New-gen console thread.

[Moo]

Discuss.

[Mambo's Here! Look Busy!]

Umm. XBox One is baaaad, mmmkay?

The more I hear about this "console" the more I think "blech!". And the recent video showing the Executive saying pretty much "[censored] you, buy a 360 if you don't have Internet!" doesn't exactly help.

PS4 has only just been announced, and I know sweet FA about the WiiU, although I have to say a certain gaming franchise might just be pushing me towards it. Shallow as I am! XD

*sigh* Right now none of them really appeal to me, though. I don't have the cash to spend on a new console, I just bought a new 360 last summer after our old one RRODd for the third time. Yes. Third. So I think I will wait a good few years before making the jump.

[ShayMay]

Wii U really won this one for me.
I don't say that as a Nintendo fanboy: the last few years I've found myself considering getting a PS3 after Nintendo's slew of "look, it's Mario and Mario and Mario and Mario!" But this year, rather than bugger about with "is it backwards compatible?" or "is it always online?", they simply went "here are a bunch of games we hope you want to play". And I want to play a lot of them.
Super Mario 3D World interests me, Wind Waker HD has everything I wanted and more (even if it hasn't gone as far as to include extra dungeons, but that was a pipe dream of a pipe dream), Bayonetta 2 always had me slapping my money down, Sonic: Lost World looks better and better with every new detail, a new Donkey Kong Country is always nice (even if I do kinda wish they'd perhaps give the formula a shot in 3D) and that Mega Man reveal blew me away. I hope it leads to Capcom injecting some imagination into the Blue Bomber again.

I was peeping over the fence at Sony as well, and the only thing that's stopping me wanting a PS4 is the lack of backwards compatibility. If it had that, I would be strongly considering getting one and catching up on all the PS3 games I missed.

I haven't a clue what Microsoft are playing at, but enough's been said about that already, methinks.

[Moo]

I'm torn between PS4, Wii U or just getting a PC. Wii U looks super fun, PS4 looks like a good, solid game console, and the PC is probably both, but with the drawback of being cumbersome. :/ I still need to get a PS3, never mind new gen. There are a fair few games I've missed out on that, so maybe I'll suck up the PS3 leftovers while things drop in price.

[Juliett. Bravo. Alfa.]

Sad part is. I'm quite gay for Halo and Gears. Prefer Forza over GT. Pretty sure everything else I want is multi-platform. So yeah until Xbox One is sorted I'm not a happy bunny.

Tis a joke how far they have fallen.

If it wasn't for Sonic and Bayo 2, Wii U prolly wouldn't even register.

[Badly-Drawn Manchild]

Here's the shorthand for how I saw the whole thing:

Microsoft: "How are we going to get out of this hole that we've dug ourselves into? We'll dig our way out!"

Sony: "Boy, Microsoft sure are awful, aren't they? Gee whizz, they're so dumb."

Nintendo: "Come on, guyhz, pleeeaze, jus give ush one more year, you know we're good forrit."

And here are my thoughts in longhand, less snarky tones:

I currently own a Wii U, so naturally I'm interested in their lineup. Nintendo always face the same criticism of being too reliant on their core franchises, and while that's not false by any means it's also unfair considering those same people will often say in the same breath that they're going to get the new Call of Duty. I could go on about this topic, but I'll just leave it at me actually looking forward to playing the new Nintendo games. I bought a Wii U knowing full well that its best games would come about as the result of patient internal development; in a way, and in spite of the flak I just gave them above, I found their conference refreshing in just how simple and focused it was. It was about the games, not multimedia features or awkward questions.

As Shay said, the only thing stopping me from considering a PS4 this time round is the absence of backwards compatibility, which in this day and age I consider to be nothing short of a crime (and don't give me that flak about how it's too difficult to do; if they can't do it, they should scrap any new console plans until they can). Otherwise I'd seriously consider getting one (something that hasn't happened with me and Sony consoles since the original PlayStation) and playing catch-up with all the PS3 games I wanted to check out but never could.

As for the Xbox One... Everything I could say on the matter has already been said, so I won't go over it again. Suffice it to say that I've no idea what Microsoft are playing at.

[Sam]

The only thing that makes me want a PS4 or an Xbox One (at this point in time), is the promise of new additions GTA / Red Dead franchise. These may come to the WiiU but after the poor reception of China Town Wars, and Rockstar's usual desire to push the best out of the most power it can get it's hands on (not counting PC) leads me to think that this would never happen.

But the last time we thought something would never happen FFXIII came to the Xbox, and Pombar was down a pint.

Yes I would like Halo, but I looked at the franchises on my shelf, and totted up what I absolutely had to have as a game, and how many of those were exclusives. Halo is the only game on my shelf that didn't appear on any other console (that I can recall at the moment). Forza Horizon I enjoyed, but can live without quite easily.

Something I said when Xbox had the new dashboard caked in adverts, and buried my games in the dashboard in favour of videos, music, apps etc (in my opinion) was that I bought a games console to play games. That's all I ever really want for it. Yeah, getting trailers off the store is nice, but I'm of the generation that has an iPad in one hand, and another internet device in another, I can get the trailers if I want them.

