Xbox

[Hot_ArmS]

 

[Spelt]

YLYL: Microsoft edition

 

[Xyro77]

YLYL: Microsoft edition

or

 

[GreenKirby]

Microsoft cancels post E3 media roundtable

I'm not one of those people who watches something just to see glorious trainwrecks but LOL I cannot wait for Microsoft's E3 for their trainwreck

 

[Xyro77]

Microsoft cancels post E3 media roundtable

I'm not one of those people who watches something just to see glorious trainwrecks but LOL I cannot wait for Microsoft's E3 for their trainwreck

i dont know for sure but i think its a good guess to assume they cancelled the round table talks because of the Q&A session that goes along with it. last time they did that (x-bone reveal), no one knew the facts about drm/used games/backwards compatibility.....ect and the media went crazy with it. not too sure MS wants that again.

if i were MS, id ignore ALL of the non gaming features of the x-bone and focus strictly on games at e3. No kids, no HORRIBLE Usher music, just destroy us with games games games.

 

[Minato]

i dont know for sure but i think its a good guess to assume they cancelled the round table talks because of the Q&A session that goes along with it. last time they did that (x-bone reveal), no one knew the facts about drm/used games/backwards compatibility.....ect and the media went crazy with it. not too sure MS wants that again.

if i were MS, id ignore ALL of the non gaming features of the x-bone and focus strictly on games at e3. No kids, no HORRIBLE Usher music, just destroy us with games games games.

Agreed on both. Canceling the round table session looks pretty bad, but honestly it's probably a better choice by dodging questions they'd rather not deal with.

And I'm confident their E3 won't be a trainwreck. They pretty much got a lot of bad stuff out of the way and played conservatively during their late reveal. I'm sure they're going to try and bring their A game to turn things around. Kind of similar to Nintendo being too conservative for last E3 and trying to turn things around afterwards in a Direct. It's like they were flipped.

 

[finalark]

i dont know for sure but i think its a good guess to assume they cancelled the round table talks because of the Q&A session that goes along with it. last time they did that (x-bone reveal), no one knew the facts about drm/used games/backwards compatibility.....ect and the media went crazy with it. not too sure MS wants that again.

if i were MS, id ignore ALL of the non gaming features of the x-bone and focus strictly on games at e3. No kids, no HORRIBLE Usher music, just destroy us with games games games.

Frankly, if the Xbone had so many features that MS knew they had to dodge questions about then maybe they should have reevaluated if the Xbone in its current state was a good idea or not.

I agree that if they want to impress what's left of the Xbox userbase then they need to just throw as many awesome games at us as possible. But consoles aren't about games anymore so I doubt we'll see that.

 

[LivewiresXe]

Agreed on both. Canceling the round table session looks pretty bad, but honestly it's probably a better choice by dodging questions they'd rather not deal with.

And I'm confident their E3 won't be a trainwreck. They pretty much got a lot of bad stuff out of the way and played conservatively during their late reveal. I'm sure they're going to try and bring their A game to turn things around. Kind of similar to Nintendo being too conservative for last E3 and trying to turn things around afterwards in a Direct. It's like they were flipped.

I think you're giving Microsoft too much credit. One thing Microsoft has consistently had over the years are bad, predictable E3 presentations. And that's WITHOUT this XboxONE stuff.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Well, I just listened to a conversation at school about people super excited about the wonderful all in ONE media device...XBOX One...

 

[Tesh]

When i talk to non-gamers about this, it makes me understand what microsoft is doing. The 1 in 100 hardcore crowd might think its a dumb cash grab, but in the end it will be successful because of the same kinds of people that bought pet rocks.

I remember when I thought charging for online would be too much and it worked.

 

[finalark]

When you get down to it, MS has been pushing the Xbox in this direction for a few years now. Compare the 360's dashboard at launch to the current one. There's also the fact that every post-Kinect E3 has been nothing but MS ramming down your throat all of the other things your 360 can do besides play games.

