Xbox One on the way. DRM removed, more details to come.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Great more crap I have to buy you mean?



Yep and you'll need to buy new controllers as well! EEK!

There is a price for upgrading folks... Always has been. If people don't like it then don't buy new tech at release. See the iPhone 5 and the new iPad, the Xbox to X360 the PS2 to the PS3 etc., etc.

New technology/hardware never is cheap.

My PS3 never came with a headset and my X360 did. Now it's the other way around, if you call the PS4 cell phone earpiece a true headset.

I really don't see this as a big deal.

Maybe it is to some people. I really don't get why people complain so much about the price of new tech. Hell I remember the extreme price of HDTVs, DVD players hell CD players. You know you are buying in higher than you will in a few years by buying in at launch.
Sorry for the babble it's just I feel that we don't put things into perspective sometimes. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm just generally speaking.
 
brandtron8000 said:
Accessible doesn't mean cheap for 3rd parties. Not even Respawn gets them for free with their deal.

Investing 700 million almost guarantees they won't just hand this out for almost free to 3rd parties, especially with everyone saying Cloud = dedicated servers for all games.
Click to expand...
The story is slightly off or people just arent reading it. The 700 million is for the entire spectrum of the Azure servers, not just Xbox Live. (Office, etc)

They are also wrong about the actual value of the investments in total. (I believe that article said 1 billion, when estimates put Azure servers are 3-5 billion in total worth) The Ireland data center alone was $500 million, which combined with the expansion would be 1.2 billion.

Anyway, Microsoft has said it's not free to use the cloud capabilities, however it is a fraction of the cost to actually go out and rent your own servers.

I'd expect the actual total investment to be around 2 billion by the time they are done honestly. With the increased demand for Azure Cloud use, the promise of 300,000 XLive servers, etc they are going to need it. (http://up2v.nl/2012/11/11/a-look-into-windows-azure-datacenter/ more information if your bored and want to see a look into them, etc :D)

 
WV Matsui said:
Yep and you'll need to buy new controllers as well! EEK!

There is a price for upgrading folks... Always has been. If people don't like it then don't buy new tech at release. See the iPhone 5 and the new iPad, the Xbox to X360 the PS2 to the PS3 etc., etc.

New technology/hardware never is cheap.

My PS3 never came with a headset and my X360 did. Now it's the other way around, if you call the PS4 cell phone earpiece a true headset.

I really don't see this as a big deal.

Maybe it is to some people. I really don't get why people complain so much about the price of new tech. Hell I remember the extreme price of HDTVs, DVD players hell CD players. You know you are buying in higher than you will in a few years by buying in at launch.
Sorry for the babble it's just I feel that we don't put things into perspective sometimes. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm just generally speaking.
Click to expand...
That's fine if they are creating new technology that adds new features, but let's face it we're dealing with headsets here. Simply changing an adapter is not sufficient. In this day and age, they should be wireless anyways.

 
That's fine if they are creating new technology that adds new features, but let's face it we're dealing with headsets here. Simply changing an adapter is not sufficient. In this day and age, they should be wireless anyways.



I agree with this 100%!
 
htz said:
Makes you wonder what Microsoft does with all that money they make from XBL Gold, if they are still charging developers for using the dedicated servers...
Click to expand...
Well It's basically play money, MS can do whatever they want. Console costing them $30-$50 loss per console? Subsidize some of the costs with XBox Live gold. Major investments in Kinect advertising featuring Justin Bieber? Thanks Xbox Gold members! Seriously though, I have no idea, but Gold is a very nice addition to the bottom line especially if you can get so many to pay or even increase the price, dare I say one more time to $70? Sony will be happy to charge for PS4 online play. Trust me on that.

That Kinect 2.0 looks fucking awesome. The detection on who you are, if your talking or not, heart rate, ability to hear you through all the background noise? I'm really sold on the Kinect 2.0... but not with the games yet, someone needs to make a awesome game for Kinect!

