|
why can't they just allow everything? either i'm ignorant or ms is playing a very difficult balancing game of consumer happiness vs profit.
-digital game sharing possible only if logged into the live account (internet required). or have something similar to ps3, where the game can be shared up to 3 other players. if a 4th person wants to play, one of the first 3 must deactivate the game via psn. internet connection is not required except for initial set up, which is completely understandable for a digital game share.
-allow used games (make older digital games cheaper, like steam, to take away used game profit)
-kinect as an option (you can at least turn off camera/mic)
one thing i'm uncerstain of, when ms said you can share game up to 10 "family" members, does that mean they can all play together or does it mean one at a time?
|
On June 21 2013 03:40 jinorazi wrote:
why can't they just allow everything? either i'm ignorant or ms is playing a very difficult balancing game of consumer happiness vs profit.
-digital game sharing possible only if logged into the live account (internet required). or have something similar to ps3, where the game can be shared up to 3 other players. if a 4th person wants to play, one of the first 3 must deactivate the game via psn. internet connection is not required except for initial set up, which is completely understandable for a digital game share.
-allow used games (make older digital games cheaper, like steam, to take away used game profit)
-kinect as an option (you can at least turn off camera/mic)
They won't back down on the Kinect like they did the used game and online checkin policy. Calling it.
|
On June 21 2013 03:28 Go0g3n wrote:
So they took out all the features I actually liked: the family Live account sharing plan, digital copies added to live account even if you purchase a game on Blu-ray, - all for the sake of poor teenagers. Might as well buy a Wii-U now.
My, my. How privileged and haughty you are. Nevermind the fact, which was stated multiple times in this thread, that XB1 requires broadband, and the main market's infrastructure, the US, is absolutely abysmal unless you live in an urban town on the coasts. Nevermind that force-feeding your customers with unfamiliar new features that limit and restrict what I, a customer paying for this product and service, can do is more a slap to the face than a gateway to the future. Nevermind that the orginal design was set out to monitor the consumers emotions, preferences, and personal habits to sell that information to other companies. But NOPE, I just don't want to carry a disc around or get up from my chair to swap games if need be. Absolutely disgusting.
The family Live account idea never made sense to me. Do all separate family members need their own Live account to make this work? Or do we all share one Live account on different profiles? If the former, then that is not only financially inefficient, but just fundamentally retarded on many levels. If the latter, how different is this from how it works currently? Oh noes, my sister is unlocking achievements for me! Most games leave room for multiple save files, so overwriting progress is not even an issue.
I don't know why people don't realize this, but digital copies for consoles work differently than digital copies for PC for one reason: Backwards compatibility. Who's to say the next generation of consoles will allow you to keep your "digital licenses" instead of repaying to upgrade to the later console? Combating the used market and the consumer is just a ploy for publishers and developers to continue churning out their "AAA" games which have been degrading in content and quality over the past decade. There have been only a handful of current high-production games have kept me coming back to replay over and over, while many of them have been shelved after a 6-hour single playthrough. The ability to sell and redistribute games should rightfully so be considered a slap to the face to devs; I'm disappointed to hear that their response isn't to improve on their development, but rather to put down the people who buy their crap in the first place.
|
On June 21 2013 03:28 Go0g3n wrote:
So they took out all the features I actually liked: the family Live account sharing plan, digital copies added to live account even if you purchase a game on Blu-ray, - all for the sake of poor teenagers. Might as well buy a Wii-U now.
pretty sure the sharing was never going to make release anyways. if you want to talk about worst-case scenarios for publishers in respect to used games, friend-sharing, etc; MS's was the worst. Would literally cut sales upwards of 10x if everyone formed their own little group of 10 people to share their library with.
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
On June 21 2013 04:02 Lolimaiko wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 03:28 Go0g3n wrote:
So they took out all the features I actually liked: the family Live account sharing plan, digital copies added to live account even if you purchase a game on Blu-ray, - all for the sake of poor teenagers. Might as well buy a Wii-U now. My, my. How privileged and haughty you are. Nevermind the fact, which was stated multiple times in this thread, that XB1 requires broadband, and the main market's infrastructure, the US, is absolutely abysmal unless you live in an urban town on the coasts. Nevermind that force-feeding your customers with unfamiliar new features that limit and restrict what I, a customer paying for this product and service, can do is more a slap to the face than a gateway to the future. Nevermind that the orginal design was set out to monitor the consumers emotions, preferences, and personal habits to sell that information to other companies. But NOPE, I just don't want to carry a disc around or get up from my chair to swap games if need be. Absolutely disgusting. The family Live account idea never made sense to me. Do all separate family members need their own Live account to make this work? Or do we all share one Live account on different profiles? If the former, then that is not only financially inefficient, but just fundamentally retarded on many levels. If the latter, how different is this from how it works currently? Oh noes, my sister is unlocking achievements for me! Most games leave room for multiple save files, so overwriting progress is not even an issue. I don't know why people don't realize this, but digital copies for consoles work differently than digital copies for PC for one reason: Backwards compatibility. Who's to say the next generation of consoles will allow you to keep your "digital licenses" instead of repaying to upgrade to the later console? Combating the used market and the consumer is just a ploy for publishers and developers to continue churning out their "AAA" games which have been degrading in content and quality over the past decade. There have been only a handful of current high-production games have kept me coming back to replay over and over, while many of them have been shelved after a 6-hour single playthrough. The ability to sell and redistribute games should rightfully so be considered a slap to the face to devs; I'm disappointed to hear that their response isn't to improve on their development, but rather to put down the people who buy their crap in the first place.
