***official*** all things Microsoft Xbox One (1 Viewer)

[FreeBaGeL]

I am also sure that Sony had to pay a pretty penny to get Mass Effect and Bioshock to go multiplatform.

Not sure if this is fishing or not, but in case it isn't I'll give a straightforward answer. Both of these games were timed exclusives. Microsoft was the one the opened up its wallet to keep these games as exclusives on its console for a limited amount of time. Once that period expired, it made economic sense for 2K and Bioware to port their games over to the PS3 due to the size of its install base.

That's why you very rarely see third party exclusives anymore. It doesn't make economic sense for a developer to sink a bunch of up-front production costs into a game for only one console, when you can almost double your sales by investing in a port to the other one too.

Were they actually paid exclusives? I thought I recalled them skipping PS3 versions because the system had kind of bombed at launch and was so hard to develop for.

 

[Jobber]

X1 vs P4 sans Wii

edit: oh wait, the Wii is in there

How does the "exclusive games" list not even talk about the biggest Xbox exclusive (Titanfall)? And why does it say "used game fee: yes" for Microsoft? There are no used game fees imposed by microsoft.

It might be that the author is thinking only of titles that will be available at launch. Technically Titanfall doesn't come out until early 2014.

More generally, though, I think the author was just making the point that there don't seem to be a lot of exclusives out there right now that are going to tie folks to a particular console. That seems to be general consensus here and elsewhere. Obviously if Titanfall is appealing enough to you that you're willing to pay an extra $100 for it, then your list is different than this guy's. And that's completely okay.

Yeah, forgot it won't be at launch. Really both companies sort of failed on the 'big blockbuster exclusive launch title' front. I guess that is just the way things are going now.

I don't recall either company having a huge title at launch for the PS3 or X360. XBox 360's "killer app" was Perfect Dark Zero, which bombed and PS3 had Resistance: Fall of Man. I haven't played Resistance; I think it got pretty decent reviews, but I don't think it was ever treated as a big blockbuster game.

I really dug Resistance, and think it's better than Killzone.

 

[Spanky267]

X1 vs P4 sans Wii

edit: oh wait, the Wii is in there

How does the "exclusive games" list not even talk about the biggest Xbox exclusive (Titanfall)? And why does it say "used game fee: yes" for Microsoft? There are no used game fees imposed by microsoft.

It might be that the author is thinking only of titles that will be available at launch. Technically Titanfall doesn't come out until early 2014.

More generally, though, I think the author was just making the point that there don't seem to be a lot of exclusives out there right now that are going to tie folks to a particular console. That seems to be general consensus here and elsewhere. Obviously if Titanfall is appealing enough to you that you're willing to pay an extra $100 for it, then your list is different than this guy's. And that's completely okay.

If the landscape on exclusives is so slim then how does PS4 get the advantage.

The writer of the article seems like a huge PS fanboy. There are definitely things to like about the PS4. But when you have to carve out new categories in order to give the PS4 a leg up it seems fishy.

The whole second screen is ridiculous. So you can go out and spend $200-$300 on a PS Vita to use it as a second screen on your PS4 or you can download Smartglass and use it on your phone or tablet.

Giving the games category to PS4, even with a question mark is laughable. There are very few exclusives on either console and most of the really good games will be on both consoles. This one should have been categorized as a draw.

 

[Spanky267]

Are you guys who intend to go XB1 and have decent headsets just planning to buy new ones if they don't have a converter? I begrudgingly preordered a PS4, but have a bad feeling about the onslaught of new users to the PSN. I would have loved to be in the M$ board room today. It probably looks like the ED-209 scene from Robocop.

This one does bug me. I have a decent headset and potentially not being able to use chat on the new Xbox will upset me. But I cant imagine that Tritton wont come out with an adapter.

With the money grab M$ is making, there will be no adapter, and they'll just have you yell into the Kinect.

Not happening in my household. I would hope that Madcatz and Turtle Beach can work something out with M$ so that there will be an adapter for current gen Tritton and TB headsets.

 

[SlaX]

X1 vs P4 sans Wii

edit: oh wait, the Wii is in there

How does the "exclusive games" list not even talk about the biggest Xbox exclusive (Titanfall)? And why does it say "used game fee: yes" for Microsoft? There are no used game fees imposed by microsoft.

It might be that the author is thinking only of titles that will be available at launch. Technically Titanfall doesn't come out until early 2014.

