Console Discussion/E3/Tokyo Game Show Thread

[mckerney]

I doubt Sony will end up waiting that long, but I really don't think a later release in Japan than the US and Europe will hurt them.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

And that's exactly my biggest objection to the Xbox One, the reason why I've been converted from somebody who owns upwards of 100 games for each of Microsoft's first two consoles to somebody for whom Xbox One is a complete and total nonstarter.

The legacy console aspect isn't my only objection to Xbox One, but it is my biggest objection, and a point I consider non-negotiable.

I still probably have 20 games on my 360 that I'm not done with. I won't be for several years, I'm sure. Imagine if Microsoft turned off the servers (do you think they would still be supporting the original Xbox today?) and the games I bought were denied to me?

I'm sure I'm not the only person here with a backlog. Hell, I'm still working on Final Fantasy VII.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by mckerney

PS4 Japan Launch Date Still to be Determined - News (PS4)

Sony says the fall launch is only for US and Europe right now any may not launch elsewhere next year. So alright, let's hear it about how Sony is bungling this launch and blowing market share by allowing for the possibility of Microsoft launching in Japan first.

Perspective, though. The PlayStation Vita, which SirFozzie and others will swear to you until they're blue in the face is a DOA platform, sold 5,800'ish units in the United States last week. The Xbox 360, with a similar reputation in Japan, sold fewer than 400. Microsoft has had something like 6 or 7 years in Japan to sell their hardware, and they're essentially at parity with a handheld priced in a similar range that's been out for about 18 months.

So...realistically? Sony could wait three years to release the PlayStation 4 in Japan, and they aren't risking a goddamn thing against Microsoft there. There's just simply no chance Xbox One is any kind of a threat to Sony over there.

The risk Sony runs is if they don't release PS4 in Japan until 2014 or 2015, they disincentivize Japanese developers from working on PS4 software. They'll keep working on PS3 software instead, since that's what they'll be able to sell (and it's rare to see a Japanese developer release in the US first and then localize for Japan). That could potentially harm Sony's position in America because the Japanese titles that give their library more diversity than Microsoft historically has had wouldn't be there.

Their position in Japan relative to Microsoft is secure, though. If Microsoft capitulates there this holiday, as it appears they will, Sony doesn't need to release there to shore up anything. They have the luxury of holding that allocation for areas where they're in direct competition instead.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Truth here. Couldn't have said it better. They're missing a golden opportunity to bury MS if they don't get it released in Japan this fall. I suppose one could argue that they're only going to have so many units and want to maximize in areas where they have competition, but that's not going to endear them to the Japanese in any way.

Japanese will resent the US getting priority on a Japanese console, but Sony could give Microsoft a three year head start over there and bury them sales-wise in the first six months once they DO release. The threat to their market position in Japan comes from anything Nintendo's able to do, not Microsoft.

Originally Posted by Ryan S

If they don't need to worry about the Asian market this year, Sony hopefully can avoid bad press from stock shortages (though I bet they still occur).

We shall see. I can't believe that Microsoft will wait a whole year before launching in Asia, and I can't believe that Sony would let Microsoft beat them to the market in their home turf.

It's an interesting scenario. I think Microsoft skipping Japan at launch is a recognition of the reality of their prospects there, but it allows Sony to concentrate their launch efforts in a way they otherwise couldn't. Maybe the bean counters at Microsoft have determined that they'd gain less US market share from forcing Sony to divert units to Japan than they would from simply focusing on the territories where they do well and worrying about the rest later (since efforts in those territories have been fruitless for the last 12 years anyway).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Ouya tries to crash E3, feuds with ESA | Games Blog - Yahoo! Games

[MizzouRah]

The Xbox One authorization file is “kilobytes,” you can authorize your games by tethering your phone.

The PA Report - The Xbox One authorization file is “kilobytes,” you can authorize your games by tethering your phone

[mckerney]

DayZ set to arrive on PS4, but could skip Xbox One | News | Edge Online

“We’re happy to see DayZ on any console but there is a… I guess one problem,” Hall told us. “The console needs to not charge for us to do updates and it needs to be indie title friendly.”

When asked whether Microsoft and Sony are still charging for patches, Hall replied: “As far as I’m aware, Microsoft is, Sony’s not. And Sony allows you to self-publish. But who knows? Maybe Microsoft will change. From our perspective, we need self-publishing because DayZ would be a great digital download title.”

Hall added that Sony’s free patching policy is preferable because there are a lot of bugs in DayZ. “It’s gonna take a long time for us to be able to iron this out and we don’t wanna have to be paying ten, twenty thousand dollars – whatever it is – every time we wanna do an update.”

