Xbone and Ps4 Pre-Orders

[Jack Brickman]

By the way, just in case anyone here wasn't convinced that JSS2306 was totally full of shit last night, Amazon now has two different versions of each console: a Launch Day (or Day One) edition and a Standard Edition. The only difference is that they can't guarantee customers a copy of the Standard Edition on launch day. If you pre-ordered a Launch Day edition, you should get yours on launch day, and you won't have to pay until it ships.

 

[Walter White]

I don't even have cable. So that makes the Xbox so so much more pointless.

 

[FiveThous]

PS4 is giving the developers the option to use DRM so not all games are going to be able to be traded in. It really depends on what the publisher wants to do. I dont think this is going to be as big a deal as people are saying. If you give the developers the ability to control pricing you may see games drop to $45 for example after the game has been out 3 months. I think you are looking at the future of how the gaming market will work and ps4 will eventually switch over to it too if they want to keep better publishers on there platform.

 

[DDJ7777]

PS4 is giving the developers the option to use DRM so not all games are going to be able to be traded in. It really depends on what the publisher wants to do. I dont think this is going to be as big a deal as people are saying. If you give the developers the ability to control pricing you may see games drop to $45 for example after the game has been out 3 months. I think you are looking at the future of how the gaming market will work and ps4 will eventually switch over to it too if they want to keep better publishers on there platform.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[FiveThous]

Why are all of these previous exclusives to sony already making the jump to be on xboxone?

 

[gourimoko]

First, just want to say thanks for the thoughtful response.

I'll be buying one, so I'll explain why. I'm a big fan of the 360, and a large part of that is the ease of use which comes with Xbox marketplace. While the PS4 demo seemed to indicate they are putting more emphasis on developing a more robust OS system, I'm more or less in a wait and see approach with it.

I've got a Kinect and a Move for each system, and to be honest both of them were big disappointments IMO. That said, my 8 year old daughter loves Dance Central on Xbox, and even though she isn't really any good at it, she plays it all of the time. The biggest weakness behind the Kinect is the poor way it's been utilized. I'd rather have it enhance a game rather than function as a device. (Use voice commands in game, lean your head to change perspective, etc.) Basically, the controller is already an Apex device, the Kinect should enhance it's usage, not replace it. There are some signs that will be a focus of the Xbox One, but we'll see.

I've also had issues with the Kinect's effectiveness in our living room because we have a very large coffee table which obscures the player from the waist down. Now, I can move the table out of the way, but it's certainly an annoyance, and I'd rather just leave it in place. I'm not sure if that will be a consideration moving forward, but I really hope it is. I also get tired of having to stand up to play games. It needs to be effective from the couch.

I do think the Kinect will eventually get better, however, AFAIK this version of Kinect probably won't address the issues you specified. To that end, does it concern you that you will need to actually disconnect the power from the Xbox One in order to turn off the Kinect? That is to say, do you have any concerns that the Kinect is constantly recording your home - at least the audio, at all times, even when the Xbox One is powered down? Considering the recent news that the NSA is collecting data and is in league with Microsoft, is that of any concern to you?

But the design of the device working as an entertainment hub is very appealing. Technology has been constantly moving towards a unifying device, but we never seem to get there. This might be the one which finally removes my need to maintain a $150 a month cable bill, which is really paid to watch sports, HBO, AMC and the Disney Channel. Voice commands to replace 3 remotes? Yes please.

This is great, but do you think Microsoft has the ability to muscle out the cable companies? I've heard Microsoft and Apple both say these things before, promising to replace traditional home media - but it hasn't happened. I don't exactly know how an HDMI input will help in this regard considering DVR capabilities are offered from any cable company anyway as X has said earlier. Yes, there will be an OSD, and the Xbox will constantly be functioning as an extension of your television, which is cool and is certainly an advantage the Xbox has over PS4; but with that said, I don't know if this single feature outweighs the cons as well as the price difference.

I like the exclusives they are rolling out for the system, including Halo and Spark. Dead Rising 3 will be a fun game, though I could live without it. But the only PS4 exclusive I'd have interest in is Infamous, and I'm not convinced that won't be a PC port before it's all said and done.

Malt, I guarantee you, almost all of these games for both consoles will eventually be PC ports because both consoles are x86 systems for the first time in history. A good example is the original Xbox which really brought "Games for Windows" into being simply because porting games from the Xbox 1 to the PC was fairly simple. I think both of these consoles will have fewer exclusive titles in their continuing years as they roll out, as it makes less sense for developers to only develop for one and not both.