More generally, though, I think the author was just making the point that there don't seem to be a lot of exclusives out there right now that are going to tie folks to a particular console. That seems to be general consensus here and elsewhere. Obviously if Titanfall is appealing enough to you that you're willing to pay an extra $100 for it, then your list is different than this guy's. And that's completely okay.

If the landscape on exclusives is so slim then how does PS4 get the advantage.

The writer of the article seems like a huge PS fanboy. There are definitely things to like about the PS4. But when you have to carve out new categories in order to give the PS4 a leg up it seems fishy.

The whole second screen is ridiculous. So you can go out and spend $200-$300 on a PS Vita to use it as a second screen on your PS4 or you can download Smartglass and use it on your phone or tablet.

Giving the games category to PS4, even with a question mark is laughable. There are very few exclusives on either console and most of the really good games will be on both consoles. This one should have been categorized as a draw.

Funny, I got the impression that he was really trying to talk up the XBox in many parts. I don't know why the PS4 got the exclusive games part. Maybe he flipped a coin. He did end it with a question mark (?).

 

[larry_boy_44]

I haven't seen a single thing that leads me to believe more than one person at a time can play the same game at the same time even under the 10 person family designation. Each person has access to it under their own gamertag that is a sub-tag of the main one, but only one person can play at a time. I'd be interested in reading anything differently from a confirmed source.It also wouldn't surprise me one bit if they locked family accounts by IP address. So if you try to login to a sub account at a different IP address than the main one, it won't allow it. I haven't heard that, but it would make a lot of sense IMO.

seemed to me the "family" thing was different accounts on the same XBox (1 paid account needed per XBox), not you and your friends signing up under a "family" account and all playing on 10 different XBoxes at the same time...

 

[larry_boy_44]

I haven't seen a single thing that leads me to believe more than one person at a time can play the same game at the same time even under the 10 person family designation. Each person has access to it under their own gamertag that is a sub-tag of the main one, but only one person can play at a time. I'd be interested in reading anything differently from a confirmed source.

It also wouldn't surprise me one bit if they locked family accounts by IP address. So if you try to login to a sub account at a different IP address than the main one, it won't allow it. I haven't heard that, but it would make a lot of sense IMO.

Link

Give your family access to your entire games library anytime, anywhere: Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend’s house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time.

Seems to imply that basically two people can play from your library at a time. You and one other of the 10 people.

no.

Its saying the XBox your account is assigned to can play any of the games that the person who is assigned to that XBox (up to ten accounts) no matter who is actually logged in.

Two accounts cannot play the game at the same time as the game is assigning itself to one specific account AND one specific XBox. I guess theoretically you could play the game visiting someone else and someone can play on your XBox through the cloud, but that's it.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Here's another comparison:

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/158130-ps4-pricing-hardware-specs-and-games-detailed-the-anti-xbox-one

 

[Worm]

I haven't seen a single thing that leads me to believe more than one person at a time can play the same game at the same time even under the 10 person family designation. Each person has access to it under their own gamertag that is a sub-tag of the main one, but only one person can play at a time. I'd be interested in reading anything differently from a confirmed source.

It also wouldn't surprise me one bit if they locked family accounts by IP address. So if you try to login to a sub account at a different IP address than the main one, it won't allow it. I haven't heard that, but it would make a lot of sense IMO.

Link

Give your family access to your entire games library anytime, anywhere: Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend’s house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time.

Seems to imply that basically two people can play from your library at a time. You and one other of the 10 people.

no.

Its saying the XBox your account is assigned to can play any of the games that the person who is assigned to that XBox (up to ten accounts) no matter who is actually logged in.

Two accounts cannot play the game at the same time as the game is assigning itself to one specific account AND one specific XBox. I guess theoretically you could play the game visiting someone else and someone can play on your XBox through the cloud, but that's it.

I don't think you even read the excerpt.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I haven't seen a single thing that leads me to believe more than one person at a time can play the same game at the same time even under the 10 person family designation. Each person has access to it under their own gamertag that is a sub-tag of the main one, but only one person can play at a time. I'd be interested in reading anything differently from a confirmed source.

It also wouldn't surprise me one bit if they locked family accounts by IP address. So if you try to login to a sub account at a different IP address than the main one, it won't allow it. I haven't heard that, but it would make a lot of sense IMO.

Link

Give your family access to your entire games library anytime, anywhere: Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend’s house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time.

