Playstation 4 Or Xbox One? (See mod warning in the first post)

COYVB

gaynorvader wrote: »

They do. They have to approve any game before it goes onto their console(s).

just to make sure the game doesnt break consoles. it's not approved based on the actual quality of the product

CiDeRmAn

DARK-KNIGHT wrote: »

Ah im not mad about the wii u pro controller... its a decent controller prob little bit better that the dualshock 4 though

I picked up the WiiU Pro Controller myself but I didn't enjoy the button and stick arrangement at all.
I picked a Giotek GC 2 WiiU controller instead, with the traditional 360 configuration, much better and, at the flick of a switch it's a Wii pro controller instead. Plus it's half the price of the Nintendo offering.

RasTa

More value, don't like GS so wonder if Amazon will match.

he PS4 has received its first unofficial price drop in the UK, courtesy of GameStop.

The online branch of the retailer is selling consoles for £329.97, which is £20 below the retail price seen elsewhere of £349.99. It's worth noting that this isn't an official price drop announced by Sony.

This thing is still sold out on amazon.co.uk and amazon.com.

Madness

gaynorvader

COYVB wrote: »

just to make sure the game doesnt break consoles. it's not approved based on the actual quality of the product

They can refuse to let it on for any reason they like, but you're right insofar that they only really check for bugs.

Retr0gamer

gaynorvader wrote: »

They can refuse to let it on for any reason they like, but you're right insofar that they only really check for bugs.

No they can't unless they want to get sued to high heavens by the publisher. They already lost that case back in the 80's with Tengen, there's no way they want a repeat of that, not company does.

gaynorvader

Retr0gamer wrote: »

No they can't unless they want to get sued to high heavens by the publisher. They already lost that case back in the 80's with Tengen, there's no way they want a repeat of that, not company does.

Could you link me to this information, I can only find instances where Nintendo sued Tengen and settled out of court and where they sued Tengen and won?

runawaybishop

Retr0gamer wrote: »

No they can't unless they want to get sued to high heavens by the publisher. They already lost that case back in the 80's with Tengen, there's no way they want a repeat of that, not company does.

The Xbox one game program is overseen by Microsoft and games must be submitted and pass a quality, stability as well as a price check. This is different to to the 360 indie program, where games weren't validated by Microsoft.

Retr0gamer

gaynorvader wrote: »

Could you link me to this information, I can only find instances where Nintendo sued Tengen and settled out of court and where they sued Tengen and won?

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=1&cId=3146206

BTW Tengen and Atari are the same company.

gaynorvader

Retr0gamer wrote: »

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=1&cId=3146206

BTW Tengen and Atari are the same company.

The only additional piece of information is that Nintendo were sued under anti-competition laws for forcing all games made for the NES to be exclusives and threatening to refuse to sell their consoles in stores stocking competitors' consoles. I'm still not sure how this relates to console manufacturers not being able to refuse to allow a game to be released on their platform if it doesn't meet their quality standards.

Grayditch

That article's an interesting read.

As a result, Nintendo shepherded its third parties under strict (and, some developers argued, unfair) rules that required all NES games to be licensed. In addition, companies were not allowed to release more than five games a year for the system, and those games were required to remain exclusive to Nintendo.

runawaybishop

gaynorvader wrote: »

The only additional piece of information is that Nintendo were sued under anti-competition laws for forcing all games made for the NES to be exclusives and threatening to refuse to sell their consoles in stores stocking competitors' consoles. I'm still not sure how this relates to console manufacturers not being able to refuse to allow a game to be released on their platform if it doesn't meet their quality standards.

It doesn't relate because it is unrelated. Microsoft retain the right to refuse to allow a game to be published on their xbox one platform if it does not pass quality checks.

Retr0gamer

runawaybishop wrote: »

It doesn't relate because it is unrelated. Microsoft retain the right to refuse to allow a game to be published on their xbox one platform if it does not pass quality checks.

No it's totally related. If any of the platform holders refuse to give a license to a game for any reason other than it not passing qualuity checks then it can be seen as anti-consumer, which it is. The reason that law case was made was because Nintendo was refusing licenses to companies if the game wasn't exclusive to their machine and also they were limiting publishers to only 3 games a year on their system. Yes it doesn't really relate to how good a game is, although the 3 game limit was imposed to try and raise the quality of games, but if a game was refused becasue it wasn't good the same anti-consumer laws would apply.

Quality checks don't mean they check to see if the game is good, they are checking to see if it's bug free, doesn't contain memory leaks and won't compromise the systems security, that kind of stuff.