Finally, as to the big drawbacks of the system, they aren't really game breakers for me. I haven't bought a used game in at least 2 years, so that doesn't bother me. I imagine, if all other things are equal, the DRM will lead to stronger exclusive launches for the XBox down the road, because their system is more developer friendly.

The DRM, imho, will likely lead to Sony winning this round of the console war. I'd be surprised if Sony didn't end 2014 with a double-digit lead in next-gen adoption. I think that will be much larger factor for publishers who ultimately decide what platform particular titles are developed. I do think the Xbox One will have more titles than the PS4 simply because of it's support of DirectX - but in the age of Apple and Android (neither of which use DirectX) there are many more developers in the market today that are very comfortable with SDL or OpenGL. This creates a completely different landscape than what we observed for the last two console iterations. So we'll just have to wait and see.

My Xbox 360 is constantly running online already, and I don't borrow games. I certainly understand how these are game breakers for a lot of people, they just don't really affect me.

I can understand that, but I also think as consumers we have a responsibility to hold companies accountable for what most likely consider overreaches. Microsoft is changing the concept of software ownership by eliminating the usefulness and re-usability of physical media. I think consumers should tell Microsoft what they think about being stripped of that ability by looking at alternatives, even if the Xbox One offers some nice new features.

Up until now, I've supported all of the major consoles simultaneously. I already bought a Wii U for my daughter, though the game support has been TERRIBLE so far. They really need to start bringing some big Nintendo exclusives to the table. The PS3 has been rarely used in this house, though The Last of Us may end up justifying that system's purchase before it's all said and done. I guess my point is, I may end up with both the Xbox and the PS4 before it's all said and done, but I'm not in a hurry to get both. I'll start with the Xbox, because I've appreciated Microsoft's support and I like the company's vision of a entertainment hub, I'm just hoping they deliver in all the ways they didn't with the Kinect.

Considering the differences between the two, is Kinect and the OSD TV feature worth $100 for a graphically inferior console that imposes such tight DRM restrictions? Is it worth the loss of privacy? I'm just wondering where do you draw the line and say "yes, this is a cool feature (kinect, hdmi-in), but I can't deal with the reduced graphics, higher price, DRM, and privacy issues."

 

[gourimoko]

Why are all of these previous exclusives to sony already making the jump to be on xboxone?

Because they were likely written using SDL, which is easily ported to DirectX. Both consoles are binary compatible, and Sony probably isn't as aggressive in buying off publishers to compensate for loss of sales in order to ensure exclusivity. So from the developers, and more importantly the publishers, standpoint, it makes less and less sense to develop a game for a single console.

 

[gourimoko]

PS4 is giving the developers the option to use DRM so not all games are going to be able to be traded in. It really depends on what the publisher wants to do. I dont think this is going to be as big a deal as people are saying. If you give the developers the ability to control pricing you may see games drop to $45 for example after the game has been out 3 months. I think you are looking at the future of how the gaming market will work and ps4 will eventually switch over to it too if they want to keep better publishers on there platform.

PS4's DRM is no different than what is presently in-use for the 360 or PS3. Developer's can employ whatever DRM they see fit.

 

[KB]

PS4's DRM is no different than what is presently in-use for the 360 or PS3. Developer's can employ whatever DRM they see fit.

Saw this post and here are a few articles (posted in E3 thread)

One on MS and 2 on the PS4 and an interview with Ryan, they guy that heads the EU market.

Really interesting and he said the same thing about PS4 and DRM, I'll add the question and response as the last qoute

:thumbdown

http://www.vg247.com/2013/06/12/no-internet-get-an-xbox-360-says-microsoft/

No Internet? Get an Xbox 360, says Microsoft
Story by Brenna Hillier Wed, Jun 12, 2013 | 03:18 BST

If you haven’t got access to Internet so the Xbox One can phone home once a day – because you’re in the military, or live in one of the millions of cities worldwide where Internet just isn’t that great – you can just buy an Xbox 360, one Microsoft executive has said.

Speaking to GameTrailers, Xbox’s Don Mattrick dropped a quote which I would almost describe as “tasty flamebait”.

“We have a product for people who aren’t able to get some form of connectivity; it’s called Xbox 360,” he said.

“If you have zero access to the Internet, that is an offline device.”

Mattrick said that Xbox One has been “created for gamers, by gamers” and that commentators need to see how the always-on requirement works before they judge it.

“I think in the long run, we’ll build a global leading product that people are going to love and embrace,” he said.