Seems to imply that basically two people can play from your library at a time. You and one other of the 10 people.

no.

Its saying the XBox your account is assigned to can play any of the games that the person who is assigned to that XBox (up to ten accounts) no matter who is actually logged in.

Two accounts cannot play the game at the same time as the game is assigning itself to one specific account AND one specific XBox. I guess theoretically you could play the game visiting someone else and someone can play on your XBox through the cloud, but that's it.

I don't think you even read the excerpt.

Yeah, I did.

Here is how it works.

larry_boy_44 owns XBox A.

He buys Titanfall, installs it on XBox A as that is his XBox.

larry_boy_44 can go to ANY Xbox anywhere and play Titanfall in the cloud.

Up to 10 people may login to XBox A and play Titanfall as if they bought it.

Those 10 people cannot play the game on any XBoxes other than XBox A.

It is undetermined if larry_boy_44 can play Titanfall on a separate XBox while family member (one of the 10) are playing it on XBox A.

That is what they are saying. There is no way they would be dumb enough to allow any group of 10 people the ability to buy 1 game for the entirety of the 10 people playing on 10 different XBoxes. They might as well just cut their loses now because they cannot possibly make money that way.

 

[LAUNCH]

In these comparisons I find it amusing that they neglect to mention the PSN vs XBL.

 

[larry_boy_44]

In these comparisons I find it amusing that they neglect to mention the PSN vs XBL.

how can they mention something that doesn't exist yet?

All the ways that one network can be better than the other aren't things we can really know about ahead of time... We can guess based on past results (XBox would win), but considering everything else Microsoft is screwing up, is that really a safe bet?

 

[Worm]

Give your family access to your entire games library anytime, anywhere: Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend’s house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time.

Seems to imply that basically two people can play from your library at a time. You and one other of the 10 people.

Ok Larry, let me highlight some important parts of this for you, again.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Give your family access to your entire games library anytime, anywhere: Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend’s house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time.

Seems to imply that basically two people can play from your library at a time. You and one other of the 10 people.

Ok Larry, let me highlight some important parts of this for you, again.

I guess I was wrong.

XBox One will be done by the end of 2014 if that is actually what they do. No third parties will make games for them after the initial wave gets 1/10 of the sales that they expected (and they realize why).

 

[Worm]

It doesn't make sense that ALL 10 people will be able to play your games at ALL times. It does make sense for you to be able to play your games at ALL times, and that say if your son goes to his friends house that he could be able to play the same game(s) at the same time.

 

[cstu]

It doesn't make sense that ALL 10 people will be able to play your games at ALL times. It does make sense for you to be able to play your games at ALL times, and that say if your son goes to his friends house that he could be able to play the same game(s) at the same time.

One person at a time.

 

[larry_boy_44]

It doesn't make sense that ALL 10 people will be able to play your games at ALL times. It does make sense for you to be able to play your games at ALL times, and that say if your son goes to his friends house that he could be able to play the same game(s) at the same time.

One person at a time.

that's almost the only way it would work without making it impossible to work...

One person at a time means its impossible to abuse it and share games too ridiculously.

 

[Worm]

It specifically says that two people (you and one other) at minimum can play from the shared library at any time, from any XB1. It's not an interpretation, it's what it says.

The only interpretation is whether two people can play ONE SPECIFIC GAME at the same time.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

There shouldn't be this much confusion. MS really #### the bed on this.

 

[Buckna]

I am also sure that Sony had to pay a pretty penny to get Mass Effect and Bioshock to go multiplatform.

Not sure if this is fishing or not, but in case it isn't I'll give a straightforward answer. Both of these games were timed exclusives. Microsoft was the one the opened up its wallet to keep these games as exclusives on its console for a limited amount of time. Once that period expired, it made economic sense for 2K and Bioware to port their games over to the PS3 due to the size of its install base. That's why you very rarely see third party exclusives anymore. It doesn't make economic sense for a developer to sink a bunch of up-front production costs into a game for only one console, when you can almost double your sales by investing in a port to the other one too.

Were they actually paid exclusives? I thought I recalled them skipping PS3 versions because the system had kind of bombed at launch and was so hard to develop for.

Yeah, would like to see a link on that because I think it's wrong. Before the release date for Bioshock, Bioware had said they had no plans for a PS3 version. It was more than a year later before they announced they were even working on a PS3 port. ME1 wasn't even available on PS3 until 6 months ago. Might be true about ME2 though as it was released on PS3 exactly a year after the Xbox version.

