PS4 vs XBOX One - Summary of Features To Date

[Dutch 874]

I wouldn't feel comfortable with an AI that can recognize my face regardless of the purpose.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Guys... The Kinect 2 is harmless. It's not an I, Robot...

 

It has to be plugged into the X1 at all times but that's because it's a part of the console. The owner decides how far the Kinect goes. You chose the settings for the Kinect when you set it up...

[Bucman 891]

Xbox, suck my dick

[Bay 2,003]

JD vs Thanny. Both well-known arguers who type essay-length posts to state their argument.

 

This is gonna be good.

 

 

 

 

Some of those Favre vs. Dmac battles were awesome lol

[BucD+ 648]

I've never been exclusive to one or the other (Sony vs. Microsoft) with consoles...I've always had both (eventually...not trying to brag...part of my point...) but if I had any preference AT ALL it would be Sony's consoles as I've always just preferred their controller over Microsoft's controller...

 

Funny thing is...my favorite console (even to this day) has been the Dreamcast and that controller was gawd awful...go figure...

 

I just cannot see myself spending money (much less $500) on a system that I'd have to jump through hoops to do shit on or with etc.

 

I'll most likely never have two different consoles ever again. I don't game like I used to to warrant it. But I could/might if my son wants the XBOne...but it'd be his...and in his room...

 

For what it's worth, I've LOVED the entertainment provided by Twitter, fanboys, here and the E3 conferences etc.

Edited June 14, 2013 by BucD

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

I've never been exclusive to one or the other (Sony vs. Microsoft) with consoles...I've always had both (eventually...not trying to brag...part of my point...) but if I had any preference AT ALL it would be Sony's consoles as I've always just preferred their controller over Microsoft's controller...

 

Funny thing is...my favorite console (even to this day) has been the Dreamcast and that controller was gawd awful...go figure...

 

I just cannot see myself spending money (much less $500) on a system that I'd have to jump through hoops to do shit on or with etc.

 

I'll most likely never have two different consoles ever again. I don't game like I used to to warrant it. But I could/might if my son wants the XBOne...but it'd be his...and in his room...

 

For what it's worth, I've LOVED the entertainment provided by Twitter, fanboys, here and the E3 conferences etc.

 

It has only begun.

[Vin+ 3,121]

[Thanatos 2,847]

You accept Steam as a necessary evil, but act like Microsoft is the devil.

 

Steam controls practically every PC game ever created. Obviously we can't say all, because not every game requires steam. But to play a vast majority of PC games these days you actually have to have steam running at all times.

 

They can add almost literally anything to their Terms of Service and you have to agree to it whether you like it or not because if you don't, you have no access to their services (Not a big deal) or the library you have put together.

 

You don't control your own property.... Steam does.

 

And when you control such an overwhelming % of the market share as steam does, you are allowing many more problems into the fold. What happens in a career where everyone gets paid the same with little to no incentive of moving up in that particular field? In that atmosphere, there is no motivation to do better than others and the end product will suffer int he end. It's exactly what's happening to developers working with and requiring you to use Steam to play their games.

 

The group of "fanboys" talking up Steam is probably worse than any group of people supporting Xbox or Sony combined. It's almost.. no, it's quite creepy. For most of them, and for most PC gamers anyway... Their entire existence and being on the format revolves around Steam.

 

They allow Steam to run their gaming lives simply as a means for convenience. All for what? For a bunch of achievements? For cheap titles?

 

('You' in a general sense)

 

Congratulations... As a PC gamer (if you love Steam like Kel Mitchell loves orange soda), you have advocated for an established monopoly on the industry that bypasses the rights of PC gamers everywhere in order to save $5.

 

You are a sellout.

 

Thanatos is right, Steam and XBone aren't the same. Steam is much, much worse.

 

Are you fucking kidding me right now? You have got to be joking. Steam is much much worse than Xbox One? That's the most ludicrous statement in this entire thread. First off, I have plenty of games that do not require Steam to run: Sacred 2, Civilization series, Sins of a Solar Empire, Singularity, the Mass Effect series, the Witcher series, Assassins's Creed uses its own DRM from Ubisoft, (and its shit), Kingdoms of Amalur- hell I think I have more games that don't use Steam than do.

