The E3 2013 thread. New consoles await

[gigawuts]

I find it ironic that gamers got what they wanted, and now are bitching about it by calling them cowards.

Then again, the DRM is not what my issue with the system (it was Kinect, which I don't care for or need).

I don't think they're the same individuals, or if they are they're the kind who will never ever be satisfied and should be ignored.

But you've mentioned what I think is the bigger issue: Kinect. The forced mandatory hardware that you MUST buy with the console is a big really drawback. That alone is bumping up the price of the console considerably.

I think the problem with the Xbox One wasn't the DRM features, or rather not just the DRM features. It was the Xbox and the Xbox 360 offering a certain kind of gaming and methods used to acquire and access said gaming, and then taking that method away. Players felt betrayed, and didn't appreciate having their little niche in gaming world totally upended.

This has been an ongoing creep for years. It always is - every company is always about the bottom line and don't let any ad campaigns tell you otherwise - but some push harder than others. Microsoft in particular has been ebbing into every nook and cranny for years. Ads on the dashboard for paying Xbox Live customers? What? Features in otherwise non-kinect games entirely exclusive to kinect users (Didn't the Halo re-release have some of this?) Making it harder and harder to unsubscribe, always changing the location of the payment cancellation page more often than Facebook reorganizes its privacy settings pages, then a blatant sense of contempt from customer service when you just give in and try to find a human being to talk to?

Microsoft's mistake is they forgot: Their company floats on the whim of the consumer. While most consumers are habitual and will continuously buy the next product in a line of products without much thought, most consumers are also averse to rapid change of something they like - if they didn't like it as it was, they wouldn't be using it. If you take away enough unique pieces of it, well, it's probably not enough to keep them interested.

So getting rid of the DRM is one step. Getting rid of mandatory kinect is another. Selling a micro-kinect (just something much cheaper with a simpler camera and a microphone that will allow voice commands and very simple motion detection) with the console is another, preferably with an easily detached plug on the kinect unit itself because like it or not paranoia is justified in the minds of many customers with Microsoft's relations with the NSA. Based in fact, based in myth, that matters far less than the fact that it's the perception of many customers - and if they don't buy it it really doesn't matter whether it's real or not.

All of that would result in much better sales. If they're smart about it.

That said, I was really interested to see how a steam model of games would have worked on a console, but I don't really think Xbox One's model would have actually closely resembled steam's model. Steam gives the user a lot of freedom, and with minimal competition using a similar model Microsoft would have gotten greedy.

[yoshiblue]

Nah. Halo Anniversary was the Halo 2.0 HD that everyone wanted but they knew if they really rebuilt it from the ground up, people would be mad. So they left it entirely the same just with updated graphics and the option to switch between new and retro. Not sure about multiplayer. I think it just added more maps for the existing Halo Reach model. It irked a few people.

[NoiseHERO]

[gigawuts]

Nah. Halo Anniversary was the Halo 2.0 HD that everyone wanted but they knew if they really rebuilt it from the ground up, people would be mad. So they left it entirely the same just with updated graphics and the option to switch between new and retro. Not sure about multiplayer. I think it just added more maps for the existing Halo Reach model. It irked a few people.

The future of gaming.

ANALYZE.

ANALYZE.

ANALYZE.

ANALYZE.

[Outrider]

It was the Xbox and the Xbox 360 offering a certain kind of gaming and methods used to acquire and access said gaming, and then taking that method away.

Okay, this is getting a little silly. Microsoft did not take away your ability to play games with a controller.

Yes, there are examples of features that are Kinect-exclusive that did not need to be. These are growing pains.

Every console or handheld released in recent years that added a new major hardware feature has dealt with this. Remember when the DS launched and we had games with superfluous touch controls? Remember how later in its lifespan this was rarely an issue? Remember when the Wii launched and everything was tied to motion controls, no matter how silly it was? Remember how developers caught on and started using motion only to enhance traditional controls instead of entirely replacing them?

They will figure out how to tie Kinect into traditional games in ways that make sense. If that doesn't interest you, then don't buy it. The inclusion of the Kinect on its own is not some kind of creep upon consumer rights because Microsoft wants developers to include the Kinect. (Honestly, this is significantly better than the 360 since you are required to have the Kinect; locking out options arbitrarily when the Kinect was optional was the big problem.)

