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

bk

Fair enough PhlegmyMoses, the MS "fanboyism" I see might be more on international forums, in particular US ones where the Xbox is much more popular.

On other forums I'm seeing crazy people trying to justify MS's actions with the X1 saying things like "sure I never buy second hand games", "I never share games with friends", etc.

To be honest reading the comments on kotaku is downright scary how rabid some of these fans are.

BTW I think the backwards compatibility of the PS3 benefited it much more then the 360. There was a massive number of PS2 owners, but relatively few Xbox owners in comparison. So it was an important point in it's favour.

evolutionqy7

I do buy second hand games Rarely share them.

Did MS did not say at the conference that you can still trade in your Xbox games, if the PUBLISHER wishes to charge you a re-activation, they may do so. Id like if they would bring out game renting. Would be pretty cool.

In my bad experiences, I had my discs scratched,destroyed or lost by people who don't care. So no trading...

All bad and good aside I put in an Order on Amazon. Let the waiting begin.

V9

http://ie.ign.com/articles/2013/06/11/e3-2013-ps4-used-game-restrictions-up-to-publishers

similer to the One, no?

Pushtrak

bk wrote: »

On other forums I'm seeing crazy people trying to justify MS's actions with the X1 saying things like "sure I never buy second hand games", "I never share games with friends", etc.

To be honest reading the comments on kotaku is downright scary how rabid some of these fans are.

I think there is more to the issue than it being so simple. I was willing to put up with a lot, with the stipulation that the games are great. I've bought some used games in my time, but it wouldn't be a deal breaker to me. I'd get over the sharing games thing. What really is my issue is the 24 hours online thing.

To try and think about these restrictions in a new way, imagine you put them on any console of the past and think about the best games to come out on that system. Would you be willing to put up with the restrictions if it meant you got all the joy out of the games you loved on the systems? If there are bad things like the One has, then the games have to do that much more to make it an appealing product. It isn't doing that now. I'm not going to say the stuff is good, but that online thing, they need to do a lot to stop it being a deal breaker.

Would you say "Oh well, too bad" and just not buy a system if it had bad policies, or would you have to see enough games to make the restrictions less of a deal? I'd be the latter, but obviously even if agreeing on that point, mileage would vary on where that point lies.

bk

V9 wrote: »

http://ie.ign.com/articles/2013/06/11/e3-2013-ps4-used-game-restrictions-up-to-publishers

similer to the One, no?

No, very different.

Just like PS3/360 games, they all contain DRM to stop you from just making a copy of a game to a blank DVD/Bluray and using that instead.

All he is saying here is that the PS4 will continue to have this sort of DRM.

The X1 takes things to a whole new level, locking your game to a specific account, etc.

iColdFusion

As much as I want a shiney next gen console I think I'll be waiting until the dust settles around jan/feb 14 before deciding to go X1 or PS4.

I wouldn't want to be an uninformed parent trying to get their young kids X1 going xmas morning though, the current Live sign up is painful enough :eek:


While I'm here, are next gen games going to demand faster internet connections?
I only just about get by playing BF3 etc at the moment.

ShiverinEskimo

bk wrote: »

On other forums I'm seeing crazy people trying to justify MS's actions with the X1 saying things like "sure I never buy second hand games", "I never share games with friends", etc.

On the other hand you've got people coming up with very specific and precise situations where they will be snookered by the DRM.

"But what if the ship sinks and the desert island I'm on is outside of satellite coverage for 24 hours and 4 minutes and the GPS receiver I hacked to form a primitive connection runs out of batteries and I can't play Halo?"

Richard Dower

LOL!.....even M$ themselves are saying buy a 360 over the X1 if internet problems are an issue, this gets funnier by the day :P

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Get-Xbox-360-Instead-of-Xbox-One-If-You-Don-t-Have-Internet-Connection-360225.shtml

http://www.destructoid.com/ms-on-xbox-one-we-have-built-a-natively-connected-device-255988.phtml

Rascasse

bk wrote: »

No, very different.

Just like PS3/360 games, they all contain DRM to stop you from just making a copy of a game to a blank DVD/Bluray and using that instead.

All he is saying here is that the PS4 will continue to have this sort of DRM.

The X1 takes things to a whole new level, locking your game to a specific account, etc.

