The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
CBOAT just confirmed over at GAF that the XBO Family Sharing feature only let you play shared games for 60 minutes. So they basically just copied the Full Game Trial idea from Sony but limited it to games your friends owned.
CBOAT just confirmed over at GAF that the XBO Family Sharing feature only let you play shared games for 60 minutes. So they basically just copied the Full Game Trial idea from Sony but limited it to games your friends owned.
hah Confirmed @Allforce was Flash Gordan for saving us.
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
The rumor does go along with CBOAT's claim that the DRM was even worse than advertised. It would also explain why MS never fucking explained it in any clear way.
Give your family access to your entire games library anytime, anywhere: Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend’s house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time.
It does sound weird using this language if it was a glorified demo, but they might have just been that fucking stupid.
It would explain how the fuck MS would have gotten publishers on board because the idea of basically giving a free copy to everybody who purchases a game sounds really insane.
I've talked about less wealthy people and video games before. It doesn't necessarily need to be a "social justice" issue (although I've been poor before, and I still enjoyed and played video games somehow), it can be a business issue.
Some points:
- Lots of people have internet access, even poor people. The problem is they often don't have broadband piped into their home, and may rely on slower connections, mobile internet, or using the internet at a library or McDonalds.
- There is a tension developing between the style of content publishers want to deliver, and the people who will be available to deliver it to. Even if I didn't care that less wealthy people want to play games and have been quite successfully playing games up until now, I would still be paying attention to the fact that publishers seem to want to contract the market to only those willing and able to pay the highest prices for their content. Meanwhile, we've been ostensibly transitioning to a blockbuster model on the consoles. Can we have both? Can the rarefied few support a market that needs millions of sales to break even?
The idea that my entertainment relies on a resource not considered a basic necessity for life and often the first thing to go when chips are really down is abhorrent to me. That people can't understand that this is not a difficult situation to run for many into amazes me.
First world problems, you know? And I don't mean that with snark; I'm saying this is a totally non-accusatory way, but there are people who just genuinely don't get that Real Bad Things happen. How about a month or two of no power because a nasty storm hits? The business you're a part of failing and putting you out of work as a result? Telcomms playing shitty games with connections in an area? Just plain being too far away from an urban center to have good telcomm service? Living in an area where infrastructure hasn't developed up to broadband yet?
These aren't even theoreticals for me; I've had each and every one of them happen at least once, and the Xbone DRM would have made some hard times even more miserable for no real benefit except to Microsoft. Some people are lucky enough or choose to live in heavily-developed areas their whole lives, and other people skip around a bunch. If you move around a bunch, a lot of this stuff happens to you.
Internet may be a first-world business essential, but it's far from a total necessity anywhere like water or power are.
+1
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Really, if the family sharing plan wasn't full of restrictions that made it almost useless then MS is really, really stupid for not shouting it from the rooftops. It wasn't even mentioned during the E3 conference.
I mean, you don't have to have a crew filming the flies on your face to be poor. Can you afford to not get your next paycheck? If not...
But really, it's not that less wealthy people deserve to be able to game, it's that together they still represent some percentage of paying gamers, so whatever moves you make that cut them out better make enough money to make up for it.
When I was younger, my sister and I saved up our allowances and bought a SNES and a couple of games (Mario Kart, Mario Paint, E.V.O. the Search for Eden). We played a huge amount on that machine, with games borrowed from friends but we could never have afforded a monthly internet connection fee.
Also, my local library system has both PS3 and Xbox360 games available to be borrowed.
I was in a residential compound in the middle east last year, and because of some hacker attack the wifi was taken down for weeks. Not even the library had any wifi. If I hadn't found my old NES lying around in storage (and if it had some weird online restriction) I would have gone nuts. This was in a relatively well to do area, by the way. Even people with normally stable internet sometimes have outages, and all of the supposed benefits were smoke and mirrors. (The "This way we can assume that everyone has a connection" thing was pure BS, since they were A) already assuming that, and you would reach the same amount of people with online stuff even if offline people are online too)
Poor parents in bad neighborhoods tend to invest heavily in things like big screen TVs and game consoles. That's not because they are stupid or bad with money. It's because, when you live in a high-crime area, it is worth it to find ways to keep your kids inside.*
And, when you come right down to it, $40 for a used copy of Skyrim that your kid will play for 100 hours isn't that bad of a value.
* This goes way back, actually. There's a famous flawed study that linked hours of TV watched with fearfulness and perceptions of danger - i.e. it concluded that people who watched more TV felt more afraid.
What later researchers realized was that the study relied heavily on people from around the researchers university, which was in a horrible inner city area. Looking more closely at the data, they realized that inner city residents relied far more on the TV for entertainment, because it was dangerous to go outside. Their fearfulness wasn't because of hours of TV they watched, but rather that they lived in a scary place.
So about Titanfall being single player only. On the face of it this seems like a very good idea. You can deliver a lot of value to customers without bringing in an army of artists. But I wonder about two things. First, is there a stigma about paying full price for multi-only games? Second, is this going to be a situation like iOS games where the ease of making games leads to competition and forces lower prices.
