Xbox One

[Nightengale]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I still think this would cause problems if Titanfall ever took off.

I really liked what I saw of Titanfall, but part of me really wonders if it's got what it takes to 'really' take off.

No doubt it'll sell a lot, but MS seems to be under this assumption that Titanfall will be a huge system mover for XB1 come its launch...

... It's launching for the PC for X360, both with many many millions of install base.

MAJORITY of the gamers do not buy consoles just for one game, especially if it's yet to develop a huge fanbase like Halo. I can see majority of the players going to just buy the 360 or PC versions.

And this is just a personal thing, but the fact that it has no single-player mode really riffs me. To me, part of building a strong title and franchise is building the narrative of the setting, and Titanfall's relying entirely on... multi-player FPS to do that.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Nightengale

This was how the Titanfall devs explained it:

Their game offloads parts of AI/bots calculation onto the cloud.
The 'cloud' will recognise in what regions/country is the game being played on.
The 'processing' is then done in one of MS's many datacenters nearest to the region, which will then apparently create a virtual server to process that AI.
Process goes back to the game.
Because the processing is done at a nearby server, there's minimal lag.

Basically, MS's cloud advantage is the 'scale' of their servers around the world, and the ability to tap into them across all regions, reducing lag time.

Nothing magical, just lag reduction thanks to geographical advantages.

This really does make me wonder how this is supposed to be compatible with the Xboxone being playable offline. If they DO actually use the cloud to do computational stuff like that, I get the feeling that certain Xboxone games won't work offline.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

This really does make me wonder how this is supposed to be compatible with the Xboxone being playable offline. If they DO actually use the cloud to do computational stuff like that, I get the feeling that certain Xboxone games won't work offline.

Multiplayer games are generally not considered offline games these days, only Nintendo do split screen much as of late.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Multiplayer games are generally not considered offline games these days, only Nintendo do split screen much as of late.

Considering Halo's multiplayer origins being split screen lan parties, I certainly hope they don't cut that from Halo 5.

[Nightengale]

http://pastebin.com/TE1MWES2

If this is real, then the family game sharing is a 'time-restricted limited-attempt demo only.'

Yes, the touted, holy grail of the XB1 family sharing plan.. ( if real ) is a DEMO sharing feature.

Basically, you're allowed to 'play for an hour, then prompted to buy the game.'

If real, fuck you Microsoft.

[Duo Maxwell]

Originally Posted by Nightengale

http://pastebin.com/TE1MWES2

If this is real, then the family game sharing is a 'time-restricted limited-attempt demo only.'

Yes, the touted, holy grail of the XB1 family sharing plan.. ( if real ) is a DEMO sharing feature.

Basically, you're allowed to 'play for an hour, then prompted to buy the game.'

If real, fuck you Microsoft.

Doesn't that sound like a feature from PS+? The one allows you to play a full game for 1 hour then prompt you to buy the game. I'm not sure even Microsoft will sugarcoat such feature into "family sharing plan" as they said.

Well, no one knows what is the truth now, as the plan is taken down already.

[4Tran]

Dropping DRM has increased the Xbone's long term viability, but the debacle has done intractable damage and Sony looks to be solidly in the lead. The biggest differences are that people who have wouldn't have looked at the PS4 to begin with have started doing so (mindshare), and that a lot of early adopters have already placed pre-orders for PS4 and they're not coming back. Compound these with Microsoft's supply issues and higher price, and Redmond has a lot of problems to deal with. To top it off, the same people in charge of Xbox two days ago are still in charge today. They've only been able to generate anti-PR to date, and that's going to take a long time to fix.

I think that the most optimistic forecast for Microsoft right now would be to draw even in the U.S., be competitive in the UK and Canada, and be obliterated in the rest of the World. It's not great, but it's still better than what it was looking like before.

Originally Posted by Clarami

Xbox One Slim sounds likely but I still have doubts that they won't remove the Kinect because the concept of the console sort of is built to support it in its entirety. Which is dumb because it's a useless tool anyway, I don't know about most Xbox supporters, but it just doesn't sit well with me.

