They call it the one because it took 359 steps backwards
My theory is they called it Xbox One because the target audience is too young to remember there ever being a Xbox 1.
Perhaps, but isn't a successor supposed to be called something that implies... Successor... Also my point about PSOne still stands. But then again that was from another era, a much more awesome era :P
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
Obviously the XboxOne reveal has divided many into camps. I am so far interested but skeptical.
For those who think the new Xbox is a complete disaster, I'd like to hear what you think Microsoft could have done differently to make it not suck?
Obviously the XboxOne reveal has divided many into camps. I am so far interested but skeptical.
For those who think the new Xbox is a complete disaster, I'd like to hear what you think Microsoft could have done differently to make it not suck?
You know, I'm still wondering when many of the console lovers will realize that the new consoles are immediately going to kill off anyone's chance of taking those shiny new games they bought back to Gamestop, or EB Games, etc. The way that Microsoft and Sony are now controlling their profits in order to assist themselves with gaining more profit and game developers as well seems like it's a great idea at first, until you get underneath the carpet of the marketing departments of these consoles. To game developers it's really enticing to know that (especially indie game devs) they'll actually see a paycheck from selling games, so the idea is to build for consoles, because not only is it easier to develop for, but it's making sure they get paid.
Could you clarify that bit for me? You're saying something about the used games argument right?
^Maybe for the upcoming batch of consoles. If it really does take off consoles will just imitate it and treat it as the greatest thing and "evolution" to console gaming. Or in the Xbox's case they will somehow merge it with kinect and call it a new experience.
They call it the one because it took 359 steps backwards
My theory is they called it Xbox One because the target audience is too young to remember there ever being a Xbox 1.
Perhaps, but isn't a successor supposed to be called something that implies... Successor... Also my point about PSOne still stands. But then again that was from another era, a much more awesome era :P
In a way you a right, When I was young and I played on my PlayStation, I was always entertained and haven't as much fun on games since I was that young. But maybe that has something to do with that when you're young things seem better anyway
To be honest this Xbox One (or Xbone), sound like the old DVR/webTV combo box they tired back in the early 2000 with DirectTV called Ultimate TV. I will be at E3 flying in later today.
To be honest this Xbox One (or Xbone), sound like the old DVR/webTV combo box they tired back in the early 2000 with DirectTV called Ultimate TV. I will be at E3 flying in later today.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
On one hand, I'm not going to criticize Microsoft for making many of the same smart moves that Valve has made. Granted, part of that is due to Valve's benevolent dictatorship, rather than the policies themselves being objectively good.
On the other hand, I'd rather use Steam because I think it is better in pretty much every way compared to GFWL.
MonkfishSonic-boom-inducing buttcheeks of terrifying speed!Join Date: 2003-06-03Member: 16972Members
Wasn't anything special. The trailers breaking and the sass mouth from the journos was pretty hilarious. Titanfall legitimately looked amazing and I'm glad it's coming to PC. When they announced the date and price people started to clap but immediately stopped when he said "$499!" a complete rip off.
^Especially when the PS3 is $399. But lol @ at how the PS4 started charging for online. I thought free online was one of the PS's strong points. Idk how people stand for paying for non dedicated servers. I also never knew so many playstation fans were okay with being charged $60 a year for online until today.
^Especially when the PS3 is $399. But lol @ at how the PS4 started charging for online. I thought free online was one of the PS's strong points. Idk how people stand for paying for non dedicated servers. I also never knew so many playstation fans were okay with being charged $60 a year for online until today.
Apparently it's only $5. You also get two free games every month you're subscribed.
If you can't afford an additional $5 for a hobby, you're most likely not their target audience for a $400 gaming system.
^Especially when the PS3 is $399. But lol @ at how the PS4 started charging for online. I thought free online was one of the PS's strong points. Idk how people stand for paying for non dedicated servers. I also never knew so many playstation fans were okay with being charged $60 a year for online until today.
Apparently it's only $5. You also get two free games every month you're subscribed.
If you can't afford an additional $5 for a hobby, you're most likely not their target audience for a $400 gaming system.
So if you want to play online it is 5 dollars a month. 5x12 is 60 dollars if you want to be playing online for a year. It's not about being able to afford 5 dollars a month because I am sure everyone can but mostly about what exactly it is you are paying for just to access the online portion of the games you buy. What if you do not care for those free games and just want to play online? Will there even be dedicated servers on all games if you pay or more peer to peer?
MonkfishSonic-boom-inducing buttcheeks of terrifying speed!Join Date: 2003-06-03Member: 16972Members
It's like everyone forgot that xbone's multiplayer will be gated behind a paywall too. Xbox live has gotten shittier every single year it's been out and PS+ is a vastly better service in every way shape and form and I was pro 360 this entire generation.