 

You can spout your "monopolies are terrible" all you want, but that hasn't been the case with Steam. Who, btw, is only a monopoly because they are very damn good at what they do. EA's Origin and Ubisoft's Uplay have both tried to get into the market and they're both absolutely terrible. The key to DRM that is acceptable is that you don't notice its there. The problem with DRM is that it treats customers like pirates and gives them more problems than the pirates, that is not the case with Steam.

 

Due to people such as those in the thread I had earlier, who believe it isn't stealing to download your games for free, we simply cannot have a world where there are games with no DRM without the company taking a huge risk. Again, bringing up TW2, from a company, (CDProjekt Red), that a lot of gamers love because of their refusal to put DRM on their games. They were pirated at a rate of 4 to 1. 4 games pirated for every one game sold.

 

You're painting this huge brush over the entirety of the PC gaming community as if we all love Steam. We don't. There is simply nothing else to do. To try to get companies to remove all DRM is a naive, (and lost), fight. Not only will they not do it, if they did do it, the pirates would be all over that game, (as proven by TW2 and multiple others).

 

The fanboys trying to protect the Xbox One by an attack on Steam are just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. They are nothing at all alike.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Thanatos19

[Dutch 874]

Are you fucking kidding me right now? You have got to be joking. Steam is much much worse than Xbox One? That's the most ludicrous statement in this entire thread. First off, I have plenty of games that do not require Steam to run: Sacred 2, Civilization series, Sins of a Solar Empire, Singularity, the Mass Effect series, the Witcher series, Assassins's Creed uses its own DRM from Ubisoft, (and its shit), Kingdoms of Amalur- hell I think I have more games that don't use Steam than do.

 

You can spout your "monopolies are terrible" all you want, but that hasn't been the case with Steam. Who, btw, is only a monopoly because they are very damn good at what they do. EA's Origin and Ubisoft's Uplay have both tried to get into the market and they're both absolutely terrible. The key to DRM that is acceptable is that you don't notice its there. The problem with DRM is that it treats customers like pirates and gives them more problems than the pirates, that is not the case with Steam.

 

Due to people such as those in the thread I had earlier, who believe it isn't stealing to download your games for free, we simply cannot have a world where there are games with no DRM without the company taking a huge risk. Again, bringing up TW2, from a company, (CDProjekt Red), that a lot of gamers love because of their refusal to put DRM on their games. They were pirated at a rate of 4 to 1. 4 games pirated for every one game sold.

 

You're painting this huge brush over the entirety of the PC gaming community as if we all love Steam. We don't. There is simply nothing else to do. To try to get companies to remove all DRM is a naive, (and lost), fight. Not only will they not do it, if they did do it, the pirates would be all over that game, (as proven by TW2 and multiple others).

 

The fanboys trying to protect the Xbox One by an attack on Steam are just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. They are nothing at all alike.

 

[Bucman 891]

I've been hearing from people playing Ryse at E3 that you can fuck up the button your suppose to press and it still will do the kill animation and when Crytek was asked if this was a glitch or not, they said "No, we didn't wanna frustrate the gamers".

Edited June 15, 2013 by Bucman

[funnygunny 521]

The group of "fanboys" talking up Steam is probably worse than any group of people supporting Xbox or Sony combined. It's almost.. no, it's quite creepy. For most of them, and for most PC gamers anyway... Their entire existence and being on the format revolves around Steam.

 

They allow Steam to run their gaming lives simply as a means for convenience. All for what? For a bunch of achievements? For cheap titles?

 

('You' in a general sense)

 

Congratulations... As a PC gamer (if you love Steam like Kel Mitchell loves orange soda), you have advocated for an established monopoly on the industry that bypasses the rights of PC gamers everywhere in order to save $5.

 

You are a sellout.

 

Thanatos is right, Steam and XBone aren't the same. Steam is much, much worse.

 

Well Than put it better than I ever could. I'll just emphasise why Steam is better in every infinite set of every infinite universe in everything every ever.

 

How else are PC games supposed to be controlled. There is literally no other way except for ONE company to decide they want to control digital gaming for the convinience of GAMERS. If there was no Steam or any form of client that controlled digital gaming, how much worse would piracy be. Smaller companies and indie companies (and devs Steam promotes through kickstarter) would have no chance.

 

On the other hand, let's take a look at what you support if you buy an XBOX One.