I'm pretty sure that Kinect and TV integration is more important to Microsoft's vision of the Xbone than the game-playing component. What this means is that even if Kinect doesn't have any real game use application, it'll still be touted as part of the complete package. We've already seen Microsoft dismantle a large portion of their vision; if they de-bundle Kinect, then we'll know that they've given up on it altogether.

Originally Posted by kaito-kid

Yeah I understand that, but I was just wondering HOW this was supposed to work.

And also, It actually sounds like a bad deal for the developers and publishers, as less people would have had to buy the actual game If you could share a game with 10 people and if two people could play a game at the same time. I'm sure a lot of their partners would have left them if this happened... It would have been a sweet deal for the consumers though. It might have even justified the extra 100 dollars.

It was never going to work as advertised because the publishers would have turned on Microsoft. In fact, I have a feeling that they did just that, and that this factored into Microsoft's decision to toss all of its policies.

Originally Posted by Keroko

As am I. Note that Microsoft only reversed gears after E3, and yet claim that "our feedback matters." They had our feedback. They had it looong before E3. And yet it wasn't until after E3, after their competitors were butchering them and kept kicking them while they were down gaining free PR with each kick that they pulled their 180.

It wasn't until they realized that they were actually going to massively crush their own sales that they reversed gears.

Microsoft changed their stance, but it wasn't for us.

It was totally about the consumers, but I think that the decision was made more on the basis of consumer spending than any amount of messages on the internet. The publishers and retailers turning on Microsoft probably played a big factor as well.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Yeah, that's the difference. MS kept using marketing double-speak to force what they want through, thinking they don't really have to care about "customers", who are just people who give them money for no reason.

Sony at least take it upon themselves to try and sell their product to the customers. MS was trying to sell their product to Publishers instead.

Then the MS customers got mad, and the Publishers fled, blaming Microsoft for everything.

You can probably make a gripping TV-movie about the behind the scenes events in the time between the Adam Orth tweets and yesterday.

I look forward to reading the book in 5-7 years time. I wonder how much Microsoft has lost on this project already - I'm guessing about $500 million. It also looks like I was right about how scared Microsoft has sounded over the last few days.

[Freeter]

Originally Posted by Nightengale

http://pastebin.com/TE1MWES2

If this is real, then the family game sharing is a 'time-restricted limited-attempt demo only.'

Like Angry Joe said in his rant, "every feature is a restriction". Guess someone forgot to relay that to MS

Can't wait to see what his reaction will be to all this. I also hope that article is real, just to pour more salt on the wound to the protestors who wanted that feature not realizing what it truly was

[blakstealth]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Considering Halo's multiplayer origins being split screen lan parties, I certainly hope they don't cut that from Halo 5.

They better not lol.

[Westlo]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

MS almost had 'third console curse'.

If the Xbone moves 40 million units compared to the 80 million the 360 did than yes they had a curse. I mean after all the ps3 was cursed and it still moved near 80 million units.... but than again Sony is on another level when it comes to home consoles, noone comes close.

PSX - 104 million
PS2 - 157 million
PS3 - 80 million.

That's a 113 million avg they sell at.

MS is 25 + 80 for 52.5 avg, Nintendo is 62+50+33+22+100 for 53.5 avg...

But yeah noway MS do as well in America this gen as they did with the 360, it basically doubled the ps3 sales in america but now it's the more expensive console, isn't on market for a year earlier and is the less viable multplat system.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Nightengale

I really liked what I saw of Titanfall, but part of me really wonders if it's got what it takes to 'really' take off.

No doubt it'll sell a lot, but MS seems to be under this assumption that Titanfall will be a huge system mover for XB1 come its launch...

... It's launching for the PC for X360, both with many many millions of install base.

MAJORITY of the gamers do not buy consoles just for one game, especially if it's yet to develop a huge fanbase like Halo. I can see majority of the players going to just buy the 360 or PC versions.

