Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#34 - dashgamer (05/28/2013) [-]
Is what I would post normally, but we need to post this as much as possible and get the word out to as many people as possible so that customers will not only avoid being ripped off but help influence the decision making of the Microsoft bureaucracy when their product is boycotted.
Is what I would post normally, but we need to post this as much as possible and get the word out to as many people as possible so that customers will not only avoid being ripped off but help influence the decision making of the Microsoft bureaucracy when their product is boycotted.
User avatar #40 to #34 - sketchE (05/28/2013) [-]
even though most of the fears people have are simply release day speculation. its gonna be fine
#49 to #40 - John Cena (05/28/2013) [-]
>release day speculation

Microsoft has confirmed these features. Unless they suddenly turn around and decide not to do any of the things they just spent several thousand hours and countless dollars implementing, most of us are pretty sure the new Xbox will be a consumer ripoff.
User avatar #50 to #49 - sketchE (05/28/2013) [-]
theyve actually stated that most of this is outright ******** . and most of this is programming things tt wouldnt be too difficult to fix
User avatar #91 to #50 - CHARGERZ (05/28/2013) [-]
Even that they would try this **** is enough for me to stay away, what else are they willing to try?
User avatar #93 to #91 - sketchE (05/28/2013) [-]
mot of this didnt come out of microsofts mouth it is all wild speculation after a vague reveal
User avatar #54 to #50 - thedudeistheman (05/28/2013) [-]
Yeah, that sounds entirely believable. Please good sir, present me with the source of Microsoft saying something along the lines of "We're not implementing at least 51% of the features we just built up an entire press conference around, which probably cost the company a large amount of money."

Side Note: Whether or not the amount of money is actually large for Microsoft, they're not the kind of people to just go around spending money and then rendering what they've spent the money on useless.
#68 to #59 - sagedivinity (05/28/2013) [-]
The NBC link contradicts itself just like Microsoft has been doing in interviews. The Gizmodo article contradicts the NBC article as well. The first IGN link confirms a horrible feature. The second IGN article confirmed mostly multiplatform games (not necessarily a bad thing). Finally, a lot of that power mentioned in the last link is going to the "all-in-one entertainment" stuff not entirely the gaming aspect of the box.
User avatar #72 to #68 - sketchE (05/28/2013) [-]
th nbc article says that games will not have to be online. they will require an internet connection at some point so the games can be varified. this will likely only apply to disk based games since after you install it is possible to hand your friend the game and have him play it. much like the cd keys in pc games. the games that will require constant online access are a case for case thing. it isnt mandatory to use the cloud.
User avatar #74 to #72 - sagedivinity (05/28/2013) [-]
I think it's because the fact that the games will be installed and downloaded onto the system is what will lead Microsoft to charge for the exchange of games to others, because you could simply hand your game to all your friends and let them download it and then hand it to the next person without anyone having to pay for it (except the first person).
User avatar #77 to #74 - sketchE (05/28/2013) [-]
think of it like a pc game that can be linked to steam. you bought the game, installed it then three pcs later you havent put the disk in once and played it on all consoles.
User avatar #85 to #77 - sagedivinity (05/28/2013) [-]
Can you rephrase that? I'm not sure what you meant, sorry.
User avatar #89 to #85 - sketchE (05/28/2013) [-]
most pc games dont have multiple use keys. if you have a game linked to your steam account any computer you log into you can download the game onto. if you do that on your friends computer however they cant play it sinc eit isnt linked to their account
User avatar #94 to #89 - sagedivinity (05/28/2013) [-]
Which is where the fee comes in. As soon as someone else tries to play it they charge them for it because the game will be linked to a single gamer's account. Transferring your account to someone else's Xbox will still work though from what I hear.
User avatar #97 to #94 - sketchE (05/28/2013) [-]
well yes. you bought the game not your friend. if you want to play with your friend thats fine if he wants to play it alone he might as well buy it so he can play it with you. this is something that the "pc master race" has dealt with for years and never complained.
User avatar #101 to #97 - sagedivinity (05/28/2013) [-]
It's because it is just now being incorporated into a gaming device that is supposed to be gamer friendly that people are troubled I should be able to let my friend borough my game without having to trust them with my account and its information. No console before the Xbox One has required this and there is not justifying incorporating this into consoles now. I just hope it is somehow not rue and that Somy won't do it or just might have to figure out how to build a gaming PC.
User avatar #105 to #101 - sketchE (05/28/2013) [-]
well think about it. microsoft is trying to eliminate disks to lower costs. if you give your friend the disk he sint going to have it forever. your going to want it back eventually
User avatar #109 to #105 - sagedivinity (05/28/2013) [-]
I doubt Microsoft is trying to lower the cost of games. I mean they charge users to play games online games that that they already purchased and own by forcing them to buy xbl gold.

