Topic: The NWR Staff Chimes in on the Xbox One

[TJ Spyke]

and want to play the same games with them you will probably have to buy the game twice or thrice, even if you're only playing on one console.

See my earlier post, where is was already confirmed that multiple accounts on the same system can play a game without having to re-buy it. So if you buy a game and link it to your account, and your kid has their own account on the same system, they can play the game too (for free).

[azeke]

So what happens when gamers share their accounts? do they get banned if two different Xones log in with the same account at the same time?

It's not specific to new Xbox's.

All these accounts' shenanigans are already "been there done that" for PS3/Xbox360 gamers.

Honestly i don't know about restriction on multiple connection to the same accounts on Xbox360, but from what i read PS3 supported five consoles connected to the same account at the same time. I think it's been reduced to three or something.

[Fjurbanski]

It's actually pretty neat because this will also save your progress, your XP and achievements and stuff you got while playing on someone else's console.

It will for sure? Or are you just assuming? Because I haven't heard of this anywhere.

[azeke]

Or are you just assuming?

I'm assuming because it's been working that way on 360 for years now.

[Oblivion]

It's actually pretty neat because this will also save your progress, your XP and achievements and stuff you got while playing on someone else's console.

It will for sure? Or are you just assuming? Because I haven't heard of this anywhere.

Are you a Nintendo gamer only?

[Fjurbanski]

Are you a Nintendo gamer only?

Again with this guy. Please try to make at least one post that doesn't make you sound like an ass.


I had forgotten that you could do that with the 360. Because, you know, nobody used it. Because when we wanted to play a game on someone else's system we just took the disk over. I remember we tried to do it once and it took forever and was a total pain.


The reason I doubted you is because lots of news coming out about the xbox one is pointing towards this not being a possibility. At least not without a fee. News is still unclear on all the details though.

[Oblivion]

Who the **** are you? I was simply asking. WHere the **** did you read malicious intent in my post? I was fucking asking you because generally if someone is a Nintendo only gamer, there are certain things they aren't used to.


The only ass in this thread is you.

[Razorkid]

People, people! Let's be nice

The presentation was disappointing, and that was before everything about XBox Live authentication, required 'net connection, and always on Kinect got out. No way, no how; I've had enough of MS with the 360.

  What I'd really like to note is EA has since apparently changed their mind on Wii U support. http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/21/ea-developing-wii-u-games-after-all

This is the real news to connect to Nintendo. Suddenly the WiiU doesn't look like a bad system to invest in after all?

[Chad Sexington]

I haven't been up on console news and had no idea Microsoft was going to be making an Xbox announcement today.

I woke up kind of late, opened up Chrome, and saw some stuff about "Xbox One."

I swear to you I thought Microsoft was giving the original Xbox a "PS One" style treatment.  I was expecting a extremely slimmed down, sleek looking console with a screen attachment, repackaged with portability in mind.

I was wrong.

[Adrock]

(And I better not hear anyone complain about the Wii U's name being confusing after this crap)

I mentioned this in the other thread. "Wii U" is confusing for the people Nintendo presumably kept the "Wii" name for. They were conditioned to associate the Wii-branded products with Wii which makes sense until you launch a successor with a similar name. That's the main difference here. The Blue Ocean is an audience Nintendo spent an entire generation chasing and they're the ones who don't get it. Microsoft's demographic is composed primarily of core gamers. "What's an Xbox One? Oh, it's the thing that plays the next Halo."

Yes, it's needlessly complicated. However, the original Xbox hasn't been on the market in years. If Microsoft went from the original Xbox to Xbox One, they would have a problem. We're removed far enough from the original Xbox that this isn't really an issue. Xbox One also doesn't look very much like any previous Xbox whereas Wii U is very reminiscent of Wii.

I'm not saying Xbox One is the best name for a new Xbox or even a good one. For me, it's functional, but I would know what it is no matter what they called it.

[yoshi1001]

To be honest, I was expecting "Xbox 1080" (to emphasize 1080p graphics), or something that didn't involve numbers at all. I'm curious to know what other names they considered but rejected.

[ejamer]

I don't think the XBox One name is nearly as bad as many people are making it out to be.


That doesn't mean it's good... but I understand how a marketing team would love the name, and think that the average Joe will be ok with it. Nobody who is in a position to be confused knows or cares about the original XBox anymore, and since that isn't an active product (unlike Wii/Wii U) there won't be in-store confusion to worry about.