What any cool exclusives do is to increase the value proposition of the base platform. For example, I have some interest in the Wonderful 101, Bayonetta 2 and X. But as I have no interest in the Wii U to begin with, it only raises the value proposition to about $100. As long as the console is priced higher than that, I'm not going to be interested in it.

One of the reasons the PS4 is such a hot seller is that its value proposition is about $300-400 for most of the early adopters. And so even if the launch titles aren't all that appealing, it's still worthwhile to pre-order. I imagine that the value proposition of the Xbone is about the same $300-400 - the Kinect adds very little value here, but the lack of power doesn't detract very much either. Titanfall might raise that value a bit, maybe to $350-450 but that $500 price tag is always going to be hard to swallow.

Originally Posted by Westlo

If the Xbone moves 40 million units compared to the 80 million the 360 did than yes they had a curse. I mean after all the ps3 was cursed and it still moved near 80 million units.... but than again Sony is on another level when it comes to home consoles, noone comes close.

PSX - 104 million
PS2 - 157 million
PS3 - 80 million.

That's a 113 million avg they sell at.

MS is 25 + 80 for 52.5 avg, Nintendo is 62+50+33+22+100 for 53.5 avg...

But yeah noway MS do as well in America this gen as they did with the 360, it basically doubled the ps3 sales in america but now it's the more expensive console, isn't on market for a year earlier and is the less viable multplat system.

Do you have the US and EU sales figures? I'm sort of curious about them, but I can't find a handy source.

[Westlo]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Do you have the US and EU sales figures? I'm sort of curious about them, but I can't find a handy source.

Going by vgchartz (yes I know, but it's there weekly and "npd" data that's mostly bullshit) looking at this current gen....

America

Wii - 44.7 million
360 - 44.07 million (And Kinect is a massive reason it will end up the best selling console of this gen in America)
PS3 - 26.75 million (thought it was 22 million, so not exactly double but an asskicking regardless, especially when ps2 did 54 mil..)

Europe

Wii - 33.02 million
PS3 - 31.02 million (will go past the Wii within a year, another price drop, Gran Turismo 6, Grand Theft Auto 5, nuff said)
360 - 24.24 million

Japan

Wii - 12.72 million
PS3 - 9.33 million
360 - 1.64 million

[kenjiharima]

speaking of AngryJoe

YouTube

https://youtu.be/xcXdWRJ-xb4

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[Vajra]

So long as Microsoft gets rid of or makes a kinect-free model and doesn't require a subscription fee I might seriously consider getting one in the future depending on their game collection (and if I can at least pick out 3 titles that i must have).

[Westlo]

MS are not going to part with Kinect period, they went from well behind the Wii in America to being on the verge of the #1 american console because of the momentum Kinect built.

You might not like Kinect but don't forget a lot of people thought the Wii's waggle was a load of horse shit as well, didn't stop it from selling like hotcakes.

[GDB]

My main issue with the Kinect is that it has soooooooo much potential, but they didn't even come close to it. I assume the same will be true of the Kinect2, but time will tell. If unrelated parties could use the original Kinect to do such amazing things, I can only imagine how ridiculous things could get with the Kinect2.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Nightengale

http://pastebin.com/TE1MWES2

If this is real, then the family game sharing is a 'time-restricted limited-attempt demo only.'

Yes, the touted, holy grail of the XB1 family sharing plan.. ( if real ) is a DEMO sharing feature.

Basically, you're allowed to 'play for an hour, then prompted to buy the game.'

If real, fuck you Microsoft.

If it wasn't for one thing I'd call shenanigans on this. Microsoft barely advertised this feature, despite having every PR incentive to do so. The only reason Microsoft could possibly have for not advertising this matter...would be if it wasn't actually as good as it sounded at first glance.

Really. Did Microsoft do ANY evaluation over whether or these changes would be worthwhile to their consumers?

[Vajra]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

If it wasn't for one thing I'd call shenanigans on this. Microsoft barely advertised this feature, despite having every PR incentive to do so. The only reason Microsoft could possibly have for not advertising this matter...would be if it wasn't actually as good as it sounded at first glance.