Here's my final tally in costs without any reward points, and assuming the headset costs $20.
$500 XB1 + Shipping + Taxes, so around $540
$270 3-4 launch games (leaning towards 4: Ryse, DR3, COD Ghosts and Forza 4)
$100ish for "launch" cash for XBLA future games, or whatever arises on the digital market place in It's first month.
$23ish Headset (Probably going to get the cheap one to start, assuming they start off at $20. I'll hold off on more expensive madcatz like headsets till they drop a bit and reviews start pouring out)
Total damage around $940

So yeah, going all in at launch is DEFINITELY expensive. I'm also skipping a second controller, and haven't considered a extended warranty yet.
 
Gamer4life88 said:
That's what I think as well, I might be missing something here but I honestly dont understand why the Xbox One can't function without the Kinect plugged in. If someone does then please enlighten me. I'm hoping they'll flip another switch and offer a SKU without one.
Click to expand...
For the simple fact of why kinect v1.0 failed. If you don't make every person have the kinect and use it then devs will not implement it too much in their games. A Dev isn't going to cater to a niche market. By making every person have one/use it then MS can market it to the devs.
 
i will admit kinect 2.0 is pretty dang impressive looks like you can play in tiny rooms and big rooms im really excited for that thing



To me... The new Kinect is definitely worth $100 :)
For the simple fact of why kinect v1.0 failed. If you don't make every person have the kinect and use it then devs will not implement it too much in their games. A Dev isn't going to cater to a niche market. By making every person have one/use it then MS can market it to the devs.



Exactly! If everyone has it then it will be 100x better because devs will spend way more time on it which will in turn give us better games and better integration. I think MS really believes in its benefits which is why I think they won't offer that second sku and if they do it will be a long time.

Also MS is expected to announce self publishing for Indie developers this week at the Build conference.

Now tell me what's different other than the price (which most can justify with the kinect)?
 
WV Matsui said:
Now tell me what's different other than the price (which most can justify with the kinect)?
Click to expand...
The difference is MS was arrogant enough to think they could do whatever they wanted, and the consumer would just grab their ankles and accept it. The sad thing is that some people really were ready to take it.

 
The difference is MS was arrogant enough to think they could do whatever they wanted, and the consumer would just grab their ankles and accept it. The sad thing is that some people really were ready to take it.



If people are not going to buy products from companies because they are arrogant then they might want to move to Amish country.

Sony the nice guy I guess. Apparently they are not money hungry like MS and would give the console away if they could!

I just don't get it. They both want to make money. MS took a chance, people bitched so they changed it. Then they bitched some more. They are going to allow indies to self publish then people butch some more. Who's arrogant?
 
WV Matsui said:
Now tell me what's different other than the price (which most can justify with the kinect)?
Click to expand...
For starters you get better specs, Netflix and I'm sure a bunch of other apps not behind a pay wall, PS+ and it's "free" games, and possibly game sharing if that stays the same as PS3.

 
For starters you get better specs, Netflix and I'm sure a bunch of other apps not behind a pay wall, PS+ and it's "free" games, and possibly game sharing if that stays the same as PS3.



My PS3 has better "specs" than my 360 and i could t tell the difference. I prefer playing games on my 360 and the XBL experience way over the experience you get with the PS interface.

Game sharing is nice but as you know and I do it's a loophole not an added benefit.

If this comes down to PS+ v XBL and specs then the playing field has definitely been leveled.
 
The allowing self-publishing is still a rumor at this point, and it's just one issue of MS indie policy that needs to be addressed. They charge a ridiculous amount for games to be patched to the point where most indies can't afford it, which isn't an issue on any other platform. They would still most likely control release date, pricing and any sales. And will they actively help promote the titles? Sony, Nintendo and Valve put a lot of a effort into that, judging by the mess that is XBLA on the 360, MS puts virtually none.

 
WV Matsui said:
My PS3 has better "specs" than my 360 and i could t tell the difference. I prefer playing games on my 360 and the XBL experience way over the experience you get with the PS interface.

Game sharing is nice but as you know and I do it's a loophole not an added benefit.

If this comes down to PS+ v XBL and specs then the playing field has definitely been leveled.
Click to expand...
I'd waste time arguing this nonsense but I know there's no point.

I'll say I agree with your first point if we were talking PS3/360. I'm talking PS4/Xbox One though and I think it'll be much different this time. I don't know that though so I guess we'll just disagree and wait and see.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hell what does the Kinect line-up even look like right now? It's just Fantasia & Kinect Sports Rivals, right?  They need to have more of a line-up than that if they are going to convince anyone it's more than a completely unnecessary gimmick.

