Topic: Xbox One - page 2. (Read 6769 times)

Yep they fell into Sony's trap time for that 180

I guess they'll have to rename it to the XBox 180.

AHAHAHAHA Nice

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/update

Xbox has removed all its DRM. Your move Sony.

#filterbubble



 

Little young for that, I have played it. My brother has it.

Atarwhat? O.o

http://www.emulator-zone.com/doc.php/genesis/ 

You're obviously too young to have ever played Atari... 

Also noticed games have becoming more easy. Have you seen these Facebook apps that people are into? A few of my girlfriends have been into these because they are so easy. I have asked a few what is so good, and they all replied "They are addictive". I haev never took a liking to iphone/facebook apps. They have no challange what so ever. They have too bad graphics, I don't like cartoon games, you know what I'm talking about.

I want my Sega mega drive back, why did I even sell it.

ops wrote a novel not even on-topic

Online games have always been better suited to casual play because casual games are generally made with low-enough computational requirements that almost any device can play them, which is great for on-the-go devices where the market primarily is. The other reason casual games' (which would be called "simple" if not for marketing) low requirements have become so successful is because they can be played on cheap-o off-the-shelf PCs with onboard or entry-level graphics, which really dominate the market. These people, who are generally not particularly interested in deep games (or would have something suitable to play them), have finally been catered to again (they were catered to before gaming PCs simply because deep games were technologically near-impossible to create).

One of the more interesting trends coming out of the rise of simple games is the marketing and sale of flash games on PCs. Flash games are fantastic because it's so easy to port to a standalone app considering swf games can otherwise just be downloaded from an online game site to be played offline with any of many swf players. It's really fantastic for small developers, because it allows them to design and develop within their budget without enormous innovation-destroying barriers to entry (the barriers to entry for non-portable and even some portable dedicated game devices are usually very high, even if it's just the console themselves, which usually cost hundreds, whereas almost every potential game dev/designer already has a PC and Internet connection they can use). They can work their way up through this. Game devs are starting to see they can still make flash games, but make them more deep, with larger files, and sell offline versions of their games (which would be too large to have played for free on online flash sites) for PC and sometimes phones. Unlike companies such as Zynga and Popcap (though Popcap's started seeing the benefit of creating unique, deep games, rather than the slew of mundane hidden object games they had popped out like they were making novelty "oriental" toys), which just stick to simple (and generally horribly-evil Pavlovian-type) games, there are a good few companies using simple games as a diving board into deeper games.

OTOH, I consider simple games to be akin to slapped-together romance novels or "reality" shows in their respective medium. They're popular, but fail to really do anything meaningful except allow people to pass time, and I think the popularity of simple products for mediums capable of great depth is really a shame, and hurts the image of the mediums. They fail at creating true engagement, therefor can push no message (even if they try), and ultimately fail at creating social change or making any difference in the lives of those who play/read/watch them. It's pretty easy to find arguments against bashing simple games online, but it's usually coupled with the argument that encouraging simplicity is a good way to bring new people into gaming as a medium of interaction - but I think with such bad examples of what the medium can do, it's very likely more harmful than good. To argue in favor of encouraging simple games, I think, is disregarding the strong human tendency toward stereotyping. If you find that 5/5 of the people who've last robbed you are plumbers, you'll very likely distrust all plumbers - and I think, then, if you find the last 5/5 games you've played were time-wasters instead of a character-contributing activity, you'll assume the media as a whole is a waste of time (that said, there will always be a market for it for obvious reasons -- but people playing Angry Birds or Temple Runner outside of work breaks and at the DMV are committing a crime against humanity as far as I'm concerned). With older media like television and books, we all know there is depth to be found, and there's enough of a market established where everyone with common, cheap equipment can easily find and use these deep products (unlike with game platforms, all televisions can play virtually all its media -- having a 480p or lesser TV doesn't automatically mean you can't enjoy the depth of new products released on the medium). With games, though, there just aren't as many people convinced that a game can engage them because they've stereotyped it based on what they've seen or played, the vast majority being simple, usually Pavlovian, time-wasters. Games do this, again, because they're designed for the majority of people, a majority which has stereotyped games (and it's games' fault, not potential users') as being time-wasters designed for breaks or children.