 

[Buckna]

I plan on waiting at least 6 months after launch to see how both go. Exclusive titles will likely sway my decision at least somewhat and both seem sparse (as they usually are at launch.) Will be on the lookout for a killer app like the original Gears of War or Bioshock.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I am also sure that Sony had to pay a pretty penny to get Mass Effect and Bioshock to go multiplatform.

Not sure if this is fishing or not, but in case it isn't I'll give a straightforward answer. Both of these games were timed exclusives. Microsoft was the one the opened up its wallet to keep these games as exclusives on its console for a limited amount of time. Once that period expired, it made economic sense for 2K and Bioware to port their games over to the PS3 due to the size of its install base. That's why you very rarely see third party exclusives anymore. It doesn't make economic sense for a developer to sink a bunch of up-front production costs into a game for only one console, when you can almost double your sales by investing in a port to the other one too.

Were they actually paid exclusives? I thought I recalled them skipping PS3 versions because the system had kind of bombed at launch and was so hard to develop for.

Yeah, would like to see a link on that because I think it's wrong. Before the release date for Bioshock, Bioware had said they had no plans for a PS3 version. It was more than a year later before they announced they were even working on a PS3 port. ME1 wasn't even available on PS3 until 6 months ago. Might be true about ME2 though as it was released on PS3 exactly a year after the Xbox version.

I don't remember Bioshock, but I remember ME2 very clearly. That one was strongly rumored to be a timed exclusive before it even released on the 360. And of course, those rumors turned out to be correct. Publishers can't come out and say that at the time by contract.

This isn't some big secret or wild theory. Microsoft is known to pay for timed exclusivity. The GTA4 DLC was like that, as was the DLC for Fallout 3, as are most of the COD maps.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

X1 vs P4 sans Wii

edit: oh wait, the Wii is in there

How does the "exclusive games" list not even talk about the biggest Xbox exclusive (Titanfall)? And why does it say "used game fee: yes" for Microsoft? There are no used game fees imposed by microsoft.

It might be that the author is thinking only of titles that will be available at launch. Technically Titanfall doesn't come out until early 2014.

More generally, though, I think the author was just making the point that there don't seem to be a lot of exclusives out there right now that are going to tie folks to a particular console. That seems to be general consensus here and elsewhere. Obviously if Titanfall is appealing enough to you that you're willing to pay an extra $100 for it, then your list is different than this guy's. And that's completely okay.

Yeah, forgot it won't be at launch. Really both companies sort of failed on the 'big blockbuster exclusive launch title' front. I guess that is just the way things are going now.

I don't recall either company having a huge title at launch for the PS3 or X360. XBox 360's "killer app" was Perfect Dark Zero, which bombed and PS3 had Resistance: Fall of Man. I haven't played Resistance; I think it got pretty decent reviews, but I don't think it was ever treated as a big blockbuster game.

This is a good point to keep in mind. Anybody making a decision to buy Console A and Console A only based on their exclusives lineup right now is taking a really short-sighted view of things. Each console's catalog will look vastly different 2-3 years from now than it does today. Obviously if you see something there that's just an absolute must-have, that's one thing, but I think most people who argue libraries at this point are really just grasping for justification for a decision they've already made.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Here's another comparison:

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/158130-ps4-pricing-hardware-specs-and-games-detailed-the-anti-xbox-one

This article is a good example of why gaming journalism sucks. The author doesn't seem to be biased, but he doesn't know what he's talking about either.

The biggest difference between the PS4 and the Xbox One are the games and DRM. On the games front, it seems the PS4 only has a handful of exclusives: Final Fantasy 15, Kingdom Hearts 3, and a new franchise called The Order. The Xbox One, on the other hand, has more than a dozen exclusive titles. All told, there are apparently 140 games currently in development for the PS4, with 40 of those including “experiences” that are exclusive to the PS4. Experiences is Sony’s way of saying that the PS4 will have lots of exclusive betas and DLCs, but not many exclusive games.

Where to begin with this? First of all, FF15 and KH3 are not exclusives -- they are multiplats. So the author screwed that up right off the bat.

Aside from The Order, the author missed every other exclusive that was shown either yesterday or back in February, specifically DriveClub, Killzone, Knack, and Infamous. (I'm leaving out PSN titles). That's just a matter of not paying the slightest bit of attention and not knowing how to use Google.

