The Xbox One is done

next-Jin

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
6,248
Microsoft’s E3 presentation has been labeled an effective disaster by almost everyone in the industry and tens of thousands on the internet. There are just too many restrictive policies such as 24 hour internet check in or the unit will not function; even single player games. Always on Kinect where it needs to be connected or the system will not power on. They prevent the resale of used games replacing it with something that is completely irrelevant. They force independent developers to have publishers and charge them 40,000 (estimated) dollars every time they want to update their game on Microsoft Live. Sony will let anyone self-publish their titles on PSN free of charge for updates. They have hardware that is 33% weaker than the Sony PlayStation 4 because they instead chose to add other features to the system that they themselves fail to deliever a proper experience (Live TV but no Cable DVR)

Microsoft aimed high with their design and failed to deliver. They have implemented very restrictive policies on their services and the resale of games. The Xbox division needs to take a step back and take another look at their policies and customer privacy concerns. Right now all they are doing is alienating the people that matter; Gamers.

-------------

So what is so bad about the Xbox One? Let's discuss this and I will update this thread with up to date information as it becomes availible.

  • 24 Hour Check Ins or even single player games will be unplayable
  • Extremely limited resale abilities on purchased games
  • 33% weaker hardware compared to the PS4
  • No "NEW" interactions introduced, just improved Kinect capabilities
  • Only Live TV through HDMI pass through, no Cable DVR
  • Harsh Restrictions on Indie developers through forced publishers and fees for updating games
  • More expensive online
  • No user upgradable hard drive
  • Region locked

After reading all the news, feedback and reactions I simply fail to understand what their thinking was here. They proclaim "A world connected" but how is Sony doing anything that does not push the same goals?

Let's look at what Microsoft says are good things about their platform;

  • Cloud Computing (PS4 also does this)
  • Live TV w/ widgets (No Cable DVR?)
  • Skype
  • Family Plan (Only useful for friends located off site)
  • Release day online game sales (How is this a positive? Everyone already does this)
  • Kinect with every system allowing gesture controls and universal support for games

Those are the major things I have heard from either Microsoft's PR or Xbox fans, and frankly that is a sad list.

Microsoft can't really go back now and change things because nothing is flexible. Changing one thing will affect everything else, so this thing will be released as is. I think it will still sell (more so than the Wii U), however it will be very interesting to see how this all plays out. The online community has taken a rather firm stance, however I feel that your average consumer will still pick up the system especially folks heavy into fantasy football or sports in general.

Looking at it as it stands right now, I cannot possibly see how this thing was developed and frankly hope it crashes and burns. How can you possibly take your eye off Gamers and still not succeed at properly integrating your other goals into the system instead of half assing most all of it.

Please share additional concerns or fix some of my main listing points if I have them wrong.
 
Last edited:

DeathPrincess

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
18,205
They have said both "you can have the power of the clooooud" in games and also that you only have to connect once per day. So how does that work exactly, you connect once per day and it predicts everything you will do in game that day? How does game bullshit like "cloud based physics" work with this once per day connection?

The TV crap is stupid because it doesn't even play TV, so what is the point of it when you need another box which plays TV (it says that you do, so it's safe to assume it needs another cable device).

That Major shithead avoided the "once the console generation ends will you shut down the servers and switch off the games" question in an awkward way, which means that's probably likely, and you should consider all Xbox one games rentals that wont last past 5-8 years.

the things you've missed is the "other additional restrictions" which they haven't yet clarified (which is obviously a bad thing they don't want people to know, and the ToS which removes your right to anything but arbitration.

Also it's not $10,000, it's 50,000 per patch. Also it's more like 50% weaker and has lower available Ram (and 1/4 speed ram) due to the OS and cheaper type. Also that Major guy said there probably wouldn't be sales day one, and that they wouldn't be "Steam-like" as hey are already better than Steam.

Kinect games all suck and it's a gimmick that doesn't really work for complex anything.
 