Now, if you want to talk about how creepy a camera that's always watching you will be, I can get behind that. I'm borrowing my brother's Playstation 3 and the entire time I was playing Bioshock Infinite the Playstation Eye was on and watching me. Definitely weird.

Nah. Halo Anniversary was the Halo 2.0 HD that everyone wanted but they knew if they really rebuilt it from the ground up, people would be mad. So they left it entirely the same just with updated graphics and the option to switch between new and retro. Not sure about multiplayer. I think it just added more maps for the existing Halo Reach model. It irked a few people.

Yeah, Halo Anniversary's multiplayer was just a standalone Reach map pack.

I remember the original rumor was that the Halo remake would be built on the Reach engine, which sounded great! Unfortunately, they just ported the game and layered a new graphics engine on it, because for some reason people still think the original Halo game is the best in the series. (It isn't.) (It hasn't been since there has been more than one Halo game.)

[gigawuts]

Okay, this is getting a little silly. Microsoft did not take away your ability to play games with a controller.

Yes, there are examples of features that are Kinect-exclusive that did not need to be. These are growing pains.

Every console or handheld released in recent years that added a new major hardware feature has dealt with this. Remember when the DS launched and we had games with superfluous touch controls? Remember how later in its lifespan this was rarely an issue? Remember when the Wii launched and everything was tied to motion controls, no matter how silly it was? Remember how developers caught on and started using motion only to enhance traditional controls instead of entirely replacing them?

They will figure out how to tie Kinect into traditional games in ways that make sense. If that doesn't interest you, then don't buy it. The inclusion of the Kinect on its own is not some kind of creep upon consumer rights because Microsoft wants developers to include the Kinect. (Honestly, this is significantly better than the 360 since you are required to have the Kinect; locking out options arbitrarily when the Kinect was optional was the big problem.)

Now, if you want to talk about how creepy a camera that's always watching you will be, I can get behind that. I'm borrowing my brother's Playstation 3 and the entire time I was playing Bioshock Infinite the Playstation Eye was on and watching me. Definitely weird.

No, it is not bullshit to distinguish between buying and owning your discs, being able to play games on your own console after 24 hours of no internet connectivity, and being able to buy old used games at a much cheaper price than what the publisher considers a good price. Also, of course, the mandatory inclusion of additional hardware that at present retails separately for 150 dollars. I won't even get into the always watching BS, as that's subjective as hell and doesn't even bother some people (some people seem turned on by it).

Wii motion controls were not in every game. Many intentionally avoided them, all the way until the wii u came out. DS touch controls were not in every game, and again many intentionally avoided them (many still do to this day on the 3DS, lots avoid it in everything but the menu).

Unless you're going to say that the inclusion of expensive hardware they could easily have done without isn't a cash grab. Or attempting to kill the used game industry. Or making damn sure you can't get and sell multiple consoles with the same ID and lots of games pre-installed (Why did you actually think the 24 hour connections were required?)

edit: actually, the kinect has been marked down to 100 bucks, which is coincidentally the exact difference in price between the PS4 and the Xbox One.

[Kent]

It's interesting how many people are outright-opposed to mandatory Kinect as a thing - despite that the actual use of it is optional. Naturally, the argument that it's money wasted if you don't use it is valid - however, the inclusion of it with every system is just as valid:

Sega CD, 32X, Nintendo 64DD, Saturn Netlink Adapter, Kinect, Circle Pad Pro.

These all have one major thing in common: They're hardware add-ons that, due to their optional nature, see little in the way of actual support, because there's far more risk in a business venture of making a game, if you're limiting your potential user base to a subset of the subset of users who own that platform in the first place. What you end up getting, with any optional accessory, is a death spiral:

Not a lot of games use it -> People don't buy it -> Fewer games are made for it -> Even fewer people buy it.

Kinect itself was a breakaway success for similar reasons to the Wii's launch (the motion control thing, moving away from a "complex" and scary-looking mass of buttons and sticks as the only method of controlling a game, appealing to the non-core demographic, etc.)... But after the initial lump of sales, the spiral started. It was a huge success still, because of the launch, but it still happened eventually (just not as soon after launch, or quite as extreme as most of the aforementioned).

Kinect being packaged with every console means that developers no longer have this specific reason to shy away from making use of its features in games, and the higher spec of the new version means developers can actually get away with some of the stuff they tried and failed to do with the initial version. Of course we're going to see people who think that Kinect is just a method of flailing and yelling at your Xbox to get it to do things - just like how we see people thinking DRM as just "the man" trying to get you to not use what you bought.