 
Erad30 said:
Hell what does the Kinect line-up even look like right now? It's just Fantasia & Kinect Sports Rivals, right? They need to have more of a line-up than that if they are going to convince anyone it's more than a completely unnecessary gimmick.
Click to expand...
To be fair, there is some interesting Kinect functionality in games like Dead Rising 3. I'll admit I'm curious about seeing that in action. The dedicated Kinect game lineup is woefully small. Fantasia has nice buzz, but won't be available at launch.

 
ShockandAww said:
I'd waste time arguing this nonsense but I know there's no point.

I'll say I agree with your first point if we were talking PS3/360. I'm talking PS4/Xbox One though and I think it'll be much different this time. I don't know that though so I guess we'll just disagree and wait and see.
Click to expand...
Just a reminder:

PS4 launch games were designed around thinking that the new system had only 4GB of RAM. The 8GB was a surprise to most, so it will be a little bit until we see a game actually take use of the full capabilities of the 8GB of RAM.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So game sharing on a Sony console is a loophole, but Family Sharing would've been some magical wonderland with no restrictions? Yeah right...



No Shock knows what I'm talking about. Not sharing between two people but the sharing between 4 and 5 is the loophole and I take advantage of that but what I am saying is that loophole can't be considered a benefit.

The sharing between one other console yes that's fine.
 
Daywalker said:
Sorry developers/publishers, gamers like taking it up the butt with 54.99 used games and 5 dollar trade-ins.
Click to expand...
Well, some of us just like having physical games that don't become useless as soon as a server goes down. I'm a collector. A truly all-digital home console is the death knell for one of my favorite hobbies. While I agree that GameStop doesn't deserve the stay of execution, I lay most of the blame for their scam at the feet of consumers. No one is being forced to put up with GameStop's crappy practices.

 
I get the GameStop hate but I see the $54.99 games as their way of making back money for everything else that tanks in value...can't pay the bills based off $19.99 games and coupon exploitation...yeah they hit you over the head, but a savvy gamer can always return the favor...just need the right promo...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Untamed Sorrow said:
I get the GameStop hate but I see the $54.99 games as their way of making back money for everything else that tanks in value...can't pay the bills based off $19.99 games and coupon exploitation...yeah they hit you over the head, but a savvy gamer can always return the favor...just need the right promo...
Click to expand...
Such as the 50% trade in coupon I used.

I only trade in games if I'm making a profit/all acheivos/don't play it anymore. I will gladly take $8 on a game that is collecting dust big time, and free up some space.

 
Only a complete dumbass pays $55 used GS prices. I can count the number of used games I've bought from them in the past 2-3 years on one hand, and I only got them at GS because they were cheap/HTF.

Besides, under MS's original plan GS was still in the loop. It was consumer to consumer reselling that would've been axed, which is why everyone was pissed. fuck any and every company that tries to control the secondary market.

 
I have read up on some discussions on places like neogaf about Microsoft's push to the cloud and the use of dedicated servers for all Xbox One games. People don't seem to be concerned about the long term effect on a game that utilizes dedicated servers. P2P can keep the multiplayer alive in games for many years since it doesn't cost any money. It doesn't make sense for a developer to keep dedicated servers alive unless they keep on supporting it with DLC like map packs.

By making the push for dedicated servers on all games, it just gives publishers more power to terminate a game's multiplayer to get people to buy the next version. EA has been doing it for awhile since they run dedicated servers for most of their games. Map packs might as well become rentals, once the multiplayer portion of a game is shut off. The DLC becomes useless.

I do agree dedicated servers is better than p2p but only for the short term. With people buying more and more online DLC, Microsoft should disclose how they will handle long term support on multiplayer games.

 
I do agree dedicated servers is better than p2p but only for the short term. With people buying more and more online DLC, Microsoft should disclose how they will handle long term support on multiplayer games.



Which I'm sure they will do. They just announced the console. This is not something that comes out at the beginning. If a game has a robust MP with a viable number of players than I'm sure they will keep it alive. But keeping the online lobby open for Madden 08 is crazy.