I'd been hoping Microsoft would change this for the XBox One though it doesn't look like it's happening unfortunately. Not only is the price of patching too expensive for a lot of indies, but they have to give a cut of the revenue to a publisher even if they self funded.

[DaddyTorgo]

That's a stupid policy re:charging for patches. Fuck MS.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

That's a stupid policy re:charging for patches. Fuck MS.

Not sure where the guy got his info that Sony is no longer charging for patch certification, it appears that they are continuing that as well. It makes sense for stuff that Sony or MS is going to distribute via their networks to go through a certification process.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Not sure where the guy got his info that Sony is no longer charging for patch certification, it appears that they are continuing that as well. It makes sense for stuff that Sony or MS is going to distribute via their networks to go through a certification process.

Sony on Developer Relations and Waiving Game Patch Fees

"Our publicised policy is that you have to pay patch fees in order to patch the content but the reality is, especially for independent developers, we don't charge them for that. We have not in the last three years in our territory. It's really important for us to work with them to make sure it's as early as possible for them to get the content out there, especially if it's a fix for a game breaking bug," Boyes revealed.

[MizzouRah]

Microsoft News | Microsoft Engineer Defends Xbox One DRM Requirements, Makes Valid Points

Honestly, if you care about anything other then pure games AT ALL. Xbox 1 > PS4. If all you do is play games, and nothing else, PS4

Pretty good article honestly.. the guy is pretty direct and has a point going to the "steam" model so to speak.. if it drives XB1 games down to $39.99 that would be huge for me and my kids.

Think about it, on steam you get a game for the true cost of the game, 5$-30$. On a console you have to pay for that PLUS any additional licenses for when you sell / trade / borrow / etc. If the developer / publisher can’t get it on additional licenses (like steam), then they charge the first person more. [...] If we say “Hey publishers, you limit game to 39.99, we ensure every license transfer you get 10$, gamestop gets 20$” that is a decent model… Microsoft gets a license fee on first and subsequent game purchases, compared to just first now? That’s a revenue increase.

[DaddyTorgo]

What "other stuff" on my gaming console are they talking about? PS4 offers Netflix and Hulu and stuff too - which I use it for. Why would it be any different/superior on XBox?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Microsoft News | Microsoft Engineer Defends Xbox One DRM Requirements, Makes Valid Points

Pretty good article honestly.. the guy is pretty direct and has a point going to the "steam" model so to speak.. if it drives XB1 games down to $39.99 that would be huge for me and my kids.

1. Steam has to be sending waves of e-mails to MS at this point. They keep using them as a similar model when they're not even close. If I use Steam, I can play all my games no matter what, online or offline. The only time I have to sign in is to purchase games or get patches. If I get a new PC with better specs, just keep on playing. Steam will make sure it's supported. If I buy an X1, there's no guarantees that I'll be able to play those games moving forward. See X360 and PS3 digital and hard-copy games as an example. Worse yet, in the case of X1 as SackAttack correctly pointed out, when my X1 online servers are removed ten years from now, my console is a doorstop and little else. Steam will last as long as PC's survive and I won't have to rebuy games on any future PC's.

2. MS can stop playing the pity card as far as $59.99 games all they want. His talk about game prices falls on deaf ear. Anyone who believes that the X1 games will be $39.99 thanks to increased DRM is fooling themselves. Used games are NOT the reason that we have high price points.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Pretty good article honestly.. the guy is pretty direct and has a point going to the "steam" model so to speak.. if it drives XB1 games down to $39.99 that would be huge for me and my kids.

The big publishers are going to go along with that price model? If I go to Steam right now, I see that I can get Bioshock: Infinite and Rome: Total War II for $59.99. I'll believe publishers will back down from the $59.99 price point on any system when I see it.

