or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › Xbox Area › The Official Xbox One thread...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Official Xbox One thread... - Page 211

post #6301 of 14774
4Players

Q: Are there still any of the other parts of the hardware, e.g. RAM, HDD, CPU clock speed etc., potentially subject to change or are the specs more or less set in stone with the tweak of the GPU ?

A: The changes Marc detailed regarding the clock speed of the GPU were software changes to the OS. Building a console like Xbox One entails years of planning, supply chain management, purchasing agreements for components, etc and is for the most part locked at the time you start to put development kits into the hands of developers.

Q: Can Microsoft rule out changes to the price point that was announced at E3? ($/€ 499)

A: We are very confident with the value we provide at $/€ 499 and the unparalleled, all in one games and entertainment experience that Xbox One offers.

Q: Are there any details Microsoft is willing to provide regarding the power consumption? What about the low-powered state?

A: When it’s ready to respond to “Xbox On” it uses about 14 watts, which is about five US cents (or about four Euro cents) per day. In its lowest power state, Xbox One uses only a ½-watt, which is less than about a half a U.S. cent or one-third of a Euro cent per day.

Q: Is the Xbox One required to stand horizontally or is a vertical position possible, too?

A: Designed as a premium entertainment system that is aesthetically at home in the living room, the console is intended to sit horizontally. Additionally, the airflow and venting system was optimized for this horizontal orientation.
post #6302 of 14774
Too bad they designed it to just sit horizontally, I'd like the option to stand vertically. Still I can see why they chose that as they want you to see it as a piece of your home entertainment system like you would your bd player or receiver. I have my 360 and PS3 vertically right now but I'll probably end up sitting both the new systems horizontally once I get them. It gives me a chance to redo my home theater system anyway and I'll always take the chance to do that.
post #6303 of 14774
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

I think the change is already happening....digital distribution is completely breaking the old price model. Now we're seeing stuff like far cry 3 blood dragon and call of Juarez gunslinger coming from the top down, and tons upon tons of smaller games priced $15-25. It's only a matter of time before you can buy the modes separately on digital, but retail discs will probably continue to pack everything in.

If anything I think it would mean that the "tacked on" MP or SP will get more TLC, since it would have to thrive on its own in the digital space. I still think its a very good idea to use assets efficiently and make MP games out of an SP framework...that's how MP started on PC to begin with. It just needs to be less of an afterthought.

One thing I really want to see is something similar to "complete the album" on iTunes. If you buy the MP separately, you should be able to "buy up" to the full version by just paying the difference. Same for individual DLCs vs the season pass. If the pass is $25, for three $10 DLCs....if I buy the first one, I should be able to completely my pass for $15.

agreed.. would love something like that..
post #6304 of 14774
Quote:
Originally Posted by benjamin-benjami View Post

agreed.. would love something like that..

For what it's worth, steam already does it in places. I was able to upgrade civ V to civ V gold for considerably less than buying all the DLC.

I think as soon as they start to try to coerce you into paying more by tricks and traps, they've lost their way. I can absolutely see them selling the MP and SP of a $60 game separately for $40 each. I think thats perfectly fair. But if they expect you to shell out a grand total of $80 for the full package just because you bought them one at a time rather than up front....that's crazy. Although I won't be surprised if they try it.
post #6305 of 14774
Lots of wishful thinking in here...but one may as well wish to win the lottery. wink.gif

There's no way you'll ever see anyone paying $40 for SP versions of games like BF or CoD, hence there is no reason for the companies to offer MP only for $20 less than they're already getting from consumers. Conversely, nobody is going to buy MP for Uncharted or TR at $40, so again, it's not going to happen. It's incredibly rare for any game to have good versions of both, and I was glad to see Tyrant brought up the BF: BadCo, series since it's probably the only game I can recall getting equal parts of joy playing both MP and SP.

Simply throwing more man hours at the problem isn't going to help either, imo.
post #6306 of 14774
The tacking on of extra modes is mainly a hedge against reselling and/or to offer what seems like a better value to players at the rigid price point of $60. Digital games can't be resold, and don't need to be $60 either.

The split doesn't necessarily need to be $40/$40. It could be $50/30 for something like cod or battlefield which is primarily multiplayer. The lower cost of entry gets more people hooked and potentially turned on to the other modes. I would never have bought tomb raider at $60, MP or not. At $40, I might have bitten just for the SP....and then I might have considered another $20 for the MP. Instead, I just played something else, and I eventually bought it all for $12....I hardly think that's what they wanted.