But how are MS/publishers doing that? Does each disk have some sort of digital serial number?

drumswan

Pushtrak wrote: »

To try and think about these restrictions in a new way, imagine you put them on any console of the past and think about the best games to come out on that system.

Even worse, with this DRM system those games would now be unplayable. The end of retro gaming as we know it. Want to fire up your SNES to play Zelda? Tough luck.

Varik

The Drm doesn't bother me and would prefer having access without being stuck to a disc but Sony not doing it is a major opportunity for them.

bk

Pushtrak wrote: »

Would you say "Oh well, too bad" and just not buy a system if it had bad policies, or would you have to see enough games to make the restrictions less of a deal? I'd be the latter, but obviously even if agreeing on that point, mileage would vary on where that point lies.

As someone who has being playing games since the early 80's and owns every current gen console, I'm of the opinion that everything possible should be done to resist giving up our rights to own the games we purchase.

What MS is doing is simply wrong and despite the 360 being my primary console I won't be supporting them this generation. I'm quite willing to give up playing one or two nice exclusives to do that.

Anyway, as you say, MS didn't show off anything even remotely exciting to make me want a X1 with all it's faults.

As you know, the vast majority of big games are multi-platfrom and in my humble opinion at least for the current gen, Sony had much better exclusive first party titles, so I expect that to continue with the PS4.

The PS4 is almost perfect, it not only has non of these DRM faults, but it is significantly more powerful and €100 cheaper, it isn't even a slightly difficult decision to make.

Wetbench4

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I never really gave a history, just an overview of what each device was as a purely gaming machine. The bluray is not really all that relevant to the gaming aspect. Sure, some people may have bought it for that reason but it was completely irrelevant to many people who buy their consoles for games. Nice addition but not enough for you to shell out €150 more than an Xbox for essentially the same gaming machine. This is where I feel brand loyalty really comes into play.

This whole thread - in fact, that goes for the whole internet - is full of people upset at MS for sticking it to the gamers in favour of entertainment, which suggests that Bluray wasn't as big a factor as you're making out. The Xbox360 was also backwards compatible at the start, for the most part. A huge library of games could be played from the original Xbox.

Again, I can't really back up my assertion about Sony aficionados (fanboys is a rubbish term, in fairness, apologies) being more willing to pick up anything Sony throws out than those who like MS with any hard facts. I just don't buy into the fact that a Bluray player caused so many people to consistently choose the PS3 over Xbox as a games machine.

Funnily enough, I owned a PS3 before I owned an Xbox purely because I had stopped gaming during college, for all intents and purposes, and my previous console had been a PS2. Never having played an Xbox, Sony was the choice for me. Brand loyalty\recognition. From an anecdotal standpoint, there are a decent number of people I know irl who are massive Sony fans and will buy anything they produce. I've never met such a person who is so dedicated to MS. Even check the PS4 megathread today on boards. People are saying that they were "proud to be a Sony fanboy" watching E3. Crazy stuff but besides the point and not really worth a whole lot. As I said, though, purely anecdotal.

It's not meant as a slight on the PS4 or Sony or anything, I'm relatively neutral in all this, just a possible theory as to why I Sony were able to sell a very similar console to the Xbox 360 for a far more expensive price at all junctures of their life-cycle.

I got launch basic spec 360 and launch 60gb ps3.But i remember the 360 had lots of hidden costs like the recharge packs for controllers, wifi dongle, memory sticks or harddrive & special hd rgb cable. i opted for the hard drive which was around 110ish iirc for a measly 20gb, 7gb of which you couldnt use. Then i had to fork out 60 for xbox gold, every year. Wifi dongle, recharge packs and hd cable were all well overpriced too. Thats without getting into the hd-dvd v bluray debate.

The ps3 came with rechargeable controller, built-in wifi and harddrive(which could be replaced with any 2.5" drive), bluray and free online.

I know it was the basic spec 360 but the base ps3 was ready for online gaming out of the box(maybe after an hour update:D), and no batteries required.

I'm no fanboy either. My first console was and atari 7800 and ive had a lot through the years, but it just annoys me when people forget all the costs of xbox and make out it was somehow better value then the ps3 was. I still have that same ps3 today but i'm on my 4th or 5th xbox due to rrod.

bk

Varik wrote: »

The Drm doesn't bother me and would prefer having access without being stuck to a disc but Sony not doing it is a major opportunity for them.