And anybody who thinks that Sony isn't going to bring exclusive games to the table has presumably been frozen in carbonite since 2007. If you want to say that Playstation exclusives aren't your cup of tea, that's cool and there's no need to defend a personal preference, but Sony has been churning these out for a while now. And it's not like their stable of first party studios are going anywhere.

I'm real confident that Microsoft has lots more in the works besides Titanfall. Let's not assume that Naughty Dog is closing up shot after TLOU drops this week.

 

[Frank Drebin]

I am also sure that Sony had to pay a pretty penny to get Mass Effect and Bioshock to go multiplatform.

Not sure if this is fishing or not, but in case it isn't I'll give a straightforward answer. Both of these games were timed exclusives. Microsoft was the one the opened up its wallet to keep these games as exclusives on its console for a limited amount of time. Once that period expired, it made economic sense for 2K and Bioware to port their games over to the PS3 due to the size of its install base. That's why you very rarely see third party exclusives anymore. It doesn't make economic sense for a developer to sink a bunch of up-front production costs into a game for only one console, when you can almost double your sales by investing in a port to the other one too.

Were they actually paid exclusives? I thought I recalled them skipping PS3 versions because the system had kind of bombed at launch and was so hard to develop for.

Yeah, would like to see a link on that because I think it's wrong. Before the release date for Bioshock, Bioware had said they had no plans for a PS3 version. It was more than a year later before they announced they were even working on a PS3 port. ME1 wasn't even available on PS3 until 6 months ago. Might be true about ME2 though as it was released on PS3 exactly a year after the Xbox version.

I don't remember Bioshock, but I remember ME2 very clearly. That one was strongly rumored to be a timed exclusive before it even released on the 360. And of course, those rumors turned out to be correct. Publishers can't come out and say that at the time by contract. This isn't some big secret or wild theory. Microsoft is known to pay for timed exclusivity. The GTA4 DLC was like that, as was the DLC for Fallout 3, as are most of the COD maps.

ME1 wasn't a timed exclusive, it was actually published by Microsoft Game Studios. MS owned the publishing rights to the game and that's why it took so long for it to come to PS3...EA had to negotiate the publishing rights back from them.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I am also sure that Sony had to pay a pretty penny to get Mass Effect and Bioshock to go multiplatform.

Not sure if this is fishing or not, but in case it isn't I'll give a straightforward answer. Both of these games were timed exclusives. Microsoft was the one the opened up its wallet to keep these games as exclusives on its console for a limited amount of time. Once that period expired, it made economic sense for 2K and Bioware to port their games over to the PS3 due to the size of its install base. That's why you very rarely see third party exclusives anymore. It doesn't make economic sense for a developer to sink a bunch of up-front production costs into a game for only one console, when you can almost double your sales by investing in a port to the other one too.

Were they actually paid exclusives? I thought I recalled them skipping PS3 versions because the system had kind of bombed at launch and was so hard to develop for.

Yeah, would like to see a link on that because I think it's wrong. Before the release date for Bioshock, Bioware had said they had no plans for a PS3 version. It was more than a year later before they announced they were even working on a PS3 port. ME1 wasn't even available on PS3 until 6 months ago. Might be true about ME2 though as it was released on PS3 exactly a year after the Xbox version.

I don't remember Bioshock, but I remember ME2 very clearly. That one was strongly rumored to be a timed exclusive before it even released on the 360. And of course, those rumors turned out to be correct. Publishers can't come out and say that at the time by contract. This isn't some big secret or wild theory. Microsoft is known to pay for timed exclusivity. The GTA4 DLC was like that, as was the DLC for Fallout 3, as are most of the COD maps.

ME1 wasn't a timed exclusive, it was actually published by Microsoft Game Studios. MS owned the publishing rights to the game and that's why it took so long for it to come to PS3...EA had to negotiate the publishing rights back from them.

Right. I'm talking about ME2.

 

[Frank Drebin]

I am also sure that Sony had to pay a pretty penny to get Mass Effect and Bioshock to go multiplatform.

Not sure if this is fishing or not, but in case it isn't I'll give a straightforward answer. Both of these games were timed exclusives. Microsoft was the one the opened up its wallet to keep these games as exclusives on its console for a limited amount of time. Once that period expired, it made economic sense for 2K and Bioware to port their games over to the PS3 due to the size of its install base. That's why you very rarely see third party exclusives anymore. It doesn't make economic sense for a developer to sink a bunch of up-front production costs into a game for only one console, when you can almost double your sales by investing in a port to the other one too.