I'm sure everyone said the same thing about iTunes...why would they let you buy just the songs you want, when they can force you to buy the whole album? And then iTunes just went and did it, people loved it, and now it's what's expected. Digital changes everything...the publishers that start doing it are going to eat the lunch of the ones that don't.
post #6307 of 14774
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder696969 View Post

Lots of wishful thinking in here...but one may as well wish to win the lottery. wink.gif

There's no way you'll ever see anyone paying $40 for SP versions of games like BF or CoD

Says a lot, doesn't it? I'd be interested to know the numbers of people that don't make it past the second chapters of SP, let alone even start it for games like BF and COD.

Devs are always complaining about how expensive it is to make games. For quite a few MP centric games, you have a obvious place to cut costs screaming out right there. take it and put resources on the MP side.

Some will say, well you need MP tacked on to SP to keep people from trading a game in and flooding the used market. Honestly, free SP DLC takes care of that as long as you have stuff ready to go the first 2-3 months. After that, charge. The DLC works both ends, people buy it new to get access and keep the game because it’s coming out sooner rather than later. Devs just need to make sure it’s meaningful and worth not trading the game in.


Once online passes go the way of the do-do, the same applies to MP. DLC if planned isn’t much more of an expense, and can easily be the hook to keep people from trading their games in as long as they know it’s coming 2-4-6-8 weeks out (assuming your game isn’t a dud from the getgo). Then again, used games aren’t really a problem, just a justification for their poor decisions and business models, which is why you don’t see them really trying to use these types of tools to fix the “problem”. This would fix that problem, but their real problem is they just want their monopoly and closed gardens. Slowing the reselling of used games by adding value is too much give and take for them (except 2K/Rockstar, which has even come out and said as much and does this).
post #6308 of 14774
Adding MP is adding value though. Is that really so much worse than artificially stretching out the single player? I'd prefer a tacked on MP that I can ignore rather than filler that drags the core experience down. GTA IV is a perfect example...it would have been a better story if they kept Niko's campaign the length of the DLCs. I forget the exact number, but I think the majority of the players never finished it. I slogged through it over something like 40 hours...way too long.

If they're going to pin their hopes and dreams on DLC, they need to convince people to buy the game first. $40 up front with 2 $10 DLCs is a much easier pill to swallow than $60 up front and the promise of two free DLCs. An easier way to add value for gamers is simply to charge less....and it just so happens that the most feasible way to do that, is the way which prevents people from trading in games.

I'm generally against the idea of more, more, more....just give me concentrated awesome. Right now the AAA segment of the industry is operating with circular logic....games need to be so long and full of stuff to justify the $60 price, and they can't lower the price because it costs so much to develop all that extra stuff. It's getting absurd, and it's no surprise the most interesting stuff is coming out of the digital only smaller devs, at a low initial price...digital lets them break the cycle.
Edited by bd2003 - 8/7/13 at 9:32am
post #6309 of 14774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daekwan View Post

I couldn't care any less about SP. The last SP campaign I've finished was Halo well over 10 years ago. So I'm glad they focused their efforts on MP instead.

And they didnt just chop the SP portion to be cheap or to disappoint fans. Their reasons were that with a small shop (less than 60 employees) they didnt have the time, money or resources for a "full" game experience. Considering less & less people care about SP.. and most SP campaigns are less than 10 hours anyways.. why bother dumping the time & effort into something thats over so quickly. That said, if this title turns out to be as popular as it is predicted to be (and is anywhere near game changing like COD4 was).. expect Respawn to have more than enough resources to shoot for a SP campaign in TF2.

Clearly you haven't a slightest idea what you are talking about. LOL
post #6310 of 14774
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Adding MP is adding value though. Is that really so much worse than artificially stretching out the single player? I'd prefer a tacked on MP that I can ignore rather than filler that drags the core experience down. GTA IV is a perfect example...it would have been a better story if they kept Niko's campaign the length of the DLCs. I forget the exact number, but I think the majority of the players never finished it. I slogged through it over something like 40 hours...way too long.

If they're going to pin their hopes and dreams on DLC, they need to convince people to buy the game first. $40 up front with 2 $10 DLCs is a much easier pill to swallow than $60 up front and the promise of two free DLCs. An easier way to add value for gamers is simply to charge less....and it just so happens that the most feasible way to do that, is the way which prevents people from trading in games.