Well on the PS4 you can always buy the game as a digital download with all the pros and cons of that if you prefer.

The point is with the PS4 you get the best of both worlds and a choice, with the X1 you get no choice.

Pushtrak

drumswan wrote: »

Even worse, with this DRM system those games would now be unplayable. The end of retro gaming as we know it. Want to fire up your SNES to play Zelda? Tough luck.

But in this hypothetical, would you give up on the console and say "I don't need to play Zelda"? Now, the One needs to do a hell of a lot to impress on the gaming front. Right now, the only exclusive it has that seems to be a sure hit for me is D4. No way is that enough to buy a console. Even if it didn't have a stench to clear up in the form of the online crap.

bk wrote: »

As someone who has being playing games since the early 80's and owns every current gen console, I'm of the opinion that everything possible should be done to resist giving up our rights to own the games we purchase.

That's great if it remains the case that largely they aren't going to be games we'd want. If there ends up lots of games I'll really want, then at some point there'll be a breaking point at which point it seems a good idea to own the console/games. They just have another barrier to entry for me beyond price of console. They have more to prove, essentially.

The Wii U is a guaranteed buy for me. The PS4 is too, though I'll be hoping the DS4 is a lot better than the DS3 or will have to get a third party one should a better one be forthcoming which is likely.

PhlegmyMoses

Wetbench4 wrote: »

I got launch basic spec 360 and launch 60gb ps3.But i remember the 360 had lots of hidden costs like the recharge packs for controllers, wifi dongle, memory sticks or harddrive & special hd rgb cable. i opted for the hard drive which was around 110ish iirc for a measly 20gb, 7gb of which you couldnt use. Then i had to fork out 60 for xbox gold, every year. Wifi dongle, recharge packs and hd cable were all well overpriced too. Thats without getting into the hd-dvd v bluray debate.

The ps3 came with rechargeable controller, built-in wifi and harddrive(which could be replaced with any 2.5" drive), bluray and free online.

I know it was the basic spec 360 but the base ps3 was ready for online gaming out of the box(maybe after an hour update:D), and no batteries required.

I'm no fanboy either. My first console was and atari 7800 and ive had a lot through the years, but it just annoys me when people forget all the costs of xbox and make out it was somehow better value then the ps3 was. I still have that same ps3 today but i'm on my 4th or 5th xbox due to rrod.

This isn't really what I'm talking about, though. The launch spec 360 was irrelevant as it was released on its own. By the time the PS3 rocked up a year later, the 360 was being bundled up with games and controllers and the like for Christmas and it was still cheaper. The PS3 was more expensive for its whole lifecycle than the 360, which is my point. Gold pricing is a good point but if you're paying €60 for it you're doing it wrong. :P

Also, I've had the opposite luck with my consoles. Bluray drive went pop 3 times, still played DVDs though, and the 4th was well OOW so had to pay for a repair. On only my second Xbox. First got RROD, then bought the S when it came out in 2010 and it has never given me a moment's problem.

As I said previously on this thread, though, it'll be PC gaming for me for the foreseeable. Superior hardware for not much more and I can upgrade when I choose.

bk

Honestly Pushtrak I think on this matter a stand needs to be taken.

And I'm hoping that this massive backlash against MS will make them change their mind and position.

Yes I would give up on playing the Zelda games had they enforced such draconian DRM.

H3llR4iser

I'm frankly a bit puzzled by all the outcry, either I'm really missing something or it has a bit of a "nerdrage" aftertaste to me.

The "connection always on" point seems moot - as far as I can tell from reading around, it performs a "check", it doesn't keep exchanging data while you play. I'm not really sure how this would need a high speed connection and, to be honest, a dial up just won't even cut it for web browsing nowadays; Furthermore, I can't see why anybody with no home or mobile connectivity whatsoever would be interested in a gaming console.
There might be the issue of the "temporary internet cut", but honestly sounds like more nerdrage - not being able to use something you bought for a few hours, or even a few days, will hardly cause death, devastation and panic. Plus, I've been using internet connections, in one guise or the other, since 1998 across fours cities spread over two countries - I think I had 4 or 5 connection outages over 15 years, including the sh1tty Italian Telecom and Eircom services.