 

1. 24 hour DRM. Being able to play offline for only ONE hour. I don't think you realise how bad this is. Coz fuck people who don't have internet or have shitty connections. Fuck people who live in rural areas. And fuck poor people too. Purchasing an XBox is the same as openly saying "I hate poor people." You don't hate poor people, do you? Usually internet connections are only required for games that develop even when you aren't on (they're called MMOs). You're supporting Microsoft applying that to every single game, even if there is no form of online multiplayer. Why is steam better? No DRM (or 1-time DRM). Simple. You don't have to "check in" every single fucking hour to play a game. The game you pay for is YOUR game. They go out of their way to ENSURE companies don't enforce pointless DRM because they actually give a shit about the target audience for games, that is gamers btw.

 

2. Putting restrictions on gamers. After you pay full price for a game, you are allowing them to impose restrictions and dictate what you do with the game. You support Microsoft telling you what you can or can't do with your purchase.

 

3. You hate sharing. You wanna borrow my game, that I purchased? Sorry, you have to be on my friends list for 30 days and you can be the only one the borrows it. Everyone else has to pay money because the game isn't actually mine. THE GAME YOU BUY, ISNT YOURS. MICROSOFT OWNS IT. Steam doesn't fucking do that. You are renting a game from Microsoft that is digitally uploaded to your XBox. Coz fuck having a physical copy of the disc. That's cool now, to have your games managed by CLOUD. There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO POINT WHATSOEVER of even having a physical copy of the disc. Microsoft just destroyed the point of consoles for profit and you support this.

 

4. Again, you fucking hate sharing. No more used games 4 u l0l. This is CONSOLE GAMING. Microsoft are effectively turning your XBox into a "24 hour check-in for games" PC, except its doesn't come with the benefits of a PC. Fuck all those businesses that profit off used games, they're gone now.

 

But Steam is waaaaaaaaaay worse, right

[Bucman 891]

Well Than put it better than I ever could. I'll just emphasise why Steam is better in every infinite set of every infinite universe in everything every ever.

 

How else are PC games supposed to be controlled. There is literally no other way except for ONE company to decide they want to control digital gaming for the convinience of GAMERS. If there was no Steam or any form of client that controlled digital gaming, how much worse would piracy be. Smaller companies and indie companies (and devs Steam promotes through kickstarter) would have no chance.

 

On the other hand, let's take a look at what you support if you buy an XBOX One.

 

1. 24 hour DRM. Being able to play offline for only ONE hour. I don't think you realise how bad this is. Coz fuck people who don't have internet or have shitty connections. Fuck people who live in rural areas. And fuck poor people too. Purchasing an XBox is the same as openly saying "I hate poor people." You don't hate poor people, do you? Usually internet connections are only required for games that develop even when you aren't on (they're called MMOs). You're supporting Microsoft applying that to every single game, even if there is no form of online multiplayer. Why is steam better? No DRM (or 1-time DRM). Simple. You don't have to "check in" every single fucking hour to play a game. The game you pay for is YOUR game. They go out of their way to ENSURE companies don't enforce pointless DRM because they actually give a shit about the target audience for games, that is gamers btw.

 

2. Putting restrictions on gamers. After you pay full price for a game, you are allowing them to impose restrictions and dictate what you do with the game. You support Microsoft telling you what you can or can't do with your purchase.

 

3. You hate sharing. You wanna borrow my game, that I purchased? Sorry, you have to be on my friends list for 30 days and you can be the only one the borrows it. Everyone else has to pay money because the game isn't actually mine. THE GAME YOU BUY, ISNT YOURS. MICROSOFT OWNS IT. Steam doesn't fucking do that. You are renting a game from Microsoft that is digitally uploaded to your XBox. Coz fuck having a physical copy of the disc. That's cool now, to have your games managed by CLOUD. There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO POINT WHATSOEVER of even having a physical copy of the disc. Microsoft just destroyed the point of consoles for profit and you support this.

 

4. Again, you fucking hate sharing. No more used games 4 u l0l. This is CONSOLE GAMING. Microsoft are effectively turning your XBox into a "24 hour check-in for games" PC, except its doesn't come with the benefits of a PC. Fuck all those businesses that profit off used games, they're gone now.