I am sorry, but this seems like nonsense to me.
I am aware that roughly a third of americans have access to broadband internet. Add to that all gamers from other parts of the world who do have broadband access and you get more than enough clients for your always-on console.
PS4 does not offer anything new or interesting to me. In terms of gaming innovation it falls behind the Wii-U and even the latest PSP. As a PS3 owner I do not need a simple hardware upgrade, i have a PC for that. At this very moment PS4 looks to me like a $800 PC upgrade which is offered at half the price with a controller thrown in.
Friends and family sharing, day one/disc-to-digital availability are the two features that do not exist even on Steam. Kinect, even though I do not care for it, looks like a good feature, they sold ~25 million of the things so far, I guess some people liked it. Throw in voice control and cloud-computing or whatever and you get yourself a decent set of new features.
As far as privacy goes, I find it ironic that "tinfoilers" don't seem to understand that a camera in a plastic case can be turned to the wall or put into a drawer. Those are the same people whose cookies are being monitored by google, personal social networking data sold by Facebook and so on so forth on every single step of the way.
X1 restrictions to me also look like a barrier that could somewhat split "kids" from people who consider gaming a hobby, much like a mandatory MMORPG subscription versus F2P. Paid multiplayer adds to that as well.I don't mind a reasonable paywall.
|
On June 21 2013 03:44 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 03:40 jinorazi wrote:
why can't they just allow everything? either i'm ignorant or ms is playing a very difficult balancing game of consumer happiness vs profit.
-digital game sharing possible only if logged into the live account (internet required). or have something similar to ps3, where the game can be shared up to 3 other players. if a 4th person wants to play, one of the first 3 must deactivate the game via psn. internet connection is not required except for initial set up, which is completely understandable for a digital game share.
-allow used games (make older digital games cheaper, like steam, to take away used game profit)
-kinect as an option (you can at least turn off camera/mic) They won't back down on the Kinect like they did the used game and online checkin policy. Calling it.
They shouldn't back down on the Kinect. It is one of the defining features of the XB1, regardless of whether everyone likes it (I strongly suspect that most do).
|
On June 21 2013 05:17 Go0g3n wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 04:02 Lolimaiko wrote:On June 21 2013 03:28 Go0g3n wrote:
So they took out all the features I actually liked: the family Live account sharing plan, digital copies added to live account even if you purchase a game on Blu-ray, - all for the sake of poor teenagers. Might as well buy a Wii-U now. My, my. How privileged and haughty you are. Nevermind the fact, which was stated multiple times in this thread, that XB1 requires broadband, and the main market's infrastructure, the US, is absolutely abysmal unless you live in an urban town on the coasts. Nevermind that force-feeding your customers with unfamiliar new features that limit and restrict what I, a customer paying for this product and service, can do is more a slap to the face than a gateway to the future. Nevermind that the orginal design was set out to monitor the consumers emotions, preferences, and personal habits to sell that information to other companies. But NOPE, I just don't want to carry a disc around or get up from my chair to swap games if need be. Absolutely disgusting. The family Live account idea never made sense to me. Do all separate family members need their own Live account to make this work? Or do we all share one Live account on different profiles? If the former, then that is not only financially inefficient, but just fundamentally retarded on many levels. If the latter, how different is this from how it works currently? Oh noes, my sister is unlocking achievements for me! Most games leave room for multiple save files, so overwriting progress is not even an issue. I don't know why people don't realize this, but digital copies for consoles work differently than digital copies for PC for one reason: Backwards compatibility. Who's to say the next generation of consoles will allow you to keep your "digital licenses" instead of repaying to upgrade to the later console? Combating the used market and the consumer is just a ploy for publishers and developers to continue churning out their "AAA" games which have been degrading in content and quality over the past decade. There have been only a handful of current high-production games have kept me coming back to replay over and over, while many of them have been shelved after a 6-hour single playthrough. The ability to sell and redistribute games should rightfully so be considered a slap to the face to devs; I'm disappointed to hear that their response isn't to improve on their development, but rather to put down the people who buy their crap in the first place. I am sorry, but this seems like nonsense to me. I am aware that roughly a third of americans have access to broadband internet. Add to that all gamers from other parts of the world who do have broadband access and you get more than enough clients for your always-on console. PS4 does not offer anything new or interesting to me. In terms of gaming innovation it falls behind the Wii-U and even the latest PSP. As a PS3 owner I do not need a simple hardware upgrade, i have a PC for that. At this very moment PS4 looks to me like a $800 PC upgrade which is offered at half the price with a controller thrown in. Friends and family sharing, day one/disc-to-digital availability are the two features that do not exist even on Steam. Kinect, even though I do not care for it, looks like a good feature, they sold ~25 million of the things so far, I guess some people liked it. Throw in voice control and cloud-computing or whatever and you get yourself a decent set of new features. As far as privacy goes, I find it ironic that "tinfoilers" don't seem to understand that a camera in a plastic case can be turned to the wall or put into a drawer. Those are the same people whose cookies are being monitored by google, personal social networking data sold by Facebook and so on so forth on every single step of the way. X1 restrictions to me also look like a barrier that could somewhat split "kids" from people who consider gaming a hobby, much like a mandatory MMORPG subscription versus F2P. Paid multiplayer adds to that as well.I don't mind a reasonable paywall.