Sure you'll want the game back your just lending it to them, but the One automatically installs and downloads games to the console linking it to that specific account so the issue of getting the disk back won't really exist.
User avatar #111 to #109 - sketchE (05/28/2013) [-]
exactly when you want the game back they cant play anymore. that was the point
User avatar #113 to #111 - sagedivinity (05/28/2013) [-]
But that's the point of "borough", it implies that you will eventually get the game back and this is only a minor issue between friends not one that I think Microsoft is making any attempts to remedy by charging people to let their friends borough their games.

This is simply a way for Microsoft to cash in on something that a lot of gamers do often like myself. For example right now I'm letting my cousin borough Dark Souls (for his 360) for free but Microsoft wants in on that so he would be charged a fee to play a game that was already payed for. I don't think that is fair to gamers or consumers in general.
User avatar #121 to #113 - sketchE (05/28/2013) [-]
to 117
it looks a step in the future. maybe im an apathetic asshole but none of the issues will effect me. i have internet and i buy all my games anyways. i dont trust my friends after they lost three of my games and one broke a few because he was pissy. i want all digital. i dont like switching out games. im lazy and ive been puting off playing games i really want to because theyre downstairs

it almost seems like microsoft is saying to physicaly be with your friends not just across the internet since theyre allowing same console use
User avatar #122 to #121 - sagedivinity (05/28/2013) [-]
Ok, I was just wondering. Have a nice day.
User avatar #114 to #113 - sketchE (05/28/2013) [-]
then go play it with him.
and borrow is the word youve been looking for
User avatar #117 to #114 - sagedivinity (05/28/2013) [-]
I guess I should while its still free to do so.

Before I go I was wondering what your opinion was of the console as a whole so far (hopeful or not). I do t think E3 will provide anything that will make me buy it so I'm not hopeful.

Also thanks for correcting me.
User avatar #66 to #59 - thedudeistheman (05/28/2013) [-]
Article 1: From what I can tell, you are correct that this is still speculation. There are just as many websites reporting Microsoft is still implementing this feature. Microsoft has flip-flopped in the past, so time will tell on this one.

Article 2: I'm going to paraphrase that statement from Microsoft: "Xbox One won't require you to always be connected to the Internet, but it will require an Internet connection." That's a contradictory statement. They're saying it won't, only to say it will. I believe the representative from Azure said Microsoft is considering the offloading of data to a cloud. This would require a constant Internet connection. Microsoft is avoiding giving any definitive answer. In fact, the end of the article even says they're dodging talking about what will actually happen.

Article 3: Pretty much the same thing as Article 1. They're just flip-flopping. That's not to say it's utter ******** , it's just that Microsoft refuses to actually provide definitive answers about its product.

Articles 4 and 5: What is the purpose of these articles? 4 is just a list of games, which I didn't mention once. 5 appears to be just discussion of some of the tech, which Jon Blow then dismisses as being overexaggerated. These don't really prove anything.
User avatar #71 to #66 - sketchE (05/28/2013) [-]
2. not every game will require online all the time. it is an optional thing that i dont think many developers will use
3. they stated it is only listening for specific commands
4. was directed at all the people saying it will only have 3 games at launch because thats all that was announced at the show
5. was just something i found so it can be disregarded
User avatar #76 to #71 - thedudeistheman (05/28/2013) [-]
2. Microsoft is encouraging it though, so it might get to a point where it's required. Microsoft is also "providing" a number of other services that might require the system to always be online, so even if your game doesn't have to be, the console might have to.