And Nintendo, having looked at what they announced at E3, are doing just that. They are giving me games, they are focusing on their games, and from what I've seen, they've shaken off that "we must build waggle and pad stuff in to everything as a core mechanic" and just letting it fit nicely in where it suits.

I bought a 3DS and enjoyed Mario 2 but it's been keeping me entertained with reruns of Zelda. But like with the WiiU, their E3 showing just added to a list of games (Mario Bros, Lego City, Lego Marvel) that I want to play: Mario 3D World, Zelda WW, Zelda LBTW, SSB, Mario Kart, Yoshi's Island, Donkey Kong, Sonic. BUT, the problem in my mind with this is that it's all Nintendo stuff. I haven't seen anything yet that isn't a cutesy cartoon that I want to play on the system.

At the moment Nintendo look as though they will deserve my money in the coming year. Lets give them their due though, Microsoft haven't yet had time to listen to the feedback and change their business model and way of doing things, which I suspect they will have to do. Their division won't be able to last long on 7 years of poor performance with Microsoft's other departments also under-performing. (Taken from articles I've read, rather than looking at their actual figures).

My issues with the Microsoft thing, since I haven't put them up here yet and I'm sure you're all dying to read my opinion on it, is that it is taking away choice and doesn't account for any other issues. To buy a machine it's going to cost me nearly a grand. £600 a year for the internet provider (although this does include phone and add ons), £430 for the console, then £50 for a game. If that internet goes down (and in the past, on the rare occasion, it has gone down for more than a day) I can't play the console that I have paid so much money for. It brings up the question at what point do you actually own something now? Are we just paying for an extended rent of the system?

I don't like always on either. Fair enough it draws minimal power, but it still draws something. That something I'd rather not use unless I have to. I never leave anything on that isn't doing something, and this is taking away my choice with that. Of course, I don't know the ramifications (if any) of unplugging the system when I'm not using it - whether this will lead to extended load up times of the system or what.

In short, XboxOne sounds like it is going to be a hassle to play a game. I play games to unwind in one way or another and Nintendo seem to offering me the chance to do that (granted, only three hours at a time), while I fear that Xbox One will lead to more issues than it is actually worth.

Like I said though, this is all speculation and there is a lot of time between now and November to change, to clarify, to test, to see, to experience and I'm sure many of our opinions will change for better or worse as we get closer to launch and indeed during the lifetime of the console. And there's still time for the PS4 to lose that "saviour" image they have developed during E3.

Edit: Just had a quick read through some responses and wanted to pick up on this, with regards to backwards compatibility:

which in this day and age I consider to be nothing short of a crime

I certainly don't mean to single you out, but this isn't the first time I've heard this comment and it always confuses me. As far as I can see, there has only been one generation (not including handheld) where backwards compatibility has been included, and from my experience on the Playstation and Xbox, it never worked very well to bother with in the first place.

Nintendo Wii's Gamecube offering was good, but then that's what it was - a souped up Gamecube. Is the WiiU capable of backwards compatibility?

Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to be able to play my old games on a new system, but the way most talk (not you, you just provided me with the quote) it's that backwards compatibility is something that's always been there from the dawn of time and I can only remember it being implemented in a home console once, rather than all the time.

[ShayMay]

Jun 13, 2013 14:32:33 GMT Sam said:

Nintendo seem to offering me the chance to do that (granted, only three hours at a time)

This isn't a defence, as three hours is abysmal, but apparently third parties have noticed that flaw and have made peripherals that will double and even triple the battery life of the Wii U gamepad.
Yeah, I'm hoping to see Nintendo begin to expand past their 'kiddy' image more often. Not abandon it entirely, of course, but I'd be quite happy going another few years without a Mario game while they worked on a brand new IP.

[The Shad]

SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION













Filmed over the course of E3, in a small room, filled with filming gear, in bakingly hot weather, without opening any windows.

[RedDevilDazzy]

Xbox go home you're drunk.

[Badly-Drawn Manchild]

which in this day and age I consider to be nothing short of a crime

I certainly don't mean to single you out, but this isn't the first time I've heard this comment and it always confuses me. As far as I can see, there has only been one generation (not including handheld) where backwards compatibility has been included, and from my experience on the Playstation and Xbox, it never worked very well to bother with in the first place.

Nintendo Wii's Gamecube offering was good, but then that's what it was - a souped up Gamecube. Is the WiiU capable of backwards compatibility?

Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to be able to play my old games on a new system, but the way most talk (not you, you just provided me with the quote) it's that backwards compatibility is something that's always been there from the dawn of time and I can only remember it being implemented in a home console once, rather than all the time.

[/div][/quote]

Allow me to elaborate a bit further on this subject then. I'm gonna end up heavily paraphrasing an article Yahtzee wrote on the subject, but here's how I see it.