It'll be less than $5/mo and you get like what. $200+ in free games a year?
Don't know if it's legit or not but it wouldn't surprise me at all and it's worth keeping in mind.
I don't personally have a stake in this because I'm sticking with PC but Sony totally stomped yesterday, a lot of high roads taken.
Microsoft is having damage control at 2pm today. It's supposed to be a games presentation but they pretty much HAVE to respond to what Sony did to them. Should be an interesting watch.
It's like everyone forgot that xbone's multiplayer will be gated behind a paywall too. Xbox live has gotten shittier every single year it's been out and PS+ is a vastly better service in every way shape and form and I was pro 360 this entire generation.
It'll be less than $5/mo and you get like what. $200+ in free games a year?
I am not supporting the xbox either. The whole console business is pretty lame with paying for p2p online. I will probably pick up a PS4 if it gets exclusives I want mainly looking for good single player RPGs and 399 is pretty cheap but that online price just grinds my gears. Mostly because I have been playing on the PC for so long and have not had to pay any fees just to access the multiplayer portion of certain games. I mean if we had to pay 5 dollars a month to play NS2 and all other steam games online would you be ok with it as long as we got 1-2 older games?
MonkfishSonic-boom-inducing buttcheeks of terrifying speed!Join Date: 2003-06-03Member: 16972Members
If nobody paid for NS2 servers, how would you play it? I see where you're coming from about subscriptions for multiplayer but someone always has to pay for servers. It's not too far of a difference from a community pooling together with donations to keep the server alive.
If nobody paid for NS2 servers, how would you play it? I see where you're coming from about subscriptions for multiplayer but someone always has to pay for servers. It's not too far of a difference from a community pooling together with donations to keep the server alive.
Hm I was under the impression most current gen consoles run off peer to peer which means no dedicated servers. If the newer consoles do have dedicated servers for all games then I can understand the price. If not then why are you paying to just host the game on either your console or another player's console?
If nobody paid for NS2 servers, how would you play it? I see where you're coming from about subscriptions for multiplayer but someone always has to pay for servers. It's not too far of a difference from a community pooling together with donations to keep the server alive.
Servers aren't free, but afaik Sony doesn't let you host your own server for free online play. If they did so and only charged for access to their services and servers, then it'd be fine. They essentially have a monopoly on online PS4 gaming which is pretty much abhorrent for any PC gamer.
Comments
For those who think the new Xbox is a complete disaster, I'd like to hear what you think Microsoft could have done differently to make it not suck?
I guess we're sheep now.
"Microsoft has cancelled its #E3 post-press conference roundtable w/ the media. Not sure what to make of that." Yup, that bodes well.
PC wins before it even gets launched.
In a way you a right, When I was young and I played on my PlayStation, I was always entertained and haven't as much fun on games since I was that young. But maybe that has something to do with that when you're young things seem better anyway
On the other hand, I'd rather use Steam because I think it is better in pretty much every way compared to GFWL.
Apparently it's only $5. You also get two free games every month you're subscribed.
If you can't afford an additional $5 for a hobby, you're most likely not their target audience for a $400 gaming system.
So if you want to play online it is 5 dollars a month. 5x12 is 60 dollars if you want to be playing online for a year. It's not about being able to afford 5 dollars a month because I am sure everyone can but mostly about what exactly it is you are paying for just to access the online portion of the games you buy. What if you do not care for those free games and just want to play online? Will there even be dedicated servers on all games if you pay or more peer to peer?
It'll be less than $5/mo and you get like what. $200+ in free games a year?
Don't know if it's legit or not but it wouldn't surprise me at all and it's worth keeping in mind.
I don't personally have a stake in this because I'm sticking with PC but Sony totally stomped yesterday, a lot of high roads taken.
Microsoft is having damage control at 2pm today. It's supposed to be a games presentation but they pretty much HAVE to respond to what Sony did to them. Should be an interesting watch.
I am not supporting the xbox either. The whole console business is pretty lame with paying for p2p online. I will probably pick up a PS4 if it gets exclusives I want mainly looking for good single player RPGs and 399 is pretty cheap but that online price just grinds my gears. Mostly because I have been playing on the PC for so long and have not had to pay any fees just to access the multiplayer portion of certain games. I mean if we had to pay 5 dollars a month to play NS2 and all other steam games online would you be ok with it as long as we got 1-2 older games?
Hm I was under the impression most current gen consoles run off peer to peer which means no dedicated servers. If the newer consoles do have dedicated servers for all games then I can understand the price. If not then why are you paying to just host the game on either your console or another player's console?