Your problem is that you are looking at "innovation" like those random sheep that want innovation for innovation's sake. Innovation by itself isn't good; it's only good if there is something that is worth it to innovate for. At this point, there really isn't; any advanced technology is too far off (for a number of reasons). The PS4 does what it could realistically do best; it improves on what's available and doesn't push forward too fast like the XB1 is trying. It's significantly improving hardware (even better than the XB1) and it's fixing a lot of mistakes that it made with the PS3. That is perfectly fine for one console generation to the next. You don't need crazy-awesome new technology every generation, or you end up with stupid stuff like the XB1.
Oh, and XB1 market was pathetic. 30% of Americans and the vast majority of the rest of the world locked out from using the XB1? Great market.
|
On June 21 2013 05:51 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 05:17 Go0g3n wrote:On June 21 2013 04:02 Lolimaiko wrote:On June 21 2013 03:28 Go0g3n wrote:
So they took out all the features I actually liked: the family Live account sharing plan, digital copies added to live account even if you purchase a game on Blu-ray, - all for the sake of poor teenagers. Might as well buy a Wii-U now. My, my. How privileged and haughty you are. Nevermind the fact, which was stated multiple times in this thread, that XB1 requires broadband, and the main market's infrastructure, the US, is absolutely abysmal unless you live in an urban town on the coasts. Nevermind that force-feeding your customers with unfamiliar new features that limit and restrict what I, a customer paying for this product and service, can do is more a slap to the face than a gateway to the future. Nevermind that the orginal design was set out to monitor the consumers emotions, preferences, and personal habits to sell that information to other companies. But NOPE, I just don't want to carry a disc around or get up from my chair to swap games if need be. Absolutely disgusting. The family Live account idea never made sense to me. Do all separate family members need their own Live account to make this work? Or do we all share one Live account on different profiles? If the former, then that is not only financially inefficient, but just fundamentally retarded on many levels. If the latter, how different is this from how it works currently? Oh noes, my sister is unlocking achievements for me! Most games leave room for multiple save files, so overwriting progress is not even an issue. I don't know why people don't realize this, but digital copies for consoles work differently than digital copies for PC for one reason: Backwards compatibility. Who's to say the next generation of consoles will allow you to keep your "digital licenses" instead of repaying to upgrade to the later console? Combating the used market and the consumer is just a ploy for publishers and developers to continue churning out their "AAA" games which have been degrading in content and quality over the past decade. There have been only a handful of current high-production games have kept me coming back to replay over and over, while many of them have been shelved after a 6-hour single playthrough. The ability to sell and redistribute games should rightfully so be considered a slap to the face to devs; I'm disappointed to hear that their response isn't to improve on their development, but rather to put down the people who buy their crap in the first place. I am sorry, but this seems like nonsense to me. I am aware that roughly a third of americans have access to broadband internet. Add to that all gamers from other parts of the world who do have broadband access and you get more than enough clients for your always-on console. PS4 does not offer anything new or interesting to me. In terms of gaming innovation it falls behind the Wii-U and even the latest PSP. As a PS3 owner I do not need a simple hardware upgrade, i have a PC for that. At this very moment PS4 looks to me like a $800 PC upgrade which is offered at half the price with a controller thrown in. Friends and family sharing, day one/disc-to-digital availability are the two features that do not exist even on Steam. Kinect, even though I do not care for it, looks like a good feature, they sold ~25 million of the things so far, I guess some people liked it. Throw in voice control and cloud-computing or whatever and you get yourself a decent set of new features. As far as privacy goes, I find it ironic that "tinfoilers" don't seem to understand that a camera in a plastic case can be turned to the wall or put into a drawer. Those are the same people whose cookies are being monitored by google, personal social networking data sold by Facebook and so on so forth on every single step of the way. X1 restrictions to me also look like a barrier that could somewhat split "kids" from people who consider gaming a hobby, much like a mandatory MMORPG subscription versus F2P. Paid multiplayer adds to that as well.I don't mind a reasonable paywall. Your problem is that you are looking at "innovation" like those random sheep that want innovation for innovation's sake. Innovation by itself isn't good; it's only good if there is something that is worth it to innovate for. At this point, there really isn't; any advanced technology is too far off (for a number of reasons). The PS4 does what it could realistically do best; it improves on what's available and doesn't push forward too fast like the XB1 is trying. It's significantly improving hardware (even better than the XB1) and it's fixing a lot of mistakes that it made with the PS3. That is perfectly fine for one console generation to the next. You don't need crazy-awesome new technology every generation, or you end up with stupid stuff like the XB1. Oh, and XB1 market was pathetic. 30% of Americans and the vast majority of the rest of the world locked out from using the XB1? Great market.