 

But Steam is waaaaaaaaaay worse, right

That is actually wrong. You can be offline for 23 hours and 59 minutes before you have to check in. But yes the Xbox One has many flaws that HAVE to be fixed, some of the things they're doing shouldn't be legal. Buy a game on the Xbox is almost like leasing a car, you pay for it but in reality you really don't own it.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

While I don't wanna get all in this because I have no clue what STEAM is and I've never heard of it (unless we're talking about the steam from heating water and suff), but I feel like a lot of stuff is being thrown around that are either off, or completely wrong... Or misunderstood.

 

MS is not trying to completely restrict gamers to the point where they can't share, or make you feel less like you own the game... But trying to move into what they, and frankly stats, show to probably be the future of gaming. And that's digital gaming.

 

It's expanding more and more, and I read a article about how it's soon going to be a necessity by most of the bigger 3rd party developers. And MS wants to lead that revolution, instead of falling to the wayside and playing catch-up.

 

Being that moving into a digital age is MS' goal, DRM- and the need to be online at least once a day becomes a necessity for obvious reasons that I hope wouldn't even need to be explained. The game is still yours, you can still do whatever you want with the disc, and whether or not you, 1) have to digitally install it, or 2) want to sell the disc, depends solely on the game developers, and the retail companies... Not Microsoft.

 

And they have even multiple times come out saying that they don't make any money in that transaction unless they themselves as a 1st party developer make the game, and they have also said that the games they make will allow you to be able to sell the game, or physically give it to a friend -Granted they are a corporation out to make money so whether that's a lie that they will break, or just half truth is to be seen. But this keeps falling on deaf ears of people who already have their pitchforks out at MS.

 

Which is the reason why they expanded this sharing library stuff to 10 "family members". And allowing so many additional perks with just one person have an XBL Gold membership. Because while they realize that this is no easy demand to make of people who may purchase their system, it's believed to be the inevitable way the industry is heading. Sony might have to develop a DRM extremely similar if MS' if the industry becomes more and more the way that MS sees it happening... Once again, playing catch-up. And IDK about you guys but, I've been playing games online with friends for over 4, 5 years now... And I have never at any point shared a physical copy of my game with more then like, 8-9 people, and even then, I started that when I became a college student and have lived in halls. so this whole sharing thing really isn't that big of a deal, unless if you really plan on sharing your copy of a game with like, 10+ people...

 

And this is even more convenient now because those possible 8,9 people unless if they are total strangers won't have to wait until I'm done or someone else is done with my physical copy of the game... They can play it at any time right outa my library if they have XBL...

 

The guys who don't wanna check in, can't get on the internet, or don't have internet get the short end of the stick... But what exactly is the big deal about getting online for like, an hour if you have internet? And if you don't have internet in the 21st century... Then should getting a 399 or 499 dollar worth console really be that high on your priority list?

 

I understand if there's concerns about MS servers crashing and people not having access to the internet to sign in, etc, but at that point it becomes MS' issue to resolve, not the owners who couldn't log in. And I'm pretty sure MS will be doing everything in their power to make sure that doesn't happen, hence buying 285,000 more servers...

[Bucman 891]

I honestly don't see many companies using the used game fee, that would lead to really bad PR and some people wouldn't buy the game at all.

On the sharing game part, I haven't shared a game with more then 1 friend since Driver on Playstation lol. Most of my friends all have the games, I do and we play together. The used game is really at a crossroads right now without this. Most online games now come with a Online Pass and if you buy it used the person before you most likely already used it. The price to buy the pass is sometimes 10 dollars. I know EA dropped this, but Ubisoft and others still have it.

 

 

Both systems have perks and downfalls. Its up to you decide which system is best for you. No one is forcing you one way or the other.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Bucman

[Thanatos 2,847]

I think funny's point about the small companies is something I neglected to mention which is a good point.

 

A company that is hyped up enough, such as CDPR, can survive something like TW2, even turn a profit off it, even though they were pirated 4 to 1. A smaller company? Someone who's trying to get into the business? Let's look at their options.

 

1. No DRM at all. Good night. Their first game comes out, and barring a act of divine intervention by God himself, they are pirated so hard they lose money and immediately decide that this was a bad idea.

2. Heavy DRM of their own, stuff like Stardock, I think its called, that go into your hard drive and scan to make sure you have the disc on your machine. Yeah. People may buy it, but they are going to get hella frustrated trying to deal with it, and the negative word of mouth will result in a crusade of 12-year-olds going onto Metacritic and Amazon and voting the game 0/10 in droves.