Skillz

[H]ard DCOTY 2017
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
22,225
So apparently, the PS4 is going to be the only gaming console next generation to survive.




lulz
 

bigdogchris

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
17,953
A recent tweet by Major whoever said that they will 'look into' allowing you to switch the console to "offline" mode, which would disable library sharing but enable you to not need to check in every 24 hours (like if your going away). But I'm sure it would (not)work like Steam offline mode where you have to be online first before going off.
 

Quartz-1

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
4,257
Microsoft have 5 months to fix things. Most of the negative issues are ones of policy and not technical. On the technical side, MS could easily fix the performance deficit by upgrading the GPU.
 

Skillz

[H]ard DCOTY 2017
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
22,225
Microsoft have 5 months to fix things. Most of the negative issues are ones of policy and not technical. On the technical side, MS could easily fix the performance deficit by upgrading the GPU.
I would be willing to bet that Microsoft can not upgrade or make hardware changes such as going with a beefier GPU. The console is most likely already in production to meet demands this year.
 

Diseaseboy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 27, 2001
Messages
1,206
I can see Microsoft getting rid of all their DRM stuff and dropping the price $50.00 before launch.
 

collegeboy69us

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
5,257
I would be willing to bet that Microsoft can not upgrade or make hardware changes such as going with a beefier GPU. The console is most likely already in production to meet demands this year.
While I do agree -- it's odd to me that both consoles are at the core (PCs).

I can spec out and build a custom PC for someone -- and due to the unified nature of AMD's driver on the 7000 series line of GPU's -- at the last minute I can from from a 7850 to a 7970 and not have to rework anything but the cooling and power aspect.

If I remember correctly though -- the chip is actually an APU? GPU built into the cpu? if so... that's just putting all their eggs in one basket and locking themselves down to (already) old tech for the next 8 years.
 

next-Jin

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
6,248
While I do agree -- it's odd to me that both consoles are at the core (PCs).

I can spec out and build a custom PC for someone -- and due to the unified nature of AMD's driver on the 7000 series line of GPU's -- at the last minute I can from from a 7850 to a 7970 and not have to rework anything but the cooling and power aspect.

If I remember correctly though -- the chip is actually an APU? GPU built into the cpu? if so... that's just putting all their eggs in one basket and locking themselves down to (already) old tech for the next 8 years.
Yea it's an APU they can't change to something else unless they basically copied the PS4 design which won't happen. There are contracts involved and changing anything would have them releasing at the very least a year and a half late.
 

ballistic90

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
3,308
Yea it's an APU they can't change to something else unless they basically copied the PS4 design which won't happen. There are contracts involved and changing anything would have them releasing at the very least a year and a half late.
Honestly, just turning off the stupid DRM would make it much more appealing by itself...

Oh, and reducing the price.
 

next-Jin

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
6,248
They have said both "you can have the power of the clooooud" in games and also that you only have to connect once per day. So how does that work exactly, you connect once per day and it predicts everything you will do in game that day? How does game bullshit like "cloud based physics" work with this once per day connection?

The TV crap is stupid because it doesn't even play TV, so what is the point of it when you need another box which plays TV (it says that you do, so it's safe to assume it needs another cable device).

That Major shithead avoided the "once the console generation ends will you shut down the servers and switch off the games" question in an awkward way, which means that's probably likely, and you should consider all Xbox one games rentals that wont last past 5-8 years.

the things you've missed is the "other additional restrictions" which they haven't yet clarified (which is obviously a bad thing they don't want people to know, and the ToS which removes your right to anything but arbitration.

Also it's not $10,000, it's 50,000 per patch. Also it's more like 50% weaker and has lower available Ram (and 1/4 speed ram) due to the OS and cheaper type. Also that Major guy said there probably wouldn't be sales day one, and that they wouldn't be "Steam-like" as hey are already better than Steam.

Kinect games all suck and it's a gimmick that doesn't really work for complex anything.
Do you have anything official on this? I'd like to update the main post but want to ensure it's accurate. I've been tracking 33% on power, but the 50k I don't doubt just need something firm.
 