Yes, the Wii U is backwards compatible, and it works well, even upscaling your Wii games if you use HDMI (though the HDMI seems pretty dodgy to me; even after I sent the console away to be repaired it STILL sometimes doesn't display. I wonder if the official cables somehow come loose as this has never happened with my Xbox). However, backwards compatibility seems to be the first baby that the other companies are eager to throw out with the bathwater; if it really is that difficult to emulate the games properly, then they shouldn't bother releasing a new console until they can get it right. To my mind, the only way a new console is justifiable these days is as an upgrade to the existing system, NOT a replacement. You can't replace a library of hundreds of games with absolutely nothing and tell me it's an improvement.

There are several reasons why this is more true now than it was back in, say, the transition from 16 to 32 bit. Firstly, it's a simple matter of respect for gaming's heritage. It's possible to pick up old movies on DVD and Blu-Ray, and they can be played on any DVD or Blu-Ray player with the minimum of fuss. Why can't we do the same for games? It just seems really disrespectful to toss away entire generations of games just because you made a new console that only accepts games of a certain format.

Second, graphics and physics tech really doesn't need to get any better than it is for developers to fully realise their visions. Triple A development is crushingly expensive and stifling as it is, with developers feeling obliged to produce the highest quality graphics to the point where anything less than 5 million sales these days is considered a failure. That is absolute madness.

Thirdly, this is the first generation to embrace the whole metagaming concept of profiles, achievements and the like. We've spent years building these identities for ourselves from the games we've played and what we've done in them, not to mention the collections of XBLA/PSN games we've assembled. That stuff's become really personal to us, and I for one am not willing to throw it all away for the sake of a shiny new console.

It's this matter of throwing away entire generations of games to the wind and expecting us to "Deal With It" that really angers me to no end. No other medium is so disrespectful of its foundations. Access to games from the entire history of the medium is just one of the things that the console industry needs to implement if its to advance any further, not shinier graphics that drive up development costs to the point of bankrupting developers.

[Moo]

Jun 13, 2013 14:47:59 GMT The Shad said:

SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION

Filmed over the course of E3, in a small room, filled with filming gear, in bakingly hot weather, without opening any windows.

Is there something in the left hand side of the room that's worrying you? Is it the cat? Is that where it is?

[ShayMay]

Actually, one thing about Nintendo's stuff that I forgot to comment on: A Link Between Worlds. Come on, guys, really? I know Miyamoto wanted to remake ALttP, but I find it really hard to get excited about a game that seems to be re-using a map I already know like the back of my hand.
Plus, I can all but guarantee that it will never be as good as ALttP. I'm sure it'll be fun, yeah, but considering the last 3DS Zelda was a remake and the other Zelda coming out is a remake, I was hoping for something that's mostly original.

[Alex]

I'm both getting a PS4 and an Xbox One at some point - but an Xbox One at launch, and a PS4 later in 2014 when some games I actually want for it come along.

I can go into great detail about how the death of the Xbox One is greatly exaggerated and that the over-reaction to Microsoft's policies with it will have both little impact on Microsoft and the customers in the end - but I've been doing that a lot this week and it's getting tired. Maybe next time.

Take it from me though, the Xbox One will not fail just because the Internet has roped together a bandwagon against it. If you'll care to remember, Sony was in a PR pickle of its own before the PS3 launched - and it ended up being the second best selling system of the three (the Wii's success really being an abberation due to its initial fad status, though).

[Moo]

I think the PS3 had a pretty solid foundation as a console though, it just had [censored] PR because it was controversial and awful advertising.

Alex, I'm afraid you are literally the only person I know who said they're getting a One, never mind *at launch*. :/

[Alex]

Jun 13, 2013 18:29:29 GMT Moo said:

I think the PS3 had a pretty solid foundation as a console though, it just had [censored] PR because it was controversial and awful advertising.

So does the Xbox One. When you look past the paranoia, hysteria and misinformation, the Xbox One and the PS4 aren't really that different. Once said hysteria dies down, you'll wind up finding more people realising that and then just getting whichever one suits them best for the price and the games available.

The only major contention with the Xbox One that has any basis in reality is the sticking point of it needing to authenticate whenever you turn the console on - if you are doing so longer than 24 hours after the last time you authenticated. It's an inconvenience that probably wouldn't actually end up affecting the majority of people banging on about it in the first place (a total black out of Internet access across your home and mobile phone - are you really likely to find yourself in that position so that you can't connect for 30 seconds for the sake of the authentication check? Are you likely to find yourself in that position more than once. Ever?), but Microsoft is being stupid by not putting in place a sensible system for graceful degradation under these circumstances.

All Sony offers with the PS4 in this regard that's any different is the ability to play single player content without an Internet connection. If you want to play multiplayer content, you obviously still need to be online - and if you want to make use of the features a lot of games were demonstrating this year, where single player and multiplayer gameplay cross over in a much more seamless fashion than in any console game before, you'll obviously need to be online too (maybe even to play such games at all on either system). If you want to play your digital content on the PS4, you need to be connected to authenticate it (they're specific that only physical discs are exempt, single player game or not). If you want to make use of the PS4's own cloud features, you obviously need to be connected. The only difference is that, right now, Microsoft allow no such leniency for single player content. That's a mistake, they should fix it. (But it's of no bother to me personally, so it has no weight on my purchasing decision).