3. It listens for commands when the Xbox is off. When the Xbox is off, the Kinect should be off. If you can use Kinect to turn on the console, that means the Kinect is always on, and it can always hear what you do. Regardless of whether or not this data gets sent to Microsoft, that is disturbing.

4. I agree with you on this one. This was a console reveal, not a games reveal. E3 will probably be filled with plenty of games coming to the console.
User avatar #78 to #76 - sketchE (05/28/2013) [-]
3. not necesarily think of it as typing a command into a computer. if its an invalid command nothing happens it isnt stored away its immedietly deleted. and if it is something that you are that paranoid about you can always unplug it when your not playing. since most technolog already pulls power even when its off you would be saving your electric bill a bit
User avatar #80 to #78 - thedudeistheman (05/28/2013) [-]
I suppose you could do this, but I'm still skeptical. Microsoft has avoided giving definitive answers on anything but games. I need straight answers, and Microsoft doesn't seem too keen on providing those right now. For every website reporting they're implementing Practice A, there's another website reporting that Microsoft isn't implementing Practice A. I feel that Microsoft isn't handling press reports in an effective manner, and it's ultimately leading to a premature demise of their product, even if the product doesn't end up being terrible.
User avatar #81 to #80 - sketchE (05/28/2013) [-]
theres a lot of people taking reports from days ago and using them as new reports or they just repeat old speculation when they havent had a recent interview
User avatar #84 to #81 - thedudeistheman (05/28/2013) [-]
And there are plenty of websites doing similar things. Essentially, it's all a huge *********** right now, and hopefully E3 will be a time of clarity where Microsoft directly answers questions and tells us exactly what is going to be worked in and what won't.
User avatar #55 to #54 - reaperssprint (05/28/2013) [-]
More believable than a company actually thinking these things would be welcomed.


Here's that link you wanted. Enjoy.
User avatar #58 to #55 - thedudeistheman (05/28/2013) [-]
1. These are two features. One of these features is still being implemented. Two is not a majority in this instance.

2. They're only speculating about not requiring an Internet connection in very specific scenarios. Those scenarios apply to what is probably less than a quarter of people who are considering buying an Xbox One. That makes the scenario hardly relevant, and would not benefit many.

3. They said the Internet connection would be tested regularly. This does not mean that the checks won't happen every 24 hours. They just said they haven't said anything official.

4. The whole thing about a game being deauthenticated on one machine when it is played on another machine is ******** . That's just clever press wording. That essentially says "When you play your game on one machine, you can't play it on another machine at the same time." That's pretty much the case for any game. You can't use the same disc to play on two machines at the same time. They didn't say anything that isn't already common sense with that whole thing.

5. Companies often say they'll do something, then say they won't do that thing, then say they will, and continuously change positions on it until they release the product. It is very likely that Microsoft will end up implementing many of the practices they talked about.
User avatar #61 to #58 - reaperssprint (05/28/2013) [-]
Read the Q and A. It has more answers as well. In respect to number 5, they aren't going to implement the practices since they never existed in the way people thought in the first place.
User avatar #73 to #61 - thedudeistheman (05/28/2013) [-]
The very first thing on the Q & A contradicts itself. "It won't always be online, but it does require an Internet connection." What does that mean? It doesn't have to be online, but it has to be connected. To be connected, it has to be online. Then it would always be online.

Bullet 1, Question 2: A deeper experience is created by a developer, not by cloud storage. That's just a lie.

Bullet 3, Question 2: Unless you can't connect to the Internet. There's even an asterisk that says this is based on geographical restrictions.

