Discussion in 'Gaming' started by MacLeod, May 20, 2013.
That's not a suprise, the current infrastructure couldn't support an always online console.
I'm wondering why they didn't mention it in the main presentation of the console that it doesn't have the forced online feature but had the confirmation in a small, short interview afterwards.
It is kind of a big deal and would have been a dealbreaker for many people so it would have been prudent to disperse all rumors right there and officially confirm it.
Well.. now the the remaining interesting pieces will be price and release date.
Well eyes will turn to E3 now.
Started with a bad name
then just tech demos, TV and North American sports
Nothing in that of interest to me - I'll be sticking with my PS3 for a few more years (I don't play games just use it for TV and Bluray/netflixs).
Did I read right? If I buy a used game, or borrow a game from a friend, I will be forced to pay a fee to Microsoft in order to use it? If that's true, then fuck you Microsoft. Fuck you so hard.
Honestly, I was a die-hard 360 fan this cycle, but I have seen absolutely nothing to make me want to buy this console other than the fact that the new games will stop coming out on the consoles I have.
A fee to play for used games?
There'll be a livestreamed panel in half an hour detailing the hardware of the Xbox One.
So basically, Gamestop and Gamefly are screwed by this. Buying used games, or renting games becomes impractical. This and this alone is enough to make me not buy the Xbox One.
Yeah.. that's also the potential to become huge.
People are used to borrowing games from friends (I've done it many times with a friend) and when they find out they can't or have to pay extra they'll get very angry.
Especially with console game prices ranging from anything from 30 to 60 Euro (75$+) i'd really hate to spend so much cash only to find out it's a boring game and then not even have the option to sell/give it to someone else.
I still believe MS really planned an always on console but after the insane shit storm and a PS4 that doesn't have forced online connection i guess they did a 180 and removed that feature.. it would be an explanation why MS was so silent these past few weeks. I guess they evaluated their options and looked at ways to remove this feature on the technical level and it took them a while.
Now the same could happen with this "tied to console" games.. they are waiting if it will create a second shit storm or if they can get away with it. Maybe shit will only hit the fan once people buy the console and then find out the hard way their games are locked to their console. Might force MS to patch this away with a system update or not depending on the scale of this.
At present on the xbox you can install the game onto the HDD but must leave the disc in to run the game, even though the disc is not accessed, so why all of a sudden must disc's be locked to one console, just a lot of smoke and mirrors to kill the second hand games market dead, and this would also explain why EA just dropped the seaon pass.
Account bound console games, watch as this info sets the internet alight as it spreads.
And you can mark my words, they may have said alway online is not a issue, but i am getting a red alert this will turn out not be actually true
The problem with installing games to a HD is that with only 500Gb to play with and DLC that could seen be eaten up. Unless there is a feature where you can delete a game, but the HD stores a small(ish) file allowing you to re-install the game again on the same console.
It also doesn't in theroy but a stop to the used game market, perhaps a code could be bought at the same time as a used game for a modest fee.
But I've borrowed games from friends, and they've borrowed mine.
The problem is not the installation. The problem is with tying the disc to an account. I don't care if the fee is penny, it is still too much.
Well that's me not interested in the Xbox One. Will be sticking with current gen for a while now. PS4 is a maybe, but for now Wii U is as far as I'm going with next gen.
Wow.. That's a game changer if true. What gets me is that if Microsoft is doing it, then Sony is likely to do something similar... For one to take this step without the other Woukd be suicide. To tie a game to a single account on a console. If youre a consumer, why would you buy a game with no resell value if you have an alternative? If you're a developer, why would you make games for a system that will cut you out of any secondary markets, especially if there's an alternative that will protect your software from that? Sony and Microsoft more than likely will make this move in lock step.
I have a big family. I buy a game and there are likely to be 3-4 people play the game in my household alone. To pay an extra fee for each kid is unacceptable... but there's probably no alternative in the next gen.
If Sony were at all smart (granted, I have seen no evidence to support that) then they would make damn sure their marketing for the PS4 highlighted the fact that you can still borrow, rent, and buy used without extra fees.
Apparently MS are saying they have a "plan" for used games, which won't attract a fee but the copy on the hard drive of the seller will be disabled. How they know the difference between second account activation, which you pay for, and used games I don't know.
Wow. First Windows 8 and now this. WTF are their business planners thinking? I guess it's just another sad attempt at a money-grab under the pretense of "piracy mitigation" and "intellectual property protection". I will be staying with 360, but it won't be long before game makers will be coerced into making games exclusively for the X1, pushing the 360 into forced obsolescence.
And did I hear that the new controllers have integrated batteries? Great. Now I got to wait for the damn thing to charge before I use it. But wait! That just means I'll have to BUY more controllers and switch them out for uninterrupted play. Yay!
That's the other weird thing, 3 operating systems? Xbox OS, Windows and virutalisation OS? Why? Surely it's a minefield for bugs.
^^^ Heh...that's never stopped them in the past. Back in 2000 they had:
- Windows Millennium Edition (AKA Windows ME)
- Windows 2000 (Probably the best of these)
- Windows XP (Granted, 1 year later in 2001, but definitely a close overlap)
Then there was Windows 95, followed by 98, NT and - Microsoft Bob all at around the same time (Did anyone ever see this abortion, MS Bob? I did - eewwww!)
Parallel OS development & deployment has always been a "hallmark" of the Microsoft business model, as were/are bug minefields.
Yeah, but they weren't generally running beside each other on the same machine at the same time.
Separate names with a comma.