 

[Puca Readabook]

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Xb...d-By-Neogaf-GOG-com-Offers-Support-56386.html



i think Sonys gonna capitalize on MS' fatal mistakes :D

 

[LivewiresXe]

When i talk to non-gamers about this, it makes me understand what microsoft is doing. The 1 in 100 hardcore crowd might think its a dumb cash grab, but in the end it will be successful because of the same kinds of people that bought pet rocks.

I remember when I thought charging for online would be too much and it worked.

Let's not kid ourselves. Charging for online IS too much. And I sure hope Sony capitalizes on Microsoft's mistakes, since I admittedly kind of like seeing the new XBox1 crapped all over. Ever since the 360 came out and you had to pay for online, I've thought they've deserved every bit of flak they've gotten.

 

[theeboredone]

I think it's terrible how you need to pay for Xbox Live in order to access your Netflix subscription.

 

[Xyro77]

When i talk to non-gamers about this, it makes me understand what microsoft is doing. The 1 in 100 hardcore crowd might think its a dumb cash grab, but in the end it will be successful because of the same kinds of people that bought pet rocks.

Well, I just listened to a conversation at school about people super excited about the wonderful all in ONE media device...XBOX One...

The people you speak of are the mainstream/ "omg CoD is the best game/series of all time its oooo awesome" crowd. Some of the most uneducated "gamers" on the planet. They will see the X-Bone and see that it has better graphics than the 360, another CoD and it can "do everything" so they will leap on it. The mainstream gamer doesnt know that lost cost/upgradable PCs can pump out x-bone graphics and better. The mainstream gamer doesn't realize that CoD has been THE SAME GAME since 2008. The main stream gamer doesnt realize that all those "non gaming features" the X-bone has can be done BETTER, EASIER and FASTER without even owning an X-Bone. MS knows this and thus is appealing to them because they are the ones who will throw out money without thinking.
It is the very same thing Nintendo did to the core gamer. The wii was a CASUAL GAMER console. And because of that, it sold gazillions of units little kids, grandma+grandpa, mom+dad.....ect and NOT to the nintendo faithful or even to the core gamer. Hell, nearly every major core nintendo game released on the wii was watered down for the casual gamer. Metroid Prime 3,Mario kart, brawl to name a few were SUPER SUPER easy to pick up/learn/succeed.

I remember when I thought charging for online would be too much and it worked.

It only worked because the online is much better than wifi. lots of people dont feel so bad about paying it if it is superior to the rest of the online options.

When you get down to it, MS has been pushing the Xbox in this direction for a few years now. Compare the 360's dashboard at launch to the current one. There's also the fact that every post-Kinect E3 has been nothing but MS ramming down your throat all of the other things your 360 can do besides play games.

Yeah i agree that the "media first, games 2nd" started this gen with the 360/ps3 but it was at a slow process. Now with this X-bone/ps4, its OBVIOUSLY clear that this is their goal. IIRC, MS said to the public when it released its original Xbox that "we want to own your living room." As gamers, we blew it off and just took it as another dumb catch phrase but........MS was serious. All 3 xbox have taken a step further into your living room.

 

[Deleted member]

I prefer Xbox 720 better than Xbox One. Xbox One should be the name for the first Xbox console. Why Microsoft?

 

[finalark]

Let's not kid ourselves. Charging for online IS too much. And I sure hope Sony capitalizes on Microsoft's mistakes, since I admittedly kind of like seeing the new XBox1 crapped all over. Ever since the 360 came out and you had to pay for online, I've thought they've deserved every bit of flak they've gotten.

MS charging for online was ultimately what swayed me towards a PS3. And frankly, I'm glad I made that choice simply because the PS3 ended up offering more games that appealed to me. Frankly, I don't like the idea of being coerced into paying more for something after I paid money for it. Hell, I'm against DLC for that very reason. The only time I'll make an acceptation is for MMORPGs that have subscription fees, if only because with MMORPGs you get what you pay for and those games are extremely expensive to run so I can understand having a subscription fee. But MS? Like hell if they need the extra money.