I'm generally against the idea of more, more, more....just give me concentrated awesome.

I'm not saying I wouldn't love for it to happen, I'm just saying it's NOT ever going to happen, digital or not. Folks have set a precedent by accepting that games cost $60 new and buying them up like hotcakes...on consoles and PC. (Excluding sales and specials.) You said it yourself, you would have bought TR at $60, regardless. $60 is the standard of console gaming. To charge anything less out of the gate indicates to many that your game isn't worth the full $60, and thus, isn't as good as other games that cost the "standard" price. This may or may not necessarily be true, but people will perceive it as such by your price. With games + DLC averaging $100+ these days, there's just no incentive for game makers to lower the price for any reason.

Personally, I'm putting more money down on me having a three-way with Kate Upton and Bar Refaeli than new games being $40. wink.gif
post #6311 of 14774
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder696969 View Post

Personally, I'm putting more money down on me having a three-way with Kate Upton and Bar Refaeli than new games being $40. wink.gif

Woah, who's this Bar Refaeli you speak of? Why have I never heard of her before? Holy smokes....
post #6312 of 14774
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder696969 View Post

Personally, I'm putting more money down on me having a three-way with Kate Upton and Bar Refaeli than new games being $40. wink.gif


Sorry, they are XB1 fans so you are out of luck on that one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pcweber111 View Post

Woah, who's this Bar Refaeli you speak of? Why have I never heard of her before? Holy smokes....


You've been playing way to many video games.
post #6313 of 14774
Apparently...
post #6314 of 14774
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder696969 View Post

I'm not saying I wouldn't love for it to happen, I'm just saying it's NOT ever going to happen, digital or not. Folks have set a precedent by accepting that games cost $60 new and buying them up like hotcakes...on consoles and PC. (Excluding sales and specials.) You said it yourself, you would have bought TR at $60, regardless. $60 is the standard of console gaming. To charge anything less out of the gate indicates to many that your game isn't worth the full $60, and thus, isn't as good as other games that cost the "standard" price. This may or may not necessarily be true, but people will perceive it as such by your price. With games + DLC averaging $100+ these days, there's just no incentive for game makers to lower the price for any reason.

Personally, I'm putting more money down on me having a three-way with Kate Upton and Bar Refaeli than new games being $40. wink.gif

I said I *wouldn't* have bought it at $60. Thats too much money to ask for a 10 hour game, unless its unbelievably amazing...which it wasn't. And if they made it 20 hours long with a ton of filler to add "value"...I'd be even less inclined to play it at all.

But $30-40 right out of the gate, while its still fresh in everyone's mind? I'd at least have considered it. There's a precedent that new games cost $60, and there's also a precedent that they'll be $10 within a few months on the used market. The secondhand market is so influential because games cost so damn much to buy, and it's particularly damaging because games cost so damn much to make.

I'm less concerned about the actual price vs how much the $60 price point is holding games back at this point.
post #6315 of 14774
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

I said I *wouldn't* have bought it at $60. Thats too much money to ask for a 10 hour game, unless its unbelievably amazing...which it wasn't. And if they made it 20 hours long with a ton of filler to add "value"...I'd be even less inclined to play it at all.

But $30-40 right out of the gate, while its still fresh in everyone's mind? I'd at least have considered it. There's a precedent that new games cost $60, and there's also a precedent that they'll be $10 within a few months on the used market. The secondhand market is so influential because games cost so damn much to buy, and it's particularly damaging because games cost so damn much to make.

I'm less concerned about the actual price vs how much the $60 price point is holding games back at this point.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I think $60 is far too much...for some games. Others, not so much. I have 1200+ hours in to BF3 and it cost me $100 with all the DLC. 8 cents per hour is about as cheap as you can get for that much entertainment. $60 for Borderlands 2 + $30 for the DLC? A no-brainer. I've probably got another 500+ hours into that. Skyrim, Fallout 3/Vegas, Oblivion, etc,, all good buys at "normal" price, imo. $60 for Last of Us? Still good, even though the game is considerably shorter, simply due to the phenomenal quality of the game. On the other hand, I wouldn't pay more than about $5 for any CoD game. That's where it gets to be subjective. Others have no problem forking out $120 every year for that.

