Also, Microsoft has been caught lying again. The "Xbox One" games at e3 were running on windows 7 with Nvidia GTX cards. They were not running on the Xbox One. If you don't want to watch the video, here is the link to the article. http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Xbox-One-Games-E3-Were-Running-Windows-7-With-Nvidia-GTX-Cards-56737.html Here is the video:
They don't need the extra money for their servers because not a lot of people play any online Nintendo games other than Mario Kart and Smash Bros There was never any doubt that they were going to charge for online. I'm sure they saw how much money Microsoft had made, and truthfully I'm surprised/excited that they included it in the PS+ rather than charging for them separate. If you bought 3 or more games with online in one year wouldn't that make it more expensive? I'd much rather pay $5ish dollars a month, and skip out on an app or two, or a hamburger per month to play online PLUS get all of the PS+ perks (which considering that you get Drive Club for being a PS+ member which is probably a $60 game, it's already paid off for the year).
Okay, I just need to say that the rationalization that you end up spending $350 after 7 years = a terrible deal... that's seriously stupid. No offense, but you can look at anything like that and consider it a bad deal. Most cell phone bills are in the hundreds, and that's just every MONTH. No one bats an eye at that, though. $50 a year is a paltry amount, and there is no argument about that. Compare that with the $15 a month fee for World of Warcraft that people gladly pay consistently... it's a big difference. And PlayStation Plus for the PS4 will be required for online multiplayer, but I wasn't sure if you already knew that (the last couple sentences in your post made me think maybe you weren't aware, but maybe you were!) Honestly, when you argue that it's a bad deal because after 7 years you will have spent a total of $350, it comes off as you being desperate to prove a point with information that is not nearly as incriminating as you're suggesting. I am pretty sure most people here spend $350 on iOS apps and games in a few months, maybe a year or two. SEVEN years and $350... it's not that bad. You also have to consider that the average minimum wage pay for a year can even accommodate a yearly fee of $50. And if it can't, there's always the cheaper alternative for doing monthly payments. They're obviously more expensive in the long run, but some people prefer the incremental payments to the big kahuna.
Honestly, I don't really care that Sony is charging for online now. Especially if it means that PSN updates aren't late, there is fewer maintenance issues, etc. I'd be pissed if they had a stupid paywall over everything that requires use of the internet, but they don't (F2P online games will be completely free to play on PSN if the publisher allows it- no PS+ required. Also, services like Netflix, Hulu, etc. will NOT require PS+ to work either).
Yes I think we got the point loud and clear. But it's still insanely stupid and flawed to say it's a ripoff when you have to come up with an example of the amount for 7 years to prove it's a ripoff. If you want to talk about ripoffs, talk about retailer warranties. Those things are nasty and ugly cashgrabs. Want some more ripoffs? Certain movies that suck, certain games that suck, certain books that suck, certain music that sucks... I can guarantee you spend more on failed media items than your 7-year figure, in a mere couple years. Do you also complain about Netflix charging money? Or Satellite Radio? Or music streaming services? What about in-app purchases? You already pay for internet, so why on Earth would you pay so much for Netflix? SHOULD BE FREE! I already have radio and the radiowaves are already in the air, so why should I pay for Satellite Radio? (yeah, even I admit this is a terrible example) I have internet but I HAVE TO PAY for some of these music streaming services? SHOULD BE FREE I bought this game, and IAPs only add superficial elements to it. I payed for the game, I deserve everything the developers made! SHOULD BE FREE Apply this same logic to any downloadable content (you bought the game at full-price, now you're expected to BUY more content? NO WAY!). You might try to argue that Netflix and music streaming services deserve the monthly fee because you're dealing with media consumption. Naturally you should pay for that. But this same rationale is applied to paying an online fee for gaming. You are paying to have access to the servers that the company puts up, being able to instantly connect to friends or strangers from around the world for heated gaming sessions, talking to bunches of friends in parties, and in the case of PlayStation Plus you also get insanely good deals (free full games, free DLC, deep discounts, deeper discounts, etc.). Complain all you want about Xbox Live. Maybe back in 2002 the fee was astronomical considering the limits of the service. But in the Xbox 360 era, and now the Xbox One era coming up, it's hard to argue that the service doesn't deserve at least some fee. Their connections are spot-on, and it's an overall very good service. PSN was free on PS3, but it also had lots of maintenance (three times a month, I think?). Very frequent maintenance which puts all online stuff offline temporarily. In addition to that, the servers were not nearly as stable as Xbox Live. Connection issues are very prevalent, lag is sometimes ridiculous, voice chat is barely serviceable... Now that we're paying for server access on PS4, hopefully Sony ups the ante on their internet services. But even then... after paying PlayStation Plus for a few years now, the fact that online multiplayer will now require it? I see that as a free bonus. It means, hopefully, that the online multiplayer will be worthwhile and much better than the PS3. I think what you need to do is stop thinking of it as a "Fee within a fee", a fee you add on top of the fee you already pay for internet. You need to realize that the fee is not for internet access. It's for server access to the respective developer or publisher, and mostly a dependable online multiplayer experience. In the case of PlayStation Plus, you get tons of free games (usually in a month, you already make back the investment you made in the subscription with the value of the games they give you). You're looking at it all wrong.