And you're looking at innovation like the random sheep that doesn't know what's actually innovative until years after the fact... way to be an asshole? And I don't know if you've read up on how innovation works, but company's are supposed to make products that people don't know they want until it's out there, and then they beat out the competition that tries to do the same. And the problem is that people like you jump on the "fuck microsoft wtf is this xbox shit kinect spying on me" train immediately and now we don't even get to see the possibly interesting and different features they had in the system and how those would've worked out.
There's no "crazy-awesome new technology" in the XB1. All I see is focused Kinect integration more DRM restrictions, and Microsoft pushing into the television market, hardly "crazy new".
And a lot of people were definitely interested in the family sharing idea, and it's pathetic that you dismiss them all as "random sheep".
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
On June 21 2013 05:51 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 05:17 Go0g3n wrote:On June 21 2013 04:02 Lolimaiko wrote:On June 21 2013 03:28 Go0g3n wrote:
So they took out all the features I actually liked: the family Live account sharing plan, digital copies added to live account even if you purchase a game on Blu-ray, - all for the sake of poor teenagers. Might as well buy a Wii-U now. My, my. How privileged and haughty you are. Nevermind the fact, which was stated multiple times in this thread, that XB1 requires broadband, and the main market's infrastructure, the US, is absolutely abysmal unless you live in an urban town on the coasts. Nevermind that force-feeding your customers with unfamiliar new features that limit and restrict what I, a customer paying for this product and service, can do is more a slap to the face than a gateway to the future. Nevermind that the orginal design was set out to monitor the consumers emotions, preferences, and personal habits to sell that information to other companies. But NOPE, I just don't want to carry a disc around or get up from my chair to swap games if need be. Absolutely disgusting. The family Live account idea never made sense to me. Do all separate family members need their own Live account to make this work? Or do we all share one Live account on different profiles? If the former, then that is not only financially inefficient, but just fundamentally retarded on many levels. If the latter, how different is this from how it works currently? Oh noes, my sister is unlocking achievements for me! Most games leave room for multiple save files, so overwriting progress is not even an issue. I don't know why people don't realize this, but digital copies for consoles work differently than digital copies for PC for one reason: Backwards compatibility. Who's to say the next generation of consoles will allow you to keep your "digital licenses" instead of repaying to upgrade to the later console? Combating the used market and the consumer is just a ploy for publishers and developers to continue churning out their "AAA" games which have been degrading in content and quality over the past decade. There have been only a handful of current high-production games have kept me coming back to replay over and over, while many of them have been shelved after a 6-hour single playthrough. The ability to sell and redistribute games should rightfully so be considered a slap to the face to devs; I'm disappointed to hear that their response isn't to improve on their development, but rather to put down the people who buy their crap in the first place. I am sorry, but this seems like nonsense to me. I am aware that roughly a third of americans have access to broadband internet. Add to that all gamers from other parts of the world who do have broadband access and you get more than enough clients for your always-on console. PS4 does not offer anything new or interesting to me. In terms of gaming innovation it falls behind the Wii-U and even the latest PSP. As a PS3 owner I do not need a simple hardware upgrade, i have a PC for that. At this very moment PS4 looks to me like a $800 PC upgrade which is offered at half the price with a controller thrown in. Friends and family sharing, day one/disc-to-digital availability are the two features that do not exist even on Steam. Kinect, even though I do not care for it, looks like a good feature, they sold ~25 million of the things so far, I guess some people liked it. Throw in voice control and cloud-computing or whatever and you get yourself a decent set of new features. As far as privacy goes, I find it ironic that "tinfoilers" don't seem to understand that a camera in a plastic case can be turned to the wall or put into a drawer. Those are the same people whose cookies are being monitored by google, personal social networking data sold by Facebook and so on so forth on every single step of the way. X1 restrictions to me also look like a barrier that could somewhat split "kids" from people who consider gaming a hobby, much like a mandatory MMORPG subscription versus F2P. Paid multiplayer adds to that as well.I don't mind a reasonable paywall. Your problem is that you are looking at "innovation" like those random sheep that want innovation for innovation's sake. Innovation by itself isn't good; it's only good if there is something that is worth it to innovate for. At this point, there really isn't; any advanced technology is too far off (for a number of reasons). The PS4 does what it could realistically do best; it improves on what's available and doesn't push forward too fast like the XB1 is trying. It's significantly improving hardware (even better than the XB1) and it's fixing a lot of mistakes that it made with the PS3. That is perfectly fine for one console generation to the next. You don't need crazy-awesome new technology every generation, or you end up with stupid stuff like the XB1. Oh, and XB1 market was pathetic. 30% of Americans and the vast majority of the rest of the world locked out from using the XB1? Great market.