The guy also sees all the 'positive' sides of Kinect's surveillance of its users. You can hand your controller to someone else and that person's profile will pop up immediately. Your profile will pop up immediately upon being handed a controller from a third person. These might sound great, but when I get charged more to play a game or watch a movie because Kinect detects four people in the room instead of one, something I don't see as particularly far-fetched at some point down the line, I won't be surprised. If I see ads on my dashboard for Pepsi 12 hours after playing a game with a buddy who asked if I had any Coke, that won't surprise me either. With the new Kinect, Microsoft is showing me it wants to literally monetize my every move. We already have that to a degree with the internet, but internet surveillance does not yet, to my knowledge, track my mouse movements and my eye movements and whether or not it is indeed me moving my mouse. Maybe it's my own 'Get off my lawn!' moment, but the prospect of this kind of pervasive surveillance drives me as far away from the XBone as possible.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

1. Steam has to be sending waves of e-mails to MS at this point. They keep using them as a similar model when they're not even close. If I use Steam, I can play all my games no matter what, online or offline. The only time I have to sign in is to purchase games or get patches. If I get a new PC with better specs, just keep on playing. Steam will make sure it's supported. If I buy an X1, there's no guarantees that I'll be able to play those games moving forward. See X360 and PS3 digital and hard-copy games as an example. Worse yet, in the case of X1 as SackAttack correctly pointed out, when my X1 online servers are removed ten years from now, my console is a doorstop and little else. Steam will last as long as PC's survive and I won't have to rebuy games on any future PC's.

2. MS can stop playing the pity card as far as $59.99 games all they want. His talk about game prices falls on deaf ear. Anyone who believes that the X1 games will be $39.99 thanks to increased DRM is fooling themselves. Used games are NOT the reason that we have high price points.

1. You still have to "sign in" to purchase games and get updates and MS wants to see your xb1 for a few minutes each day. I don't really see much difference here? I hardly believe your ps3 is always played "offline" without any internet connection.

I also bet MS is going to back off on some of this just like the article says. MS isn't going anywhere either, but in 10 years I doubt I'll still be playing an xb1.

2. Everything MS says falls on your deaf ears.. you only hear what you want to hear. Used games definitely have an effect on game prices, your fooling yourself. The life cycle of Gamestops are slowly dwindling down, more and more people will purchase digital games and that includes on consoles. I stopped trading games in a long time ago, I'd rather purchase via Steam and when I'm done, I uninstall it.

This is only the beginning of this model for console gaming. MS is betting on the future of gaming while Sony wants market share now.

I still say I'm definitely interested in the PS4 as well as the XB1, but I'll wait until both are out for awhile before I even decide which I'll choose.

I've purchased more Steam/Digital downloaded games over the past 3 months than any store bough disk games... it's not even close.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

The big publishers are going to go along with that price model? If I go to Steam right now, I see that I can get Bioshock: Infinite and Rome: Total War II for $59.99. I'll believe publishers will back down from the $59.99 price point on any system when I see it.

The guy also sees all the 'positive' sides of Kinect's surveillance of its users. You can hand your controller to someone else and that person's profile will pop up immediately. Your profile will pop up immediately upon being handed a controller from a third person. These might sound great, but when I get charged more to play a game or watch a movie because Kinect detects four people in the room instead of one, something I don't see as particularly far-fetched at some point down the line, I won't be surprised. If I see ads on my dashboard for Pepsi 12 hours after playing a game with a buddy who asked if I had any Coke, that won't surprise me either. With the new Kinect, Microsoft is showing me it wants to literally monetize my every move. We already have that to a degree with the internet, but internet surveillance does not yet, to my knowledge, track my mouse movements and my eye movements and whether or not it is indeed me moving my mouse. Maybe it's my own 'Get off my lawn!' moment, but the prospect of this kind of pervasive surveillance drives me as far away from the XBone as possible.

If MS can sell games for $40 and then make the developers an additional $20 or so, then I could see that happening.

As far as kinect goes..I would think for those who are concerned about that sort of thing would be able to just turn it off when it's not in use? Our kinect for x360 isn't built in, but we only turn it on when we are playing a kinect game.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

This is only the beginning of this model for console gaming.

I don't particularly disagree.

But that's also why I've said I believe this will be the final generation of consoles.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Microsoft News | Microsoft Engineer Defends Xbox One DRM Requirements, Makes Valid Points



Pretty good article honestly.. the guy is pretty direct and has a point going to the "steam" model so to speak.. if it drives XB1 games down to $39.99 that would be huge for me and my kids.

For now Microsoft has said they are going to sell first party AAA games at $59.99, I don't think they will end up drop that as a launch price. As long as there are people willing to pay that to buy a game when it releases I they'll probably keep changing that price. A quicker drop in price for digital copies to 39.99 seems more likely. There are still plenty of AAA games on PC releasing at $50 or $60 (Though sizable preorder discounts are easy to come by on sites like Amazon, I was able to pick up games like Tomb Raider, Borderlands 2 and Remember Me for less than $35 prior to release. Could possibly see that sort of thing if Microsoft allows selling of keys without a disc), though if you're willing to wait games are often half off or more less than two months after release.

