EPTDoes it require always online: Not buying.
Does it not require always online: Consider it.
The XBox Thread - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
mastergriggy
United States1312 Posts
Does it require always online: Not buying. Does it not require always online: Consider it. | ||
|
iinsom
Australia339 Posts
| ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
^ Heh beat me to it. :D | ||
|
TheRealArtemis
687 Posts
I will consider buying it if there are some really usefull features or some "must have" titles. And the rumor of the always have to be online thing doesnt help. | ||
|
Neeh
Norway458 Posts
The only benefit at this rate seems to be pricing, but in the long run you'll most likely make up alot of it by getting games cheaper on PC. I was considering gettin either of the consoles, already decided against the Wii u, so just waiting for this reveal to decide. | ||
|
FecalTank
United States70 Posts
| ||
|
Serpico
4285 Posts
On April 26 2013 09:38 FecalTank wrote: I liked the 360 over the PS3 for some time, and honestly I dislike the PS4 pushing the social networking stuff so much, but it is so much better than dealing with always online. PS4 seems to be stacking better exclusive, so I'll probably be switching to PC+PS4 over having both consoles. The nextbox will repulse you then. It's all about being an entertainment replacement box that also has a kinect and games on the side. | ||
|
Kurr
Canada2338 Posts
On April 26 2013 09:28 Neeh wrote: So consoles are becomming more and more like PC's but still lack keyboard/mouse support etc? The only benefit at this rate seems to be pricing, but in the long run you'll most likely make up alot of it by getting games cheaper on PC. I was considering gettin either of the consoles, already decided against the Wii u, so just waiting for this reveal to decide. For me, Wii U is the only console I'm interested in (if I had the money), simply because it's the only console that makes games different from the PC ones. PS/Xbox : Shooters, dark tones in almost all their games, darker stories, reliance on HD graphics. Most popular games ported to PC or released to PC at the same time. Nintendo : Bright games, emphasis on fun things over adult things. Games that aren't anywhere else (Zelda, Mario, Pokemon). Cartoony graphics (sometimes also cell shaded). "party" games more popular (although Mario Party is no where near as popular as before, and Super Smash Brothers is long past it's glory days, it's still there --- Mario Kart and cheesy racing games are always there; Xbox took the market for people for liked "console/party shooters" like Goldeneye with Halo and has never looked back though and the rest of players went to online games). Of course I'm generalizing all the games on the consoles but in general Nintendo's consoles are just better for a "feel good" gaming experience. Everything PS/Xbox has to offer, I can get on PC except maybe 2-3 games here and there (and I would be surprised if the games didn't mesh even more with PC now with the even more similar hardware). Beyond a few series and maybe sports games (usually gimped versions on PC, sometimes none at all), everything is on PC (even if they get released a little later) while PC also keeps all their own exclusive games (tons of them). On PS1 you had a ton of jRPGs that were exclusive as well. PS2 had a lot less of them, and PS3 barely any, so it seems to be a dying market to some extent. If I was making a console, I would want to make something as different as possible from the PC gaming experience, like Nintendo more or less does. Maybe I'm crazy. I know that developers love being able to sell their games on 3 platforms though so that probably has a part in it : easier game support for their console if they keep the trend. I don't see either Sony or Microsoft keeping their console business for many generations to come at this rate if they keep making their consoles to similar to PCs, especially with how much gaming PCs become cheaper each year. Nintendo firmly controls the market for anything handheld AND innovative ideas for their consoles (3D, motion control, etc) even if copycats try to match them (Kinect, Move); even if they are losing a bit of money, I think it's a good move for the future. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
| ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
i see them (pc, console) as apples and orange i dont remember the last time i played a two player game on a computer using the 23 inch monitor, i mean, who would want to when there's a large screen tv and a console? i've spent countless hours with friends playing madden, fifa, and especially tekken (plus other fighting games) on console. maybe i'm too old school as i've never used my pc+tv to play games nor hook up multiple controllers on a pc to play multilayer games. seriously guys, whats easier: 4 computers, 4 monitors, 4 keyboard mouse to play 4 player fps or 1 console, 4 controller and 1 tv for 4 player fps apples and oranges, they have different purposes. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On April 25 2013 16:55 ControlMonkey wrote: Tbh if the console always requires an Internet connection, I probably won't get one. I've already decided I will not buy one if they make that decision. | ||
|
Savage88
Germany132 Posts
 | ||
|
Spiffeh
United States830 Posts
| ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
