That's all you need to know. MS charge its customers to pay to download games. The model is broken and thus can never compete with Steam. However much you try and ignore that fact will not make it go away :rolleyes:
I don't have a Gold account, yet I can pay for and download games. I'm missing your point?
As for Kinect, people always fall back on your excuse. "Oh I don't want to have to move around to play a game." You don't need to. It could be used to scan your face into a game, register your heartbeat so the game can adjust something within it based on your physical feedback. There is so much more to it than waving your arms around.
If someone says "I don't care for it being able to tell my heartbeat" then that is someone saying they don't want progress. Plain and simple. Just imagine a horror game which can tell if your scared or not and ramp things up even more to really freak you out. That's the type of ideas floating around that developers could build upon.
This all sounds good in theory so its about time to actually demonstrate this type of thing rather than selling a promise. Kinect on 360 was sold with lots of promise yet two of its coolest ideas still haven't made it to reality yet. You cant scan items from your home into a game and even with Kinect 2.0 they still havent got anywhere near close to the natural voice interaction that was shown in the Milo tech demo.
Its been nearly 3 years since Kinect launched and so far nothing really cool has been demoed so its no wonder people dont really understand how its works properly as even MS dont seem be full of ideas about how to use it.
If that's the case, why were we told the the Kinect was an integral part of the system and the system wouldn't function without it and it always had to be connected. Now they say actually it doesn't need to be connected, oh and by the way it's not integral at all..... someone's been telling "porkies"
We were also told the Auto-on connection was integral to the system and couldn't just be turned off like a switch.
That's not the point I was trying to make. The point was Kinect can do so much more, it just needs the developers to come up with the ideas. By not "forcing" all Xbox One owners to have a Kinect means the developers are less inclined to spend time coming up with ideas on how to use it.
As for me comparing to it to Steam, I didn't to begin with. I was meaning Steam had a lot of negative feedback around DRM but people then saw past it and now it's loved by most. I was trying to suggest the same could have applied to the things MS were trying if it were given a chance.
MS need to lead the way and show developer what can be done with the system.
I agree with the comparison to STEAM in a lot of way, the big difference as I see it though it that for a long time STEAM didnt force any changes on people. The option to play the old way was around for a long time and STEAM won people over to their system rather than forcing it upon them.
STEAM also allows offline play and never required regular online check in to keep your content alive.
So they remove the Kinect requirement but don't remove the bundle? Lol.
The Kinect will always be a gimmick just like the Wii Remote for dedicated gamers. £80 extra for an inferior console is still very bad. Sony are still laughing.
If they remove the kinect from the bundle, I'd consider one eventually a year or so after PS4. Why are the still bundling something that's not required, especially now they're including a headset, for £80 more?
Microsoft had the idea to "shape" the audience with their innovations. But honestly the audience doesn't care about this innovation and want the usual good fun. Which is not bad at all!!
Anyway, I will buy both Xbox One and PS4 since they will be real next gen, each one in its way.
I'm expecting Microsoft to announce a redesign of the xbone tomorrow....
Now that would be funny, if it wasn't possibly true.
I personally have never seen the attraction of motion control, I've seen the videos of driving a car, by holding your hands up like a steering wheel, it looks bloody knackering.
I do like the idea of a camera for things like getting your picture on the screen for mulitplayer etc..
I know its next gen but it would be great if it would play 360 games. If it did that I would put one on order today. I have so many 360 games that I still love playing.
The point I'm making is Steam was hated at first. I for example had to take my desktop home to my parents to enable Half Life 2 as Steam was blocked in the student halls. But people then saw it's advantages and got over this. Just like how it may have been similar for MS.
Halflife 2 required a net connection to activate it, you had one, not valves fault your halls blocked steam.
People disliked steam at first because alot of the time it didnt work preventing them from playing games,
Once valve introduced the offline mode and smoothed out the problems it was fine.
Remember around that time the majority were still on 56k modems in this country, there were bound to be problems.
So they remove the Kinect requirement but don't remove the bundle? Lol.
The Kinect will always be a gimmick just like the Wii Remote for dedicated gamers. £80 extra for an inferior console is still very bad. Sony are still laughing.
I think it's kind of obvious that they're keeping the Kinect bundled with the console because it's the only way for it to break out from being just a gimmick like the original Kinect, if they "unbundled" it then it would be doomed to a future of barely anybody buying/using it just like Sony has done to their PS4 camera when they unbundled it to lower the price of the console. If everyone has a Kinect then developers know that they can make games that take advantage of it in more innovative ways than the gimmicky ways in which the original was utilised.