And there's the rub...it's not like any game makers or their partners are going to come out and say, "Gee, our game really isn't very good. Let's only charge $20 for it." (Walking Dead: Survival Instinct, anyone? wink.gif) Some may start at a slightly lower cost, but not by much. Also, nobody cares whether you buy in at launch or six months later, so long as you pay the most that they can get away with at any point. $40 out of the gate isn't gong to happen when they know you'll buy it at $40 later.

I would go on, but Bar and Kate are waiting... wink.gif
post #6316 of 14774
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder696969 View Post

Hey, don't get me wrong. I think $60 is far too much...for some games. Others, not so much. I have 1200+ hours in to BF3 and it cost me $100 with all the DLC. 8 cents per hour is about as cheap as you can get for that much entertainment. $60 for Borderlands 2 + $30 for the DLC? A no-brainer. I've probably got another 500+ hours into that. Skyrim, Fallout 3/Vegas, Oblivion, etc,, all good buys at "normal" price, imo. $60 for Last of Us? Still good, even though the game is considerably shorter, simply due to the phenomenal quality of the game. On the other hand, I wouldn't pay more than about $5 for any CoD game. That's where it gets to be subjective. Others have no problem forking out $120 every year for that.

And there's the rub...it's not like any game makers or their partners are going to come out and say, "Gee, our game really isn't very good. Let's only charge $20 for it." (Walking Dead: Survival Instinct, anyone? wink.gif) Some may start at a slightly lower cost, but not by much. Also, nobody cares whether you buy in at launch or six months later, so long as you pay the most that they can get away with at any point. $40 out of the gate isn't gong to happen when they know you'll buy it at $40 later.

I would go on, but Bar and Kate are waiting... wink.gif

I hear what you're saying, there's a lot of truth to that. But their marketing campaigns are about building up to a peak level of hype around the launch window. A week or two past launch, the amount of attention a game gets drops to almost nothing, and they're running on pure word of mouth and an active playerbase at that point. That's entirely dependent on how many initial copies they could sell. If the early word is that it's a good game, but isn't enough of a value to justify $60, then the best they can hope for is that people put it on their wish lists and buy it at a reduced price. 3-6 months later, most people will have moved on. Many will end up purchasing it used. Its no coincidence that so many of the mid-tier publishers have ceased to exist, because the competition is so brutal that they couldn't make the cut at the $60 price point when they're up against skyrim and battlefield.

Enough digital games have succeeded at $20 and below that I think the stigma of "budget games" has mostly gone away, at least in the digital space. Less expensive games aren't worse games, they're just smaller games. If there's room for $60 games, $15 games, and even free to play games....there's definitely a place for $40 games, even if its just a cut down version of a $60 game. Maybe we're not quite ready for it just yet, maybe digital needs to be more prevalent first....but its only a matter of time.
post #6317 of 14774
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57597474-75/xbox-ones-game-dvr-function-will-require-xbox-live-gold-membership/

The majority of people are going to need the membership anyway since most games are MP. I was hoping MS would remove that paywall for the more petty stuff
post #6318 of 14774
post #6319 of 14774
Quote:
Originally Posted by mboojigga View Post


Well, damn. Looks like standard 3.5mm headsets will not work with that proprietary jack. frown.gif
post #6320 of 14774
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder696969 View Post

Well, damn. Looks like standard 3.5mm headsets will not work with that proprietary jack. frown.gif

Didn't they say that a couple of months ago? Otherwise using the older headsets would not have been an issue.
post #6321 of 14774
Quote:
Originally Posted by samendolaro View Post

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57597474-75/xbox-ones-game-dvr-function-will-require-xbox-live-gold-membership/

The majority of people are going to need the membership anyway since most games are MP. I was hoping MS would remove that paywall for the more petty stuff

Instead they built an even higher wall. Not only game DVR, but also the TV guide, and Skype. The TV guide!

They might as well just make it required and drop the pretense.
post #6322 of 14774
Big whoop. If someone is feeling that salty then get the alternative and buy your own recording option which they stated you can do like you can now with your 360. You have a choice and I doubt many people are up in arms about this when the primary reason most buy Gold is to play online which has always been the primary reason to buy Gold. Everything else is whatever. I honestly don't get the whining and complaining about additional features behind the paywall.