On April 25 2013 17:18 Verator wrote: Yeah, but that's exactly what I am saying! Why are they moving consoles towards being multipurpose compu... oh wait, that's a PC! A console should be plug and play, not a mini-PC whose hardware is ten times worse for only a little less euros...Because computers require a degree of competence in setting them up, installing software, doing updates, FINDING the things to consume, etc. The average person is very computer illiterate, and a console where they just plug it in, and can easily do multiple things without dealing with the hassle of managing anything, is very attractive. in other words, ease of use >> power, in most situations for most people. As for always online, a ton of people are always connected, and constant connectivity is equivalent to having electricity for many people, so it is reaching the point where it is assumed you are online, and being offline is a rare event. TL;DR Easy > Powerful Internet stability == electrical stability | ||
|
Beavo
Canada293 Posts
 haha bought the 360 the day it came out, broke 8 times in the first year for me. Got to pissed off I gave it to my dad and its only broken once since :'( | ||
|
Cinim
Denmark866 Posts
Consoles are already quite lacking in that department in general, they need to push that imo. Memory is the cheapest upgradeably component, so this seems as a bad tradeoff to me. | ||
|
docvoc
United States5491 Posts
On April 26 2013 20:14 Thorakh wrote: Yeah, but that's exactly what I am saying! Why are they moving consoles towards being multipurpose compu... oh wait, that's a PC! A console should be plug and play, not a mini-PC whose hardware is ten times worse for only a little less euros... I don't think you guys saying that they are making it a little computer understand why they are doing so. A small child, age 7 will most likely not grow up playing on the computer like I did. From ages 4-7 I played a lot of N64 and Computer based games. Nowadays, that is not the case. Kids will either play handhelds (like I did from 7-10 almost exclusively and from 10-15 off and on), on their phones (like the popular iphone games) or play on consoles. Unless they are technically skilled enough to understand a PC, much less build one to play games that require the power, or even have the money to invest in one (or the parents that want to invest in one) a cheap pc that is weaker is going to be more popular. The idea of making a console this way is not to appeal to people like us; we are elitists in the loosest sense of that word, we all have computers, understand how to navigate a webforum, understand streaming, for the most part have workable computers, and most likely are all aged 13+. This move is to appeal to young kids, the ones that don't know how to set up a web connection, the ones that want to plug and play but have never experience the real plug and play of early consoles. They are making a mini-pc because they realize they can't compete with PC's on any other level than simplicity and the age level requirement. Think about it, your 9 year old wants to play a game of little big planet, do you think it would be easier to play on the computer where you need to input a password into steam, then find the game, click on it, fix your internet settings if they need changing, change the mouse sensitivity, activate a 3rd party device if you want to talk to friends while doing so, and possibly have to add a second keyboard + mouse if your friend is at your house? It's a lot easier to just make a shitty mini-pc that fixes all that for a cheaper price that is all in one, it just makes like a lot easier that way even if the product might not be that great for other age groups in the market. This thing appeals to ages 7+, but it has a focus at including the younger age. EDIT: I'm sorry for the wall of text  . | ||
|
Emix_Squall
France705 Posts
On April 26 2013 09:06 mastergriggy wrote: I have a simple decision tree for if I am going to consider buying it or not: Does it require always online: Not buying. Does it not require always online: Consider it. Than you won't buy any next gen hardware ... AND: I hope Microsoft as good plans for E3 because announcing the New XboX was the biggest thing expected here, now that we now they'll do it before, their booth and conference are gonna be pretty empty in terms of exclusive content. EDIT: As far as all the comments concerning conected consoles go, this is just representative of the population on TL: mostly "hardcore" gamers who started playing video games 15 to 20 years ago. Therefore we've (I'm part of that population too) known the times where console were plug & play and Living Room Multiplayer only, and PCs were for going online. Times change and it's only living against the flow to ask for non connected hardware. Internet connections are geting better, hardware is geting better, streaming is getting better, people enjoy sharing their results (what's good about being the best if you don't brag about it?) and playing against their friends at anytime they want. Connected hardware is not an option developpers will change if people cry loud enough, and they shouldn't. | ||
|
Martijn
Netherlands1219 Posts
On April 26 2013 21:25 Emix_Squall wrote: Than you won't buy any next gen hardware ... Last I read, Sony already announced the PS4 will not require always online. So I don't know where you're getting this from but it sounds made up. Edit: Here, http://kotaku.com/5985874/ps4-will-not-require-an-always online-connection You shouldn't post things that can be proven false with a 5 second google search. | ||
|
Emix_Squall
France705 Posts
On April 26 2013 21:33 Martijn wrote: Last I read, Sony already announced the PS4 will not require always online. So I don't know where you're getting this from but it sounds made up. Ohhh sry, you don't need it to play but you can't get live updates (which are planned), you can't go multi online (which is core in several games), you can't share (which is THE main Selling Point they have for PS4). So sorry I'll rephrase, you'll have a PS4 and use it like a PS2 ... awesome but I can sell you a PS2 for less than 50$ with 30 games if you want ... EDIT: you shouldn't disprove things when you obviously know nothing on the topic (and relie on google search ...) | ||
| ||