As far as the Steam model goes I don't have a problem with it as someone that is primarily a PC gamer, though I've got the impression that it is something that a good deal of console gamers don't want to me. As I've said before here I'm leaning towards the PS4, though I really don't think the XBox model is going to stop me from getting it instead if it has the better game lineup.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Sony on Developer Relations and Waiving Game Patch Fees

So the official agreement with developers states they can be charged for patches. If Sony felt so strongly that 'no charge for patches' was the way to go, why not explicitly state that in the agreement? As it stands, Sony could change their mind at any time, and enforce the agreement as signed. Not that they have a track record of doing anything like changing their mind from what they claim at launch at all (removing backwards compatibility and the choice to install a 2nd OS on the console).

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by cartman

So the official agreement with developers states they can be charged for patches. If Sony felt so strongly that 'no charge for patches' was the way to go, why not explicitly state that in the agreement? As it stands, Sony could change their mind at any time, and enforce the agreement as signed. Not that they have a track record of doing anything like changing their mind from what they claim at launch at all (removing backwards compatibility and the choice to install a 2nd OS on the console).

My guess is, they explicitly state it to keep the Big Boys honest. No, it doesn't hurt EA's bottom line significantly if they have to pay $20k or whatever to patch the game, but it's incentive to get it right the first time.

They can waive it for indie developers to reduce the burden of publishing for the Little Guys.

They can't do it the other way around, though, because if it's not contractually specified, they don't have a stick to hit the Big Boys with.

It's only a guess. I very much doubt anybody from Sony would verify that, but it passes my smell test. It's there to discourage fuckery from the bigger publishers but it doesn't, in practice, get applied to the smaller fish.

[MizzouRah]

Let's Talk: Xbox One DRM - it's not your worst enemy | Windows Phone Central

Pretty much why I'm not really concerned with MS's direction.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Let's Talk: Xbox One DRM - it's not your worst enemy | Windows Phone Central

Pretty much why I'm not really concerned with MS's direction.

Lots of assumptions in his positives that MS still hasn't fully explained. I'm assuming they're going back to the drawing board behind closed doors and figuring out how they can untangle this mess. Probably saying very little right now is their best move. They've been providing PR material for other companies over the last week.

In the end, his only argument against the PS4 was that there was no way that Sony publishers would allow their games to be freely traded. I'm not sure why he can make that broad of an assumption, given that the PS3 had the same policy and only ONE game had any form of restrictions.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Lots of assumptions in his positives that MS still hasn't fully explained. I'm assuming they're going back to the drawing board behind closed doors and figuring out how they can untangle this mess. Probably saying very little right now is their best move. They've been providing PR material for other companies over the last week.

In the end, his only argument against the PS4 was that there was no way that Sony publishers would allow their games to be freely traded. I'm not sure why he can make that broad of an assumption, given that the PS3 had the same policy and only ONE game had any form of restrictions.

Did you read the article? I think it's pretty clear what MS's direction is and I don't think they are going to magically come out and back out of what their strategy is going forward.

They have laid it out and believe that digital media is where the market is headed. It might take awhile to get there, but it's an option to purchasing your games at a store, which is also an option.

Don't think developers won't like MS's strategy..

Sega CCO Nagoshi: “Developers Will Be Happy About” MS XBOX One Strategy | TSSZ News

To be honest, with the rising cost of making games, Microsoft’s strategy is something that developers will be happy about.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

My guess is, they explicitly state it to keep the Big Boys honest. No, it doesn't hurt EA's bottom line significantly if they have to pay $20k or whatever to patch the game, but it's incentive to get it right the first time.

They can waive it for indie developers to reduce the burden of publishing for the Little Guys.

They can't do it the other way around, though, because if it's not contractually specified, they don't have a stick to hit the Big Boys with.

It's only a guess. I very much doubt anybody from Sony would verify that, but it passes my smell test. It's there to discourage fuckery from the bigger publishers but it doesn't, in practice, get applied to the smaller fish.

I'd be surprised if the EAs and Bethesdas sign the same agreement that the 2-3 developer shops do. Between big companies, almost nothing is boilerplate since corporate lawyers get involved.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Did you read the article? I think it's pretty clear what MS's direction is and I don't think they are going to magically come out and back out of what their strategy is going forward.

They have laid it out and believe that digital media is where the market is headed. It might take awhile to get there, but it's an option to purchasing your games at a store, which is also an option.