I'm seemingly in a minority (at least on the cess pool of negativity that is the internet...) that's glad they're keeping the Kinect, yes it's £80 more expensive than a PS4, but it gives it something to set it apart from the PS4. Diversity between the consoles is a good thing in my opinion. And if i'm honest, i've been quite impressed with the tech demos i've seen of the Kinect 2 so i don't actually mind paying the additional £80. If it was "unbundled" then i'd probably buy the standalone Xbox One version, but since everyone who buys an Xbox One is going to have a Kinect it seems highly likely that it'll be used in more innovative ways than the original, so therefore i don't mind paying for it.
I'd rather have a cheaper console, let the developers show us for "real" what benefits a camera can have then we decide whether to buy or not. It may mean MS and Sony have to basically pay a developer/s to actually incorporate motion abilities into the games, but if their confident that this is the future, let them put their money where their mouth is, and not the consumer.
I think it's kind of obvious that they're keeping the Kinect bundled with the console because it's the only way for it to break out from being just a gimmick like the original Kinect, if they "unbundled" it then it would be doomed to a future of barely anybody buying/using it just like Sony has done to their PS4 camera when they unbundled it to lower the price of the console. If everyone has a Kinect then developers know that they can make games that take advantage of it in more innovative ways than the gimmicky ways in which the original was utilised.
I'm seemingly in a minority (at least on the cess pool of negativity that is the internet...) that's glad they're keeping the Kinect, yes it's £80 more expensive than a PS4, but it gives it something to set it apart from the PS4. Diversity between the consoles is a good thing in my opinion. And if i'm honest, i've been quite impressed with the tech demos i've seen of the Kinect 2 so i don't actually mind paying the additional £80. If it was "unbundled" then i'd probably buy the standalone Xbox One version, but since everyone who buys an Xbox One is going to have a Kinect it seems highly likely that it'll be used in more innovative ways than the original, so therefore i don't mind paying for it.
For me the hole situation is better for Sony when it comes to the camera, as you say with kinect bundled devs will make use of it, but at the same time if they spend millions on the development costs you can be sure that they'll port the features over to the PS4 version and then people will be forced to buy even more for a separate camera
At the same time because Devs know it will be a harder sell to get people using a camera on PS4, PS4 will most likely end up with less bottom of the barrel motion controlled games
It makes me laugh that while Microsoft go about their merry business, blindly pissing people off by forcing Kinect down their throats, the only Kinect specific launch title has been delayed until 2014.
I think they've possibly created another problem for themselves. As the forthcoming generation marches on Sony having a less complicated hardware offering could allow them to cut prices faster and more aggressively than Microsoft. In a few years from now MS could be left looking even further overpriced unless they are willing to drop the Kinect from their bundle.
Halflife 2 required a net connection to activate it, you had one, not valves fault your halls blocked steam.
People disliked steam at first because alot of the time it didnt work preventing them from playing games,
Once valve introduced the offline mode and smoothed out the problems it was fine.
Remember around that time the majority were still on 56k modems in this country, there were bound to be problems.
You and most people seem to have missed the point I was making.
When Steam was first launched a lot of people didn't like it. The idea of having to have an online account on a new platform, one that ties your games to it and you need to active a game online to play it was unheard of at the time.
Many gamers hated the idea of it, plenty resented it and some even claimed it was the end of PC Gaming.
But look at Steam now. Loved by most, and perhaps the savoir of PC Gaming.
I was trying to say that the ideas MS came up with were like Steam in terms of something completely different for it's gamers. Something that a lot of people didn't like the idea of and claim it will kill the console in terms of sales. But perhaps, just perhaps, if MS were given time to show the world how it actually works and were allowed to evolve and improve it we may have seen it succeed. Just a shame we will never now see if the idea worked out in the end or not.
You and most people seem to have missed the point I was making.
When Steam was first launched a lot of people didn't like it. The idea of having to have an online account on a new platform, one that ties your games to it and you need to active a game online to play it was unheard of at the time.
Many gamers hated the idea of it, plenty resented it and some even claimed it was the end of PC Gaming.
But look at Steam now. Loved by most, and perhaps the savoir of PC Gaming.
I was trying to say that the ideas MS came up with were like Steam in terms of something completely different for it's gamers. Something that a lot of people didn't like the idea of and claim it will kill the console in terms of sales. But perhaps, just perhaps, if MS were given time to show the world how it actually works and were allowed to evolve and improve it we may have seen it succeed. Just a shame we will never now see if the idea worked out in the end or not.