3. Steam. Steam is well-known by gamers to be something that doesn't fuck with your system, doesn't require you to be online except for the initial bootup, and still can protect your game quite nicely.

 

Given those three options, which one is a small company going to pick?

 

@funnygunny: Oh but didn't you hear Microsoft's response to your point about people with bad net being unable to play Xbox One? They said, and I quote, "We already have a system for people with no internet or bad internet. It's called the Xbox 360."

Edited June 15, 2013 by Thanatos19

[Thanatos 2,847]

While I don't wanna get all in this because I have no clue what STEAM is and I've never heard of it (unless we're talking about the steam from heating water and suff), but I feel like a lot of stuff is being thrown around that are either off, or completely wrong... Or misunderstood.

 

MS is not trying to completely restrict gamers to the point where they can't share, or make you feel less like you own the game... But trying to move into what they, and frankly stats, show to probably be the future of gaming. And that's digital gaming.

 

It's expanding more and more, and I read a article about how it's soon going to be a necessity by most of the bigger 3rd party developers. And MS wants to lead that revolution, instead of falling to the wayside and playing catch-up.

 

Being that moving into a digital age is MS' goal, DRM- and the need to be online at least once a day becomes a necessity for obvious reasons that I hope wouldn't even need to be explained. The game is still yours, you can still do whatever you want with the disc, and whether or not you, 1) have to digitally install it, or 2) want to sell the disc, depends solely on the game developers, and the retail companies... Not Microsoft.

 

And they have even multiple times come out saying that they don't make any money in that transaction unless they themselves as a 1st party developer make the game, and they have also said that the games they make will allow you to be able to sell the game, or physically give it to a friend -Granted they are a corporation out to make money so whether that's a lie that they will break, or just half truth is to be seen. But this keeps falling on deaf ears of people who already have their pitchforks out at MS.

 

Which is the reason why they expanded this sharing library stuff to 10 "family members". And allowing so many additional perks with just one person have an XBL Gold membership. Because while they realize that this is no easy demand to make of people who may purchase their system, it's believed to be the inevitable way the industry is heading. Sony might have to develop a DRM extremely similar if MS' if the industry becomes more and more the way that MS sees it happening... Once again, playing catch-up. And IDK about you guys but, I've been playing games online with friends for over 4, 5 years now... And I have never at any point shared a physical copy of my game with more then like, 8-9 people, and even then, I started that when I became a college student and have lived in halls. so this whole sharing thing really isn't that big of a deal, unless if you really plan on sharing your copy of a game with like, 10+ people...

 

And this is even more convenient now because those possible 8,9 people unless if they are total strangers won't have to wait until I'm done or someone else is done with my physical copy of the game... They can play it at any time right outa my library if they have XBL...

 

The guys who don't wanna check in, can't get on the internet, or don't have internet get the short end of the stick... But what exactly is the big deal about getting online for like, an hour if you have internet? And if you don't have internet in the 21st century... Then should getting a 399 or 499 dollar worth console really be that high on your priority list?

 

I understand if there's concerns about MS servers crashing and people not having access to the internet to sign in, etc, but at that point it becomes MS' issue to resolve, not the owners who couldn't log in. And I'm pretty sure MS will be doing everything in their power to make sure that doesn't happen, hence buying 285,000 more servers...

 

The issue is the "check-in time."

 

What if your net is down during that check in time and you're playing a game? What exactly is going to happen, is it going to take you out of the game? I can understand having something that upon the initial purchase of the game, requires you to have internet to verify that yes, this is my game. Understand- not approve. I think that screws over some people and I want to do it differently, but that's not this debate.

 

On what planet is there a reason to have a person check-in every 24 hours? Why not make it just on the initial install of the game?

 

I understand Microsoft is trying to go digital, but they're going about completely the wrong way. And if you really want to rely on MS's servers not crashing just so you can play your game, then more power to you. You're being naive- EA is one of the largest companies out there and they couldn't do it, (see: SimCity).

 

This whole "its the development companies, not MS" is a bunch of bullshit. MS is the one who put that tech into their console so that development companies can use it. Don't turn around and blame the dev companies for something they put in there.