Were they actually paid exclusives? I thought I recalled them skipping PS3 versions because the system had kind of bombed at launch and was so hard to develop for.

Yeah, would like to see a link on that because I think it's wrong. Before the release date for Bioshock, Bioware had said they had no plans for a PS3 version. It was more than a year later before they announced they were even working on a PS3 port. ME1 wasn't even available on PS3 until 6 months ago. Might be true about ME2 though as it was released on PS3 exactly a year after the Xbox version.

I don't remember Bioshock, but I remember ME2 very clearly. That one was strongly rumored to be a timed exclusive before it even released on the 360. And of course, those rumors turned out to be correct. Publishers can't come out and say that at the time by contract. This isn't some big secret or wild theory. Microsoft is known to pay for timed exclusivity. The GTA4 DLC was like that, as was the DLC for Fallout 3, as are most of the COD maps.

ME1 wasn't a timed exclusive, it was actually published by Microsoft Game Studios. MS owned the publishing rights to the game and that's why it took so long for it to come to PS3...EA had to negotiate the publishing rights back from them.

Right. I'm talking about ME2.

Yeah, I know. Sorry about that, should have quoted the post above yours.

 

[TxBuckeye]

Simply put, I'll get whichever one has better single player games, a better price point, and better graphics. I'm in the "couldn't care less" camp when it comes to multiplayer. As such, I don't have to worry about what friends are buying. It's irrelevant. Either way though, you won't have to knock me over in line to get to one on release night. I'll wait, like many others have stated, for the reviews to roll in. Based on everything I have read so far, however, my impression is I will end up withe the PS4.

 

[Abrantes]

Genius schtick!

 

[Fennis]

Don't flinch: the new Kinect could be the end of motion gimmicks

 

[Donsmith753]

This doesn't seem like a fantastic PR move

http://go.ign.com/1190aGY

 

[GroveDiesel]

This doesn't seem like a fantastic PR movehttp://go.ign.com/1190aGY

The rape jokes during one of their demos also was probably not a great idea.

 

[VA703]

meh.. i dont see it as a rape joke

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Don't flinch: the new Kinect could be the end of motion gimmicks

Just what I want to do, talk to my tv!

Me: Archers!!!!!!

Wife: Wow

Me: ZOMBIES!!

Wife: So proud

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Don't flinch: the new Kinect could be the end of motion gimmicks

Just what I want to do, talk to my tv!

Me: Archers!!!!!!

Wife: Wow

Me: ZOMBIES!!

Wife: So proud

In Dead Rising 3, an open-world zombie game that seems to be part Grand Theft Autoand part Kingdom Rush, your controller is once again your friend. Your Kinect might be your enemy. Zombies can hear you talking, even rustling on your couch, and they'll come after you. (Prepare to play Dead Rising 3 in the quietest room you can find.) Once they find you, if you wriggle on your couch as you presumably would if a zombie were attempting to eat your entire face all at once, you'll wriggle the zombie off you. The controller stays in your both hands, but as you react to the game, the game reacts to you.

That's the very definition of "gimmick". And by gimmick I mean stupid.

Look. Microsoft. All I want to do when I game is "veg out". I don't want to writhe around on the floor like I'm having a seizure just so I can get a zombie off me.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Don't flinch: the new Kinect could be the end of motion gimmicks

Just what I want to do, talk to my tv!

Me: Archers!!!!!!

Wife: Wow

Me: ZOMBIES!!

Wife: So proud

In Dead Rising 3, an open-world zombie game that seems to be part Grand Theft Autoand part Kingdom Rush, your controller is once again your friend. Your Kinect might be your enemy. Zombies can hear you talking, even rustling on your couch, and they'll come after you. (Prepare to play Dead Rising 3 in the quietest room you can find.) Once they find you, if you wriggle on your couch as you presumably would if a zombie were attempting to eat your entire face all at once, you'll wriggle the zombie off you. The controller stays in your both hands, but as you react to the game, the game reacts to you.

That's the very definition of "gimmick". And by gimmick I mean stupid.

Look. Microsoft. All I want to do when I game is "veg out". I don't want to writhe around on the floor like I'm having a seizure just so I can get a zombie off me.

Wife walks in and see me writhing around on the couch:

Wife: Are you having sex with that thing on the tv?