The reason Steam works is because they sold it to the customers. Steam has always been an alternative to physical copies. If you wished (or still wish) to buy physical copies then you can. If you wish to share or resell your games then buy the physical copy and you still can. Because steam is just an option no one is forced to use it. Therefore Steam had to work to persuade people that Steam was the right option. They largely did that by offering really good deals and amazing sales.
Compare that to MS trying to do similar. Would you have been able to buy physical copies. Yep so no difference there. Would you have been able to sell or share your physical copy. Not a chance. MS were dictating the rules to its customers and telling them that they had zero option. Is it any wonder that the customers didn't like it.
The reason Steam works is because they sold it to the customers. Steam has always been an alternative to physical copies. If you wished (or still wish) to buy physical copies then you can. If you wish to share or resell your games then buy the physical copy and you still can. Because steam is just an option no one is forced to use it. Therefore Steam had to work to persuade people that Steam was the right option. They largely did that by offering really good deals and amazing sales.
You'd struggle to find a PC game made in the last ten years that hasn't had a CD key that restricts it to one person/machine or one Steam/Origin account. The second hand market for PC gaming is nonexistant.
I was one of the ones who hated Steam at first (i remember the stress of November 2004 where it took me hours just to get Half Life 2 to work), but now i love Steam, it's the best thing to happen to PC gaming in recent times, especially with their sales. Now i've no doubt that MS wouldn't have had sales like Steam, but they weren't trying to abolish physical copies, so they weren't forcing you to buy via their download store. It's all a moot point now anyway considering that they've backtracked on the whole "no used games" thing, but at the time i can remember thinking that MS were just trying to replicate the systems found on PC, and PC gamers have just accepted that the second hand market is dead, in time i'm sure console gamers would have accepted this too. Mark my words, the next generation of consoles after the X1 and PS4 will see the end of the second hand market just like it has on PC, especially if the Steambox ever materialises.
I take it you're not a PC gamer? I think you'd struggle to find a PC game made in the last ten years that hasn't had a CD key that restricts it to one person/machine or one Steam/Origin account. The second hand market for PC gaming is nonexistant.
I am a PC gamer and have been since 1983!. When steam first started it was easy to lend games to friends and family if you owned the physical copy. And that's exactly what I did. I usually buy games off of Steam these days because they grew their business slowly and once they had a reasonable market share they started offering great discounts. The discounts are worth more to me than the resale value. That's what MS would not and could not offer and that's why it was doomed to failure.
Comments
I don't have a Gold account, yet I can pay for and download games.
This all sounds good in theory so its about time to actually demonstrate this type of thing rather than selling a promise. Kinect on 360 was sold with lots of promise yet two of its coolest ideas still haven't made it to reality yet. You cant scan items from your home into a game and even with Kinect 2.0 they still havent got anywhere near close to the natural voice interaction that was shown in the Milo tech demo.
Its been nearly 3 years since Kinect launched and so far nothing really cool has been demoed so its no wonder people dont really understand how its works properly as even MS dont seem be full of ideas about how to use it.
We were also told the Auto-on connection was integral to the system and couldn't just be turned off like a switch.
MS need to lead the way and show developer what can be done with the system.
I agree with the comparison to STEAM in a lot of way, the big difference as I see it though it that for a long time STEAM didnt force any changes on people. The option to play the old way was around for a long time and STEAM won people over to their system rather than forcing it upon them.
STEAM also allows offline play and never required regular online check in to keep your content alive.
It is region free. That was YET ANOTHER well communicated U-turn from the PR geniuses at Microsoft.
:eek:
I can buy US Xbox One games and play them on a UK Xbox One console ?
Oh my, now im really in a pickle.
I'm probably too late to order a launch day Xbox One now anyway.
The Kinect will always be a gimmick just like the Wii Remote for dedicated gamers. £80 extra for an inferior console is still very bad. Sony are still laughing.
I know! I wish I could do that in the PS4!... Ohh wait...
Anyway, I will buy both Xbox One and PS4 since they will be real next gen, each one in its way.
Now that would be funny, if it wasn't possibly true.
I personally have never seen the attraction of motion control, I've seen the videos of driving a car, by holding your hands up like a steering wheel, it looks bloody knackering.
I do like the idea of a camera for things like getting your picture on the screen for mulitplayer etc..