The restrictions on what you do with a game you no longer want are also far more minimal than what's being made out as - and, it should be noted, Sony are specific in saying that any restrictions on this on the PS4 are up to the publisher, as it is on the Xbox One, so Sony are being quite sly in saying there are absolutely none.

On the Xbox One, if you want to give your game to a friend, the only restriction is that they be on your friends list for more than 30 days. They even give you the option of giving your friend your digital content - something Sony won't be allowing. You can't play the game after you give it away... because you've given it away. If you want to sell your game back to the shop, all you have to do is take the disc back to the shop as you otherwise would. You pay no fee, you get money back for your game, and you've given your game away. The only restrictions here are on the retailers themselves - which may potentially mean, at worst, you are inconvenienced by having to trade your Xbox One game into GAME instead of the random indie shop that just set up round the corner (though given the market for bricks and mortar game shops that's... unlikely at any rate).

It sounds bad on paper when it's written out in hyperbolic headlines that Microsoft is "stealing your rights" - but at the end of the day, very little will be different in how you buy, play and pass on Xbox One games.

DRM sucks. It sucks that it becomes necessary to avoid unscrupulous people taking advantage of what would, otherwise, be a really awesome on-demand system that Microsoft is building for gaming. If it's a significant bother to you personally, don't buy the system. It's not really to me, so it has no impact on my decision.

At the end of the day, though, the worst Microsoft has done is show its hand early and in a terrible fashion. Both Sony and Microsoft have designed their new systems to move forward the transition between physical disc media and a completely online digital distribution platform. Both will be pushing their digital marketplaces much harder than their physical retail sales, and both have prepared their system architectures to be forward compatible (as much as possible) so as to even make the hardware itself irrelevant and as replaceable/upgradable as the latest iPad or gaming PC. This is just the way the medium is going - just as TV, movies, books and pretty much all other forms of media are. We live in an increasingly always-connected digital content world and the Xbox One and PS4 are both designed to put console gaming firmly in that realm to join the success of Steam on PC, iTunes Store on Apple products and Google Play on Android. It's quite safe to say that, in all likelihood, there won't be any disc based games this time in 10 or so years when we're on the next lot of consoles.

The Xbox One is a solid machine, with solid features and DRM no significantly worse than what we already toil under on PC or what Sony will push forward with the PS4 (though until Microsoft does away with the restriction on single player content, the PS4 will have them here in a key point). Once the noise dies down and people begin to realise that they're not actually all that bothered, this entire topic will seem silly.

By the end of next year, I can guarantee all this will have evaporated and both systems will be doing well. I'd say, in all likelihood, the PS4 will be selling more units on account of it both being available in more locations and people rightfully deciding that Microsoft's restriction on single player content not working offline is worth choosing the PS4 over it at a cheaper price, but the Xbox One is, in no way, dead on arrival or doomed to fail.

Such statements mean about as much as the same statements about the PS3 before its release - and the insistence that a Wii and 360 would be all you'd ever need (it's amazing how much credit we were prepared to give the Wii back then...).

And if you don't believe me, come back to this post next Christmas time and point out that I'm completely wrong and the Xbox One has failed even harder than the Wii U has this entire year. I will buy you a pint. As per Pombar's rule, however, I'll expect a pint in return should my reasoning be somehow flawed...

(Incidentally, the reason I'm getting the Xbox One first is because:

1. You get a free year of Gold when you buy the launch day version (I'd get either system on launch day, so this is a handy bonus for me) along with some other free unlocks in a selection of launch day titles
2. The Xbox One has more exclusive titles that I'm currently interested in. (Key among them: Dead Rising 3, Quantum Break and Forza 5).

I'll probably snap up a PS4 once Naughty Dog or Media Molecule come along with their next must-have - or if something comes out of left field to really catch my attention. For now though, what they demonstrated this year doesn't grab me).

[Moo]

Another thing that concerns me all around is the day when the internet support is inevitably turned off, ala PS2 and Xbox. What happens to the DRM/24 hour internet checks then? :T I think the lack of being able to get second hand games on the cheap, the 24 hour connection (internet is temperamental at my house, and we only have 2 possible providers to choose from) and the general pricing of the One are my nope factors. I'm still undecided if I want to go to funville with the Wii U, general-all-round-console-ville with the PS4, or all-the-things-ville with a PC. As mentioned previously, its the lack of portability which puts me off a PC, otherwise it'd be a mostly no-brainer.

One thing I have noticed about the One which is positive, they seem to have sorted out the D-pad.

[Alex]

If nothing else, the One should provide a lovely controller for PC games.