If I don't have the ability to play offline/share games etc I wont be getting one. If it requires a check every 24 hours or so. What happens in 10 years?
...

This. A thousand times this.


As someone who still plays his original NES, the thought of leaving MS in control of me accessing my games in the future is terrifying.


Maybe they'll just "disable" online checks at the end of the console lifecycle.  Maybe they'll just decide when it's no longer profitable for them to maintain the service and then kill the whole thing and force you to either upgrade to the next XBox console (if it has backwards compatibility - don't hold your breath) or throw your collection in the trash.


This probably doesn't affect their target market, who want annual updates for sports titles and the latest FPS to play online.  But this presentation made it very clear to me that I'm not part of their target market to begin with.

[KeyBilly]

I'm very glad to see the lack of backward compatibility with the PS4 and One.  It is not worth the compromise of sticking to an old architecture, and includes the benefit of cheaper and faster PC ports.  That could benefit all of us.

My reaction to the press conference was boredom.  They showed very little to be excited about, with the focus on media features.  Still, it's a new system and I have no doubt that it will be a good one eventually.  Like the 360, it may have a rough start.  They didn't show much practical use of the Kinect or the new controller, but hopefully both will work seamlessly with Windows 8.  I'd rather buy those than the console.

[ClexYoshi]

How are there this many posts in this thread, and yet NOBODY has mentioned that this thing looks like it's one flippable door and some buttons away from looking like the first VCR/Betamax player your parents bought?

At least the comments have gone into the intense debate on how Microsoft has effectively negated almost any reason why you would buy this device over a PC outside of maybe some sort of dynamite exclusive or the honest to god NEED to voice control your television out of laziness of not wanting to use a remote.

For YEARS now, one of the primary arguments pro console gamers used to defend their preference over PC gaming was that they didn't have to deal with Digital Rights Management bullshit getting in the way of lending a game to a friend or keeping you from getting a bit of return on investment if you get a game you honestly are never going to touch again and don't want for your collection. All this multimedia device crap outside of TV TV TV TV [a feature that requires you own a HDMI complient CABLE TV BOX THAT ACCOMPLISHES THIS REGARDLESS OF YOU HAVING AN XBOX ONE] can be achieved by your PC and in a much more elegant fashion than talking to the Kinect... which by the way, weren't Microsoft talking about making a PC compatible Kinect anyway?

with the lack of emphasis on those games that should be the chief moving power behind this behemoth Blu-ray eating 8-track player is really concerning... why could they not hold onto their britches to show this thing at E3 where there'd be more of an impact as you show it off with games?

Hell, they were gonna reveal this thing earlier in April, but they delayed this a month already so they could respond to the Playstation 4, which Sony had WAY the **** more together and actually showed a couple of interesting titles and kept the focus on the GAMES of their GAMING CONSOLE!

Xbox One's focus on 'oh, it's a multimedia device!' reeks really bad of the 3DO. if this were the 90's, we'd be hearing the "Multimedia device" buzzwords be thrown around like crazy. ugh. this really is kinda sad that Microsoft has lost their way and this could really be the beginning of the end, regardless of the Xbox VCR's success or failure.




Maybe I'd consider buying it if it were actually a water cooler as well.

[Adrock]

Xbox One looks like a Blu Ray player or DVR which I felt was the entire point.

And I was always under the impression that Microsoft entered the gaming market to make it part of a multimedia device. They wanted to stop Sony from taking over the living room. Even Nintendo has strayed from the dedicated gaming console philosophy with Netflix, YouTube, TVii, Miiverse and including a web browser. Home consoles just do so much more than they used to. Unlike 3DO, the technology supports it now.

[Ceric]

The problem with Kinect for PC is Proximity.  The Voice the Items all could be achieved with a typical mic.

[tendoboy1984]

I don't see why people are surprised about Microsoft focusing on multimedia features with the Xbox One. They've been going this route for years. They want the Xbox brand to be the central media device in the living room.

[Pixelated Pixies]

I have to be honest, neither Nintendo nor Microsoft have made a particularly compelling case for why I should buy their system. As an 'undecided voter', so to speak, I'm definitely leaning towards the PS4. I am, however, open to the possibility of being swayed by any one of the big three.

[KeyBilly]

The problem with Kinect for PC is Proximity.  The Voice the Items all could be achieved with a typical mic.

Some people, like me, have PCs hooked up to big screens and do not sit right in front of them.  Still, the new Kinect is supposed to work up close.  We'll have to see how it plays out in the real world.