I think you are looking for some doom in all of this. We won't really know the true answer until 5 or so years from now.

I know I'm over reacting a little but I still think we can't fully answer this yet.
 
Trakan said:
That headset cannot be that expensive. I don't know why they aren't including it.
Click to expand...
Because they want you to use the Kinect mike.

Also, you don't use a headset usually when watching television and sports.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pitfallharry219 said:
The difference is MS was arrogant enough to think they could do whatever they wanted, and the consumer would just grab their ankles and accept it. The sad thing is that some people really were ready to take it.
Click to expand...
hmm sounds like sony 7 years ago

ShockandAww said:
For starters you get better specs, Netflix and I'm sure a bunch of other apps not behind a pay wall, PS+ and it's "free" games, and possibly game sharing if that stays the same as PS3.
Click to expand...
most 3rd party games will look the same on x1 and ps3 so better specs is just a dumb argument

htz said:
I have read up on some discussions on places like neogaf about Microsoft's push to the cloud and the use of dedicated servers for all Xbox One games. People don't seem to be concerned about the long term effect on a game that utilizes dedicated servers. P2P can keep the multiplayer alive in games for many years since it doesn't cost any money. It doesn't make sense for a developer to keep dedicated servers alive unless they keep on supporting it with DLC like map packs.

By making the push for dedicated servers on all games, it just gives publishers more power to terminate a game's multiplayer to get people to buy the next version. EA has been doing it for awhile since they run dedicated servers for most of their games. Map packs might as well become rentals, once the multiplayer portion of a game is shut off. The DLC becomes useless.

I do agree dedicated servers is better than p2p but only for the short term. With people buying more and more online DLC, Microsoft should disclose how they will handle long term support on multiplayer games.
Click to expand...
you just have to look at cod to see how god awful p2p is for online gaming

when i look at sony i look at them more the gaming people seem to forget they sell other electronics and they are not the good guys far from it. One they over price thier products. 2. they over do in features that no one wants like thier tv's. Their customer service is god awful.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Daywalker said:
Sorry developers/publishers, gamers like taking it up the butt with 54.99 used games and 5 dollar trade-ins.
Click to expand...
Completely ridiculous anti used game argument. The vast majority of used games aren't $55, I've payed less than $15 for 90% of the used games I've ever bought. The ones that are $55 you'll usually get $20-$30 if you trade in that game.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trakan said:
http://www.joystiq.com/2013/06/25/xbox-ones-must-have-wired-headset-sold-separately/

That headset cannot be that expensive. I don't know why they aren't including it.
Click to expand...
""Each Xbox One includes the new Kinect sensor, with a highly sensitive multi-array microphones designed to enable voice inputs and chat as a system-level capability, both in-game and with Skype and other experiences."

So now in addition to the obnoxious kid calling you racial slurs, you get to hear his siblings fight over the TV, the dog bark in a plea for attention, his shitty music playing alongside an episode of Family Guy, and his mom telling him his Dew 'n Doritos flavored Hot Pockets are done.

I sure hope "Xbox, mute all" is a valid command.

 
thenutman69321 said:
Completely ridiculous anti used game argument. The vast majority of used games aren't $55, I've payed less than $15 for 90% of the used games I've ever bought. The ones that are $55 you'll usually get $20-$30 if you trade in that game.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's THE biggest anti-used game argument. Game developers have said many, many times that they don't care about consumers privately selling their own property. They also don't care if a consumer walks into a game shop and buys a used copy of a 6 to 12 month old game for $15. They just do not care for Gamestop aggressively pushing used copies over new in the initial time of a game's release. Video games is the only industry that has this environment.

I also think it's funny when "studies" (mostly funded by Gamestop) say that games are traded in to fund new game purchases. What a crock! I was burning time before a movie at a mall Gamestop yesterday and the first thing that popped into my mind was, "Where ARE the new games?" I couldn't find one anywhere in the entire gigantic store. Finally I found a small area that had the VERY newest releases, maybe 5 or 6 different games. The entire rest of the wall was used.