[The Shad]

Jun 13, 2013 17:07:29 GMT Moo said:

Jun 13, 2013 14:47:59 GMT The Shad said:

SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION

Filmed over the course of E3, in a small room, filled with filming gear, in bakingly hot weather, without opening any windows.

Is there something in the left hand side of the room that's worrying you? Is it the cat? Is that where it is?

That's where the camera is. Max kept losing track of time.

Also, we had the cat liquidated.

[modochi]

I'm leaning towards the PS4, the only thing stopping me is that there is not a single game shown so far that I'm dying or even eager to get my hands on, I'm not getting a new console just for it to stand around and collect dust for months. I already went through it with the Nintendo 3DS, I have it, I have games for it, but no new games for it have even interested me and I'm tire dof replaying the same 4 games, so for now its just a paper weight.

I'll be getting a PS4 when or if a load of games comes out that I'll be wanting to play.

I've already said it about the WiiU, and while it's going strong out in the rest of the world as people keep telling me, retail business here is ignoring it to the point of me wondering why its still around in the store. There's always import, but where the heck do I send it to if it breaks down.

Xbox one, eh, no, just no, After seeing what Microsoft had to say about it, I'm not even considering it.

Hmm, maybe I should log into the PS network tonight and do some online gaming with the good old ps3, its been a long while since I've had the time to get my butt kicked in a multiplayer session.

[Sam]

Jun 13, 2013 16:12:32 GMT Badly-Drawn Manchild said:

There are several reasons why this is more true now than it was back in, say, the transition from 16 to 32 bit. Firstly, it's a simple matter of respect for gaming's heritage. It's possible to pick up old movies on DVD and Blu-Ray, and they can be played on any DVD or Blu-Ray player with the minimum of fuss. Why can't we do the same for games? It just seems really disrespectful to toss away entire generations of games just because you made a new console that only accepts games of a certain format.

I certainly don't want to fall in to the trap of appearing to pull one comment out of your post to cause disregard for the rest (should this come across this way), but I just wanted to point this out. Coding for gaming and the machines is, as I understand it, quite difficult (I'm not a programmer, but as I take my first steps in to beginner Apple Script and beginner iOS SDK I'm fast developing an appreciation for those that can look at code and identify a problem), and as such, improving the quality of games and the consoles is quite a task, one that I believe needs to be done.

Your point about AAA games breaking the bank is one I agree with, but without progression we get no where. People may have looked at 32 bit and though "why do we need this? 16-bit is fine", but this is always the case at the beginning of a next gen, it's not until companies really start to pull the rug that we see massive improvements (Halo 3 to Halo 4 for example). Companies need to get used to it, and in a few generations time, we'll see the massive leap that we saw from Master System to Dreamcast, and it all started here, with this generation.

But back to DVD's, the reason they work so well, and why Blu-Rays work on a variety of machines (with backwards compatibility to DVD's) is because of the code that's it's based on - which hasn't changed since the first DVD. It all runs on MPEG-2 albeit in varying qualities, the difference between them is all because of that laser, which allows for bigger discs. It's then all about compression, you take the film and compress it for an 8.7Gb (SD), or a 50Gb Blu-ray (HD), the increase in quality comes from the increase or decrease in compression, and the laser, not because of the code of the system. You could argue that games would be fine with less compression as they'd look prettier, but as we all know it's about the code it's built on (which is getting increasingly more complex).

Apologies if you already know about MPEG compression and DVD/Blu-ray, I certainly don't mean to come across as condescending

Xbox One Talk
Back to the topic at hand. I've been thinking about this more today, and thought of some more instances where the 24 hour check in is a bad thing. My router died around November last year, luckily it was at the time that our area was being moved over to 60Mb, so I was sent a new router from them. I took the chance to not buy one and just wait a couple of days for the router to come which meant I had no internet in my house.

That is, not any regular internet, I still had my iPhone to browse on. This was the case when the service went down for a couple of days a couple of months ago. That's a few days there that I can't play the things that I have paid for legally.

And that got me to thinking about those people that don't have internet in their house, but just use the mobile internet through a dongle - why should they not be allowed to play a console just because they don't want to invest so much money in to a "regular" internet?

I appreciate, like you say, that we are talking about the minority of instances, but at £500 I want those small blips to covered. As a customer why am I no more valuable than anyone else?

It's like that old problem of the DVD's bought legally having an unskippable message regarding piracy.

But I agree with you in that in a years time all three consoles will be doing fine, the issues brought up here will be forgotten about in the face of a good christmas deal, or a must-have game, or a child needing the thing his/her friends have. The issue will only come up through angry customers when they experience those drop outs. And I don't like the idea of indie stores NOT being able to work in second hand games, I hate the idea of GAME, who have proven to be awful at pricing things competitively, having complete control of selling second hand games (although with the EU always watching for monopolies, perhaps this won't be a problem? I'm not sure how far the EU look).

[Alex]

Jun 16, 2013 19:07:14 GMT Sam said:

And that got me to thinking about those people that don't have internet in their house, but just use the mobile internet through a dongle - why should they not be allowed to play a console just because they don't want to invest so much money in to a "regular" internet?