Yeah i agree that the "media first, games 2nd" started this gen with the 360/ps3 but it was at a slow process. Now with this X-bone/ps4, its OBVIOUSLY clear that this is their goal. IIRC, MS said to the public when it released its original Xbox that "we want to own your living room." As gamers, we blew it off and just took it as another dumb catch phrase but........MS was serious. All 3 xbox have taken a step further into your living room.

Nobody could have seen that coming with the Original Xbox, since the only thing "living room concentric" it did was play DVDs, which I assumed at the time was only because the PS2 played DVDs and MS wanted to compete with that. I agree that at the time we just thought it was just a marketing ploy but damn did MS live up to that. At least from everything we've heard about the PS4 it's going to be a very, very game-centered console. I'll be honest, initially I was extremely against the PS4 forcing social media down our throats but now I'm looking at it in a different light.

 

[Minato]

I think you're giving Microsoft too much credit. One thing Microsoft has consistently had over the years are bad, predictable E3 presentations. And that's WITHOUT this XboxONE stuff.

Possibly. I'm not really an Xbox fan to begin with so I can't really remember all their E3s. I'm being hopeful for their sake, but things looks bad.

MS is even canceling some 1 on 1 interviews right now.

 

[finalark]

Right now it looks like the Xbone is going to be the Saturn of this generation, time will tell if MS' console following the Xbone will be their Dreamcast.

Then again, Sony managed to make the PS3 awesome despite a few rough years at the start so anything is possible.

Then again, on the third hand, Sony always had the support of Asia behind them even if the PS3 was doing shake elsewhere. MS not only doesn't have the support of NA or Europe, but Asia has never given a damn about the Xbox to begin with.

 

[Krusiv]

Microsoft released a bit of info regarding the Xbox One's offline capabilities.http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/connected

"With Xbox One you can game offline for up to 24 hours on your primary console, or one hour if you are logged on to a separate console accessing your library. Offline gaming is not possible after these prescribed times until you re-establish a connection, but you can still watch live TV and enjoy Blu-ray and DVD movies."

 

[Tesh]

I never had live TV or a blu ray player before, so thats a relief.

 

[theeboredone]

I like how they need to clarify you can still watch live TV without logging into the internet...

 

[RespawningJesus]

MS charging for online was ultimately what swayed me towards a PS3. And frankly, I'm glad I made that choice simply because the PS3 ended up offering more games that appealed to me. Frankly, I don't like the idea of being coerced into paying more for something after I paid money for it. Hell, I'm against DLC for that very reason. The only time I'll make an acceptation is for MMORPGs that have subscription fees, if only because with MMORPGs you get what you pay for and those games are extremely expensive to run so I can understand having a subscription fee. But MS? Like hell if they need the extra money.

DLC is important for developers to make more money to keep their servers running and other costs, as well as actually supporting the devs.

 

[Xyro77]

DLC is important for developers to make more money to keep their servers running and other costs, as well as actually supporting the devs.

But more times than not, they hold out things that would normally be in a game and then save it for paid DLC. Its stupid as hell and it will never go away because the masses (new gen gamers) eat this crap up.

 

[RespawningJesus]

But more times than not, they hold out things that would normally be in a game and then save it for paid DLC. Its stupid as hell and it will never go away because the masses (new gen gamers) eat this crap up.

It is not because people will continue buying DLC, but because just selling games by themselves doesn't cut it anymore.

And often times, DLC is not just bits of games that are intentionally held for the sake of DLC. Some things are just expansions of a game or were cut and later sold as DLC due to time constraints.

 

[Spelt]

I like how they need to clarify you can still watch live TV without logging into the internet...

But what if I want to watch Gossip Girl and play Naruto: Boodoo X Believe It and talk to the neighborhood skunk on skype all at the same time?

 

[Xyro77]

It is not because people will continue buying DLC, but because just selling games by themselves doesn't cut it anymore. And often times, DLC is not just bits of games that are intentionally held for the sake of DLC. Some things are just expansions of a game or were cut and later sold as DLC due to time constraints.

