I don't really play console, but it sounds really bad. Why are you buy console? Of course, for playing video game. What they said about the console was TV, sports, and CoD graphic which it doesn't look better than Battlefield 3.
This is not a valid excuse. To repeat myself from a few pages ago:
You see, while I 100% agree with the cricticisms of an online pass and the used games thing, I don't think the cricticisms of the non-gaming features make any sense. Whatsoever. You see, integration of other features does not, in fact, take away from gaming. When a new smart phone is revealed, they don't announce it's ability to talk to people from far distances, do they? Because every smartphone is expected to do that. Nowadays you can't just sell a console based on the fact that it will, well, play games. Remember when the PS2 had a DVD player included? That changed the entire industry. Any console will be expected to play games. What sells it are the features beyond that, and good exclusives.
I didn't hear anyone complaining when cell phones started getting Internet access. "Wait it has a camera and Internet access? Geez why can't my phone just make calls?" Likewise, I don't see it as a valid reason to hate Microsoft.
Not that I'm trying to defend any side here, as I'd say the same thing regardless of which console was being targeted by such ridiculous acusations. The point is this: Say you have a house & you're looking to expand it. Do you tear things down to make room for what you want to add? No, you build around it and add to it. That's exactly what's going on with the Xbox One. It's adding features to the console, not taking away. It will still play the games you want it to play.
... That being said, now with the 24 hour online pass, I can say I am severely turned off from buying an Xbox One now, simply because I am in no condition to mantain such connection. Which is a shame, since I really like Halo.
Can someone tell me why I should buy the Xbox One over a computer?
Game consoles in general are attractive precisely to adult gamers who don't have the time to put all the research, money and effort that goes in making a PC specifically for video games.
Picture this: you work all day and must take care of your family. You don't want to spend time into researching for everything that goes in building a computer nor necessarily have the cash available right now, or the day-to-day time to install games every day. You don't particularly care about higher-grade graphics or processing. What you need is something that will give you entertainment for the time you have. So you buy a Xbox One or a PS4 or a Wii U, whatever suits you.
It's easy to see why PC gaming is more popular in the MCF and similar communities because their main demographic is teenagers, especially wealthier ones. People who have plenty of free time. So to answer your question? That'll depend on your situation: how much time you have, how much you care about some features, what exclusives you want, etc. I can't give you an homogenious answer because more than anything, game platform choice is based on your personal preferences and current status in life.
It's amazing that we live in a world where the market has various options for different types of people.
This is gonna totally tank because people have to buy all their games over again, making getting the newest version of the Xbox pointless now that you have to pay for the same games all over again.
This is gonna tank? I'm quite certain all three consoles of this generations will be financially successful. There's a market for all three of them and no matter what we or similar communities may want, both the Xbox One, the PS4 and the Wii U will be very much in the green, commercially.
Honestly, "They're going to tank because people need to buy the games again" is a seriously narrow view of it. When you look at how few consoles actually had reverse compatibility, you'll see how its lack doesn't guarantee a failure. Especially people will be more interested in the new games regardless. Your argument makes it like the new console will only have old games, which isn't true.
Actually there are emulators for the Wii and the Xbox(original) of course not for the 360/ps3 yet but eventually there will be.
We don't have it for the 360/PS3 because technology hasn't advanced enough yet... which is precisely what I said. What's your point?
The PS3 is backwards compatible with most games(the one I have the original fat one) the only reason support was dropped was because they do not want to waste time(money) to keep developing it.
Only because the PS3 literally had an almost-full PS2 inside it.
It is however very possible. It is actually as simple as writing a program that simulates the engine the games ran on and having hardware strong enough to simulate that engine as well as the current.
I think you underestimate the complexity of 'programs'. "Writing a program that simulates the engine" is hard as balls. You'll have to make the entire (hardware intensive) engine work on a completely different hardware. Which is possible, but takes many, many years, and a lot of effort. See what I said about how we still don't have 100% perfect N64 emulators.
Also I am not sure what 64 emulator you use but the newest version of Project64 runs every game I have wanted to play flawlessly(including actually enhancing graphics on games like OoT with the community graphic project).
Highly dependent on how each game uses the hardware. Similar to how the 360 will run some Xbox games well, some with flaws, and some not at all.
The thing is... the troll features of the added features basically mean if someone shouts "GO TO TV!" then it can get you killed in a high tension halo match or something.