Wildace

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
6,721
the power difference is noted on 2 levels you can go by devs stating there are 768 threads "12 compute units, which have a total of 768 cores" which is 1.23 teraflops compared to 1.84teraflops 18 compute units 1152 thread on PS4.

another un named 3rd party dev on a forbes news article said the PS4 was 40% more powerful but he could of also been under selling the ps4's power a little to avoid over stating its capabilities. He said that multi platform games on launch of the systems should look/run better on ps4 out of the gate this generation.

so i think 40-50% is a fair estimate of the difference in power between the systems.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2013/06/15/sony-playstation-4-launch-edition-already-sold-out-at-amazon/

"In talking to a developer who wished to remain anonymous, gamers will see a difference on Day One when they compare third party PS4 games to Xbox One head-to-head. The developer told me the PS4 is 40 percent more powerful than Xbox One and games like Call of Duty Ghosts will be noticeably different out of the gate.

In the past, Xbox 360 games looked better out of the gate and over time PS3 games progressively improved to the point where games like The Last of Us and Beyond: Two Souls stand out even against some next gen titles. But if this differentiator holds true, not only will Xbox One games have DRM issues and no rental options and limited used game opportunities, the games won’t look as good as PS4 titles. That sounds like a perfect storm of negativity for the hardcore gamers."

MS cant simply add more compute units to the CPU either because they went with DDR3, which means they had to have on die 32MB EsRAM so that they had some high speed ram in the system.

the EsRam uses the die space of the other 6 compute units the core is missing, compared to the PS4.

MS was trying to play it safe and planning to do 8GB of DDR3 from the beginning so they thought they would have an edge in available ram over Sony.

From the beginning of the PS4 development Sony had planned to only do 4GB of GDDR5 and im sure MS had assumed they wouldnt be able to get more than 4GB of GDDR5 for each system by the time the consoles were supposed to launch. MS wanted to make sure they have at least 8GB of ram in the system.

Sony Gambled on GDDR5 availability and it paid off big, it left them with 40-50% more graphics power from compute units on the die.

the only thing thats left to be seen is how the higher latency of the GDDR5 might affect some things compared to DDR3. but we also dont know the latency of the Xbone DDR3 yet all we know is its 2133mhz i think.
 
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
2,604
Microsoft is really pissing off their fans, customers and the entire community with their recent policies and behaviour. Its shit like this will cause their own downfall, don't know if Microsoft is either deaf, ignorant or both not to listen to customer feedback. I don't see this will turn out well for Microsoft as they have captured a lot of market share for the console market (I think?) and they would be stupid enough to destroy what they have achieved by implementing unnecessary online DRM schemes and other atrocious policies that will absolutely do nothing for consumers but only to alienate them.
 

SeymourGore

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
2,895
Yar, I'm firmly in the PS4 camp now that E3's done with, It's not only the restrictions that bothered me (online check-in being the big one) it's been the attitude from the bosses when questioned about it.

Anyhow, if I were in MS shoes, these would be some of my changes:

Release two versions of the console, a 'Gamer' edition and a 'Multimedia' edition. 'Gamer' edition would include the console, controller and retail for $399. The 'Multimedia' edition would include console, controller, kinect and retail for $499.

As far as I'm concerned (and judging by Kinect's prevalence at E3), Kinect will be more or less a gimmick for gaming, but could prove to be more useful for media consumption.

To go alongside this, remove the Kinect is mandatory requirement. Kinect can be turned completely off, so why not go the further step and allow it to be optional.

24 hour online check or system becomes unusable for gaming? Scratch that requirement. However as soon as the system does find a connection, then it will automatically authenticate itself to keep all of the licenses in check.

Merge Windows PC/Xbox releases together. A gamer would purchase a Xbox version of Titanfall, but would still also be able to download and install the digital version for his Windows based PC. I think this would add great value, promote gaming on MS' other gaming platform (windows pc) and help alleviate some of the concerns about what happens to our Xbox collection after the thing goes offline.
 

Domingo

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
17,545
I'm curious if this massive PR debacle is as big as the internet would have you believe.
I have several friends that are still planning on buying it on launch day, so it's definitely not affecting everyone. Neowin had a poll that showed people didn't seem to care all that much.
Is this a real issue for MS or is this just like the iPad being a big ass phone that will surely fail because the internet told me it would?
 