I can't really speak for the Xbox experience, but it is going to be a long time before digital console game sales take off in the EU if the PS3 experience is anything to go by. Most AAA releases available in PSN usually sell for a 25% (or sometimes even higher) markup over in-store physical copies. It also takes much longer for PSN to cut prices.

I have no idea what the market is like in the US, but I would surprised if it was much different.

[mckerney]

Ubisoft asks PC gamers to show interest about The Division, petition almost hits its initial goal | DSOGaming | The Dark Side Of Gaming

Which likely means The Division is coming to PC but Ubisoft would like some free advertising for it.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Let's Talk: Xbox One DRM - it's not your worst enemy | Windows Phone Central

Pretty much why I'm not really concerned with MS's direction.

Let's see here.

A promise that Xbox content will be on both disc and digital the same day, means that gamers can skip the midnight lines and start gaming. No more waiting for a game to show up on the Xbox Live marketplace and no more having to sit next to the guy in line who hasn’t showered in a week, to pick up the latest Halo game.

Well, there's nothing like a tired stereotype to make a good case for restrictive DRM! It's a good thing he led with that; I'm convinced, now!

Even if you choose to buy a physical copy of the game, once installed, no discs are required. All of the content you buy will be linked to the Xbox cloud in addition to being stored on your console. Scratch that game disc and afraid you will never be able to play it again – that was the past!

This is, as features go, actually reasonable. OTOH, it's still not a very good justification for "you must check in every 24 hours." Think about it; if you're requiring the attachment of a digital license to sell, give away or lend software, the users in question are going to have to connect to Live to send and receive those licenses anyway. They're going to have to connect to Live to register a new game purchase anyway. If these validations are as microtiny as Microsoft (or at least people who claim to be in the know) say, what's preventing Xbox One from doing a disk check when it connects for those purposes and validating everything in one go? The people who are your best customers are going to be connecting on a regular basis anyway because...they're your best customers. They buy games regularly and subscribe to Live.

It's the people you're trying to convert from casual purchasers to regular purchasers you're going to push away here.

Requiring a check-in for validation is one thing. Requiring it on a daily basis even for users who may not use most of the connected features is asinine.

Here is the best part, because your game is in the cloud, you can head to your friend’s house, login, and play your games there! That’s right, you can actually play your games while chilling with friends at their house; this has been one of the biggest misunderstandings for the console.

And this is a deliberately obtuse misinterpretation of the "misunderstanding." I haven't seen objections to "I can't play my game at my friend's house." The objections I've seen have been "Your DRM is overly restrictive when it comes to borrowing games from/lending games to friends, or renting titles." Which is not at all the same thing as "chilling with friends at their house." The writer is engaging in obfuscation by pointing to an issue that sounds vaguely similar and handwaving that hypothetical objection away without addressing the objection actually being raised.

Giving your games to a friend isn’t dead either. Xbox One allows you to give your games to friends with no fees attached. There are two requirements though: the first is that you can only give games to people who have been on your friends list for a least 30 days and secondly, each game can only be given once.

Great. So, right now, I can take some random game I don't want anymore to my friend's house, say "Here, Bob; I had fun with this but I'm done with it. I hope you have as much fun with it as I did." Bob goes and has fun!

Xbox One, maybe Bob and I aren't currently friended. "Here, Bob; send me your Gamertag. I'll give you this game I'm not playing anymore in a month."

Yeah, that sounds like an improvement to me.

The new collection of DRM rules and restrictions attempts to allow friends and family to enjoy each other’s content while ensuring developers get paid. I know a lot of you like to think of game publishers and developers as “the man”, but truth is – the team of programmers and artists working on your favorite titles are trying to put food on their own family’s tables.

And, hey, guess what? Even when a game does well and hits its metrics and all that jazz, it's still entirely possible the publisher will close the studio, fire the programmers, and keep the cash the game is generating. I'm all for supporting developers. I refrain from buying used if new is available for precisely that reason. This, though? This isn't going to improve financial security for developers. It may, or it may not, pad the publisher's bottom line, but devs will remain as much at the mercy of the publisher as they ever have been.

Also let’s think how awesome the ability to access your entire library from any Xbox One console, no discs required, will be. In my house we have three Xbox 360s and if I’m downstairs in the living room and want to play a game, I have to trek myself out of my couch and upstairs to my man cave to grab the disc. Now, with Xbox One, I simply turn on the living room console and sign in to access my copy of RYSE. Microsoft’s latest console works closely with the cloud to ensure your content is everywhere you are.