I found those new features quite appealing (except for kinect, but i never got to really try it). Your problem is that you're comparing PS4 to X1 and to the old generation, I am compaing them to a gaming PC as well. Throw that into the mix and the appeal of a PS4 is reduced only to monetary savings.
I think consoles should offer a bit of a unique, different experience; there doesn't seem to be any in the PS4, not even in it's exclusives.
|
The ps3 cell processor architecture was pretty damn innovative
|
On June 21 2013 06:16 Kupon3ss wrote:
The ps3 cell processor architecture was pretty damn innovative
The cell processor was one of the most over-hyped features on a product ever.
|
On June 21 2013 06:09 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 05:51 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 21 2013 05:17 Go0g3n wrote:On June 21 2013 04:02 Lolimaiko wrote:On June 21 2013 03:28 Go0g3n wrote:
So they took out all the features I actually liked: the family Live account sharing plan, digital copies added to live account even if you purchase a game on Blu-ray, - all for the sake of poor teenagers. Might as well buy a Wii-U now. My, my. How privileged and haughty you are. Nevermind the fact, which was stated multiple times in this thread, that XB1 requires broadband, and the main market's infrastructure, the US, is absolutely abysmal unless you live in an urban town on the coasts. Nevermind that force-feeding your customers with unfamiliar new features that limit and restrict what I, a customer paying for this product and service, can do is more a slap to the face than a gateway to the future. Nevermind that the orginal design was set out to monitor the consumers emotions, preferences, and personal habits to sell that information to other companies. But NOPE, I just don't want to carry a disc around or get up from my chair to swap games if need be. Absolutely disgusting. The family Live account idea never made sense to me. Do all separate family members need their own Live account to make this work? Or do we all share one Live account on different profiles? If the former, then that is not only financially inefficient, but just fundamentally retarded on many levels. If the latter, how different is this from how it works currently? Oh noes, my sister is unlocking achievements for me! Most games leave room for multiple save files, so overwriting progress is not even an issue. I don't know why people don't realize this, but digital copies for consoles work differently than digital copies for PC for one reason: Backwards compatibility. Who's to say the next generation of consoles will allow you to keep your "digital licenses" instead of repaying to upgrade to the later console? Combating the used market and the consumer is just a ploy for publishers and developers to continue churning out their "AAA" games which have been degrading in content and quality over the past decade. There have been only a handful of current high-production games have kept me coming back to replay over and over, while many of them have been shelved after a 6-hour single playthrough. The ability to sell and redistribute games should rightfully so be considered a slap to the face to devs; I'm disappointed to hear that their response isn't to improve on their development, but rather to put down the people who buy their crap in the first place. I am sorry, but this seems like nonsense to me. I am aware that roughly a third of americans have access to broadband internet. Add to that all gamers from other parts of the world who do have broadband access and you get more than enough clients for your always-on console. PS4 does not offer anything new or interesting to me. In terms of gaming innovation it falls behind the Wii-U and even the latest PSP. As a PS3 owner I do not need a simple hardware upgrade, i have a PC for that. At this very moment PS4 looks to me like a $800 PC upgrade which is offered at half the price with a controller thrown in. Friends and family sharing, day one/disc-to-digital availability are the two features that do not exist even on Steam. Kinect, even though I do not care for it, looks like a good feature, they sold ~25 million of the things so far, I guess some people liked it. Throw in voice control and cloud-computing or whatever and you get yourself a decent set of new features. As far as privacy goes, I find it ironic that "tinfoilers" don't seem to understand that a camera in a plastic case can be turned to the wall or put into a drawer. Those are the same people whose cookies are being monitored by google, personal social networking data sold by Facebook and so on so forth on every single step of the way. X1 restrictions to me also look like a barrier that could somewhat split "kids" from people who consider gaming a hobby, much like a mandatory MMORPG subscription versus F2P. Paid multiplayer adds to that as well.I don't mind a reasonable paywall. Your problem is that you are looking at "innovation" like those random sheep that want innovation for innovation's sake. Innovation by itself isn't good; it's only good if there is something that is worth it to innovate for. At this point, there really isn't; any advanced technology is too far off (for a number of reasons). The PS4 does what it could realistically do best; it improves on what's available and doesn't push forward too fast like the XB1 is trying. It's significantly improving hardware (even better than the XB1) and it's fixing a lot of mistakes that it made with the PS3. That is perfectly fine for one console generation to the next. You don't need crazy-awesome new technology every generation, or you end up with stupid stuff like the XB1. Oh, and XB1 market was pathetic. 30% of Americans and the vast majority of the rest of the world locked out from using the XB1? Great market. And you're looking at innovation like the random sheep that doesn't know what's actually innovative until years after the fact... way to be an asshole? And I don't know if you've read up on how innovation works, but company's are supposed to make products that people don't know they want until it's out there, and then they beat out the competition that tries to do the same. And the problem is that people like you jump on the "fuck microsoft wtf is this xbox shit kinect spying on me" train immediately and now we don't even get to see the possibly interesting and different features they had in the system and how those would've worked out. There's no "crazy-awesome new technology" in the XB1. All I see is focused Kinect integration more DRM restrictions, and Microsoft pushing into the television market, hardly "crazy new". And a lot of people were definitely interested in the family sharing idea, and it's pathetic that you dismiss them all as "random sheep".