In terms of the current Kinect, the version for PC use is redesigned to be able to work close ("near mode").  The bigger issue is that the original Kinect PC version is not very high resolution and geared more toward business use, so games were not made for it.  It would make sense for Microsoft to push this new Kinect as tightly integrated with Windows 8, since the interface makes so much more sense now than it did with Windows 7.

[ClexYoshi]

[size=78%]And I was always under the impression that Microsoft entered the gaming market to make it part of a multimedia device. They wanted to stop Sony from taking over the living room. Even Nintendo has strayed from the dedicated gaming console philosophy with Netflix, YouTube, TVii, Miiverse and including a web browser. Home consoles just do so much more than they used to. Unlike 3DO, the technology supports it now.[/size]

This is true, but focus of a console has never strayed this far from games is the point I'm getting at. I guess one could argue that Microsoft put on this show much like the Wii U Nintendo direct right before E3 to discuss the miiverse so they didn't have to spend press conference time talking about this sort of stuff.

At the same time though, they took just barely enough time to highlight a couple of teaser trailers for games at this Microsoft thing; Games that they didn't want to show any actual gameplay of. I'm pretty sure we got more than just Forza Motorsport 5 trailer playing in passive for a few seconds in that Miiverse Nintendo direct demonstration last year.

My point is that Microsoft sent a message here that games are the afterthought. Watching TV through this thing is what you want. Watching sporting events with a slight bit of interactivity with your fantasy league stats pinging up like you just got an achievement for Devin Hester getting a punt return is what this device is meant for. ohbythewaythisplaysvideogamesandourtriggersonourcontrollerhaveaforcefeedbacksystem, But back to the sports! EA is all about the sports, just like they're all about putting DRM into console games! oh, and let's have a montage of interview as we walk around a football stadium and sit by our glorified DVR in the locker room! Even the games we ARE going to talk about have to be TV-like or be TV adaptations of games!

THAT is where I'm getting the 3DO vibe from; this obsession with making games be these "it's like interactive movies!" experiences. Indeed, the technology has caught up with the principle a little better and you're not just letting any chucklehead make a video game, but it still just reminds me of that way more than the gradual build-up of features that was the 360.

[Ian Sane]

Looking at the reactions on different gaming sites a common theme I see is "who is this for?"  They went on and on about all this non-gaming doodads but who doesn't already have other devices that can do that?  Always online and locking out used games sure is nice for MS but there is no selling point there for consumers.  But then "who is this for?" has been a question directed at the Wii U as well.

We don't really need a new console generation yet.  I felt that Nintendo needed to catch up to everyone else but that's it.  The obvious improvement and need for a new console is not there.  But getting us to buy a new system every so many years is the business model and the hell do they want to give that up.  Nintendo has gone with gimmick controllers to justify new hardware.  Microsoft has gone with multimedia funcationality and, even though Sony seems the most promising right now, they went all nuts about social media in their presentation.  They can't just show us some games that look out-of-this-world compared to the previous gen and immediately sell us on the need for a new console like they could before (and they struggled enough with this last gen).  So the question "who is this for?" is coming up because none of these companies know who the product is for because they're not even sure WHAT the product is for.  The purpose just isn't there so they come up with any justification they can and they're going more with non-gaming functionality because they can't sell us the need on moderately prettier games.  "Throw whatever you can into it and hopefully the consumers will think they need one."

I remember being blown away when I saw a Banzai Bill in a Super Mario World commercial.  "Holy ****!  Look how big that Bullet Bill is!"  Instantly sold me on a Super Nintendo.  They can't do that anymore so they're telling us we need a tablet controller and that we can watch the NFL.  It's like the console market doesn't think they can just sit tight until a true need for a new console comes up.  They have to get their shiny new product out before the other guy's shiny new product takes over the market.  But what will happen now?  Are new consoles that exist solely for the purpose of being new going to sell?  Is the Wii U just the start of a general rejection of a new console generation?

[NWR_insanolord]

As a set top box for streaming media and that kind of thing, it looks really cool, but as a game console it leaves a lot to be desired. If I could buy one for $150 with just the media stuff and without the game functionality I probably would.

[Ceric]

$150 sounds about the right price for a high end something just for Media consumption.

[pokepal148]

i have a blueray player under that price point that offers more then what the one has shown

[Ceric]

i have a blueray player under that price point that offers more then what the one has shown

It plays high end games?