Me: Um, no? I think?

 

[larry_boy_44]

This doesn't seem like a fantastic PR movehttp://go.ign.com/1190aGY

I don't see how they are that stupid...

 

[Jobber]

Don't flinch: the new Kinect could be the end of motion gimmicks

Just what I want to do, talk to my tv!

Me: Archers!!!!!!

Wife: Wow

Me: ZOMBIES!!

Wife: So proud

That actually sounds pretty cool.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Don't flinch: the new Kinect could be the end of motion gimmicks

Just what I want to do, talk to my tv!

Me: Archers!!!!!!

Wife: Wow

Me: ZOMBIES!!

Wife: So proud

In Dead Rising 3, an open-world zombie game that seems to be part Grand Theft Autoand part Kingdom Rush, your controller is once again your friend. Your Kinect might be your enemy. Zombies can hear you talking, even rustling on your couch, and they'll come after you. (Prepare to play Dead Rising 3 in the quietest room you can find.) Once they find you, if you wriggle on your couch as you presumably would if a zombie were attempting to eat your entire face all at once, you'll wriggle the zombie off you. The controller stays in your both hands, but as you react to the game, the game reacts to you.

That's the very definition of "gimmick". And by gimmick I mean stupid.

Look. Microsoft. All I want to do when I game is "veg out". I don't want to writhe around on the floor like I'm having a seizure just so I can get a zombie off me.

If somebody tells me that they like voice commands in Mass Effect or Madden, I can see that. Personally, I pretty much never talk to anyone or anything when I'm playing, other than the occasional expletive when my character is killed by a goblin, and I like it that way. But that's just me, and I can appreciate the appeal of voice commands even if I wouldn't personally use them.

But I refuse to believe that there is anybody anywhere who really wants to wiggle around on the couch when their character is attacked by a zombie. Or at least nobody old enough to be playing Dead Rising in the first place.

 

[thecatch]

I like the voice commands (as long as the wife isn't home to make fun of me) but the movement is a bridge too far. Infamous 1 on the ps3 required you to tilt your controller to throw grenades at the right angle, and even that annoyed the crap out of me.

 

[NCCommish]

Don't flinch: the new Kinect could be the end of motion gimmicks

Just what I want to do, talk to my tv!

Me: Archers!!!!!!

Wife: Wow

Me: ZOMBIES!!

Wife: So proud

In Dead Rising 3, an open-world zombie game that seems to be part Grand Theft Autoand part Kingdom Rush, your controller is once again your friend. Your Kinect might be your enemy. Zombies can hear you talking, even rustling on your couch, and they'll come after you. (Prepare to play Dead Rising 3 in the quietest room you can find.) Once they find you, if you wriggle on your couch as you presumably would if a zombie were attempting to eat your entire face all at once, you'll wriggle the zombie off you. The controller stays in your both hands, but as you react to the game, the game reacts to you.

That's the very definition of "gimmick". And by gimmick I mean stupid.

Look. Microsoft. All I want to do when I game is "veg out". I don't want to writhe around on the floor like I'm having a seizure just so I can get a zombie off me.

If somebody tells me that they like voice commands in Mass Effect or Madden, I can see that. Personally, I pretty much never talk to anyone or anything when I'm playing, other than the occasional expletive when my character is killed by a goblin, and I like it that way. But that's just me, and I can appreciate the appeal of voice commands even if I wouldn't personally use them.

But I refuse to believe that there is anybody anywhere who really wants to wiggle around on the couch when their character is attacked by a zombie. Or at least nobody old enough to be playing Dead Rising in the first place.

My problem is I talk to the game constantly. My wife gets a kick out of it. I trash talk NPCs, cuss them when they kill me, flirt with their womens, etc. I don't think the Kinect is going to deal with that well.

 

[Slapdash]

This doesn't seem like a fantastic PR movehttp://go.ign.com/1190aGY

This guy is not going to have his job very long.

Don't flinch: the new Kinect could be the end of motion gimmicks

that all sounds awful.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

My problem is I talk to the game constantly. My wife gets a kick out of it. I trash talk NPCs, cuss them when they kill me, flirt with their womens, etc. I don't think the Kinect is going to deal with that well.

Imagine a Dating Game/Bar Scene type game where the characters react to you based on your real live looks and actions. WOULDN'T THAT BE AWESOME!?

You: "Hey, can I get your number?"