Do you really believe that?

I remember a time back on XB 1 and even DreamCast were DLC was free. it truly was "hey , lets give the players this new quest or this new costume...ect" and boom u got it. It isn't like that anymore ( or rather VERY RARELY is it like that).

Now days it is literally a free cash grab. They realize "hey, if we hold back 5 chars from this game, we can charge 5$ each later on and people will buy it." Dont think for a minute they say "oh ****, we sent the game out already and we just thought of 5 more characters to add."

Now you are right, some DLC are things just for expansion of a game. That is the extreme minority of the DLC world now days. One day if you are every deadly bored, listen to the "super joystiq" podcast from joystiq.com or the "podcast beyond" on ign. You can even read some articles on gamasutra too. From time to time they do interviews with devs and interview after interview after interview you hear devs say that MOST of the DLC that they are apart of was originally planned for the full game but were told to sell it as DLC because of rising costs of development.

i cant find the image right now (it may be in the ps3 thread) but The Last of Us has some ridiculous DLC starting from day 1. You mean to tell me they didnt cut out ANYTHING from the main game in order to sell that DLC? LOL come on man. Devs are out to make money FIRST and do what YOU (the player) wants LAST.

 

[finalark]

You hear about devs makes DLC while a game in still in production these days. That's just ridiculous.

 

[LivewiresXe]

Not getting into that whole thing other than to say that some developers often realize that doing what the player and fans of their studio/games want will lead to making money and that if they initially focus on making a good game first, then they will therefore make money and people will be willing to spend a few extra bucks to support it in hopes of future games like it/sequels.

 

[Xyro77]

Not getting into that whole thing other than to say that some developers often realize that doing what the player and fans of their studio/games want will lead to making money and that if they initially focus on making a good game first, then they will therefore make money and people will be willing to spend a few extra bucks to support it in hopes of future games like it/sequels.

This is very true. But very much a minority.

 

[theeboredone]

I do think development costs are playing a pivotal role on Disc DLC or DLC that comes out later. Triple A games cost a boat load of money to make. I mean, Square Enix was disappointed in Tomb Raider sales. Uncharted 2 I know cost 20 million to make. It's also why studios like THQ had have to unfortunately shut down. High budget games with high expectations that do not do well. So now that we see DLC + Used Game sales possibly going back to the publisher, the idea is that it may keep these studios afloat.

Personally, I don't think that's a great solution. This will only keep true mainstream series afloat. CoD and Madden should have no problem recooperating their costs via used game sales, but try telling that to a Tomb Raider or Resident Evil. Games that don't have as much broad appeal and are generally geared towards a more hardcore audience. Just not going to work.

 

[finalark]

Honestly, I wouldn't mind slightly less ridiculously spectacularly awesome graphics and set pieces for more straightforwards games. Hell, Amnesia and X-Com are some of the most fun I've had with the horror and strategy genre in ages and neither game have particularly big budget. But they were willing to take risks and appeal to an audience outside of the Triple A industry.

 

[Xyro77]

I do think development costs are playing a pivotal role on Disc DLC or DLC that comes out later. Triple A games cost a boat load of money to make. I mean, Square Enix was disappointed in Tomb Raider sales. Uncharted 2 I know cost 20 million to make. It's also why studios like THQ had have to unfortunately shut down. High budget games with high expectations that do not do well. So now that we see DLC + Used Game sales possibly going back to the publisher, the idea is that it may keep these studios afloat.

Personally, I don't think that's a great solution. This will only keep true mainstream series afloat. CoD and Madden should have no problem recooperating their costs via used game sales, but try telling that to a Tomb Raider or Resident Evil. Games that don't have as much broad appeal and are generally geared towards a more hardcore audience. Just not going to work.

Advertising is a really really big factor too. How many bad ass games have you played that got little to no advertising? Metric tons.

 

[Puca Readabook]

i really hope MS loses a **** ton of money over this SOPA box

 

[finalark]

Advertising is a really really big factor too. How many bad *** games have you played that got little to no advertising? Metric tons.