If all they're interested in is connecting the console to authenticate for single player content (again, to reiterate, I'm in 100% agreement that this is a terrible over-reach of this policy and Microsoft should fix it), what's wrong with tethering their phone or mobile dongle? It'd be a tiny amount of data, so it's hardly as if it'd be a massive concern for your data bill. It shouldn't be there as an obstacle at all for single player content, but I think the amount of people that will truly be affected by it is infinitesimally smaller than the amount of people banging on about it like Microsoft's killed their future children.

(... Incidentally, video compression formats on disc-media has basically no impact on the complexity of game development, the resulting game, or, well anything. The disc hold data, not video, and all that is done with that data is that it is read into memory and dealt with on the system.)

There's been some interesting talk from Microsoft, both officially and unofficially, over the past few days about the Xbox One, and Tycho from Penny Arcade sums it up pretty well:

I’ve seen it mentioned in a few places that one of Microsoft’s main problems at E3 was “messaging.” That’s always been one of their main problems, that’s not new, and it’s exacerbated because they’re always trying to do [censored] that requires super tight message. The first Xbox tried to launch a multiplayer service in a world where people still used modems unironically - requiring broadband in 2002 was weird. They’ve never been able to explain themselves, and part of it is an engineer culture that doesn’t (marketing term incoming) “face” consumers and, I would suspect, resents being made to explain why something which is so manifestly efficient and purposeful would need to be. Contrast this with Sony, which is almost completely a brand exercise and for whom the tone and texture of a message is the primary product.

When you see the completely understated way Microsoft addresses the benefits of what they're doing, you can really begin to understand just how bad they are at getting their point across:

No ads on the dashboard
Q: Will there be advertisements built into the dashboard like Xbox 360? How many?
A: We designed the Xbox One dashboard to make your favorite games and entertainment even more front and center. Advertisements will not be visible on the home screen, so you only see what’s most important to you.

Xbox Live Gold extends to anyone using your console
Q: How many people can be signed in to Xbox Live on a single Xbox One at one time?
A: We made that simple, it’s virtually unlimited. Our vision is to extend the great benefits of Xbox Live Gold membership to anyone in your home.
…We’re also announcing today a new benefit for Gold membership on Xbox One is the ability for anyone in your home to access many Xbox Live Gold benefits on your Xbox One at no additional cost. And the primary Xbox Live Gold membership travels with you to any Xbox One system.

Your wired, 3rd-party controllers might still work
Q: Will my wired 3PP accessories (controller) work on Xbox One?

A: Today we’re here to talk about Xbox One and the best in class games and entertainment systems we announced on stage Monday. We’ll share more details about accessory compatibility closer to launch.

The Xbox One will play nice with universal remotes
Q: Will there be a remote control for Xbox One? / Why is there not a remote for launch?
A: …We will also publish our Xbox One infrared remote control codes at launch for existing 3rd party universal remotes to use.

And then there was the tale of the Microsoft engineer who allegedly took to 4Chan the other night to explain the point of views that Microsoft just can't get across properly (and while none of this can be confirmed, there's nothing that doesn't add up in what's said):

The thing is we suck at telling the story. The whole point of the DRM switch from disc based to cloud based is to kill disc swapping, scratched discs, bringing discs to friends house, trade-ins for [censored] value with nothign going back to developers, and high game costs. If you want games cheaper then 59.99, you have to limit used games somehow. Steam’s model requires a limited used game model.

The thing is, the DRM is really really similar to steam… You can login anywhere and play your games, anyone in your house can play with the family xbox. The only diff is steam you have to sign in before playing, and Xbox does it automatically at night for you (once per 24 hours)

It’s a long tail strategy, just like steam. Steam had it’s growing pains at the beginning with all it’s drm [censored] as well. [...] For digital downloads steam had no real competition at the time, they were competing against boxed sales. At the time people were pretty irate about steam, (on 4chan too…) It was only once they had a digital marketplace with DRM that was locked down to prevent sharing that they could do super discounted [censored].

The above bit pulled out is one of the most important points - because it really does require a change like this to be able to make games on consoles cheaper and more competitively priced like Steam. But, here's the full thing with a lot more: pastebin.com/uCmdh9jB

Even Major Nelson - Microsoft's closest thing to a well-liked public face for the Xbox itself, seemed to struggle to understand why they'd need to spell out and explain why what they're doing is a good thing:

Q. After the Xbox One servers are shut down at the end of the new generation, will Xbox One games still be playable?
A. I'll just say this: We haven't even started this generation, so it's kind of early to talk about the end of the generation. That's certainly something we would not do. That's not the way the system is designed. It's designed for flexibility. But let's get the system out there first.