Actually, I wasn't calling the XB1-lovers sheep, I was calling the people that were critical of the PS4 simply because it wasn't "innovative" sheep.
There are plenty of ways for MS to get these new ideas out into the market without forcing them onto us like they were trying to. This thread brings that fact up countless times.
I found those new features quite appealing (except for kinect, but i never got to really try it). Your problem is that you're comparing PS4 to X1 and both to the old generation, I am compaing them to a gaming PC as well. Throw that into the mix and the appeal of a PS4 is reduced only to monetary savings.
I think consoles should offer a bit of a unique, different experience, there doesn't seem to be any in the PS4.There doesn't seem to be any in PS4 exclusives either.
As stand-alone ideas, the things that MS was trying to do could be pretty cool, but forcing consumers to swallow these ideas and saying "fuck off" to anyone who didn't like them is a terrible way to go about it.
The PS4 has the same appeal that every console ever has had when compared to a PC; lower price, more accessible and user-friendly, and a better social experience. The PS has also consistently had better exclusive titles than the XBox, so I don't know what you're talkin' about...
|
On June 21 2013 06:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 06:16 Kupon3ss wrote:
The ps3 cell processor architecture was pretty damn innovative The cell processor was one of the most over-hyped features on a product ever.
That's the point, innovation has to offer tangible improvements and benefits to the consumer, which Microsoft had shown very little of and what little they have shown was marketed terribly
|
Russian Federation410 Posts
As stand-alone ideas, the things that MS was trying to do could be pretty cool, but forcing consumers to swallow these ideas and saying "fuck off" to anyone who didn't like them is a terrible way to go about it.
The PS4 has the same appeal that every console ever has had when compared to a PC; lower price, more accessible and user-friendly, and a better social experience. The PS has also consistently had better exclusive titles than the XBox, so I don't know what you're talkin' about...
Forcing new ideas and resulting limitations isn't always a bad way, Apple did it and they're on top of the world. People are incredibly quick to dismiss without even trying.
IMO, over the years gaming PCs have gotten a lot cheaper, easier to build and use, without losing any of the core funcionality and even more importantly, "freedom". Consoles on the other hand, juding from my personal PS1 vs PS2 vs PS3 experience, have become more and more of a hassle. As for exclusives, I am talking about the PS4 exclusives lineup vs. X1 (from E3).