Wildace

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
6,721
I'm curious if this massive PR debacle is as big as the internet would have you believe.
I have several friends that are still planning on buying it on launch day, so it's definitely not affecting everyone. Neowin had a poll that showed people didn't seem to care all that much.
Is this a real issue for MS or is this just like the iPad being a big ass phone that will surely fail because the internet told me it would?
alot of people will buy it, but the question is how many.

oblivious parents and such will buy it.

people comfortable with steam will buy it.

people that like MS exclusives will buy it.

we wont know how its affected MS for atleast 6months to a year after launch.

launch day cconsoles will most likely be sold out for both consoles so you can gauge it then and have to see how the sales trend continues for months or years down the road.

MS could sell out the first couple months and then once the people that want one have one the sales could drop off dramatically. while the PS4 could see steady sales through out its life.

MS's DRM choice is like Steam 1.5 it offers the same way to buy games, (most likely minus massive sales like steam) the additional .5 comes from the fact that MS is allowing you to transfer your game license to a friend and to family members which is something we would likely never ever see on steam. so in a way they are trying to improve the digital rights permissions of people who buy the games.

but they seem to be trying to force that model on consumers too fast. if they were trying to do that to steam users it wouldnt be a problem and would look like a nice new feature.

but they are forcing that model on consumers who are use to phyisical media. people who are use to trading in games or loaning them to a friend.

also people who like to travel or take their console with them or have lack luster internet. or fall in the 30% of the population int he united states who dont have internet.


the DRM and 24hours thing isnt an issue for me im so use to steam and have no problem paying full price for a game on its release day if i want the game. to me 50 or 60$ is not too much to ask for a new game. it costs me that much to take my self and another person to the movies and thats only a 2 hour experience.

and i dont usually buy or sell my games, i have in the past but i dont plan to get rid of my ps3 or 360. and there is very little chance i would want to sell a PS4 or xbox one if i get one.
(i pre orderd the PS4 and 3 games and 1 controller)

the thing keeping me from getting a Xbox one right away is knowing its 50% less powerful and there just arnt enough exclusives for either console for me to make the purchase of both right away seem justified.

in 1-2 years i can see my self buying one for the exlclusives.
 
Last edited:

memphist0

Gawd
Joined
Nov 18, 2000
Messages
563
In the past, Xbox 360 games looked better out of the gate and over time PS3 games progressively improved to the point where games like The Last of Us and Beyond: Two Souls stand out even against some next gen titles.
Hmm, I thought most comparison favored the PS3 over the Xbox 360 since the ps3 could use higher res textures since it could read blurays. I heard a number of developers complaining about the dual layer capacity of the 360 limiting their games.

I also thought the PS3 GPU was a little stronger than the 360's.
 

Skillz

[H]ard DCOTY 2017
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
22,225
If I remember correctly though -- the chip is actually an APU? GPU built into the cpu? if so... that's just putting all their eggs in one basket and locking themselves down to (already) old tech for the next 8 years.
Yes they are. Which is why I doubt they can make changes to it. Even if it's not physically being manufactured, I think they are a little too far into the process to make design changes like that.
 

Skripka

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
Messages
10,792
So apparently, the PS4 is going to be the only gaming console next generation to survive.




lulz
Given Sony's panache for making hardware that is doomed to failure due to restrictive hardware and software limitations....talk about irony.
 

next-Jin

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
6,248
Hmm, I thought most comparison favored the PS3 over the Xbox 360 since the ps3 could use higher res textures since it could read blurays. I heard a number of developers complaining about the dual layer capacity of the 360 limiting their games.

I also thought the PS3 GPU was a little stronger than the 360's.
lens of truth clearly shows the 360 looking better than the PS3, there are a few exceptions like Final Fantasy but still. That is only for multiplatform titles though, you can't honestly say the PS3 is weaker with titles like Uncharted 3, The Last of Us, God of War, the new game from Heavy Rain makers, etc.
 