 
I hope they release a PC compatible dev kit for the Kinect 2.0 soon, think of the possibilities of custom applications utilizing the Kinect 2.0.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
thenutman69321 said:
Completely ridiculous anti used game argument. The vast majority of used games aren't $55, I've payed less than $15 for 90% of the used games I've ever bought. The ones that are $55 you'll usually get $20-$30 if you trade in that game.
Click to expand...
Exactly. That was my biggest problem with the DRM before they change course--I didn't want to get stuck with only being able to trade in/buy used from "participating retailers" and get screwed on both transactions. Being able to sell my disc games on Amazon, trade on sites like Goozex or CAG etc. is important to me since I don't collect or replay games. Moot since they changed course, but that was the biggest issue about it all with me.

Anyway, was out of town the past few days and this thread is just continuing to go in circles so I'm just going to unfollow. No point in wasting time on it since I still have no intentions of picking up an X1 anytime soon, if ever, due to the $100 higher price and Kinect crap (loathe motion and voice controls).

 
Kazuya said:
Actually, it's THE biggest anti-used game argument. Game developers have said many, many times that they don't care about consumers privately selling their own property. They also don't care if a consumer walks into a game shop and buys a used copy of a 6 to 12 month old game for $15. They just do not care for Gamestop aggressively pushing used copies over new in the initial time of a game's release. Video games is the only industry that has this environment.

I also think it's funny when "studies" (mostly funded by Gamestop) say that games are traded in to fund new game purchases. What a crock! I was burning time before a movie at a mall Gamestop yesterday and the first thing that popped into my mind was, "Where ARE the new games?" I couldn't find one anywhere in the entire gigantic store. Finally I found a small area that had the VERY newest releases, maybe 5 or 6 different games. The entire rest of the wall was used.
Click to expand...
I don't agree that they don't care about private sales but I understand completely the argument you are making even if I don't agree with it, you make an understandable argument. I was just pointing out the silliness of the original comment I quoted because the majority of used games are less than $55 and many will get you way more than $5 upon trade in.

 
Kazuya said:
Actually, it's THE biggest anti-used game argument. Game developers have said many, many times that they don't care about consumers privately selling their own property. They also don't care if a consumer walks into a game shop and buys a used copy of a 6 to 12 month old game for $15. They just do not care for Gamestop aggressively pushing used copies over new in the initial time of a game's release. Video games is the only industry that has this environment.

I also think it's funny when "studies" (mostly funded by Gamestop) say that games are traded in to fund new game purchases. What a crock! I was burning time before a movie at a mall Gamestop yesterday and the first thing that popped into my mind was, "Where ARE the new games?" I couldn't find one anywhere in the entire gigantic store. Finally I found a small area that had the VERY newest releases, maybe 5 or 6 different games. The entire rest of the wall was used.
Click to expand...
Oh, I get it. Game developers hated GameStop's trade-in business but didn't care about private sales, so Microsoft responded by only allowing game trades at retail and completely eliminating private sales. That would've really cut into GameStop's business model. Makes total sense.

Total.

Sense.

 
Kazuya said:
Actually, it's THE biggest anti-used game argument. Game developers have said many, many times that they don't care about consumers privately selling their own property. They also don't care if a consumer walks into a game shop and buys a used copy of a 6 to 12 month old game for $15. They just do not care for Gamestop aggressively pushing used copies over new in the initial time of a game's release. Video games is the only industry that has this environment.
Click to expand...
But they were going to be fine with 1 person being able to immediately share a new purchase with 10 other users. Right.

The fatal flaw with your/their argument is that it assumes that "but for" the used alternative not being present, the consumer would still buy that game new at the higher price.

Now in certain instances, that may be the case such as when a customer walks up with a new game and the Gamestop CSR informs them they have it used for less money and the customer actually buys it. However, I am going to guess that is not the majority of cases wherein a used game point of sale is made. I believe most used games are purchased used because (1) there is a big difference between new and used prices, (2) the game is no longer in stock or as a new item, or (3) the game is HTF.