[Kinect analyzes whether or not you'd actually have a shot at this person in real life - determines that you are far too ugly and awkward and your pulse is racing far too fast so it decides "no".{

XB1: "Get lost, loser."

Sounds great doesn't it?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

My problem is I talk to the game constantly. My wife gets a kick out of it. I trash talk NPCs, cuss them when they kill me, flirt with their womens, etc. I don't think the Kinect is going to deal with that well.

Imagine a Dating Game/Bar Scene type game where the characters react to you based on your real live looks and actions. WOULDN'T THAT BE AWESOME!?

You: "Hey, can I get your number?"

[Kinect analyzes whether or not you'd actually have a shot at this person in real life - determines that you are far too ugly and awkward and your pulse is racing far too fast so it decides "no".{

XB1: "Get lost, loser."

Sounds great doesn't it?

We're FBGs. We would conquer this game with ease.

 

[LAUNCH]

In these comparisons I find it amusing that they neglect to mention the PSN vs XBL.

how can they mention something that doesn't exist yet?

All the ways that one network can be better than the other aren't things we can really know about ahead of time... We can guess based on past results (XBox would win), but considering everything else Microsoft is screwing up, is that really a safe bet?

How can they mention something that doesn't exist? The PSN and XBL are available and working now, thus they can be compared.

All the ways that one network can be better than the other aren't things we can really know about ahead of time. Microsoft did an entire segment on how they are moving from a 15,000 server Xbox live environment to a 300,000 server cloud based service. The PS4 added cross-game chat.

So like I said...In these comparisons I find it amusing that they neglect to mention the PSN vs XBL. Forza spent a lot of time explaining how they will use the network in their game and it will be interesting to see what other franchises try to do to enhance games.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I think the relationship between Microsoft and the gaming community can be summed up with this short video.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

My problem is I talk to the game constantly. My wife gets a kick out of it. I trash talk NPCs, cuss them when they kill me, flirt with their womens, etc. I don't think the Kinect is going to deal with that well.

Imagine a Dating Game/Bar Scene type game where the characters react to you based on your real live looks and actions. WOULDN'T THAT BE AWESOME!?

You: "Hey, can I get your number?"

[Kinect analyzes whether or not you'd actually have a shot at this person in real life - determines that you are far too ugly and awkward and your pulse is racing far too fast so it decides "no".{

XB1: "Get lost, loser."

Sounds great doesn't it?

We're FBGs. We would conquer this game with ease.

Not if they can teach the Kinect to smell.

 

[Worm]

I have always thought there was potential to utilize kinect, in a serious game setting, in a way that hardcore gamers would like and actively utilize.

It's been pretty disappointing so far though.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Nobody wants gestures really. I don't want to be screaming voice commands either. I'm sure a lot of people game at night when other members of the household are asleep. Also, I do not want to feel like a complete ###.

 

[larry_boy_44]

In these comparisons I find it amusing that they neglect to mention the PSN vs XBL.

how can they mention something that doesn't exist yet?

All the ways that one network can be better than the other aren't things we can really know about ahead of time... We can guess based on past results (XBox would win), but considering everything else Microsoft is screwing up, is that really a safe bet?

How can they mention something that doesn't exist? The PSN and XBL are available and working now, thus they can be compared.

All the ways that one network can be better than the other aren't things we can really know about ahead of time. Microsoft did an entire segment on how they are moving from a 15,000 server Xbox live environment to a 300,000 server cloud based service. The PS4 added cross-game chat.

So like I said...In these comparisons I find it amusing that they neglect to mention the PSN vs XBL. Forza spent a lot of time explaining how they will use the network in their game and it will be interesting to see what other franchises try to do to enhance games.

The networks aren't going to be the same, they aren't going to be on the same servers, and they aren't going to be running the same software.

They might be similar, but no one knows for sure until we use them.

Plus, you throw out the number of servers, but what if that isn't enough? What if Microsoft needs 3,000,000 servers? What if after 6 months of XBox One being out they realize they can't keep up with the need for servers so they scrap the entire idea? We don't know how its going to work because we haven't experienced it. The developers can only guess how the full load of gamers is going to work because, as is typical, it won't work the same way when it goes live (go ask Sim City and Diablo 3 how it went).

I even said we can make educated guesses based on XBLive on 360 and XBox and PSN on PS3, but to do anything other than guess at how it might be based on that is nonsensical, because they won't be exactly the same (you state just as much).