(Full video: kotaku.com/microsoft-we-wont-render-your-xbox-one-games-unplayab-513602148)

Now, on this point, I have a pretty strong feeling that what Microsoft's end-game here is (and Sony, I believe, are planning the same), is to change the paradigm of consoles entirely from this Generation. Just like buying a game on Steam gives you that game for your Steam account, that you can play on any compatible hardware you've got forever - and will always have access to until the day Steam dies, Microsoft's plan is the exact same. To associate your games with your account, so that you have access to them through your account whenever, where-ever, on any compatible hardware forever. The reason they aren't even contemplating the concept of the Xbox One game server being shut off one day, is because there won't be Xbox One game servers - there'll be Microsoft servers and if you've got Xbox One games on your account, you'll have access to them on the Xbox Two and so on.

Both the PS4 and Xbox One will essentially be small PCs, running on the same compatible architecture. If your game runs on those machines now, so long as they don't suddenly change architecture again (they won't), in theory, there's little to prevent them running on the next generation of that hardware.

This is the market we've seen evolve in the past few years from Apple and Android. The hardware is interchangeable and upgradable, but so long as you have your account, the stuff you own will run on whatever device you've got from the respective camps. We're already invested in this model, and the majority of us take part in it every day. Microsoft and Sony are doing the smart thing and moving console gaming towards the same model - one that Steam has already been perfecting on PC to great benefit.

Even Nintendo are slowly coming to terms with this concept by begrudgingly offering actual Nintendo accounts and setting up their own digital sales platform, though like Xbox Live Arcade and the Playstation Network software, Nintendo is both treating it as a parochial hardware-controls-software platform and is similarly limited by the customised PowerPC architecture that the Wii U runs on to the point that - just as with XBLA and PSN games - those purchases will be locked to the machine even when the next Nintendo system rolls around (as one would assume Nintendo would follow suit by then and move onto x86 based architecture).

Again, this is the direction both the PS4 and Xbox One are headed in - Sony's just better at marketing their position (and keeping quiet about the relative downsides of it). The thing with that, though, is that while that may seem like a critical win for them now - by this time next year, it won't matter a jot because people can make up their minds for themselves with clear evidence in front of them from how the consoles actually behave in the real world - not from a load of hyperbole blown up across the Internet.

[Sam]

God save me I have missed friendly, smart, in depth discussion on this board.

You're right about the message thing though, reading what you have put doesn't make it seem that bad, but I still have my reservations; and it is for small things that don't matter / probably won't happen. For instance, when we used to go on holiday to a static caravan, we'd take a console just in case the weather was [censored]. No internet there. My problem with most of this isn't that these things are happening as such - as most have pointed out the implications are minimal and will probably only affect my gameplay life in minimal ways - my problem, as Neo once said, is choice.

I am paying a lot of money for a console (or rather, not buying because of the situation I don't care for) and I want the choice to play my things when I want them. Trading games in has never really been my thing, i've sold a few on eBay when I'm done with them (very rare) but I tend to keep my games and like to buy my stuff brand new (massive distrust in others not being able to care for their stuff in the same way I do, see: my brother). But one of the things I do do quite regularly is see a game on a friends shelf and ask what it's like.

True, you could play the game there, but I like to trial a game in the comfort of my own home, then picking it up if I like it. What if a friend picks up an Xbox for the first time and fancies seeing "what's out there"? They can't borrow a couple of games as they haven't had a gamer-tag for 30 days let alone be my friend for that long. And I know know know that there are those that cheat the system and rob developers of the money they rightly deserve for working hard.

Perhaps if they could offer a way to deauthorise an account, but then, that's no different to just giving someone the disc. The ability to loan friends digital content though is something very interesting.

It's interesting to read about the idea that they will be Microsoft servers and thus always be there. But did their gaming division turn a profit last year? With sales falling across their entire company perhaps there is a world in the future where Microsoft doesn't exist (I'm not talking about in the next 10 or 20 years, I'm thinking beyond that). But then, in 20 or 30 years time I imagine we'll have bigger problems than our gaming consoles (see: over-population, over-resourced planet, iRobot).

[Alex]

Jun 16, 2013 22:17:20 GMT Sam said:

True, you could play the game there, but I like to trial a game in the comfort of my own home, then picking it up if I like it. What if a friend picks up an Xbox for the first time and fancies seeing "what's out there"? They can't borrow a couple of games as they haven't had a gamer-tag for 30 days let alone be my friend for that long. And I know know know that there are those that cheat the system and rob developers of the money they rightly deserve for working hard.

Perhaps if they could offer a way to deauthorise an account, but then, that's no different to just giving someone the disc. The ability to loan friends digital content though is something very interesting.