Kazuya said:
I also think it's funny when "studies" (mostly funded by Gamestop) say that games are traded in to fund new game purchases. What a crock! I was burning time before a movie at a mall Gamestop yesterday and the first thing that popped into my mind was, "Where ARE the new games?" I couldn't find one anywhere in the entire gigantic store. Finally I found a small area that had the VERY newest releases, maybe 5 or 6 different games. The entire rest of the wall was used.
Click to expand...
This unscientific observation of yours fails to account for the fact that we are at the end of an 8 year life span of this generation's consoles. Wii titles are no longer being released. For the other two consoles, new releases and in stock items are dwindling and used stock has been accumulating. At any Brick & Mortar Store, you can no longer find new stock of many titles and your only alternative is to buy the game used. Most retailers are not going to invest in new stock of existing titles, save for the Marios, Halos, God of Wars, etc, along with the new titles like Last of Us when a new generation is just around the corner.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
DNukem170 said:
Because they want you to use the Kinect mike.
Also, you don't use a headset usually when watching television and sports.
Click to expand...
and they automatically assume you want everyone else in your vicinity to enjoy the insanity of multiplayer gamechat, well you know what good, parents need to hear the crap their kids are exposed to and unleash on halo.
 
Mr. Las Vegas said:
This unscientific observation of yours fails to account for the fact that we are at the end of an 8 year life span of this generation's consoles. Wii titles are no longer being released. For the other two consoles, new releases and in stock items are dwindling and used stock has been accumulating. At any Brick & Mortar Store, you can no longer find new stock of many titles and your only alternative is to buy the game used. Most retailers are not going to invest in new stock of existing titles, save for the Marios, Halos, God of Wars, etc, along with the new titles like Last of Us when a new generation is just around the corner.
Click to expand...
Also, they only need a few shelf copies for new games since they keep their actual stock locked up/in the back. Used games need to have their cases on the display shelves. It's not like they're going to put sealed games on the shelf or lock up preowned cases.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Untamed Sorrow said:
and they automatically assume you want everyone else in your vicinity to enjoy the insanity of multiplayer gamechat, well you know what good, parents need to hear the crap their kids are exposed to and unleash on halo.
Click to expand...
Then you get total immersion. It's like you and your friends are literally in the same room! Isn't that awesome?
 
Actually, it's THE biggest anti-used game argument. Game developers have said many, many times that they don't care about consumers privately selling their own property. They also don't care if a consumer walks into a game shop and buys a used copy of a 6 to 12 month old game for $15. They just do not care for Gamestop aggressively pushing used copies over new in the initial time of a game's release. Video games is the only industry that has this environment.

I also think it's funny when "studies" (mostly funded by Gamestop) say that games are traded in to fund new game purchases. What a crock! I was burning time before a movie at a mall Gamestop yesterday and the first thing that popped into my mind was, "Where ARE the new games?" I couldn't find one anywhere in the entire gigantic store. Finally I found a small area that had the VERY newest releases, maybe 5 or 6 different games. The entire rest of the wall was used.



The problem is that GS intentionally under stocks their new games, and they usually don't get shipments of new games past the initial shipment. So lets say if you don't preorder the latest CoD game and walk into GS on release day wanting to buy one they won't have it for you. They are also purposely doing this with each Nintendo 3DS game that comes out as well, and trust me its not Nintendo because all the other stores like Walmart and Target have 3-5 new copies on release day at least. These stores also get more when the initial shipment sells out. They are only getting enough for preorders and that is it, and maybe one extra copy of each game.

After that they have to rely on used copies that get traded in, and since people have trade in credit they are forced to take the used copy since that is all that is in stock.

This is intentionally under ordering copies of the new game, in order to push the used one in order to gain more profit for the company.

This has been GS's business model for a long time so its nothing new. GS is a GAME store but yet they won't have most games on release for those that don't preorder because of this business model. Yet every other retailer (Walmart, Target, Best Buy) will have 5 or a lot more copies of any popular game on release and will get more copies when demand is there for them.

I don't have a problem with used games, in fact I will be the first one to make sure I buy a game used over a new one, however I do have a problem with this business model GS is using, because its simple extortion to force customers to buy used games, which they may or may not get in stock. I can stand in GS on the release day of any game and watch 5-20 people walk into the store and ask for the latest game only to be told that there are no more copies and that you should have preordered. That is 5-20 or more new copies of the game they could have sold if they were just properly stocked like everywhere else. Fortunately here we have multiple shopping options so going across the street to Walmart or Target where they have plenty of copies of any new game you want is not a problem.

I am not talking about stores like Kmart and sears since their focus isn't really on games.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top