Maybe for PS3, I don't think that they would have said never though. I don't necessarily want it, I just don't think it's reasonable to argue about something that most people already thought would be payed anyway, but the fact that its included with PS+ makes it even better. I wouldn't have been surprised if they charged twice for the two different services. Okay, but the game companies are greedy. There is no way they would only charge 40$ for the game, if anything it would be $60 + $20 not $40 + $20 $50 a year is not that much. Aren't you buying it based off of if it has free online? Sony is losing money already, and you want them to pay for servers on top of that? If you don't want any to fail, then you should see that by paying $50 a month, you are helping them out so they won't fail. The multiplayer isn't premium, the servers are. You can still play local multiplayer. This isn't stopping you from that. I think some use Sony's directly, some use their own but still go through Sony's somehow. But, I'm not sure so whatever. I pay for internet, so I should get netflix free right? Same with Hulu, and MMO's ect. right? The servers are premium though. You can still play local. You pay for internet. Not for all the services on the internet. Again, just because you have internet doesn't grant access to Netflix and other services Same here.
If I might say, when I eventually get a PS4, I'll get P+ as if it still does the free games once an wave of people purchase it, you'll have repayed your purchase and more quite easily. Take the June rewards of P+ for example. You get Saints Row The Third, Uncharted 3, XCOM: Enemy Unknown, Little Big Planet Karting, Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Machinarium. The profit from that is so much larger than what you put into it
Luckily PS+ gives you plenty of games too. Anyone feel as though this thread has gotten off topic? Shouldn't it be about Xbox One, not PS+?
I'm hoping its at least as good as Reach, but I really want it to be as good as 1, 2, & 3. I really liked Reach, but it for sure wasn't as good the others. Halo 4 though. Man that game was a disappointment. The campaign was great, I loved the story, but the multiplayer... Least favorite Halo for sure. Hopefully Halo 5(?) is good.
It'll probaldly be called just Halo (Xbox One.) Or "SUPER LEGEND OF HALO KART BRO.S" to lure nintendo fans.
I think it's lame that people are still bashing the Xbox One. The revised Xbox One looks to be a fine console. I can't afford it or the PS4 as both are too expensive for me right now. Plus there's no need to rush out and buy one at release anyway.
Stinkin console wars. Aw heck, I'll wait and see if either sides exclusives really appeal to me. The PS4 has a good edge with Primal Carnage Genesis, inFAMOUS: SS, and killzone. Make of that what you will. The xbox? Halo (If its better than 4), DR3, and Ryse if its good.