Kinsaras

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
3,599
lens of truth clearly shows the 360 looking better than the PS3, there are a few exceptions like Final Fantasy but still. That is only for multiplatform titles though, you can't honestly say the PS3 is weaker with titles like Uncharted 3, The Last of Us, God of War, the new game from Heavy Rain makers, etc.
Don't forget MGS4. Like it or not it's an impressive looking game.
 

Wildace

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
6,721
Hmm, I thought most comparison favored the PS3 over the Xbox 360 since the ps3 could use higher res textures since it could read blurays. I heard a number of developers complaining about the dual layer capacity of the 360 limiting their games.

I also thought the PS3 GPU was a little stronger than the 360's.
at the beginning of the PS3 and 360 generation it was much easier to code for the 360 than the PS3 which allowed multiplatform games to run/look better/smoother on 360.

which is what he was talking about. the beginning of the generation.

as devs learned how to work with the Cell and memory split and such of the PS3 games caught up and might have exceeded the 360 in a few areas/games.
 

dr.stevil

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
9,096
I was talking with a buddy of mine last night that's a diehard 360 guy and even he said that there's no way in hell he's touching the Xbone with the 24hour check non-sense.

He said that he's going to hold off for a little while to see if they change their stance, and if not, getting a PS4 (with a 360 style controller)
 

Kinsaras

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
3,599
I was talking with a buddy of mine last night that's a diehard 360 guy and even he said that there's no way in hell he's touching the Xbone with the 24hour check non-sense.

He said that he's going to hold off for a little while to see if they change their stance, and if not, getting a PS4 (with a 360 style controller)
Well to praise Sony even more, supposedly the controller is great.

Polygon: PS4 controller is a shooter's best friend

http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/16/4430256/blacklight-retribution

*My Blacklight demo marked my first time holding the PlayStation 4's new controller, which I fell in love with instantly. It feels better in the hand, with more responsive buttons and far more manageable triggers than those on the comparatively obtuse DualShock 3.* Blacklight on PS4 utilizes that controller extremely well - the PC version of the title has been lauded for its tight shooting mechanics, which have been adapted nicely to the new DualShock.
 

Archaea

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
9,876
As early adopter owner of both Xbox 360 and PS3 - - I was more interested in PS4 after seeing all these negatives about Xbox One. Honestly, lately I'd been thinking I'm getting a bit tired of paying for Xbox Live over the last couple years because frankly - I haven't played Xbox 360 but a couple times in the last couple years.....but I hadn't been following the consoles too closely and after I just realized PS4 is going to charge for mplayer on PSNetwork this generation too - - - well what's the difference really then? Xbox has, and will continue to have, a better online experience - so if you have to pay for mplayer on both - I'm probably leaning back towards MS again.

Publishers will prefer Xbox One in my opinion.
 

CMadki4

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
4,438
I'm guessing the XBox One will sell just fine. Of course, not as well as it would without the restrictions and none sense. But it will sell plenty. Not all buyers are informed buyers, not all are totally caught up in the hype/dismay. I will venture a guess that the PS4 will do much better, especially initially. Maybe even over the long haul.
 

Kinsaras

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
3,599
As early adopter owner of both Xbox 360 and PS3 - - I was more interested in PS4 after seeing all these negatives about Xbox One. Honestly, lately I'd been thinking I'm getting a bit tired of paying for Xbox Live over the last couple years because frankly - I haven't played Xbox 360 but a couple times in the last couple years.....but I hadn't been following the consoles too closely and after I just realized PS4 is going to charge for mplayer on PSNetwork this generation too - - - well what's the difference really then? Xbox has, and will continue to have, a better online experience - so if you have to pay for mplayer on both - I'm probably leaning back towards MS again.

Publishers will prefer Xbox One in my opinion.
Personally having both and playing both systems a lot, I see little difference. PS3 = 360 other than a few little things. But I'm not trying to start that argument.

PS4 you pay to play online but apps are still free. Meaning unlike XB1, you can still use Netflix or Hulu for example on PS4 and not cost you anything extra.

