Are YOU interested in Xbox One?Follow

I'm on a fixed income, so price is a huge factor for me. The $100 difference is like three weeks of disposable income.

If I had brand loyalty towards the Xbox systems, it might be a harder choice to make, but as it currently stands, PS4 gives me the same bang for less buck.

Not planning on getting the Xbox One, but my teenage son is already drooling over the upcoming PS4.

They changed the once-a-day online requirement. It does NOT have to connect to the internet once a day.

I will still require a one-time connection to the internet at the initial console setup.



Edited, Jun 20th 2013 1:47pm by Gnu

The thing is, what is to prevent them from turning it back on at some point? They turned it off with a patch, they could easily turn it right back on. Annoying.

Either way I'm not really in the market for a do everything console, I'm sure I'll get one eventually but I didn't get my Xbox 360 until at least 5 years after it launched so I imagine the same thing will happen here.

Even with all of the restrictions, I was definitely curious to see if they would use all of that "innovation" to make games cheaper for the consumers if we were to use the all digital downloads of games. That was their only shot of giving a good reason for all the restrictions. I think it definitely would have swayed me a lot if that were the case, but oh well, opportunity missed.

But it absolutely was providing benefits to consumers. being able to share games with 9 other people digitally was amazing. Is it more convenient to figure out a way to bring a physical disc to a friend who may live hours away to let him borrow it and then figure out a way to get it back once he's done, or would it better for you to finish a game, call up your friend and say, "You can DL it and play now"?

Microsoft themselves said the reason Steam works is cause of the huge sales they provide and in order to be able to provide those kinda sales, you need to have some DRM. But nope! The internet would rather pay $40-$60 for games instead of $10-$15 simply because connecting to the internet once a day is such a giant inconvenience.

Don't be so afraid of progress!

Edited, Jun 20th 2013 2:22pm by Arjuncorpse

If Microsoft wanted, they could still allow the family/friend plan. I actually think that is a great and true innovation to be able to share your library digitally.

As far as price, they had already said games were going to cost $60 bucks new. If they were wanting to go to all digital to where the costs to them are less, why not pass some of those savings down to the consumers and give us a damn good reason to look past all of the restrictions on our gaming?

And the pricing thing, that's how Steam works. Games are $60 new. But Steam vets know you wait a few weeks, keep your eyes open for deals and you can get major discounts on games. I got Bioshock Infinite and Tomb Raider on Steam last month for $20 each. We could have been moving towards a Steam for consoles future, but nope! We'd rather overpay for games just for the "convenience" of holding a piece of plastic in our hands forever.

Yeah their presentation has been pretty awful. They didn't do a good job at all of explaining the benefits that would come from the restrictions. Stuff like this should have been talked about at E3, but I guess since plans weren't solid, they couldn't?

http://www.neowin.net/news/anonymous-xbox-engineer-explains-drm-and-microsofts-xbox-one-intentions

Whether that guy is really an engineer for them or not, they surely could have used him at E3. That right there would have won me over and make me have a huge decision.

I just can't understand why the talking heads for MS couldn't just come out and make those same points that he did. Even if they haven't ironed out all of the details yet, but just give a high level overview of what their plans are, I think they would have made Sony's press conference look a little silly.

Oh well, I'm still going on with my current plan of having 2 PS4's and a WiiU for my son and I. And I'm sure later down the road I'll pick up Xbox 180.

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Xbox-One-Games-E3-Were-Running-Windows-7-With-Nvidia-GTX-Cards-56737.html

See, this was the one that got me today... not the sales numbers. The pictures of the PC inside the installations are gold.

Edit- TL-DR version, Usual hijinks for any system trying to make a good impression where it counts, extra funny 'cos MS doesn't even trust 8 at e3 to run their equipment.

Edited, Jun 20th 2013 5:37pm by OtosanOokami

You pretty much shot down your own argument. Is it a legitimate complaint? Yes, but only if XB1 hadn't been released as a console that is pretty much built around networking through it. If you don't have an internet connection at all or you can't log into XBL at least once a day, XB1 isn't being marketed to you. I'm not sure why people would take offense to that.


I'm not defending it, just pointing out that it doesn't affect me. I realize that it will affect other people, but if you don't have internet access then you can't take advantage of some of the key features of the console. Why even bother?

The reasoning is faulty. There are many PC games that you just can't play unless you have current gen(or close) tech in your case. If I don't have the tech, I don't buy the games. It's really quite simple. I don't get mad at the game developers for trying to make a game that showcases what current tech can do.



The first part is flat out false and the second part makes no sense.

Competition forces companies to constantly look at improving their services or products to make them more attractive over the competition. Companies making better games for players is not good for gamers how?

Devs spend more money developing cross console games, yes. No one will deny that. What you're not considering is that they're introducing the same product to a completely different set of consumers. If you developed an Xbox 360 game then you'd have costs for art design, engine design, story writers, composers, ect ect. Now if you decide to port that game to PS3 then you already have most of the work out of the way. Your cost to port the game to another console(this one having a larger playerbase) doesn't double. In essence, you're more than doubling your prospective buyers for only a fraction of the cost because you don't have to recreate the game. Sounds legit to me from the buyer and seller perspective.