in the ground and live there, there's no cameras or electricity or phones lines.

Next thing your going to say stop using the internet. Oh **** my phone has a camera that tracks my movement too. Should I stop using that too?

No one cares who you are. Your just one small dot in the world. I've got nothing to hide so put all the cameras you want

It all depends on how seriously you take your privacy... There are of course individuals who take their personal privacy very seriously and don't use the internet. Of course, they're all "loonies".

With regards to the cameras in your phone...

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.5982v1.pdf

You know this whole "I have nothing to hide" is absolute bull****. If you didn't, I would know your real name, address, telephone number, email address and password, I would be able to look up all your FB messages. But I can't, because you maintain your privacy and protect your information.

And why's that? Because quite simply, you don't trust me, you don't know who I am, and you don't know my intentions.

Yet you trust an MNC, intent on generating revenue from you as much as possible. And while Microsoft may not have an interest in who you are, there are individuals that do. The NSA issue has made that quite clear.

ShaunC wrote: »

All the swearing really emphasises your argument,I guess I will have to remain calm while watching tv adverts etc. As for my criminal activity, I will have to plan with my henchmen outside the house. WHAT'S that you say, they are reading what I'm typing right now Oh shi..........

You're too concerned with style over substance.

ShiverinEskimo

WolfForager wrote: »

Ha you're right! I was going to make the point that the PS4 does have better specs, I just forgot to add that part in! I'll add it now.

And yes the best specs don't win, as seen by the Wii, but if we consider PS3 vs 360, the PS3 has sold more units LTD.

But did it sell more games? A lot of people (like me) bought it as a blu-ray player with a side of games. I played uncharted and I will buy Last of Us when I get paid. That's 4 games I played. Otherwise it was a blu-ray player.

I must have bought well over 100 games for the Xbox and I reckon this current generation was firmly put down as a Microsoft win between MS and Sony.

Now I'm just one guy but there has to be plenty like me. And there's be plenty who played the crap out of their PS3.

I'd like to see the figures between total games sold for each platform because the 360 was easily the better gaming platform thanks to the controller, the quality of xbox live, generally better performance and more/better exclusives IMO.

The controllers are still one of my biggest selling points. At the end of the day I want to be comfortable sitting for hours on end. Hours playing with either one and the difference for me is significant. The Dual Shocks are an abomination and if Sony stopped being so stubborn and shifted the thumbstick to a more natural position it would be job done.

FlyingIrishMan

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

But did it sell more games? A lot of people (like me) bought it as a blu-ray player with a side of games. I played uncharted and I will buy Last of Us when I get paid. That's 4 games I played. Otherwise it was a blu-ray player.

I must have bought well over 100 games for the Xbox and I reckon this current generation was firmly put down as a Microsoft win between MS and Sony.

Now I'm just one guy but there has to be plenty like me. And there's be plenty who played the crap out of their PS3.

I'd like to see the figures between total games sold for each platform because the 360 was easily the better gaming platform thanks to the controller, the quality of xbox live, generally better performance and more/better exclusives IMO.

The controllers are still one of my biggest selling points. At the end of the day I want to be comfortable sitting for hours on end. Hours playing with either one and the difference for me is significant. The Dual Shocks are an abomination and if Sony stopped being so stubborn and shifted the thumbstick to a more natural position it would be job done.

Well I know that The Last of Us was the biggest game launch of the year, and sold more than Bioshock Infinite did on both 360 and PS3 combined, so definitely think Sony are doing fine on game sales.

ahnowbrowncow

ShaunC wrote: »

All the swearing really emphasises your argument,I guess I will have to remain calm while watching tv adverts etc. As for my criminal activity, I will have to plan with my henchmen outside the house. WHAT'S that you say, they are reading what I'm typing right now Oh shi..........

Lol, you are very funny.

ShaunC

Slugs wrote: »

"It all depends on how seriously you take your privacy... There are of course individuals who take their personal privacy very seriously and don't use the internet. Of course, they're all "loonies".

You know this whole "I have nothing to hide" is absolute bull****. If you didn't, I would know your real name, address, telephone number, email address and password, I would be able to look up all your FB messages.

And why's that? Because quite simply, you don't trust me, you don't know who I am, and you don't know my intentions."

You are Jim Corr aren't you ;-) ;-)
You should take your theories here.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

TNT2k_

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

too late to reply back to all that im too tired:pac: all im going to say is
everyone has their own opinions
you obviously dont like the xbox one or what it involves
50 percent more power wont mean atin
the games will still be identical in every way when the games come out for both consoles

only thing that is a difference now is the price tag
all else is who your more loyal with now and what exclusives you'd prefer

It's not that I don't like the Xbox, it was what I prefered at the start of last gen, I just don't like this big shift to casual TV apps and kinect. I don't believe that down the line they'll keep up their promise of hardcore games, I think it'll fall into halo evey year, or second year, and 2 exclusives annually overall again with timed exclusives instead of investing in actual exclusives to fill the gap. To me, that's not worth a purchase since I want a games console primarily, but that's my own opinion.

If they make another 180 and go back to their roots then I'd gladly consider picking one up, but their extreme focus on TV and America with games being an afterthought is off-putting to me.

50 percent more power wont mean atin
the games will still be identical in every way when the games come out for both consoles

Well the PS3 had an edge over the 360 this gen and gave games like god of war, uncharted and the last of us, with those graphical standards not being availible on 360. Now in that case I don't think the power mark was 50% higher like it is now, so the possiblities will be far higher in the case of what the PS4 can do down the line, coupled with it's far more developer friendly hardware.

As regards to multiplatform games, the limitations and drawbacks of having two different consoles with the PS3 and 360 meant that most games pretty much looked identical towards the end (after some pretty dodgy PS3 ports at the start)

In the case of this gen, though, they are both built of the same basic parts with one being more powerfully modified than the other. Since at their core they are so similar, there won't be any time wasted with different hardware, and so this will benefit the more powerful console. It was unviable to go out of your way to make one port better looking than the other last gen as time and money constraints applied, not in this case though as no time would be lost that way.

So with less bottlenecks and drawbacks on the PS4, even the multiplatform games, given time, will be noticeably superior which wasn't the case last gen. I've read that the difference in hardware down the line could even mean that PS4 could be 1080p60fps, while the X1 settles for 720p30fps when it comes to very taxing games in future. Developers have even come out to say yes, the PS4 will get the superior game version because of it's hardware and it's easier and quicker to put the work in to get it there compared to last gen.

So you might think they are both the same, but with such similar architecture, raw hardware and ease of development, I wouldn't agree, but it's food for thought given what we know about the console specs and the positive developer reaction to the PS4.

Orim

AirDemon wrote: »

Ah yeah so if I move my profile to the X1, will I be able to use the profile on the 360 at the same time? Just I know when you recover a profile from one console to another then it will not work on the original console unless you recover it back to there.

Basically I want to be able to use the profile on the X1 and the 360 without needing to recover between the two.

I would imagine it will be similar to how it works now. In that when you recover the profile to a console then it stays there but you can only sign into one version at a time.