Also PS+ has been giving away many good games (Dues Ex, XCOM in the past few months) for “free” and Sony said they don’t plan on stopping it.
 

ballistic90

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
3,308
I'm guessing the XBox One will sell just fine. Of course, not as well as it would without the restrictions and none sense. But it will sell plenty. Not all buyers are informed buyers, not all are totally caught up in the hype/dismay. I will venture a guess that the PS4 will do much better, especially initially. Maybe even over the long haul.
The PS3 and Xbox 360 have changed dramatically from when they first came out. I'm hoping the Xbox One and PS4 do the same.

I've said it before, and I've said it again: The Xbox One's DRM makes sense if it was optional. If you install a game and don't want to put the disc in, then the DRM makes sense. But if you have the game disc, then it should bypass the DRM. Why doesn't that make sense? Screw you Microsoft...
 

Wildace

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
6,721
As early adopter owner of both Xbox 360 and PS3 - - I was more interested in PS4 after seeing all these negatives about Xbox One. Honestly, lately I'd been thinking I'm getting a bit tired of paying for Xbox Live over the last couple years because frankly - I haven't played Xbox 360 but a couple times in the last couple years.....but I hadn't been following the consoles too closely and after I just realized PS4 is going to charge for mplayer on PSNetwork this generation too - - - well what's the difference really then? Xbox has, and will continue to have, a better online experience - so if you have to pay for mplayer on both - I'm probably leaning back towards MS again.

Publishers will prefer Xbox One in my opinion.
i would think sony is planning to address the shortcomings of their multiplayer experience.

along with Gaikai.

the fact they plan to let you watch your friends play live in the background and be able to actually jump in and take over the game for them if they are stuck some where has kinda huge for their online experience. they have to of improved the friends system alot and other things.

we havnt really seen how they plan to change up the GUI and navigation of the PS4 yet i dont think. atleast i havnt seen it.

you get drive club PS+ edition free with your sub to PS+, along with 2 free lower budget games per month also.
 

guitarguy6

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,946
It's an Xbox, people will buy it. /end thread

I have friends who pre-ordered it just because of that. A lot of average consumers don't watch E3 or browse forums like this so they don't know about the downsides of the X1.
 

BatJoe

Gawd
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Messages
836
It's an Xbox, people will buy it. /end thread

I have friends who pre-ordered it just because of that. A lot of average consumers don't watch E3 or browse forums like this so they don't know about the downsides of the X1.
We'll see. When the PS3 was announced, Sony got a lot of bad post-E3 press and it was more expensive. And look how it affected them early on in that generation.

M$ is in the same situation as Sony was this time around.
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2011
Messages
752
The PS3 and Xbox 360 have changed dramatically from when they first came out. I'm hoping the Xbox One and PS4 do the same.

I've said it before, and I've said it again: The Xbox One's DRM makes sense if it was optional. If you install a game and don't want to put the disc in, then the DRM makes sense. But if you have the game disc, then it should bypass the DRM. Why doesn't that make sense? Screw you Microsoft...
That's perfectly reasonable.
 

piscian18

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
11,021
I don't think it's done. I just went to target. Didn't see a single one on the shelves.
 

DeathPrincess

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
18,205
Do you have anything official on this? I'd like to update the main post but want to ensure it's accurate. I've been tracking 33% on power, but the 50k I don't doubt just need something firm.
Ok, found it. it's $40k according to Tim Schafer (who has made Xbox games):

"You have to jump through a lot of hoops, even for important stuff like patching and supporting your game. Those are things we really want to do, but we can’t do it on these systems. I mean, it costs $40,000 to put up a patch – we can’t afford that!"

As for the 50% weaker, it's using 1/4 of the bandwidth RAM (which is important for GPUs) and the opponents has 50% more cores.
 
Last edited:

BladeVenom

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
7,707
As for the 50% weaker, it's using 1/4 of the bandwidth RAM (which is important for GPUs) and the opponents has 50% more cores.
I think you mean 40% of the bandwidth not 1/4. Memory bandwidth, 68.3 GB/s vs. 176.0 GB/s.

I think that will make a big difference. You only see DDR3 in low end video cards, and even in those they take a huge performance hit using slower memory.
 