As a matter of fact, no; unlike the 360, voice reconition is matched to each profile. It'll only recognize the commands of whoever is playing at the time.
...Yep. Microsoft is just basically trying to do the stupidest thing possible. If we want an all-in-one device we get a gaming PC and Netflix.
You see, while I 100% agree with the cricticisms of an online pass and the used games thing, I don't think the cricticisms of the non-gaming features make any sense. Whatsoever. You see, integration of other features does not, in fact, take away from gaming. When a new smart phone is revealed, they don't announce it's ability to talk to people from far distances, do they? Because every smartphone is expected to do that. Nowadays you can't just sell a console based on the fact that it will, well, play games. Remember when the PS2 had a DVD player included? That changed the entire industry. Any console will be expected to play games. What sells it are the features beyond that, and good exclusives.
I didn't hear anyone complaining when cell phones started getting Internet access. "Wait it has a camera and Internet access? Geez why can't my phone just make calls?" Likewise, I don't see it as a valid reason to hate Microsoft.
Not that I'm trying to defend any side here, as I'd say the same thing regardless of which console was being targeted by such ridiculous acusations. The point is this: Say you have a house & you're looking to expand it. Do you tear things down to make room for what you want to add? No, you build around it and add to it. That's exactly what's going on with the Xbox One. It's adding features to the console, not taking away. It will still play the games you want it to play.
Ever heard of an emulator for current-gen games that work? Me neither.
The only reason 2013 PCs can emulate games from, say, the PS2 is that current technology is immensely more powerful than the ones we had in 2000. Even so, many modern emulators will still have problems with some of the more advanced PS2 games, such as Shadow of the Colossus. This is the same reason that certain consoles are capable of playing a selection of games from the previous generation. Either the console didn't change enough in architecture from its previous generation, or the game being played is not so demanding that emulation is impossible.
Emulation isn't simply making a program and bam, software from other machines work. It requires similarity of hardware and significant technological advances. Hardware is also notoriously... painful to emulate properly. There's a reason that even N64 Emulators aren't perfect right now.
Which was inevitable for both consoles. Like I said on the first page - being backwards compatible is not just a choice developers make. It is EXTREMELY difficult to keep supporting an old architecture, and the games that were built for it. This is why the PS3 was so expensive at first. It literally had an almost complete PS2 inside it.
To put it simply, the technological advances in between console generations are so large that it's financially impossible to try to revamp your old hardware. This is especially true with this generation. Being that both Sony and Microsoft have decided this time around to switch to more dev friendly architectures (the Cell in the PS3 was just dysfunctional, and both new consoles are running on x86 processors) you can expect much better quality at a much faster pace.
Bottom line, lack of reverse compatibility is absolutely not a valid cricticism to either the Xbox One or the PS4.
Not being backwards compatible with namely xbla titles is a complete deal breaker.
What people don't understand is that backwards compatibility isn't a switch console makers decide to turn on or off. It's an inherent feature of the hardware matching or not matching the previous hardware. x86 CPUs don't run powerpc executables, there is not a choice here, they just physically do not do it. You'd have to stuff a whole console inside another which is financially unsustainable for both costumers and developers.
The specs look exactly the same as the PS4's (which I've been suspecting for a long while), which means I'm going to go and get what my friends are getting.
Although the new controller reminds me of the oldschool Xbox controller:
Except slimmer. I like the aesthetics.
It reminded me more of the Dreamcast's. Which is probably the reason I liked it, considering the Dreamcast controller is my all-time favorite.
As for what I'll get? Whatever's cheaper. I'll wait some more four or five years to buy a console, however.
So...Were they trying to get us to want it? Because they didnt really announce any good games. Would say they should take a note from sony, but uh... microsoft I guess doesnt really have anything to announce, or show. I mean why show destiny? Not like people wanted to see it or anything.
You can understand why they're focusing on technical features - let's look at this from a business standpoint for a second. This presentation is all about hardware. Both Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft consoles will play games, what they have beyond that is what will sell. The PS4 had plenty of games right up, but when you consider that E3 is just a few weeks away, you can understand why the technology is more prevalent in Microsoft's presentation.
My impressions? From everything that was announced, I loved the controller the most. Reminds me the Dreamcast, and it seems both comfortable and aesthetically appealing.