“It’s very important to them and they’re opinionated. And they’re smart. So they look at all those things and say ‘Hey, is this going to impact me in a negative way?’ And until you use it, it’s really hard to understand what all the advantages are.”

Thanks, Gamespot.

But Sony?



http://www.vg247.com/2013/06/12/pla...ery-fragile-ecosystem-by-allowing-used-games/

Wed, Jun 12, 2013 | 03:56 BST Story by Brenna Hillier
PlayStation 4 to help protect retail’s “very fragile ecosystem” by allowing used games


If the PlayStation 4 blocked used games, retailers who get by on profit from trade-ins could find themselves at risk – something Sony’s not willing to accept, SCE Europe boss Jim Ryan told us.

Speaking to VG247 at E3 2013, Ryan said there are several reasons why Sony isn’t keen on blocking used games.

“The gaming eco-system in the UK is a somewhat fragile one,” he said.

“We all know just how difficult it is for retailers, and while we’re never going to make a policy decision to cushion the lives of video game retailers in a particular market, it’s a factor that we need our retail partners to survive and hopefully prosper.

“That very fragile ecosystem is one I feel shouldn’t be lightly tampered with.”

The UK’s games retail scene has been very patchy of late. Last year, mega-chain Game nearly shuttered completely, resurrected at the last minute in severely reduced form by a buy-out, and HMV suffered a similar fate this year.

PlayStation has, over the past two generations, enjoyed greater success in the UK and Europe than Xbox, so it’s understandable Sony would move to shelter those markets. Conversely, Microsoft has been dominant in the US throughout the Xbox 360′s lifetime.

Ryan also noted that many territories under his guard don’t have the kind of Internet access the Xbox One will demand, and that Sony isn’t willing to alienate those markets

Also here is an interview with Jim Ryan, president of SCE Europe, from the site on a whole bunch of different things from DRM to always on connections

Not posting the article, just a link

http://www.vg247.com/2013/06/12/ps4-boss-‘we-will-launch-with-all-guns-blazing’/

How important is it to be seen as less restrictive to the core? It’s fair to say that you exploited an opportunity in the press conference. Do you think this DRM issue is restricted to the core user-base, or does it have potential to bleed out into the wider market?


There are various dimensions to this. If we consider the issue of an online connection being required; I look after a very large number of territories, including lots of places in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa and India, where internet connectivity is not all that widespread in the home. If you’re talking about a mass level, an issue like that is very fundamental. We take a long-term view on those markets, and we invest heavily in them. In those places it isn’t a core gamer issue: it’s a fundamental issue.

There are various levels on which you can look at these things. The gaming eco-system in the UK is a somewhat fragile one. That’s another factor. We all know just how difficult it is for retailers, and while we’re never going to make a policy decision to cushion the lives of video game retailers in a particular market, it’s a factor that we need our retail partners to survive and hopefully prosper. That very fragile ecosystem is one I feel shouldn’t be lightly tampered with.

I want to be clear on this. If a publisher dictates it, will PS4 not play a used game? Say, for the sake of argument, EA says that Battlefield 4 can only be played with a new license: will PS4 actually stop a used copy of that game being played?

It’s a very fair question. They’re allowed to do something like the Online Pass feature, which doesn’t block or stop it…

It just gives an option to pay.

It gives an option to charge. I don’t think they can block it.

PR: If it involves system changes to PS4, then they can’t do it.

Ryan: Can we check that?

PR: Absolutely.

Ryan: It’s a fair question, and one I should know the answer to. Basically, what we’re saying is that there’s no change from current-gen to next-gen. That’s basically all we’re saying. And very much the way the tide is going on current-gen is that people are not pursuing the Online Pass thing. It’s being dropped. I mean, some publishers have gone bankrupt and others are dropping it. We’re dropping it ourselves. It’s a fair question, but I view it, maybe naively, as somewhat hypothetical.

 

[gourimoko]

^^ Exactly. What Microsoft is doing is basically unprecedented. It takes what Steam does to an entirely new level, without the benefits of Steam. It's simply too restrictive.

 

[FiveThous]

^^ Exactly. What Microsoft is doing is basically unprecedented. It takes what Steam does to an entirely new level, without the benefits of Steam. It's simply too restrictive.

I just don't agree with this. I think giving publishers the ability to have input on their pricing is only going to help game sales. Most used games today require you to buy a pass anyways like the article said. So by the time you buy the game used and add on the pass wouldn't it be better to just buy it new straight from the developer? Maybe I'm biased because I take all my games online.