Really. Did Microsoft do ANY evaluation over whether or these changes would be worthwhile to their consumers?

They evaluated what would make them and the publishers the most money while controlling (read: eliminating) the used game market (in their eyes this meant no more lost sales and a fixed increase in monthly/yearly membership and digital sales) and controlling the direction of the current gaming demographic (we all know how that turned out). From all of their PR and XBONE promoting nothing gives the impression that Microsoft was doing any of this solely for the benefit of the consumer; it was all an effort to wrestle control away from the marketplace and effectively the customer.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Nightengale

http://pastebin.com/TE1MWES2

If this is real, then the family game sharing is a 'time-restricted limited-attempt demo only.'

Yes, the touted, holy grail of the XB1 family sharing plan.. ( if real ) is a DEMO sharing feature.

Basically, you're allowed to 'play for an hour, then prompted to buy the game.'

If real, fuck you Microsoft.

That developer guy did make his point. But i have to say it's flaw logic...

For example the part when he said there is 48 millions people who online daily on Xbox 360 and that satisfy the 24 hours online check policy. How many of those actually have 365 days for 3-4 years accessing to internet? How many of those have risks of not being able to access internet at any given months. My internet is as reliable as i could wish for. But even i have couple days of the month where my internet run out and online activities are restricted (or the risks for that to happen is fair). Then the risk to bring Xbox to your friend place where it may not have point to connect. Plenty of things that can make a 24-hours-online-a-day guy prefer to reject this feature.

Then the issues of reselling games killing the industries? How's about making games that so interesting that it take ages to beat, with loveable character and compel storyline where you will prefer to keep it for future playing? Instead of pouring all resources on high graphic 4-hour campaign games where after finished, it's only worth reselling for less than 50% the price? If that non-resell plan was going through, then it would has been a massive scam where gamers can't resell something that they don't want to keep.

If PS4 is Xbox Mk 2, then are they confident that the new Xbone with all of those RDM bs can beat a more refined and improved 80-millions-sold-worldwide console? Talking about educating customers...

[Slayerx]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

That developer guy did make his point. But i have to say it's flaw logic...

For example the part when he said there is 48 millions people who online daily on Xbox 360 and that satisfy the 24 hours online check policy. How many of those actually have 365 days for 3-4 years accessing to internet? How many of those have risks of not being able to access internet at any given months. My internet is as reliable as i could wish for. But even i have couple days of the month where my internet run out and online activities are restricted (or the risks for that to happen is fair). Then the risk to bring Xbox to your friend place where it may not have point to connect. Plenty of things that can make a 24-hours-online-a-day guy prefer to reject this feature.

And even better question is what about the other 30 million 360 owners. Even if we acceptted the idea that MS could confirm that 48 million would be ok with this BS, that does not speak of the other 30 million

Then the issues of reselling games killing the industries? How's about making games that so interesting that it take ages to beat, with loveable character and compel storyline where you will prefer to keep it for future playing? Instead of pouring all resources on high graphic 4-hour campaign games where after finished, it's only worth reselling for less than 50% the price? If that non-resell plan was going through, then it would has been a massive scam where gamers can't resell something that they don't want to keep.

Another thing they can do that would not take a whole lot of effort on their part is simply make digital distribution a more attractive option. Instead of trying to STOP gamers from buying and selling used games by punishing them, give them a POSITIVE incentive to use alternative services.

Sales would be good for this sort of thing, Steam won people over through their crazy sales and MS can do the same through their online store. Another would be to actually use the family sharing as an incentive; while i think it is possible for them to devise a way it would work with discs, MS could try to pull the cloud sharing as a digital download only option... You want cloud sharing then you need a digital copy of the game instead. They would, in a sense, be giving you MORE value for your money and thus giving you POSITIVE reasons to shop at their store where you don't have the advantage of used games

But most importantly, let gamers CHOOSE to go digital and forfeit used games; this was the biggest problem, it felt like they were trying to FORCE change on us when many felt they were not ready for. When they choose for themselves they are happy, when you try to force it they feel controlled and restricted