Game streaming, if it (... or decent ISP infrastructure) ever takes off, might end up being the bridge between people unwilling to buy $1k+ in computer equipment required to play many of the deep, or at least complex, modern games. What would be interesting is a cheap open-source game console with rights secured to stream (through emulation) "exclusive" games from other console manufacturers' last-gen and previous games, as well as play/stream PC games, like Steam Box meets OnLive. In exchange for dramatically lower up-front costs than announced Steam Boxes, the box is able to stream games it's unable to run locally in a type of online rental format. There's no reason you then couldn't purchase a first-gen "Stream Box" and forever play the latest games, at least in the box's max resolution, while always being able to make up-front investments in buying the hardware upgrades needed to purchase the games to play locally if you want. You can technically do this with a PC now, but the process isn't well-streamlined (there's no rent-to-own options in streaming services AFAIK, and I don't know of any company than OnLive [and arguably MMOs, I guess] doing game streaming at all -- libraries are often extremely limited because the companies are using unlimited subscription models and buying the rights to stream games instead of using a more consignment-like model), and OTC PCs are often still unnecessarily big and ugly to set in a living room. If Steam or another deep-pocketed company were able to do that, I think it would open the floodgates of innovation. But... for now, it seems like closed-source clunkiness with piss-poor options to buy/play games and high barriers to entry for potential software designers/developers will be reality for a good while longer. However, the current F2P (P2W) and license-buying model for games and expensive upfront model for hardware (because they have to be able to play all games with cutting-edge technology locally) are both extremely primitive... it won't be with us forever. Everyone buying expensive hardware frequently going unused is horribly inefficient, and it'll change. Incidentally, Bitcoin (or a "lighter" cryptocurrency) would be perfect for an online pay-on-demand or rent-to-own structure of game streaming.

Games as a whole are also moving more towards the casual side. MMORPG's, for example, used to be hardcore. Now they are all (or almost all) catering to casual players as well, working to diminish any type of real competition that would otherwise be present.

The fact that handheld is degrading isn't completely correct. It's going from semi-hardcore (or hardcore in some cases) to casual. The games on iPhones and Android phones are usually being played by adults who aren't into gaming. They are becoming time killers rather than an actual constantly practiced activity.

I personally agree. Handheld consoles are not so popular and some where a major flop. I owned a psp original & still own a 3000. I loved the original psp when it first came out. But, I can't say that I use it regular any more. I normally just use it when I'm going away and can't fit the laptop or generally can't connect to the internet.

But, Android and IOS apps have really launched. I don't know why. Personally I can't play one for more than 10 minutes. They bore the **** out of me. I only use apps which help me carry around a portable calculator or business databases. Other than that I only use it for calling and receiving messages.

I think consoles are going the same way as handheld consoles. Not because they are not entertaining, because don't get me wrong I love them. But, because of the price, paying on line and all that other stuff which makes it...not enjoyable for the average user.

Consoles will only be popular among hardcore gamers. People who own their own business and/or work 5-6 days a week just don't get enough time. I rarely play on the console any more and to think paying for a on-line subscription when I'm not going to be using it regular, just doesn't make sense to me when I have a few computers lying around.

Obviously, I'm a big fan of PC, I converted to PC a very long time ago, but not entirely. I still used the consoles regular and loved them. But, the next GEN doesn't appeal to me what so ever.

This is kind of hard to say. 3DS is still pretty popular (although it doesn't have too many games). The PSP is (although Vita isn't really that popular). The problem here is more along the lines of developers shifting their focus more towards consoles than handhelds. Handhelds will always have a market because they give something to do when you're out and about, traveling and such.

I think handheld gaming is over. Gameboys were very popular with children and for a few years after the first PSP was released it was popular along with the DS, Lite, and DSi. Now there is the 3DS and PSP Vita which I don't think many people care about. Portable gaming has downgraded to mobile phone apps which are very below the PSP's level.

Microsoft will lose a lot, but that doesn't stop their 'loyal' fans coming back to them. Most people like to get the new gen consoles for status, or because their friends have it and are saying how awesome they are.
For people with half a brain will see that this console doesn't do any more than a PC does. Yet, you have added on stuff which you don't need and have to pay for on line subscriptions. With the PC, all you have to do is pay electricity bills and internet bills, which you would have to do with the Xbox/Ps4 anyway.

You can pick up a few cheap PC's which will run most modern games, for the exception of Battle field as that does take a lot of power if you want to run it on maximum settings. You can buy a controller if you really want to and use that instead of mouse & keyboard.

If you wanted to play locally with friends, tell them screw a Xbox/Ps4 and get a decent computer which they can come over yours and connect to you're local internet. Cheap & effective.
Doesn't take long to set-up either.

If you are going to get a console, then I WOULD recommend a PS4. That's if you want a dedicated gaming console and not a multimedia console.
The PS4 is a bit cheaper and will have faster bandwidth.
That being said, Xbox does have it's benefits. Such as the multimedia options. But, if you have a computer you have them anyway.

Interesting analogy but it's the reason why companies can screw over their customers. Even if a subsection (say 15%) of all customers had an issue, it would not be enough to push companies to change their ways, and therefore that subsection would likely cave in. As long as customers aren't standing up for what they believe in (dislike), this DRM and such is going to get worse and worse.

Maybe. I think most people aren't the ones who'd go out to the battlefield for something not that important as in that doesn't threaten their existance.

Sadly I don't think it's going to fail. While people complain about things they dislike, the vast majority won't follow through with boycotting. Just look at games like Sim City (the latest). Even with all the negativity floating around about it, they still had massive numbers of sales. Because people aren't willing to let "small" things keep them from enjoying what they've been waiting for.