The cloud sounds great! It's the daily server-side authentication I object to, because when the day comes that Microsoft shuts off those servers - and as I've said before, Xbox Live 1.0 shows that this isn't a hypothetical we're dealing with - I can never play those games again. Maybe you don't care about that and you completely eschew the previous generation as soon as your new toy comes out. Hey, that's great.

There are quite a lot of us who are either collectors or just nostalgia fiends who, every so often, want to break out a favorite game from yesteryear and play it again. Under this setup, we can do that...if a re-release is commissioned for a future iteration of the console. That's not customer-friendly. That's a license to double-dip in your consumers' wallet.

This need to check in with Microsoft’s servers goes back to helping to protect one copy of a game being installed onto a dozen different Xbox machines.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: this is an argument in support of authentication checks. It is not an argument in support of daily required check-ins. If you have to authenticate a game online before you can play it, and if the license is tied to a specific copy of the game, it's not going to be possible for "a dozen different Xbox machines" to have that game surreptitiously installed. When they log in to authenticate a new game, it should be checking the previous authentications to see if they're still valid. When the user tries to authenticate a game, it should be checking to make sure there aren't multiple installs. All of this can be done without requiring people to check in every single day. This is a 'WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN'-level argument that has no rational basis in reality when authentication is involved.

Even on PC, the only time you see that happen anymore is when the DRM gets broken. Legitimate copies that go through authentication servers don't "get installed on a dozen different" boxes. That argument assumes that this is going to be the magical DRM that pirates never, ever find a way around. I'm not saying they will, but I am saying that if they do - and some will try - that the only people being inconvenienced will be the people who want to give you their money instead of stealing the product.

Let’s not forget that after purchasing content you have to go into “Offline mode” if you know you won’t be able to access the web.

BUT YOU HAVE THAT OPTION ON STEAM. You don't on Xbox One. THIS IS KIND OF THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE. How, with a straight face, can anybody argue for "you have to do X in order to play offline on another setup" as a worse alternative to "you have to log in every day in order to continue to play your games"? That's on the level of some of the price justifications certain PS3 owners made 7 years ago to explain why Xbox 360 and Wii weren't REALLY $200+ cheaper than PS3. Impressive flexibility, but what it amounts to is you're trying to suck your own dick and you end up licking your own ass instead.

(and for those who don’t currently, Xbox 360 will continue to be supported for years to come)

Cute. An author who ignores how quickly and completely Microsoft dropped the Xbox like an ugly booty call after the walk of shame. BUT IT'LL BE DIFFERENT WITH XBOX 360 HONEST.

How often do you just give away your games to friends -and how often are they people you have known for less than thirty days?

And how often do I have to wait 30 days to give my games to friends I might have known for five years because they're local as opposed to Xx_WeedNinja69_xX on the interwebz?

DRM is not your worst enemy as long as it is implemented correctly.

Truth. And it is not being implemented correctly on Xbox One. Well, not from a consumer-friendly standpoint. I'm sure it serves the purposes of Microsoft and their publishing partners just fine. But "Hey, it works for us, therefore it's not YOUR worst enemy" is fallacious all the way around.

Sorry, MizzouRah. I get that you're okay with the direction Xbox One is going, but this article did an execrable job of explaining why this isn't a shit sandwich being served. It's full of misrepresentation and dismissals and doesn't actually address any of the concerns "detractors" have.

[chinaski]

Ill take an Oculus Rift over a PS4 or Xbone any day.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Sorry, MizzouRah. I get that you're okay with the direction Xbox One is going, but this article did an execrable job of explaining why this isn't a shit sandwich being served. It's full of misrepresentation and dismissals and doesn't actually address any of the concerns "detractors" have.

We can't draw any "conclusions" until both units are out and people are actually using them.

We all want different things out of a next gen console. Nothing MS has revealed about the xb1 is a "detractor" for me at this point. I love digital media, I have very reliable 30MB internet and I rarely loan my games out nor do I trade them in for peanuts anymore.

For me, our ps3 is used for blue ray, none of my kids ever want any of their exclusive games and we use the kinect a ton, especially when my daughters friends are over or when we have company.

I also tend to believe a few years down the road, MS has more room to grow with the xb1 than the ps4 does.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

We can't draw any "conclusions" until both units are out and people are actually using them.

We're all free to draw our own individual conclusions at whatever point we choose. And it's each one of those individual conclusions that end up making the consensus.

The initial reaction from the hardcore gamers seems pretty strong. And I've see nothing that makes me think there's a significant chance that casual gamers are, en masse, going to jump at the chance to pay an extra $100 or so whenever they decide to go with a new console.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by chinaski

Ill take an Oculus Rift over a PS4 or Xbone any day.