Bullet 5, Question 2: Did the 360 make use of the cloud to implement Xbox Live, because if it did, then it's no longer a benefit and it's just something people should come to expect in a new piece of hardware. It's like trying to promote a new model of a laptop because it has keys. Yeah, the old one had keys too, you can't promote it with that unless all previous versions didn't have keyboards.

The backwards compatible question: I don't have much to say about this. The PS4 won't be backwards compatible either. What the PS4 is doing, however, is finding a way to get PS3 games on the PS4 with the use of cloud streaming or something like that. That is a good way to promote the cloud service. By doing something new that the old system didn't do.

Requiring Kinect: I read an article (will provide source if asked for and given appropriate time to find in history) that stated the Kinect is always on and always sending data back to Microsoft, even when the system is off. That's disturbing. It's always watching.

TV Services: It might have been this content when I read it, but I read that you'll have to pay for Microsoft's TV services. Why would you pay for TV when you probably already have a cable/satellite provider you are paying?
User avatar #79 to #73 - sketchE (05/28/2013) [-]
i doubt you will have to pay for tv services if you want to watch the xbox tv service you pay for that if you want to watch you own just turn the xbox off. also i wouldnt be surprised if microsoft does the same thing in regards to backwards compatability. they did it with the 360
User avatar #82 to #79 - thedudeistheman (05/28/2013) [-]
I read that it'll come with some kind of cable box you have to pay service for, on top of the console. But who knows what's really going to happen, Microsoft refuses to really answer anything.

Also, I thought the Xbox was generally backwards compatible, you just had to install games on the hard drive.

I believe Don Mattrick (is that how you spell it) or another high-up representative spoke negatively about backwards compatibility and said they wouldn't be implementing it in any way.
User avatar #88 to #82 - sketchE (05/28/2013) [-]
i think he meant direct backwords compatability. the reason the ps3 was bulky when it first came out was because it could emulat ps2 games. it basicly had a small ps2 built inside of it. the newer ones dont have that. basicly why build a 360 inside the one when youll probably still have the 360 anyway and then wait to make the software necessary to emulate the 360 using the ones hardware, possibly improving the quality

basicly building a 360 into the one = backwards
keeping it all digital = forwards
User avatar #90 to #88 - thedudeistheman (05/28/2013) [-]
I don't think that's really how it works, but to each their own.

Also, that's all irrelevant considering someone important bashed the idea of backwards compatibility. He called it "backwards thinking" and said something about keeping it in the past.
User avatar #92 to #90 - sketchE (05/28/2013) [-]
like i said why make te console capable of playing old consoles games when you probably have the old console still?
User avatar #96 to #92 - thedudeistheman (05/28/2013) [-]
At some point, your 360 is going to die and it won't be worth it to get it serviced. When this point comes, it would be a good idea for the One to be backwards compatible.

"Oh, but thedude, what about that streaming thing you talked about that the PS3 does now with putting older PS titles on the PSN for people to buy?"

Then you'd just have to re-buy a perfectly fine copy of a game you already have. The purpose of re-releasing a game on the consoles' marketplace is to let people who didn't have a chance to play the game when it came out play it now. It's doubtful that someone who already owns a perfectly usable copy of a game is going to spend money on the same game when they already have a copy.
User avatar #98 to #96 - sketchE (05/28/2013) [-]
by the point my 360 breaks they will likely have a solution for it. and if they do charge it wont be that expensive anyway. they wont ask full price no where close to it
User avatar #99 to #98 - thedudeistheman (05/28/2013) [-]
A solution for what, your broken console? At that point, it's not going to be worth it to fix it. Parts will cost more than they used to because they're not in as high demand.

Also, it's still paying for something you already have. I'm not going to pay for a game I already have, even if it's less than the original price.
User avatar #102 to #99 - sketchE (05/28/2013) [-]
by solution i meant a system to link 360 games to your account or develop a program for emulating 360 games based on the ones hardware
User avatar #103 to #102 - thedudeistheman (05/28/2013) [-]
Sounds unlikely, but not implausible. Time will tell.

Nice having this discussion with you. Rarely does someone back up their arguments with sources.
 Friends (0)