The DRM/used games controversy has some merit. I did enjoy quite a few used games on the Xbox 360, and I also have to say that the view that "used games damage publishers/developers" is somewhat skewed; Most of the games I got second hand, I would never have bought at full price and most of the games I bought new, I was interested in them in the first place and would have got them regardless. I suspect the same is valid for most players.

On the other hand, people simply can't understand the difference between goods and services. If you buy a car, you own it and can do whatever you want with it, as long as it respects the local laws. If you buy a service, you do not own anything - you bought the right to USE something.

I think it's very important for people to understand that games and software are services, even when you buy the "hard copy". All you own is a bit of poly-carbonate and aluminum, a plastic box and the paper of the manual. It's funny how nobody seems to have an issue with Steam or iTunes...applying the same reasoning, you buy something there, you "own" it and should be outraged you can't lend it to your pal. Why would it be different for the Xbox? Being able to give your brother that game you completed last month, or sell that one you never really play is definitely nice, but not a right in any conceivable way.

A problem I see is the whole "media oriented" approach. Fair and square, it won't work; For starters, it seems to be extremely US-centric. I fail to see how all the gizmos would work in EU, were all we have are a couple of ripoff pay TVs and a totally pathetic version of Netflix. Also, there is a matter of demographics: the people that care about the games, most likely would like a pure gaming console and don't give a toss about it being able to show TV; The ones that don't play games, simply won't buy an Xbox as a media player - plenty of other options out there, and there are a surprising number of people that simply don't want a console in their living room (most people who don't like games think very negatively of them and anything associated).

Last, the whole "oh no, Kinect's gonna SPY on me!" is frankly just paranoia, anybody that really thinks so probably has more than a simple issue with DRM.
Most people go around carrying smartphones, devices that make the ultimate personal surveillance device. All it would take would be a little update from Google or Apple and everything in your life could instantly be streamed to a remote server, yet nobody seems to have a problem with it.

cursai

Just checked my xbox live membership. Due to renew in a month and a half. Took my Credit card details off it.
Its these things that annoyed me so much with Microsoft, including microsoft points - having to spend more than you need, although they say points are gone with xbox1.and the small hard drive. initially not being about to expand it or use large external memory.
I had already bought a ps3 before i got an xbox 360. Which i got for forty euro three years ago from a brother who had another one.

Sure as hell not going down this road again. Money grabbing at its lowest.

PhlegmyMoses

cursai wrote: »

Just checked my xbox live membership. Due to renew in a month and a half. Took my Credit card details off it.
Its these things that annoyed me so much with Microsoft, including microsoft points - having to spend more than you need, although they say points are gone with xbox1.and the small hard drive. initially not being about to expand it or use large external memory.
I had already bought a ps3 before i got an xbox 360. Which i got for forty euro three years ago from a brother who had another one.

Sure as hell not going down this road again. Money grabbing at its lowest.

You've to pay to play online with both now. Glad MS points are gone. False economy a lot of the time.

Wetbench4

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

This isn't really what I'm talking about, though. The launch spec 360 was irrelevant as it was released on its own. By the time the PS3 rocked up a year later, the 360 was being bundled up with games and controllers and the like for Christmas and it was still cheaper. The PS3 was more expensive for its whole lifecycle than the 360, which is my point. Gold pricing is a good point but if you're paying €60 for it you're doing it wrong. :P

Also, I've had the opposite luck with my consoles. Bluray drive went pop 3 times, still played DVDs though, and the 4th was well OOW so had to pay for a repair. On only my second Xbox. First got RROD, then bought the S when it came out in 2010 and it has never given me a moment's problem.

As I said previously on this thread, though, it'll be PC gaming for me for the foreseeable. Superior hardware for not much more and I can upgrade when I choose.

I only copped on the the cheaper xbl gold a few years later:o

I also will be a pc gamer for the foreseeable future , just built one at christmas which has a radeon 7870 card, which from what i've gathered is what the ps4 gpu is based on but i could be wrong, so not much point in me forking up launch prices for a ps4, that has very similar performance to my pc.

Oafley Jones

bk wrote: »

Honestly Pushtrak I think on this matter a stand needs to be taken.

And I'm hoping that this massive backlash against MS will make them change their mind and position.

Yes I would give up on playing the Zelda games had they enforced such draconian DRM.