Archaea

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
9,876
I think it's cruddy patch releases cost that much but the logic behind the patches costing so much is that Microsoft wants to 'encourage' developers to release well tested, final game products - that don't need patches. In the end that makes for a happier consumer and play experience, and if devs do their play testing this shouldn't bite them. I'd guess most of us are PC gamers here - and this kind of fee disallows companies from releasing half finished products (I'm looking at Firefly here as prime example) --- Stronghold games are notoriously buggy - so much so that the tutorials aren't even playable. Then they fix them over the years with many patches --- but if you buy the game at launch you mind as well not even try to play it till later. The business model pays for the finishing of the game through the initial game sales and then releases the full game product a bit at a time through patches. It's a horrible model and one Microsoft wants to avoid like the plague - because if a dev's game is buggy and it crashes the system - guess who shares the blame. This problem is rampat in the PC gaming world (some companies more than others) and largely unexistant in the console world.

I may not like the dev fees for patches - but I do understand them, and the end result makes for a better experience for me as the consumer.
 

/usr/sbin

Successfully Trolled by Megalith
Joined
Jul 18, 2010
Messages
3,927
people comfortable with steam will buy it.
Huh?

XBone / Xbox live is very different from steam. Steam has the following major advantages:

  • Doesn't cost ~$40/year.
  • Steam Sales offer substantially better value than console game sales.
  • Doesn't lock me out of games if I'm offline.
  • Doesn't cost 40K to the developer for a patch, which means bugs get fixed quicker since the developer doesn't feel the need to do one massive patch to maximize use of the patch fee.
  • Indie developer friendly

Also from a use perspective, I can do whatever I want to change the operation of my PC. Good luck doing that on the XBone. If the XBone is supposed to be one place for media consumption - marked by the fact that one of it's big advertised features is that it lets you watch TV, where is the cable card support?
 
Last edited:

DeathPrincess

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
18,205
I think it's cruddy patch releases cost that much but the logic behind the patches costing so much is that Microsoft wants to 'encourage' developers to release well tested, final game products - that don't need patches. In the end that makes for a happier consumer and play experience, and if devs do their play testing this shouldn't bite them. I'd guess most of us are PC gamers here - and this kind of fee disallows companies from releasing half finished products (I'm looking at Firefly here as prime example) --- Stronghold games are notoriously buggy - so much so that the tutorials aren't even playable. Then they fix them over the years with many patches --- but if you buy the game at launch you mind as well not even try to play it till later. The business model pays for the finishing of the game through the initial game sales and then releases the full game product a bit at a time through patches. It's a horrible model and one Microsoft wants to avoid like the plague - because if a dev's game is buggy and it crashes the system - guess who shares the blame. This problem is rampat in the PC gaming world (some companies more than others) and largely unexistant in the console world.

I may not like the dev fees for patches - but I do understand them, and the end result makes for a better experience for me as the consumer.
That's a silly argument for a number of reasons.

1. Perfect games just don't exist. Pick any game ever and it has had a pile of bugs, some of which turn up after release. HL2 was horrendously buggy at launch and wouldn't even load for some people. Some things like save file exploits don't turn up until late on. However much testing you do it is never possible to test everything.
2. Sometimes the patches aren't for "technical issues". Anything with multiplayer will likely have some kind of balance issue at some point or another. You can playtest the crap out of everything but there's 1000s of possibilities. Look at games like BF3, where several exploits were found months after launch. Stopping developers from "fine tuning" wont make games better.
3. Free content is bad or impossible. On a free system it costs $0 to add content, so why not. On a $40k system all add-ons will need to make you $40k otherwise you wont be able to do it. The smaller the developer the worse it is.
4. Xbox games are still buggy.
5. There isn't free patching of "beta" clients. So that means less testing, not more. Plus with the fee for patches that means less fine tuning and the cutoff point for "just ship it" is shorter.
6. They do it to get money. Same as the ads and every other thing they do. :p
7. It affects little guys way more than big guys. Big corporations make $50k in 3 seconds, little guys would need to turn to Kickstarter or something. So big corporations will care less about the patching as it's a small fee, smaller guys wont be able to patch.
 
Last edited:
Top