Sadly, many amazing games get little to no publicity because publishers would much rather see a return on something that they dumped millions upon millions of dollars into than some small experimental game that appeals to a niche audience. They aren't wrong for doing this, however. If I threw a ton of money at something I would heavily promote it to try and make as much money as possible off of that. If playing Game Dev Tycoon has taught me anything, it is incredibly easy to **** up and lose a ton money in the games industry.

That being said, just because a game has little to no promotion doesn't mean it won't be successful. Pokemon was initially released quietly and was written off as a loss by Nintendo, Valve originally threw Portal into the Orange Box just to give some added fluff to the collection, Minecraft became a phenomenon through word of mouth alone, the list goes on.

 

[Xyro77]

Sadly, many amazing games get little to no publicity because publishers would much rather see a return on something that they dumped millions upon millions of dollars into than some small experimental game that appeals to a niche audience. They aren't wrong for doing this, however. If I threw a ton of money at something I would heavily promote it to try and make as much money as possible off of that. If playing Game Dev Tycoon has taught me anything, it is incredibly easy to **** up and lose a ton money in the games industry.

That being said, just because a game has little to no promotion doesn't mean it won't be successful. Pokemon was initially released quietly and was written off as a loss by Nintendo, Valve originally threw Portal into the Orange Box just to give some added fluff to the collection, Minecraft became a phenomenon through word of mouth alone, the list goes on.

i def agree that even if there is no advertising, the game can still sell well.

but you cannot argue the fact that more advertisement = higher chances of people buying. that is all i was saying.

 

[finalark]

i def agree that even if there is no advertising, the game can still sell well.

but you cannot argue the fact that more advertisement = higher chances of people buying. that is all i was saying.

Oh yeah, I certainly agree there. I was just pointing out that sometimes games can make it without it. Although it is extremely hard to do. Although frankly, these days obscure niche games have a better chance of gaining popularity because the internet is in regular use now and it allows people who have similar interests to discuss whatever obscure games they like. That being said, even with the internet certain niche games never get a sequel "coughmirrorsedgecough."

 

[Black Mantis]

 

[RespawningJesus]

Do you really believe that?

I remember a time back on XB 1 and even DreamCast were DLC was free. it truly was "hey , lets give the players this new quest or this new costume...ect" and boom u got it. It isn't like that anymore ( or rather VERY RARELY is it like that).

Now days it is literally a free cash grab. They realize "hey, if we hold back 5 chars from this game, we can charge 5$ each later on and people will buy it." Dont think for a minute they say "oh ****, we sent the game out already and we just thought of 5 more characters to add."

Now you are right, some DLC are things just for expansion of a game. That is the extreme minority of the DLC world now days. One day if you are every deadly bored, listen to the "super joystiq" podcast from joystiq.com or the "podcast beyond" on ign. You can even read some articles on gamasutra too. From time to time they do interviews with devs and interview after interview after interview you hear devs say that MOST of the DLC that they are apart of was originally planned for the full game but were told to sell it as DLC because of rising costs of development.

i cant find the image right now (it may be in the ps3 thread) but The Last of Us has some ridiculous DLC starting from day 1. You mean to tell me they didnt cut out ANYTHING from the main game in order to sell that DLC? LOL come on man. Devs are out to make money FIRST and do what YOU (the player) wants LAST.

Honestly, I really don't care what devs and producers do to male money. My thought process is that if anyone really has a problem spending an additional $5-10 on a game they thought was worth spending the additional money on has a problem. You can complain about DLC and how it "negatively" affects game design, but it helps keep devs and producers fed.

 

[KayB]

I don't mind forking over a few extra bucks of cash for DLC if the game that I payed for initially is really fun to begin with. Ex. Fire Emblem: Awakening. Already an extremely solid game by its own standards, and it offers DLC for those who enjoyed the experience and want more. Sometimes I buy DLC because I want to support companies for making really good games in the first place.

What I don't like is when a game isn't fun but the DLC is. You essentially have to pay the devs extra in order to enjoy the damn game.