In terms of single player, Halo. It has an incredibly rich world and lore, very interesting. CoD is clever at times, but in the end is often no more than a basic war story.
In terms of multiplayer I've always prefered Halo as well, due to vehicles and the more varied weapons, but both are very fun to play with friends.
0
... That being said, now with the 24 hour online pass, I can say I am severely turned off from buying an Xbox One now, simply because I am in no condition to mantain such connection. Which is a shame, since I really like Halo.
0
Game consoles in general are attractive precisely to adult gamers who don't have the time to put all the research, money and effort that goes in making a PC specifically for video games.
Picture this: you work all day and must take care of your family. You don't want to spend time into researching for everything that goes in building a computer nor necessarily have the cash available right now, or the day-to-day time to install games every day. You don't particularly care about higher-grade graphics or processing. What you need is something that will give you entertainment for the time you have. So you buy a Xbox One or a PS4 or a Wii U, whatever suits you.
It's easy to see why PC gaming is more popular in the MCF and similar communities because their main demographic is teenagers, especially wealthier ones. People who have plenty of free time. So to answer your question? That'll depend on your situation: how much time you have, how much you care about some features, what exclusives you want, etc. I can't give you an homogenious answer because more than anything, game platform choice is based on your personal preferences and current status in life.
It's amazing that we live in a world where the market has various options for different types of people.
0
Honestly, "They're going to tank because people need to buy the games again" is a seriously narrow view of it. When you look at how few consoles actually had reverse compatibility, you'll see how its lack doesn't guarantee a failure. Especially people will be more interested in the new games regardless. Your argument makes it like the new console will only have old games, which isn't true.
0
We don't have it for the 360/PS3 because technology hasn't advanced enough yet... which is precisely what I said. What's your point?
Only because the PS3 literally had an almost-full PS2 inside it.
I think you underestimate the complexity of 'programs'. "Writing a program that simulates the engine" is hard as balls. You'll have to make the entire (hardware intensive) engine work on a completely different hardware. Which is possible, but takes many, many years, and a lot of effort. See what I said about how we still don't have 100% perfect N64 emulators.
Highly dependent on how each game uses the hardware. Similar to how the 360 will run some Xbox games well, some with flaws, and some not at all.
0
0
I didn't hear anyone complaining when cell phones started getting Internet access. "Wait it has a camera and Internet access? Geez why can't my phone just make calls?" Likewise, I don't see it as a valid reason to hate Microsoft.
Not that I'm trying to defend any side here, as I'd say the same thing regardless of which console was being targeted by such ridiculous acusations. The point is this: Say you have a house & you're looking to expand it. Do you tear things down to make room for what you want to add? No, you build around it and add to it. That's exactly what's going on with the Xbox One. It's adding features to the console, not taking away. It will still play the games you want it to play.
1
The only reason 2013 PCs can emulate games from, say, the PS2 is that current technology is immensely more powerful than the ones we had in 2000. Even so, many modern emulators will still have problems with some of the more advanced PS2 games, such as Shadow of the Colossus. This is the same reason that certain consoles are capable of playing a selection of games from the previous generation. Either the console didn't change enough in architecture from its previous generation, or the game being played is not so demanding that emulation is impossible.
Emulation isn't simply making a program and bam, software from other machines work. It requires similarity of hardware and significant technological advances. Hardware is also notoriously... painful to emulate properly. There's a reason that even N64 Emulators aren't perfect right now.
0
1
To put it simply, the technological advances in between console generations are so large that it's financially impossible to try to revamp your old hardware. This is especially true with this generation. Being that both Sony and Microsoft have decided this time around to switch to more dev friendly architectures (the Cell in the PS3 was just dysfunctional, and both new consoles are running on x86 processors) you can expect much better quality at a much faster pace.
Bottom line, lack of reverse compatibility is absolutely not a valid cricticism to either the Xbox One or the PS4.
0
Additionally Microsoft is known for taking feedback and making product changes quick so this information is also subject to change until release.
0
0
As for what I'll get? Whatever's cheaper. I'll wait some more four or five years to buy a console, however.
1
My impressions? From everything that was announced, I loved the controller the most. Reminds me the Dreamcast, and it seems both comfortable and aesthetically appealing.
0
In terms of multiplayer I've always prefered Halo as well, due to vehicles and the more varied weapons, but both are very fun to play with friends.
0