Both will probably have Rift support.

[Ironhead]

Regardless of what happens I will probably wait about a year after launch to get any new systems. Online gaming tends to be important to me and a factor in my purchasing decision will be which system ends up with a larger user base. Hell, I am still playing Mass Effect 3 online almost 16 months after it launched because there is still a large and active Xbox 360 userbase.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Ironhead

Regardless of what happens I will probably wait about a year after launch to get any new systems. Online gaming tends to be important to me and a factor in my purchasing decision will be which system ends up with a larger user base. Hell, I am still playing Mass Effect 3 online almost 16 months after it launched because there is still a large and active Xbox 360 userbase.

Waiting a year is probably a good idea. It gives you time to figure out which console will have more gamers, which consoles have the best exclusives (and if any of the exclusives are worth playing) and you will hopefully miss the teething problems associated with new console hardware.

[SackAttack]

Microsoft: We Won't Render Your Xbox One Games Unplayable Long-Term

Secondhand, since it's a report on a reddit interview with spokesman "Major Nelson." I get lost easily on reddit, though, so I'll let them do the summarizing. A few things:

I'll just say this: We haven't even started this generation, so it's kind of early to talk about the end of the generation. That's certainly something we would not do. That's not the way the system is designed. It's designed for flexibility. But let's get the system out there first.

Kotaku is right. When you open the generation talking about having a 24-hour check-in requirement because of "the cloud" and whatever else, now is *precisely* the time you should be laying out your end-of-life strategy. You don't need to be telling us when that will be - it IS too soon for that - but your customers need to know what your exit strategy will be after this generation and how it will impact them.

What I think Microsoft folks might be missing as that we're trusting Microsoft that their policies are real, and we're believing them when they say they have to do this 24-hour check-in thing. And if we believe them that they have to do that, then it's hard to understand how they'd be able to remove that requirement in five or 10 years. Or, if we believe that they can remove it then, then why can't they remove it now?

Pretty much. If the system Will Not Work if you don't check in once every 24 hours, how do we reconcile that with an assurance that, no, you're not going to find yourself with a 10-year rented brick at the end of it? That implies it's possible to remove the check; as I argued earlier, the rationale being given FOR the check as currently constituted makes absolutely zero sense.

This is, as I've said, my biggest objection to Xbox One. It's not my only objection, but it IS the dealbreaker. If what Harrison told Kotaku is true, they need to get out in front of the press on that and tell people "this is the game plan and this is what you can expect" instead of letting the E3 narrative hold sway. There are plenty of neat things being talked about with the new setup, but for those of us currently sitting it out, those neat things don't add up, singly or collectively, to the negative.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Sony PlayStation 4 Launch Edition Already Sold Out At Amazon - Forbes

[SackAttack]

They're reporting a slightly higher PS4-to-One preorder rate than other sources I've seen. Interesting.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

They're reporting a slightly higher PS4-to-One preorder rate than other sources I've seen. Interesting.

I'm not sure it really matters. Anyone in business knows that if information starts to circulate that demand is quickly exceeding supply on a product of this nature, there's going to be a heightened sense of interest in the general public. Sometimes the early hype is just as important as getting the exact number. Either way, I don't think it's surprising that there's a big rush on PS4 preorders given what we saw at E3.

[SackAttack]

Wonder how many of those are active and how many of those are placed/retracted. I preordered a PS4 shortly after the conference was over and then canceled it within about an hour when I realized I probably should wait until after Christmas and see what/if any Christmas money I might have to use to subsidize the purchase.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

none of my kids ever want any of their exclusive games

I don't have kids, but this is surprising to me. Sony has a MUCH better kid friendly line-up of AAA exclusives than Microsoft(hell, I'd say they actually rival Nintendo). They are all my girlfriend wants to play when she games, and she only goes for the cute/kid friendly games.

[SackAttack]

Wonder if MizzouRah's kids are younger or if they're old enough to be at the age where they're rebelling again'st "kid-friendly" games in favor of the more mature fare.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Wonder if MizzouRah's kids are younger or if they're old enough to be at the age where they're rebelling again'st "kid-friendly" games in favor of the more mature fare.

Bingo.. My youngest is 11 and she plays a lot of those kinect games though.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We're all free to draw our own individual conclusions at whatever point we choose. And it's each one of those individual conclusions that end up making the consensus.

The initial reaction from the hardcore gamers seems pretty strong. And I've see nothing that makes me think there's a significant chance that casual gamers are, en masse, going to jump at the chance to pay an extra $100 or so whenever they decide to go with a new console.

