Gaming One Step Closer (and I'm about to RROD): The Xbox One Discussion

I think that assessment is a logical one. Yet personally I find the mere idea of this outcome to be terrifying. Going by PSN and Xbox Live marketplace as it currently is you can see that games don't depreciate in value outside of a token sale every now and again. A digital download that's $60 at launch will remain at $60 2 years down the line. This is because unlike PC gaming there is no competition in the digital download market. You'll never see something like the Steam summer sale on Xbox because they have no direct competition challenging their revenue. Thus you would be less likely to find a bargain on console.

The day that consoles give up on physical media is the day I switch over to PC gaming entirely.

 

Yep, it removes the entire notion of a free market. Not that it's alone or without precedent - iTunes, Kindle etc, but it isn't something I care for and people, en masse, seem quite blind to the notion of what sole providers actually opens the door to in terms of monopolies and prices. iTunes at least has competition from the entire format of MP3 but Kindle? Quite different.

PSN game prices are utterly insane, nor does DLC depreciate either - the whole thing makes no sense except that it's a captive market, you can only buy this DLC via PSN at this price thus...

 

Maybe MS will fall and Valve's "SteamBox" take their place! Steam is digital done right. Then maybe have Halo on Steam hehe.

 

http://www.slashgear.com/xbox-one-e3-demos-were-played-on-windows-gaming-pcs-15286627/

The hits just keep on coming.

 

I'm not defending it, just correcting you that used games are allowed. And you don't know everything there is to know about the Xbox One and used games. I don't either, but I don't make assumptions like 'paying double the price'.

 

I'm not making assumptions about the Xbox One though. This was all in the official press release explaining what the Xbox One does. And I never said anything about paying double the price. I said I could expect to pay twice to play the content I already purchased.

 

I'm now sold on an XB1:
http://kotaku.com/xbox-one-lets-you-share-your-games-with-up-to-10-famil-511767763

Just to give reference, two people (the owner and a family member) can play one copy of the game at the same time. So, I could buy Battlefield, and my friend and I could play over live at the same time using my copy. This saves me tons in game costs, because I have reliable friends who I can divy up buying games with.

Two copies of a game to share > Sharing one copy of a physical disc which can't be played by two people at the same time.

 

I'll quote Microsoft on this: In our role as a game publisher, Microsoft Studios will enable you to give your games to friends or trade in your Xbox One games at participating retailers. Third party publishers may opt in or out of supporting game resale and may set up business terms or transfer fees with retailers. Microsoft does not receive any compensation as part of this. In addition, third party publishers can enable you to give games to friends.

So apparently not if it's a Microsoft published game or if the third party publisher says you won't.

The paying double was a bad assumption on my part, it's just what 'paying twice' means. It's the same business model as the online pass, though that affected every retailer, and not just independents. I'm not defending either here. If I was a publisher I'd let everyone do whatever with the game. It does allow an unscrupulous publisher to add a fee if they want though, and I don't recall hearing anyone saying whether they'll do that or not.

 

Isn't PS4 also doing the "share online" thing?

 

How would that be good for Battlefield since the two people can only play the SINGLE PLAYER version of the game?

No because people basically abused the system for piracy of digital titles on the PS3 and Sony nixxed it after publisher complaints.

 

For those who came in late, a helpful primer:

 

Got a link to say it's only the single player bit that's shared? I don't recall it being said either way.

 

It's the full game, not just the single player. Xbox Support said the two people could play together in co-op and multiplayer. And it includes DLC/Online Passes, if your implying that's why they couldn't play online. Also, EA's done with online passes anyways.

 

Actually it looks like only one person can play at a time:
http://penny-arcade.com/report/arti...ames-with-ten-family-members-but-some-details

 

The lisencing page does say: You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time.

The optimist thinks it's you playing and one other friend playing at the same time. The article says otherwise, so I'm hoping there will be official word on this.

 

I would change "hoping" to "expecting/demanding" myself, but yes, we'll see.

Of course, it's frustrating that after two big events we Still Don't Know (TM) an awful lot.

 

They made it clear that the shared copy != the copy the initial buyer bought. So, I could play with the person who bought the game. Two people can't play the same game if both of them are borrowing it from the same person.

 

These cool ideas just become less cool the more we learn about how they work.

 

That doesn't surprise me. I was actually wondering how the sharing idea could possibly work if it was like the initial assumptions people are making. Even if each games got shared only five times, that would have been five copies of the game that would never get sold. There had to be some kind of restriction.

 

There is. While you can share all your games with up to ten friends, you have to have been friends with them for at least a month. The person borrowing also needs to connect every hour. There's probably something else I'm missing here, but it's 5:30am and I haven't been awake long.

 

And it does seem that only one person can share the game with you at once. I actually wonder, though: which way is actually better for the publisher? If MS's way works as described, and it is really that easy to share a game, then might it not actually hurt sales? With a physical disc, if I want to share it, then I have to forgo playing the game for as long as my friend borrows it. If we want to play together, one of us has to fork out for another copy of the game or we have to get together on one console to split screen. MS's way sounds like it would encourage less people to actually buy a game, especially story-based single-player ones that you only play once every now and then.

 

It could reduce sales, but I can see it working the other way too. Had I known how good Fable 3 is I might have bought it a long time ago.

 

Xbox One E3 demos were apparently being run on high-end PCs using Nvidia Titan cards:
http://thelizardgamer.tumblr.com/post/52994447063

The Titan is about 3x more powerful than the GPU in the Xbox One. Microsoft is using an AMD GPU that's about equal to an AMD 7790. That is significantly less powerful than a Nvidia Titan, which is currently Nvidia's top of the line card before the 780 comes out!

 

Apparently microsoft are 'over delivering value' with the X1.
http://au.gamespot.com/news/microso...rice-point-were-over-delivering-value-6410352

I swear, every time this guy opens his mouth, I get the urge to reach through the computer screen and dope slap him. Because upping your price by $100 by including a gimmicky camera controller that a sizable portion of your consumer base won't use, while also making sure that your device is weaker in performance, is definitely 'value'.

 

I recently bought my lady an iPhone 5 for about $600. The X1's $500 price tag isn't that intimidating by comparison, seeing as how it's a full multimedia device and not just some over-glorified phone.