|
On June 21 2013 06:09 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 05:51 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 21 2013 05:17 Go0g3n wrote:On June 21 2013 04:02 Lolimaiko wrote:On June 21 2013 03:28 Go0g3n wrote:
So they took out all the features I actually liked: the family Live account sharing plan, digital copies added to live account even if you purchase a game on Blu-ray, - all for the sake of poor teenagers. Might as well buy a Wii-U now. My, my. How privileged and haughty you are. Nevermind the fact, which was stated multiple times in this thread, that XB1 requires broadband, and the main market's infrastructure, the US, is absolutely abysmal unless you live in an urban town on the coasts. Nevermind that force-feeding your customers with unfamiliar new features that limit and restrict what I, a customer paying for this product and service, can do is more a slap to the face than a gateway to the future. Nevermind that the orginal design was set out to monitor the consumers emotions, preferences, and personal habits to sell that information to other companies. But NOPE, I just don't want to carry a disc around or get up from my chair to swap games if need be. Absolutely disgusting. The family Live account idea never made sense to me. Do all separate family members need their own Live account to make this work? Or do we all share one Live account on different profiles? If the former, then that is not only financially inefficient, but just fundamentally retarded on many levels. If the latter, how different is this from how it works currently? Oh noes, my sister is unlocking achievements for me! Most games leave room for multiple save files, so overwriting progress is not even an issue. I don't know why people don't realize this, but digital copies for consoles work differently than digital copies for PC for one reason: Backwards compatibility. Who's to say the next generation of consoles will allow you to keep your "digital licenses" instead of repaying to upgrade to the later console? Combating the used market and the consumer is just a ploy for publishers and developers to continue churning out their "AAA" games which have been degrading in content and quality over the past decade. There have been only a handful of current high-production games have kept me coming back to replay over and over, while many of them have been shelved after a 6-hour single playthrough. The ability to sell and redistribute games should rightfully so be considered a slap to the face to devs; I'm disappointed to hear that their response isn't to improve on their development, but rather to put down the people who buy their crap in the first place. I am sorry, but this seems like nonsense to me. I am aware that roughly a third of americans have access to broadband internet. Add to that all gamers from other parts of the world who do have broadband access and you get more than enough clients for your always-on console. PS4 does not offer anything new or interesting to me. In terms of gaming innovation it falls behind the Wii-U and even the latest PSP. As a PS3 owner I do not need a simple hardware upgrade, i have a PC for that. At this very moment PS4 looks to me like a $800 PC upgrade which is offered at half the price with a controller thrown in. Friends and family sharing, day one/disc-to-digital availability are the two features that do not exist even on Steam. Kinect, even though I do not care for it, looks like a good feature, they sold ~25 million of the things so far, I guess some people liked it. Throw in voice control and cloud-computing or whatever and you get yourself a decent set of new features. As far as privacy goes, I find it ironic that "tinfoilers" don't seem to understand that a camera in a plastic case can be turned to the wall or put into a drawer. Those are the same people whose cookies are being monitored by google, personal social networking data sold by Facebook and so on so forth on every single step of the way. X1 restrictions to me also look like a barrier that could somewhat split "kids" from people who consider gaming a hobby, much like a mandatory MMORPG subscription versus F2P. Paid multiplayer adds to that as well.I don't mind a reasonable paywall. Your problem is that you are looking at "innovation" like those random sheep that want innovation for innovation's sake. Innovation by itself isn't good; it's only good if there is something that is worth it to innovate for. At this point, there really isn't; any advanced technology is too far off (for a number of reasons). The PS4 does what it could realistically do best; it improves on what's available and doesn't push forward too fast like the XB1 is trying. It's significantly improving hardware (even better than the XB1) and it's fixing a lot of mistakes that it made with the PS3. That is perfectly fine for one console generation to the next. You don't need crazy-awesome new technology every generation, or you end up with stupid stuff like the XB1. Oh, and XB1 market was pathetic. 30% of Americans and the vast majority of the rest of the world locked out from using the XB1? Great market. And you're looking at innovation like the random sheep that doesn't know what's actually innovative until years after the fact... way to be an asshole? And I don't know if you've read up on how innovation works, but company's are supposed to make products that people don't know they want until it's out there, and then they beat out the competition that tries to do the same. And the problem is that people like you jump on the "fuck microsoft wtf is this xbox shit kinect spying on me" train immediately and now we don't even get to see the possibly interesting and different features they had in the system and how those would've worked out. There's no "crazy-awesome new technology" in the XB1. All I see is focused Kinect integration more DRM restrictions, and Microsoft pushing into the television market, hardly "crazy new". And a lot of people were definitely interested in the family sharing idea, and it's pathetic that you dismiss them all as "random sheep".
There's a difference between innovation to try to come out with a product that people didn't know they wanted, like the first iPod, and innovation to try to come out with a product that people don't want. I do not doubt that many people were interested in the family sharing features that Xbox One was initially announced with, but obviously they weren't as loud as the people who didn't like the limitations and restrictions that come with the console. Unfortunately Microsoft decided you can have one or the other, but not both.
There are many objective reasons for people's complaints, and you labeling them as bandwagoners is similarly disrespectful. Even after the changes, the Xbox One is still going to launch at $100 more expensive than the PS4 with a required peripheral that has privacy concerns associated with it and is seen as a quirky gimmick at best by most core gamers. The hardware itself is weaker than the PS4, and the online subscription associated with the console doesn't come with nearly the same benefits or perks that the equivalent one does for the PS4.
There will be a point in the future when always-on systems won't be a problem because of how widespread good internet connections are, and we'll be able to play games in virtual reality in our living rooms using a system very similar to the Kinect, but consumers need to believe in those technologies before they dump $500 on a console with Kinect that might not end up being very next-generation. All indications, past and current, have shown that voice and movement recognition software have very serious limitations that make them almost impossible to implement in core gaming experiences. Until we are shown otherwise, why should we think this new Kinect is any different? Or will it sit on my Xbox collecting dust while I play games I could have been playing on PS4 or PC in better quality for less money?