From a realistic perspective, complaining about mandatory Kinect is basically the same principle as people complaining that their cell phone does something other than make calls. Yes, it's an additional expense - and it also doesn't impede you from doing the other things you do normally with it. It also opens up new opportunities for doing said things, regardless of what you may think of said things.

I'm personally interested in what game developers can pull off with new technology and input methods. It's why I bought a DS at launch, a Wii at launch, and it's part of the reason I'm more interested in the Xbox One than PlayStation 4 (the other reason, primarily, is the exclusives - Yukio Futatsugi is legendary, and Swery has my respect). Sure, it might bite me in the ass sometimes - but there's also the potential it could turn out like the DS did, and have a seriously-amazing library with all sorts of great new gameplay ideas that developers are able to uniquely leverage due to the change.

I'm not particularly interested in maintaining solely the status quo. Therefore, if I had to choose between the two, the Xbox One seems like the obvious choice.

But, you know, if you aren't interested in what it could potentially bring? Yeah, the extra $100, likely going toward the inclusion of Kinect, is a legitimate reason to not bite.

[gigawuts]

Being that that was a statement taken from a post in which its context was discussing the original features and why people were upset, and not about what's changed since then, much of what has been said against that statement isn't really in the scope of what was meant.

There is definitely logic behind kinect's inclusion to promote its use, but at the same time it is at considerably greater expense. The wii did not launch at such a high price when it included its motion controls. (edit: They did it right - the motion controls were expensive, so they toned down the graphics to keep the price low. Some people really disliked the lower quality graphics, but I myself didn't really mind at all.) The ds also did not launch at such a comparably high price when it included its touch screen.

I find the mandatory kinect comparable to the 3ds' mandatory 3d, but if it was always on (assuming it didn't cause headaches etc.). It is an additional cost that I cannot opt out of and I may not want. This was a major turnoff for a lot of customers, and Nintendo figured that out right quick. They doubled back on their promise to not mark down the price and/or release an XL variant for many years to come (which was probably something they were forced into doing by plummeting sales - something I hate, but understand as a broken promise will kill your company a bit slower than going broke).

Now, personally, I'm speaking mostly in terms of third person and theory/explanation. I personally do not have a horse in this race since I am not getting any of the new consoles, and really don't particularly want any (Destiny does look like it could be fun if done right, though, and if Halo 5 is more than a hollow trilogy starter I'd love to play that). If forced to pick a side I'm definitely against what the Xbox One initially did, but it's not doing it anymore so that's not a concern. That said, damn would I have loved to see how the steam-like model would have panned out because I love watching how stuff like that turns out, but I definitely would have avoided it like the plague myself.

[yoshiblue]

Huh, guess I was wrong. I never knew about the library feature. Then again, my friend and I never owned a Kinect.

[Outrider]

No, it is not bullshit to distinguish between buying and owning your discs, being able to play games on your own console after 24 hours of no internet connectivity, and being able to buy old used games at a much cheaper price than what the publisher considers a good price. Also, of course, the mandatory inclusion of additional hardware that at present retails separately for 150 dollars. I won't even get into the always watching BS, as that's subjective as hell and doesn't even bother some people (some people seem turned on by it).

Wii motion controls were not in every game. Many intentionally avoided them, all the way until the wii u came out. DS touch controls were not in every game, and again many intentionally avoided them (many still do to this day on the 3DS, lots avoid it in everything but the menu).

Unless you're going to say that the inclusion of expensive hardware they could easily have done without isn't a cash grab. Or attempting to kill the used game industry. Or making damn sure you can't get and sell multiple consoles with the same ID and lots of games pre-installed (Why did you actually think the 24 hour connections were required?)

edit: actually, the kinect has been marked down to 100 bucks, which is coincidentally the exact difference in price between the PS4 and the Xbox One.

Yeah, so your "way to play games" was not in reference to Kinect, I guess? Misread that.

Other than that: yeah, you're rambling. The Kinect will not be mandatory in gameplay. Nobody has suggested that to be the case. Saying that it is a moneygrab is like saying that including a harddrive in the Xbox 360 is a moneygrab or that including a game in the Wii U is a moneygrab. That is not how platform owners make money.

The reason they are doing this is because they think that Kinect is the future of gaming. However, if not everybody has a Kinect, then developers will neglect it. If it is required for all users to own, then there will be a massive userbase which will entice developers.