 

The other thing about this, "you and one friend" can play it at a time, what happens if two of your friends are on the game, and you're not, (or is this even possible, is it only one of your friends that can play it, you have to be the other person for their to be two people playing), and then you log on? Does it kick someone else off of that game?

 

And sure, the not having 10 people to share it with isn't going to affect you. The thing I find ludicrous is the "bring a game over to a friend's house and you can only play for one hour."

 

Let me put it this way. I think MS has surrendered the console's only advantage over PC gaming. So:

 

What reason is there for a gamer to get an Xbox One over a PC?

 

Edit: Oh and the used game fees. Gotta 100% disagree with Bucman. Companies are going to be doing this in droves, those that don't do it will be the exception rather than the rule. They've been whining about the used game market for the past five years or more, because somehow game companies think they're entitled to money every time the game switches hands, unlike every other product on the freaking market. (Yeah, PC has the same problem, it's bullshit in both cases.)

 

So good luck to Gamestop and other used game retailers, 'cause they're gonna get a huge chunk of their market taken out once this comes into play.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Thanatos19

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

The issue is the "check-in time."

 

What if your net is down during that check in time and you're playing a game? What exactly is going to happen, is it going to take you out of the game? I can understand having something that upon the initial purchase of the game, requires you to have internet to verify that yes, this is my game. Understand- not approve. I think that screws over some people and I want to do it differently, but that's not this debate.

 

On what planet is there a reason to have a person check-in every 24 hours? Why not make it just on the initial install of the game?

 

Because that's the only way they see it right now without having everyone have a key that comes with every single game.

 

In a world where a developer decides that you don't need a special password to activate your game, and all you have to do is upload it to your hard drive... Unless if the CD itself is encoded to only be able to upload onto a hard drive (which would in the process, render it useless for sell-backs or trades), people would abuse the policy.

 

At that point, what would stop me from getting a game, downloading it, then having someone else take the game, download it? It would destroy the video game selling process. It doesn't mean this policy can't change, or the policy can't be made better over time, but at this point and time, the online check thing is necessary.

 

And as far as the bad internet thing is concerned, if you plan on just getting on to have it on for like an hour as auto updates are made, then the strength level of the internet becomes extremely minimal...

 

My friend is in the Air Force and just got back from deployment, and is only going to be on base for 2 months before being shipped to South Korea. Being as that's the case, he doesn't want to pay for internet, so in order to get on XBL and download the Halo giant map pack, he was stealing wireless connection from someone else. With one bar of wireless he was able to get the whole thing downloaded in 1 hour and half while still being in a XBL party.

 

And every night he gets on to play it he's playing it using his phone as a hotspot- With MetrePCS- as his provider, with 2 bars of wireless, his XBL is way smoother then even the web surfing on his computer. Having it on and connected to the internet for a little bit while you play a single player IMO would truly require shitty internet of epic proportion. And the chances of that imo just aren't that big.

 

I understand Microsoft is trying to go digital, but they're going about completely the wrong way. And if you really want to rely on MS's servers not crashing just so you can play your game, then more power to you. You're being naive- EA is one of the largest companies out there and they couldn't do it, (see: SimCity).

 

Is it really fair to compare a third party game developer regardless of how big it is to a company that almost runs half the computer industry? A top 40 in the fortune 500 company list?

 

Of course it's probably crash at one point or another... But the odds of it are extremely slim, and they probably wouldn't be all that long.

 

This whole "its the development companies, not MS" is a bunch of bullshit. MS is the one who put that tech into their console so that development companies can use it. Don't turn around and blame the dev companies for something they put in there.

 

We're now hanging a company because it gives the developers the choice of how they get a game to you? Even if in the process that company itself doesn't make any profit from it?

 

So as a console developer, if game developers on top of game developers come up to you complaining about how little they are making off of their games, and want a bigger share/profit of the games they make, you'd tell them to fuck off?

 

The other thing about this, "you and one friend" can play it at a time, what happens if two of your friends are on the game, and you're not, (or is this even possible, is it only one of your friends that can play it, you have to be the other person for their to be two people playing), and then you log on? Does it kick someone else off of that game?

 

This, IDK. But regardless, what happens when you give your friend a physical copy of a game? How is this any different? If your friends are playing your disc and you want it back, you'd be stopping either one or both from playing it...