It's great Microsoft is willing to listen to their consumers when they organize themselves en masse, but the PR damage has been done, and the fact that they are able to change these features so late in the game means they weren't as necessary and integral to the system as Microsoft first let on. Seems to me like they were playing a rather risky game of chicken with their consumer base and we called their bluff on always-on DRM, game sharing/selling, and region restrictions.
|
On June 21 2013 06:36 Go0g3n wrote:Show nested quote +As stand-alone ideas, the things that MS was trying to do could be pretty cool, but forcing consumers to swallow these ideas and saying "fuck off" to anyone who didn't like them is a terrible way to go about it.
The PS4 has the same appeal that every console ever has had when compared to a PC; lower price, more accessible and user-friendly, and a better social experience. The PS has also consistently had better exclusive titles than the XBox, so I don't know what you're talkin' about... Forcing new ideas and resulting limitations isn't always a bad way, Apple did it and they're on top of the world. IMO, over the years gaming PCs have gotten a lot cheaper, easier to build and use, without losing any of the core funcionality and even more importantly, "freedom". Consoles on the other hand, juding from my personal PS1 vs PS2 vs PS3 experience, have become more and more of a hassle. As for exclusives, I am talking about the PS4 exclusives lineup vs. X1 (from E3).
Exclusives are obviously subjective, so if you think Microsoft's exclusive franchises are better than the alternatives, that's your prerogative. But you can't say that they are objectively better. There are less and less exclusive franchises every year anyways, with everything getting ported between consoles and even to PC nowadays. The quality of the ports varies, but you are rarely completely blocked from a AAA release due to your choice of console except for a few exceptions and Nintendo games.
Comparing Apple to Microsoft in this situation is interesting, but the way that Apple "innovated" was very different. I put the quotation marks because they were hardly the first company to produce mp3 players, cellular telephones, or tablets, but they were the first company to make the public see how useful these things are to have. There's a tremendous amount of utility to be gained from upgrading your Nokia brick phone to an iPhone (or any other smartphone for that matter). Web browsing wherever you want, a good selection of games, email, calendars, you name it. Once you show someone what they have to gain by switching to a smart phone, or going from their CD collection to an iPod, the device sells itself.
What exactly do consumers have to gain from upgrading their Xbox 360 to an Xbox ONE? Well, an increase in performance, most notably. The 360 is old technology, running old games. That's a no-brainer, so a core gamer probably wants to upgrade to the next generation. Well what exactly do consumers have to gain from getting the X1 over the PS4? The Kinect? There might be some cool games associated with that, but history has shown us that it will likely be relegated to fitness and dancing games almost exclusively, at least for now. TV integration? I suppose some people may be excited about this, but all indications I've seen point towards cable TV going the way of the dinosaur for younger generations in favor of internet TV and live streaming. Families? That feature (before they removed it) was interesting, but when you start talking about family consoles, now you're competing with the Wii U as well, and I'm not sure any console manufacturer wants to go up against Nintendo in 10 rounds for the family demographic.
I do, however, think people are right in that Microsoft should have stuck to their guns. The PR damage had already been done, and the people making the most noise had probably already pre-ordered PS4's and given up on the X1 entirely. Now they've neutered their system to appease the masses who likely won't buy it anyways, and got rid of a couple of small, albeit interesting features that may have retained some loyalists. If they were going to change anything, it should have been to figure out how to make the damn thing work in all of the restricted countries, while keeping the rest of the crap, because that was the only "feature" that had absolutely no upside to it whatsoever.
|
Still not going to buy one. No way I would trust MS with that console tbh.
|
On June 21 2013 06:36 Go0g3n wrote:
Forcing new ideas and resulting limitations isn't always a bad way, Apple did it and they're on top of the world. People are incredibly quick to dismiss without even trying.
Yeah, and then Google went and released Android, and showed how easy it is to scoop up the market share just by killing those limitations.
Apple touched a completely untapped market and had zero competition for what they provided. MS is trying to force limitations on an existing market, and realizing that their position is not unassailable.
|
On June 21 2013 07:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 06:36 Go0g3n wrote:
Forcing new ideas and resulting limitations isn't always a bad way, Apple did it and they're on top of the world. People are incredibly quick to dismiss without even trying. Yeah, and then Google went and released Android, and showed how easy it is to scoop up the market share just by killing those limitations. Apple touched a completely untapped market and had zero competition for what they provided. MS is trying to force limitations on an existing market, and realizing that their position is not unassailable.
Slightly off topic... Today when I tried to install quicktime (company website... yeah...) and it changed my firefox search engine from google to bing. Now that's an evil alliance!
Back to topic, the one thing I hate about XBL policy is there closed system requirement, so that it disallows xbl users from playing with psn users via cross platform server (PSN does not have this restriction, they can share server with PC users already). With the current gen architecture which are pretty much identical, there is no reason to not support it. Imagine play with all your PS3 friends and 360 friends at same time, why it's not happening?
|
Because they are mortal enemies. You don't fraternize with the enemy. PSN might see PC users at neutral hence the allowance. Though you'd think Xbox (Microsoft) would allow PC users to connect seeing as they are 90% using Windows OS and just other Microsoft customers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