From what's been said so far, you have a number of options available here (and, the best part is that they're only available because of this system, so they are, at least, clear benefits from it:

• You can sign into anyone's Xbox One and they can access your entire library for as long as you're signed in - but with the caveat that the Xbox One will need to be online to do the auth check every hour, or it'll disable access to that game (but not the games they own). Whether this means you have to actively be signed in, or whether you can sign in and leave them to it or not is unclear - but you won't be able to play the game while your friend is, and I'd assume logging into your own console logs you out of the other one.
• As well as anyone registered on your Xbox being able to play any game you own, you can also register up to 10 accounts as 'family members' (and they've explicitly said this includes good friends) to be able to access your entire library of games, on any Xbox, anywhere, any time. (However, they're unclear about whether or not you can play the same game concurrently. MS Studios VP Phil Spencer believes you can, but the official policy is vague enough to be interpreted either way.
• You can just give your game to your friend - with or without a disc - and then they own it and, from what I understand, can then decide to give it back to you or anyone else if they wished to. Again, the specifics here aren't entirely clear - being able to do this action "once" can either mean that you can't do it again because the game is now gone from your library - or this game licence gets a mark next to it that means it can never be traded again. Given the other structures in place, though, I don't think the latter's as likely as the former - it's almost certainly built to the same mechanic as the one to sell the game back to the shop, which obviously isn't limited that way.

I don't know about you, but all of that sounds much better than the current system when it comes to sharing games. Especially since it's not restricted to physically handing them over. It's a kind of digital ownership that we don't actually see in anything else today. Maybe that's why it's so hard to get across.

It's interesting to read about the idea that they will be Microsoft servers and thus always be there. But did their gaming division turn a profit last year? With sales falling across their entire company perhaps there is a world in the future where Microsoft doesn't exist (I'm not talking about in the next 10 or 20 years, I'm thinking beyond that). But then, in 20 or 30 years time I imagine we'll have bigger problems than our gaming consoles (see: over-population, over-resourced planet, iRobot).

We implicitly trust that Steam will 'always' be there, or that Google or Apple will 'always' be there - and really, we have good reason to. All of these companies are huge and none of them will disappear silently into the night. If Microsoft are in any kind of danger, we'll all know about it for a very long time before it even becomes a concern.

I'd like to think that Microsoft would be wise enough to at least consider the idea of patching the system at the end of its life if it did come down to a situation where the servers were being switched off. I can't say it'd bother me a terrible amount, because the last previous generation game I played that wasn't directly backwards compatible with current gen hardware was a game I downloaded on one of those current generation consoles. The fact is, our buying habits reflect that we're more likely to purchase an old game again than to go to the effort of setting it up on an old console to play it - so if my Xbox One games don't work in 20 years time, I won't really be crying in my coffee.

However, as I said in my previous post, my belief and understanding from what both camps are saying and doing this Generation is that backwards compatibility with future hardware will be more akin to how apps on iPads work today. If it works on an old version of the iPad, it'll almost certainly work on the latest version - but something designed for the latest version will need the latest hardware. It's a model that already exists, and we've already been using it in gaming for absolute ages on the PC (to a much more complicated degree), so given the hardware on both machines, it seems almost that it'd be harder for them to not go down this route. For one thing, the gaming part of the Xbox One is actually run in a virtual machine on the OS - meaning that the exact working conditions games working on it are already being specifically manufactured by the Xbox in a away that could, quite literally, just be dropped into a new piece of hardware and away you go. Hell, it even has the potential, dare I say it, for well-enough spec'd PCs to be able to run it, given that the Xbox OS shares a kernel with Windows 8...

If I'm wrong and 10 years from now Microsoft switch off all the servers and all Xbox Ones become useless bricks, feel free to come back and Nelson Muntz me - but, honestly, it seems as absurd to me that Microsoft would go down that route rather than the one practically paved out for them, as the idea that the Kinect is just a way to sneak PRISM into my house so Obama can watch me play GTA in my pants.

[Sam]

So they have listened to feedback and reacted to it. I'm finding it very to stomach this "oh they have backpedaled". When Apple do something and won't budge people cry bloody murder and Apple "not listening to customers" is one of the biggest flaws of the company as described by the internet. Then, another company does what it's customers ask for and it's hit with "backpeddling" "giving up" "180 turn". Yes. And you asked for it. So stop chiding them you children.

Now, to discussion. I actually think they have gone too far. Granted, this would have been a welcome outcome for me a week ago after good discussion (some of it taking place between myself and Alex here) I can see the good elements that they were pitching for. It is a safe bet that digital distribution is the way things are going, whether we like it or not, and this console was in a position were it could test that and push for that. I do believe it was going too far too fast with some of the things it was trying to do.

But by removing the unable to sell digital content, or allow friends to try it and what not, loses the "beta crowd" they could have had. Lose the 24-hour check in and the inability to freely trade your games, but keep the elements that allowed users to sell their digital content. Humans are a distrusting and scared race, and saying "this is how it's going to be from now" causes uproar and panic (see: every time Apple changes something). But by bringing something in slowly, a bit at a time, allowing people to test and experience first, would allow them to slowly adapt to it, to bring them round to it.

It's a good thing that Microsoft have made this change, it shows them as a company willing to listen (whether that be through their chequebook or not), and they shouldn't lose out on too much of their user base, so they can continue functioning as a division and building towards the next thing.

Oh, and while I haven't had the time to read and respond properly to your post, I want to make a note of, and add to my own distrusting nature - I don't believe Steam will always be there. I feel like I'm gambling any time I think about buying from there (and then never do).