First it was complaining to pay to play online for 12 years and now that Sony officially wants you to do the same thing to get that money it has moved on to OMG this and that is behind a pay wall even though my primary purpose of purchasing is to play online games.
post #6323 of 14774
Quote:
Originally Posted by mboojigga View Post

Big whoop. If someone is feeling that salty then get the alternative and buy your own recording option which they stated you can do like you can now with your 360. You have a choice and I doubt many people are up in arms about this when the primary reason most buy Gold is to play online which has always been the primary reason to buy Gold. Everything else is whatever. I honestly don't get the whining and complaining about additional features behind the paywall.

First it was complaining to pay to play online for 12 years and now that Sony officially wants you to do the same thing to get that money it has moved on to OMG this and that is behind a pay wall even though my primary purpose of purchasing is to play online games.

It's a new level of ridiculous because they're now taking services that no one ever charged for, and putting them behind pay walls too. At least with Netflix they could justify it for a time, because no one else had that feature.

Windows media center never charged for their guide, even with OTA. Want to watch TV on your Xbox one? You need a cable sub, a monthly cable box fee, and an gold sub. Skype is free to use on several billion devices as well...but not the Xbox.

It's subscriptions on top of subscriptions on top of subscriptions! I'm surprised the thing even turns on without a gold sub.
post #6324 of 14774
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Instead they built an even higher wall. Not only game DVR, but also the TV guide, and Skype. The TV guide!

They might as well just make it required and drop the pretense.
So then you are actually getting more for your money on Xbox. On PS4, the only thing you get is online MP, while on Xbox you get alot of features with your gold.
post #6325 of 14774
Unboxing Xbox One
Quote:
Our own Major Nelson has created a special surprise and we couldn’t be more pumped to share this video with you. It’s kind of like opening that Christmas gift you’ve been eyeing under the tree, or the birthday surprise you’ve been awaiting. That’s right – we present to you – the unboxing of Xbox One.



While working on this video, we uncovered several cool facts about Xbox One and the components that ship in the box. Below are my top favorites…make sure you keep reading below for other insider details from Albert Penello, our director of product planning for Xbox One.

In the video, we are unveiling the Xbox One Day One edition – which includes a special Day One package, specially branded DAY ONE 2013 controller with chrome D-pad, and a Day One digital achievement. This will be available in limited quantities.

The Xbox One console, Kinect sensor – even the HDMI cable and the power supply - have a “liquid black” finish, with a focus on a consistent 16:9 design ratio across all components. This attention to detail was intentional and a great example of how every component in the box was especially designed for Xbox One. You can hear more about our attention to design details from our design team here.

The Xbox One console is state of the art - a 500GB hard drive, slot load Blu-ray drive, IR blaster port, HDMI input and output connectors, a S/PDIF interface, new Kinect sensor port, three USB 3.0 Super Speed ports, Wired and Wireless network support and a Kensington Security Slot. Of course, what’s most important is what the console can do – if you haven’t checked out the latest product details on Xbox.com, you should.

The all new Kinect has improved gesture and voice control, 1080p color HD camera for video with Skype and a greater field of view. On-board sensors improve fidelity of the depth-sensing and low-light visibility, along with a four microphone array and IR blasting capability.

The Xbox One controller offers over 40 design improvements, including a redesigned D-pad for accuracy, redesigned thumb sticks for better grip and control, new menu and view buttons, redesigned triggers and bumpers for accuracy and comfort, as well as exclusive impulse triggers for haptic feedback.

The new integrated battery compartment on the Xbox One controller blends seamlessly into the back, offering better comfort. You can play wirelessly with standard AA or rechargeable AA batteries, or via the standard micro USB port for wired gameplay. The micro USB cable will charge the batteries if you are using the Xbox One Play & Charge Kit (it will not charge generic rechargeable AA batteries).

The chat on Xbox One offers 3x the sampling rate of the Xbox 360. The quality of the Xbox One Chat Headset speaker and microphone have been upgraded to take advantage of the much improved audio quality. It’s also super lightweight-only 44g-with a padded earpiece that can be worn on either your left or right ear, and a bendable, rotating mic boom. You can control mute and volume without taking your hands off the controller.

Of course, a HDMI cable, a power supply and a Quick Start Guide are included as well.


Here’s a few other insider details – straight from Albert Penello, our director of product planning for Xbox One:

When we say 4K HDMI cable, we mean it. The HDMI cable we’re including is an actual Category 2 HDMI cable, rated for 1080P, 3D and 4K, according to the HDMI 1.4 spec.