Please enlighten me on "hardcore gamers", who are they and what forum are they stating the ps4 is what everyone is buying?

Most gamers I know (all old men like me) are waiting quite a bit after release before they decide on which console to get. Most don't care about an extra $100 on a system either, since it's a long term investment.

To each their own though..

[CraigSca]

I'm an "old man" like you, and I couldn't care less about Kinect or PS Eye or whatever unless they take their use outside of supporting Dance Dance Revolution or some other kid's game.

From my standpoint - PS4 has an advantage because of the Show and they are otherwise equal (I don't trade games, buy old software etc.) Even without the Show, I'd still look at it as an apples to apples transaction and the PS4 would win because it's $100 cheaper.

I know we're both waiting it out, to see if there's something compelling for either platform, but with nothing else, $100 is a compelling as it's going to get.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I'm an "old man" like you, and I couldn't care less about Kinect or PS Eye or whatever unless they take their use outside of supporting Dance Dance Revolution or some other kid's game.

From my standpoint - PS4 has an advantage because of the Show and they are otherwise equal (I don't trade games, buy old software etc.) Even without the Show, I'd still look at it as an apples to apples transaction and the PS4 would win because it's $100 cheaper.

I know we're both waiting it out, to see if there's something compelling for either platform, but with nothing else, $100 is a compelling as it's going to get.

I hate console baseball.. actually I do play MLB 2k just for the pitching alone, but even that's few and far between.

With NCAA and NHL releasing on current gen, I'll be good for now. I am putting money aside for one of the new consoles though. Price isn't a big thing, but game lineup for both me and my kids definitely is.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I like the part where the developer tries to indicate he's not s***ing on X1's policies when he's doing exactly that......in a very kind way.

Dean Hall interested in bringing DayZ Standalone to PS4 • News • PC • Eurogamer.net

When I asked Hall whether console manufacturers Sony and Microsoft had approached him about putting DayZ on an upcoming console he replied, "Yeah, we talked to both of them. But, as I'm sure you're aware, Sony lets you self-publish and they don't make you pay for updates. Microsoft requires you to have a publisher. They have no digital distribution strategy and they require you to pay $10,000, or whatever it is, for updates."

"What about Sony, then?" I asked.

"Oh, absolutely. We like them. I like what I saw on the PS4," Hall said. "I like what I saw on the Xbox in a lot of cases as well. I'm not s***ting on them. I'm kind of hopeful that Microsoft has just forgot to talk about its indie support. Maybe I'm being a bit naive."

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

I hate console baseball.. actually I do play MLB 2k just for the pitching alone, but even that's few and far between.

Maybe you'd feel differently if you played a good baseball game instead of a shitty one.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Maybe you'd feel differently if you played a good baseball game instead of a shitty one.

I bought The Show once, I'll stick to OOTP.

Baseball games are too slow paced and boring for me.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I like the part where the developer tries to indicate he's not s***ing on X1's policies when he's doing exactly that......in a very kind way.

Dean Hall interested in bringing DayZ Standalone to PS4 • News • PC • Eurogamer.net

I think the ps4 will be great for indie developers.. but I doubt I'd ever purchase one on a console. At least not with Steam around and a pc.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

I bought The Show once, I'll stick to OOTP.

Baseball games are too slow paced and boring for me.

/sees OOTP mention, pointed rejoinder regarding "shitty ones"

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This feels like the PS3 release all over again. It's like the roles are reversed. Even when trying to prop up the console, it feels like a further hole is being dug.

Microsoft boss defends Xbox One price | Games Blog - Yahoo! Games

SackAttack, have you heard anything about release quantities at retailers. CAG is usually a good spot to check in on what's happening behind the scenes at retailers. I've seen some Gamestop employees saying they have 4x as many PS4's as X1's at release. Similar indicators from Best Buy employees. Not sure if that means that the X1 is going to have a supply issue or if they want to keep it tight initially to avoid consoles on the shelves too soon.

[SackAttack]

Not in retail these days, so I don't have any hard inside info. I have a friend at GameStop who said their allocations hadn't been set and that corporate had told them to "keep pre-selling until you hear otherwise from us."

My guess is that the Xbox One quantity issues have more to do with the "Day One" edition than actual availability at launch. With both manufacturers allegedly skipping Japan during the 2013 holiday, I wouldn't expect there to be major, ongoing availability issues. Within the first 2-4 weeks after launch, sure. By Christmas? Doubtful.