It is silly that now that the vocal gamers made their voice heard and Microsoft changed the policies, that those same gamers are now going around and wishing Microsoft didn't change the policies. Even I am in that camp. Now that I see what the Xbox One has to offer, being an offline-capable console... I'm wondering if it should have stuck to those policies. People are scared of change, and of course they hate restrictions. The policies at a time sounded overly restrictive and ridiculous, but now I'm thinking, at least for me, that we should have welcomed our first online-only major console with open arms. Who knows what kinds of avenues would have opened up in the future? I hope we still get something on that level in the coming generations, and maybe Microsoft has come up with a plan to introduce these elements piecemeal. Just one step at a time. Some would see it as slowly putting the Xbox One on life support (it's a not a bad analogy, really), but I see it more as a gradual change that people will be more comfortable with and enjoy rather than getting lambasted from the beginning and changing everything they know about how videogames consoles work. I just read, actually, that the "24-hour check-in" was mere kilobytes of data... it could literally be tethered to your phone and you could afford it (well... within reason). The 24-hour check-in is interesting, and it's a wonderful alternative to having to be connected constantly for a single-player experience (looking at you, Diablo III ). And finally, I think the idea that were really close to a digital resale platform... it really could be a breakthrough for a digital-only future. Apparently that's out of the question now With hard-drives becoming increasingly cheaper for substantial upgrades in capacity, and fast internet speeds across the board for a lot of people (the number growing every day), and of course the focus on environmental conservation with respect to less plastic for game cases, game discs, and game manuals, I don't see it out of the question that a digital-only platform could eventually come into the fray. What it boils down to for me is that I wish Microsoft gave us a choice. Make it like Steam, where you can toggle an option on or off for when you want to stay online or go offline for a period. Why can't Microsoft do that for the One? I don't understand. That's what gamers want: choice. That would have been a brilliant bombshell of an announcement at E3, "The rumors are true that the Xbox One will be a mostly online console. You will have to check in every 24 hours to keep playing your games, etc. etc. But what the rumors have failed to mention is that we are giving you a choice. When you open the system and turn it on for the first time, you will need an internet connection for just a couple seconds. This is as long as the check-in will always be. But once you setup your console with our seamless Kinect integration and mastery of our technological advances, you will have the ability at any time to disable the Online mandation, and enjoy your game experience whenever and wherever you are, regardless of your internet capabilities." Cheers from the crowd. Microsoft wins E3. Or at the very least, doesn't piss off every single viewer of the show! Of course they would turn off Family Sharing on your account, and all the other goodies from the online-only stuff, but you can always turn it back on. I think it would have been brilliant to make such a system... Give people the choice. Most people, from the sounds of it, would automatically switch it off... but then there are people like me that are curious about what exactly this online-only business is all about. With the right marketing and right words, it could get a snowball effect rolling where more people start realizing how much of a hassle it isn't, and maybe Microsoft would be in the good graces of everyone. They could even start a promotion with their first-party games... you can get this free achievement if you download the free avatar from this Family Sharing system. They'd have to turn on the online-only mode to do it, and then when they finally do, they get brought to a screen that quickly goes through the positives of the system! The reason people are complaining now, I think, is that it seems like, without the online-only thing, the One is no longer a super unique console. It is just another Xbox 360 with more superman'd-up components and features. Of course the rational side of you should say that you could say that about a lot of consoles... but it wasn't until this generation, I feel, that console success started relying on gimmicks and online services. The 3DS? I love the thing to death, but 3D is officially a gimmick and one that is wearing thin for a lot of people (I am not one of them, thankfully). PS Vita? Absolutely a souped-up PSP with better components and gimmicks. I don't know...
It's actually a victory for the GameStop kind of trade in shop. Game publishers only have one kind of income revenue and that is selling game. The trade in shops significantly reduce the publishers revenue, and to compensate the loss, the publishers increase the price of the game. Instead of using the platform with successful example (Steam) and tried to build upon it, we take a step back and let the third party profits. So in the end GameStop wins.
The problem is MS took the worst approach possible and tried to herd us into a digital future the world isn't ready for. The facts were apparent, half the world wouldn't be able to access Xbox Live upon release, and even a good chunk of the US would be included in that blackout. The key, as MasterChief mentioned, is choice. If digital-only is truly what the world wants, they'll choose it when it's presented as an option. If they don't choose it, then the time hasn't yet arrived. P.S. 2010 TA was the best TA.
The 24 hour checkin was a terrible idea and not "something from the future that we weren't ready for". It was just bad. But that is gone and the cloud servers stuff sounds really good. It makes me wonder if X1 will have a much better online experience than the PS4 and any console before it. That remains to be seen, but it does sound good on paper. If they are going to also change directions on Indies, as is rumored (allowing self-publishing), then that is a good move too. They started off terrible, but they are listening and making changes for the better.