The built-in wireless on Xbox 360 just supported single-band A/B/G/N @ 2.4ghz. The Xbox One wireless radio is A/B/G/N, but supports dual-band 2.4ghz and 5ghz frequencies.

The console shown in the video is one of the first production units – less than 20 exist in the world (and yes, this box has the 853mhz GPU).

When you plug a micro-USB cable into the controller for wired gameplay, the internal radio is actually shut off, transmitting data through the wire. You can even use the controller without batteries in this mode.

Keep reading Xbox Wire for more details on Xbox One.

Source: http://news.xbox.com/2013/08/xbox-one-unboxing

I'm excited! Day One Editions come with a headset! biggrin.gif I prefer the headset their packing in with the system, then Sony's earbud piece....
post #6326 of 14774
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomNinjaAtk View Post

Unboxing Xbox One
Source: http://news.xbox.com/2013/08/xbox-one-unboxing

I'm excited! Day One Editions come with a headset! biggrin.gif I prefer the headset their packing in with the system, then Sony's earbud piece....
So they finally put the controller in the box? That's good.
post #6327 of 14774
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

It's a new level of ridiculous because they're now taking services that no one ever charged for, and putting them behind pay walls too. At least with Netflix they could justify it for a time, because no one else had that feature.

Windows media center never charged for their guide, even with OTA. Want to watch TV on your Xbox one? You need a cable sub, a monthly cable box fee, and an gold sub. Skype is free to use on several billion devices as well...but not the Xbox.

It's subscriptions on top of subscriptions on top of subscriptions! I'm surprised the thing even turns on without a gold sub.

And how many times do we hear the same people complain they don't even care for the features in the first place? At that point what does it matter what is behind the pay wall and isn't if the feature isn't going to be used? If all you care about is online play it shouldn't even matter. The average person that just plays online is not thinking "sh*t" Netflix is behind a paywall. The average person doesn't care passed online games. The last 12 years and Sony moving online behind the paywall kind of proves that.
post #6328 of 14774
Quote:
Originally Posted by americangunner View Post

So then you are actually getting more for your money on Xbox. On PS4, the only thing you get is online MP, while on Xbox you get alot of features with your gold.

Wow.
post #6329 of 14774
Quote:
Originally Posted by mboojigga View Post

Big whoop. If someone is feeling that salty then get the alternative and buy your own recording option which they stated you can do like you can now with your 360. You have a choice and I doubt many people are up in arms about this when the primary reason most buy Gold is to play online which has always been the primary reason to buy Gold. Everything else is whatever. I honestly don't get the whining and complaining about additional features behind the paywall.

First it was complaining to pay to play online for 12 years and now that Sony officially wants you to do the same thing to get that money it has moved on to OMG this and that is behind a pay wall even though my primary purpose of purchasing is to play online games.

Paying to play online is still bollocks, Sony or MS be damned. PC has a long history of offering even more, for the same retail price.

Just another example of consumer value priced into full retail that was then captured by console makers in this case and turned into profits instead of savings. It too bad people weren't as adamant about saying no to that back in the day, as they were with the step too far DRM. That terribly sad thing is Sony is pointing to MS as a justification for following them here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder696969 View Post

Wow.

Quick, sell him a bridge! I'm going to give him the benefit of a doubt that he hasn't had his coffee yet... smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by mboojigga View Post

And how many times do we hear the same people complain they don't even care for the features in the first place? At that point what does it matter what is behind the pay wall and isn't if the feature isn't going to be used? If all you care about is online play it shouldn't even matter. The average person that just plays online is not thinking "sh*t" Netflix is behind a paywall. The average person doesn't care passed online games. The last 12 years and Sony moving online behind the paywall kind of proves that.

The two most used features of these consoles are gaming and then video streaming from netflix/amazon. There's millions of casual core gamer who only buy a game or two a year, and mainly use it for the netflix streaming. There's also plenty of hard core gamers that don't stream at all either.
Edited by TyrantII - 8/8/13 at 6:45am
post #6330 of 14774
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyder696969 View Post

Wow.
How am I wrong? I am not saying that it is the better option, but if you look at what you "get" for your money, MS offers more in it's pay wall than Sony does. It sucks that they both do it, but there's really nothing gamers can do about it at this point.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Xbox Area
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › Xbox Area › The Official Xbox One thread...