In my seven years of ownership, I've rented one game, lent a game once (where's my ****ing Oblivion cover John Mc) and traded in maybe three games. Of the 50 plus games I've bought, two were pre-owned. I live in an area of absolutely ****e internet cover (0.86 down is the best i've seen), but I can still connect*. Therefore the DRM offered by MS shouldn't have any real consequence for me. But I absolutely reject it. MS are pissing on the consumer, eroding the concept of ownership all for little or no gain and we're supposed to smile and take it. People need to think bigger than the "I'm all right Jack attitude", we need to make a stand for this cannot be allowed to become the norm.

*It did take nearly two weeks for me to get any internet having moved into our new house in March, which would have been a major pain in the balls with Xbox one.

PhlegmyMoses

This isn't really a weird statement at all. We've built a console that requires intermittent connection. If this isn't a good fit for you, buy our other product. It'll suit you down to the ground.

Also, massive thread that this could have gone into.

Pushtrak

H3llR4iser wrote: »

The "connection always on" point seems moot - as far as I can tell from reading around, it performs a "check", it doesn't keep exchanging data while you play. I'm not really sure how this would need a high speed connection and, to be honest, a dial up just won't even cut it for web browsing nowadays;

You make the mistaken assumption that "if you have broadband, you are going to have access to XBL" which my experience doesn't bear out. I've moved on to a new place temporarily and will be moving on to another one in a month or so, but the place I'd been living for a year, I had broadband, but couldn't get my consoles online at all. I largely play single player games, so I didn't mind. Wasn't great not being able to download DLC when I wanted and having to bring my consoles somewhere to download stuff, but I got over it. Yes, I will be more careful about where I move to in future, but I can tell you, when you go a year without being able to get your consoles online, the last thing you need to see is that if you can't get online you can't play.

The DRM/used games controversy has some merit. I did enjoy quite a few used games on the Xbox 360, and I also have to say that the view that "used games damage publishers/developers" is somewhat skewed; Most of the games I got second hand, I would never have bought at full price and most of the games I bought new, I was interested in them in the first place and would have got them regardless. I suspect the same is valid for most players.

All things being equal, I wouldn't care to see the used market be killed and to see new games be released at a cheaper cost as a result.

On the other hand, people simply can't understand the difference between goods and services. If you buy a car, you own it and can do whatever you want with it, as long as it respects the local laws. If you buy a service, you do not own anything - you bought the right to USE something.

Xbox Live is a service, Playstation Network is a service. The console/games are goods.

PhlegmyMoses

I'm generally with most people on the DRM stuff. I rarely buy second hand and only trade in to get rid of dust collectors in my house. The only previous gen console I play even semi-regularly is the N64 because it was quite a unique console but, even then, I could take it or leave it. That being said, it's not right to prevent people who would like to play their older games from doing so.

cursai

oh I forgot about the additional wireless adapter that the xbox needed. another 80€

Drexel

Oafley Jones wrote: »

*It did take nearly two weeks for me to get any internet having moved into our new house in March, which would have been a major pain in the balls with Xbox one.

No internet is the time when id use my xbox the most!!

Can you imagine moving house and while you're waiting for bb to be connected you put a game in your new xbox and you cant fcuking play it at all. Not even single player. Even tho I know it was a feature of the console id still freak the first time it happened.

Drexel

cursai wrote: »

oh I forgot about the additional wireless adapter that the xbox needed. another 80€

The built in wireless on the newer machines was useless too

Courtesy Flush

How does the Xbox and PS compare for online gaming?
I have a 360 and Xbox Live account which I pay for. I would consider a PS4 , just wondering how Sony perform in the online arena ?

FlyingIrishMan

Courtesy Flush wrote: »

How does the Xbox and PS compare for online gaming?
I have a 360 and Xbox Live account which I pay for. I would consider a PS4 , just wondering how Sony perform in the online arena ?

In terms of this gen, I think XBL was the more reliable service, but I don't think it was worth paying for. Sony's service was great for a free service, and PS+ is amazing value.
XBL on X1 will continue to charge 50$ a year offering the same system it does now.
PS4 will require a PS+ membership for multiplayer, and only multiplayer (can still access media apps like netflix), and you'll get a lot of free games and discounts for being on PS+.