FAILSAFE 00

Cant see what all the fuss about :pac:

LOOKSSSS AWESOMEEEE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfmEACxub28

Retr0gamer

It's nice to see a multiplayer FPS relying on speed and manoeuvrability when modern day FPS are very slow.

runawaybishop

Retr0gamer wrote: »

No it's totally related. If any of the platform holders refuse to give a license to a game for any reason other than it not passing qualuity checks then it can be seen as anti-consumer, which it is. The reason that law case was made was because Nintendo was refusing licenses to companies if the game wasn't exclusive to their machine and also they were limiting publishers to only 3 games a year on their system. Yes it doesn't really relate to how good a game is, although the 3 game limit was imposed to try and raise the quality of games, but if a game was refused becasue it wasn't good the same anti-consumer laws would apply.

Quality checks don't mean they check to see if the game is good, they are checking to see if it's bug free, doesn't contain memory leaks and won't compromise the systems security, that kind of stuff.

Quality checks in this instance specifically mean quality, not stability, as there are separate stability tests. I'm not sure why you are linking Nintendo's exclusivity clause with Microsoft's ability to refuse a games inclusion to the platform because of poor quality. They are totally unrelated.

Grayditch

Does look great. Maybe not one for longevity, time till tell, but it looks like it could be very good.

FAILSAFE 00

Grayditch wrote: »

Does look great. Maybe not one for longevity, time till tell, but it looks like it could be very good.

Usually I'll get 1 year out of a FPS and if its really good 2 years. So hopefully it lasts.

gaynorvader

It's looking a lot better in that video than in previous ones I'd seen.

FAILSAFE 00

gaynorvader wrote: »

It's looking a lot better in that video than in previous ones I'd seen.

I liked the part when the Titan punched the guy on the back of the other Titan.

Retr0gamer

runawaybishop wrote: »

Quality checks in this instance specifically mean quality, not stability, as there are separate stability tests. I'm not sure why you are linking Nintendo's exclusivity clause with Microsoft's ability to refuse a games inclusion to the platform because of poor quality. They are totally unrelated.

No you're wrong there. Quality checks are exactly how I describe them. There's no where in there submission guidelines that says anything about how good the software needs to be:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/containers/fix058/1076682/000119312512013912/d283917dex101.htm

runawaybishop

Retr0gamer wrote: »

No you're wrong there. Quality checks are exactly how I describe them. There's no where in there submission guidelines that says anything about how good the software needs to be:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/containers/fix058/1076682/000119312512013912/d283917dex101.htm

runawaybishop wrote: »

The Xbox one game program is overseen by Microsoft and games must be submitted and pass a quality, stability as well as a price check. This is different to to the 360 indie program, where games weren't validated by Microsoft.

Wrong submission guidelines, that's the 360.

runawaybishop

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/uk_faculty_connection/archive/2014/01/29/id-xbox-independent-developers-publishing-program-for-xbox-one.aspx?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

Now don’t forget, unlike the X360 Indie program (XBLIG), the ID@XBOX process is officially curated by Microsoft, there will be an approval process to validate the quality, stability and price of your game before it’s approved to go on to the marketplace

Retr0gamer

And where exactly does it say that the quality checks are there to check if the game is any good?

runawaybishop

Retr0gamer wrote: »

And where exactly does it say that the quality checks are there to check if the game is any good?

Why would it say that quality checks are to verify if the game is "good"? That's not what quality checks are.

What do you think the difference is between quality and stability tests?

Do you accept that MS can refuse inclusion to the platform based on quality and stability?

Retr0gamer

Because from my own time time in the games industry stability checks were there to check for memory leaks and crashes while quality testing was bug testing.

runawaybishop

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Because from my own time time in the games industry stability checks were there to check for memory leaks and crashes while quality testing was bug testing.

Was this time spent developing xbox one games? The criteria have changed significantly from 360 development. 360 had no review by MS.

I don't really follow your argument any more to be honest, you seem to be using the terms quality and stability interchangeably. In one post you mentioned memory leaks as a quality check, in the quoted one you mention them as stability.

So, i reiterate: Quality checks in this instance specifically mean quality, not stability, as there are separate stability tests. I'm not sure why you are linking Nintendo's exclusivity clause with Microsoft's ability to refuse a games inclusion to the platform because of poor quality. They are totally unrelated.

^^ what is the confusion about this?

tok9

What in God's name are we arguing about now!? :P

Grayditch

tok9 wrote: »

What in God's name are we arguing about now!? :P

How awesome this game was.

kunst nugget

Grayditch wrote: »

How awesome this game was.

Stability wise or quality wise?

Maragenie

€400 - €500 euro for a yoke that is struggling 30fps on 1080p is daylight robbery for a product that's supposed stand the test of time for the next 7 years.


But if I had to decide I'd go PS4 all day long.


-_-