 

[gourimoko]

I just don't agree with this. I think giving publishers the ability to have input on their pricing is only going to help game sales. Most used games today require you to buy a pass anyways like the article said. So by the time you buy the game used and add on the pass wouldn't it be better to just buy it new straight from the developer? Maybe I'm biased because I take all my games online.

I've always been against the concept of paying for activation. We've always had a software industry that thrived on selling perpetual licenses that were transferable between individuals. Licenses were based on installations, seats, not persons. What the industry is attempting to do is increase profitability at the expense of consumer rights to ownership. So I take exception to the concept from an ideological standpoint.

From a practical standpoint, it is more restrictive than any other form of DRM yet deployed. It is designed not to combat piracy, but specifically to destroy the middle-man retailer in GameStop. This doesn't increase video game sales, it simply consolidates those sales specifically to publishers and manufacturers (not necessarily developers).

Is this good for gaming? No I don't think so.

As I said previously, the video game industry has always followed the PC software industry standard of perpetual licenses. We are not in a new golden age of video gaming, and most games these days are unintuitive rehashes of other games that recycle the same engines, textures, play schemes, control, etc. I don't see how increasing profitability somehow changes this. What we need is an advancement in R&D and greater experimentation with new technologies like virtual reality, artificial intelligence, procedural asset creation, and better cloud computing.

 

[ClevelandOwnz]

Did the Playstation Launch editions get sold out on Amazon.com? or were they just never put up yet...

 

[N7RobBob]

I've always been against the concept of paying for activation. We've always had a software industry that thrived on selling perpetual licenses that were transferable between individuals. Licenses were based on installations, seats, not persons. What the industry is attempting to do is increase profitability at the expense of consumer rights to ownership. So I take exception to the concept from an ideological standpoint.

From a practical standpoint, it is more restrictive than any other form of DRM yet deployed. It is designed not to combat piracy, but specifically to destroy the middle-man retailer in GameStop. This doesn't increase video game sales, it simply consolidates those sales specifically to publishers and manufacturers (not necessarily developers).

Is this good for gaming? No I don't think so.

As I said previously, the video game industry has always followed the PC software industry standard of perpetual licenses. We are not in a new golden age of video gaming, and most games these days are unintuitive rehashes of other games that recycle the same engines, textures, play schemes, control, etc. I don't see how increasing profitability somehow changes this. What we need is an advancement in R&D and greater experimentation with new technologies like virtual reality, artificial intelligence, procedural asset creation, and better cloud computing.

Your last paragraph sums it up perfectly. The industry needs innovation, slight advancements on control schemes can only go so far in each new life cycle. Radical ideas like Occulus Rift need to find someone way to be implemented on a wider scope. Being able to be fully immersed in a world is what needs to be striven for, not just interactive stories.

Showing off games with unique gameplay ideas are good, like Ubisoft's the Division, but i don't know many gamers who actually talk like these guys actually talk in the demo. It's not true voice acting, just simulating how people interact:

[video=youtube;FFHwI-DvYrM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFHwI-DvYrM[/video]

I just hope for the best for this industry. Hopefully they don't completely lean towards the greedy side and continue to push innovative ideas to the forefront and not just rehash games on a yearly basis. Also, I hope gamers can hold out for better games with overall better ideas.

 

[Spectre]

Microsoft just got greedy because of the success of the 360. They seem to be forgetting that Playstation was a freaking juggernaut before the 360/Wii came out and that toxic word of mouth could easily swing market share back to Sony (and probably has).

You know you've screwed the pooch when people are cheering your competitor's system at E3 for touting "features" that have been available to consoles going back to Atari. They're going to lose the console war without even swinging a punch.

I was a loyal convert to Xbox with the 360 after being a Nintendo guy for years and would've blindly bought the Xbone if they didn't mangle the reveal but I'm seriously considering getting a PS4. It's a cheaper, better machine that is much less restrictive and seems to care more about gaming than about being a TV/entertainment device. Halo is nice and all but in no way is it enough to get me to buy a console.

I'm going to love watching the Xbone release. Every single big online-only release thus far has been a colossal failure that created toxic word of mouth (Diablo 3, Sim City) and I'd be surprised if a console launch is any different. Microsoft is right that most people will have internet but what happens when THEIR end goes down? People aren't going to be too happy with their shiny $500 bricks on release day.

I'm hoping Microsoft changes their plans so I can at least weigh the two for their ACTUAL features but if they don't, Sony may have just won a new customer without even trying.