People disliked steam at first because alot of the time it didnt work preventing them from playing games,
Once valve introduced the offline mode and smoothed out the problems it was fine.
Remember around that time the majority were still on 56k modems in this country, there were bound to be problems.
I think it's kind of obvious that they're keeping the Kinect bundled with the console because it's the only way for it to break out from being just a gimmick like the original Kinect, if they "unbundled" it then it would be doomed to a future of barely anybody buying/using it just like Sony has done to their PS4 camera when they unbundled it to lower the price of the console. If everyone has a Kinect then developers know that they can make games that take advantage of it in more innovative ways than the gimmicky ways in which the original was utilised.
I'm seemingly in a minority (at least on the cess pool of negativity that is the internet...) that's glad they're keeping the Kinect, yes it's £80 more expensive than a PS4, but it gives it something to set it apart from the PS4. Diversity between the consoles is a good thing in my opinion. And if i'm honest, i've been quite impressed with the tech demos i've seen of the Kinect 2 so i don't actually mind paying the additional £80. If it was "unbundled" then i'd probably buy the standalone Xbox One version, but since everyone who buys an Xbox One is going to have a Kinect it seems highly likely that it'll be used in more innovative ways than the original, so therefore i don't mind paying for it.
For me the hole situation is better for Sony when it comes to the camera, as you say with kinect bundled devs will make use of it, but at the same time if they spend millions on the development costs you can be sure that they'll port the features over to the PS4 version and then people will be forced to buy even more for a separate camera
At the same time because Devs know it will be a harder sell to get people using a camera on PS4, PS4 will most likely end up with less bottom of the barrel motion controlled games
I think they've possibly created another problem for themselves. As the forthcoming generation marches on Sony having a less complicated hardware offering could allow them to cut prices faster and more aggressively than Microsoft. In a few years from now MS could be left looking even further overpriced unless they are willing to drop the Kinect from their bundle.
You and most people seem to have missed the point I was making.
When Steam was first launched a lot of people didn't like it. The idea of having to have an online account on a new platform, one that ties your games to it and you need to active a game online to play it was unheard of at the time.
Many gamers hated the idea of it, plenty resented it and some even claimed it was the end of PC Gaming.
But look at Steam now. Loved by most, and perhaps the savoir of PC Gaming.
I was trying to say that the ideas MS came up with were like Steam in terms of something completely different for it's gamers. Something that a lot of people didn't like the idea of and claim it will kill the console in terms of sales. But perhaps, just perhaps, if MS were given time to show the world how it actually works and were allowed to evolve and improve it we may have seen it succeed. Just a shame we will never now see if the idea worked out in the end or not.
The reason Steam works is because they sold it to the customers. Steam has always been an alternative to physical copies. If you wished (or still wish) to buy physical copies then you can. If you wish to share or resell your games then buy the physical copy and you still can. Because steam is just an option no one is forced to use it. Therefore Steam had to work to persuade people that Steam was the right option. They largely did that by offering really good deals and amazing sales.
Compare that to MS trying to do similar. Would you have been able to buy physical copies. Yep so no difference there. Would you have been able to sell or share your physical copy. Not a chance. MS were dictating the rules to its customers and telling them that they had zero option. Is it any wonder that the customers didn't like it.
You'd struggle to find a PC game made in the last ten years that hasn't had a CD key that restricts it to one person/machine or one Steam/Origin account. The second hand market for PC gaming is nonexistant.
I was one of the ones who hated Steam at first (i remember the stress of November 2004 where it took me hours just to get Half Life 2 to work), but now i love Steam, it's the best thing to happen to PC gaming in recent times, especially with their sales. Now i've no doubt that MS wouldn't have had sales like Steam, but they weren't trying to abolish physical copies, so they weren't forcing you to buy via their download store. It's all a moot point now anyway considering that they've backtracked on the whole "no used games" thing, but at the time i can remember thinking that MS were just trying to replicate the systems found on PC, and PC gamers have just accepted that the second hand market is dead, in time i'm sure console gamers would have accepted this too. Mark my words, the next generation of consoles after the X1 and PS4 will see the end of the second hand market just like it has on PC, especially if the Steambox ever materialises.
I am a PC gamer and have been since 1983!. When steam first started it was easy to lend games to friends and family if you owned the physical copy. And that's exactly what I did. I usually buy games off of Steam these days because they grew their business slowly and once they had a reasonable market share they started offering great discounts. The discounts are worth more to me than the resale value. That's what MS would not and could not offer and that's why it was doomed to failure.