 

And sure, the not having 10 people to share it with isn't going to affect you. The thing I find ludicrous is the "bring a game over to a friend's house and you can only play for one hour."

 

Let me put it this way. I think MS has surrendered the console's only advantage over PC gaming. So:

What reason is there for a gamer to get an Xbox One over a PC

 

This is a question that I can't really answer because IDK your reasoning for choosing PC over a console gaming. The benefits of having the XB1 and all it's features way outweighs the bad of having to get on once a day, and IMO console gaming just gives you added gaming experiences that PCs don't deliver. But that answer in of itself as well as any answer can be extremely subjective and objective.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

 

Both systems have perks and downfalls. Its up to you decide which system is best for you. No one is forcing you one way or the other.

 

As much as it may sound like I've already decided on a XB1, I'm literally fine with either or, and will depend pretty much at this point on what my friends get.

 

Either way I'm getting a XB1 eventually, but that's because of some of the exclusives that will be coming out. But those won't be for like, 3,4 months after it comes out.

 

Madden was gonna be the only game I get if I a next Gen at launch, but with EA being retarded and putting that booboo ass picture of AP's face instead of Sanders- on the next gen consoles, and that was the only game I was gonna get this early... I have no priorities. >_>

Edited June 15, 2013 by DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F

[Bucman 891]

Xbox One has been growing one me for some reason, I really like some of the exclusive games. I have already bought a PS4, but may get a Xbox One as well. But probably not at launch.

[Dutch 874]

I can't push myself to buy Xbox One for any reason. As a consumer, I get a disrespected feeling from how much they are trying to control my gaming experience. It's more of a pride thing and it's not like they completely control the gaming market and there are no other options. Screw Mircosoft and all of their demands / requirements to play their merchandise that will cost well over $500.

[SteelersNation36 128]

I've actually grown to like the xb1 and will try and get one soon after my ps4. probably just trade in my 360 toward it.

[funnygunny 521]

We're now hanging a company because it gives the developers the choice of how they get a game to you? Even if in the process that company itself doesn't make any profit from it?

 

So as a console developer, if game developers on top of game developers come up to you complaining about how little they are making off of their games, and want a bigger share/profit of the games they make, you'd tell them to fuck off?

 

 

Really? How do you even know Microsoft are giving those companies "a choice". Here's ONE example. Just one.

 

Few major developers could be as publicly anti-DRM as CD Projekt Red, makers of the Witcher series. Yet there they were with The Witcher 3, getting a good five minutes of stage time with the Xbox One, the face of console DRM going forward. The studio is committed to releasing on Xbox One but none too happy about being in such a bind.

 

To Eurogamer, CD Projekt Red said it doesn’t know yet how it will handle a publisher who doesn’t allow The Witcher 3 to be re-sold — probably because the game does not yet have a publisher.

 

But CD Projekt Red runs Good Old Games, which makes a big selling point out of having no DRM, and there are few studios publishing titles of this size that have such a visible anti-DRM stance. Eurogamer says they’re bristling at the guilt-by-association from appearing at Microsoft’s event.

 

“We couldn’t simply not release The Witcher 3 on Xbox One,” CEO Marcin Iwiński told Eurogamer. “We want to make sure that every single player will have access to our game and thus decided to deliver for PC, PS4 and Xbox One. There are people who don’t mind the DRM protection and will pick Xbox One as their platform of choice. We can’t punish them.”

 

Earlier, he said that “if you want the 100 per cent DRM-free experience you will have it on the PC, the platform where we set the rules for our games. The Witcher 3 will be available 100 per cent DRM-free on our digital distribution platform GOG.com, and that’s one thing I can confirm.”

 

Source: Kotaku

 

One of the biggest (/quickest growing) gaming companies producing the biggest RPG of all time is being FORCED into DRM thanks to Microsoft. CDPR is well known for their massively insane anti-DRM stance.

 

I'm sure you can find examples of more publishers if you look hard enough. CDPR cares that much about consumers that they're willing to break their anti-DRM philosophy just so XBOX players don't miss out. That's how you cater to gamers.

Edited June 16, 2013 by funnygunny

[Dutch 874]

If Xbox One were a girl...

 

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh68L1Y62sMJYda4pc

[GA_Eagle 595]

i chuckled at the end

[Bucman 891]

If Xbox One were a girl...

 

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh68L1Y62sMJYda4pc