Perhaps Titalfall will get a first mover advantage on consoles by being so close to launch and any competition will have to fight among themselves.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Titanfall looked like a MP game to me from the trailer with all the dudes flying around and shooting at each other. I wonder how many others thought the same thing.
I think it's a natural evolution of the genre. I mean, CoD single player campaigns are so short and the stories are so meh (or so I hear) that it's become a running joke.
That being said, as someone who's not a hardcore online shooter guy, learning it's multiplayer only completely killed my interest in it. I definitely would have something against paying full price for a multiplayer game with no singleplayer, whereas if it only had a mediocre singleplayer I would consider it. Personally, I like having offline to make sure I'm not 100% noob at something before I go make a fool of myself online. I'm not sure if this is a bias, or if I'm just not the customer that they want, though.
fearsomepirateI ate a pickle once.Registered Userregular
Look, the fact is that always-on means precluding a fairly significant potential segment of the existing market. It doesn't matter if you think poor people are dumb or not, the fact is they are not a negligible fraction of the console market, so it doesn't strike me as a wise business decisions to say, "Eh, fuck them." You're basically saying you're going to stay out of emerging & rural markets. I think a lot of people live in those places.
Nobody makes me bleed my own blood...nobody.
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
+3
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
It's not really a natural evolution, there are a lot of FPS games that had no real single player to speak of, such as Unreal Tournament and Quake 3.
I know I've bitched about Battlefield 3's pre-release hype focusing a lot on their singleplayer and in the end having a campaign that was absolute fucking trash. They're saying, for BF4, that Battlefield is no longer a multiplayer-only game. Look, I'm not against you putting more game in your game, but if you're going to half-ass the other part, then what the hell are you doing? (Who knows, maybe BF4's singleplayer isn't the same boring COD-style schlockfest. Maybe it will be good. I'm not exactly waiting with bated breath.) It's the inverse of shoehorning MP into a heavily SP-focused game.
As to if they're worth the $60 without an SP/MP part, I wouldn't know. I'm not exactly rolling over myself to pluck that much down on any single one game to begin with. I'm doing my part to destroy the industry by not preordering and buying at crazy sales and shit.
0
fearsomepirateI ate a pickle once.Registered Userregular
The dumb thing is that Modern Combat had a pretty neat, innovative single player that really deserved refinement and polish. It could have just as easily taken a Battalion Wars-style approach. Battlefield seems like the perfect platform to do something different with the SP, and instead they just gave us Call of Duty: Even Worse Ops.
Nobody makes me bleed my own blood...nobody.
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
First is family sharing, this feature is near and dear to me and I truly felt it would have helped the industry grow and make both gamers and developers happy. The premise is simple and elegant, when you buy your games for Xbox One, you can set any of them to be part of your shared library. Anyone who you deem to be family had access to these games regardless of where they are in the world. There was never any catch to that, they didn’t have to share the same billing address or physical address it could be anyone. When your family member accesses any of your games, they’re placed into a special demo mode. This demo mode in most cases would be the full game with a 15-45 minute timer and in some cases an hour. This allowed the person to play the game, get familiar with it then make a purchase if they wanted to. When the time limit was up they would automatically be prompted to the Marketplace so that they may order it if liked the game. We were toying around with a limit on the number of times members could access the shared game (as to discourage gamers from simply beating the game by doing multiple playthroughs). but we had not settled on an appropriate way of handling it. One thing we knew is that we wanted the experience to be seamless for both the person sharing and the family member benefiting. There weren’t many models of this system already in the wild other than Sony’s horrendous game sharing implementation, but it was clear their approach (if one could call it that) was not the way to go. Developers complained about the lost sales and gamers complained about overbearing DRM that punished those who didn’t share that implemented by publishers to quell gamers from taking advantage of a poorly thought out system. We wanted our family sharing plan to be something that was talked about and genuinely enjoyed by the masses as a way of inciting gamers to try new games.
You could technically play through the whole game if you had no problem being told every hour "HEY HOW ABOUT YOU BUY THIS", although perhaps even that was to be limited too.
I am pretty sure by a 15-45 minute timer they mean after 15-45 minutes they game kicked you out of playing it.
But you could play those first 15-45 minutes over and over to your hearts content.
So basically glorified demos.
So losing it was no real loss at all, and the new set up for the xbone is much better.
Inquisitor on
+5
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
no, it was to be full game, but time limited access that kept your saves.
so if you could access it an unlimited amount of times but only for a certain time before being booted to the marketplace, you theoretically could complete the game.
they even said directly in that quote
We were toying around with a limit on the number of times members could access the shared game (as to discourage gamers from simply beating the game by doing multiple playthroughs). but we had not settled on an appropriate way of handling it.
no, it was to be full game, but time limited access that kept your saves.
so if you could access it an unlimited amount of times but only for a certain time before being booted to the marketplace, you theoretically could complete the game.
they even said directly in that quote
We were toying around with a limit on the number of times members could access the shared game (as to discourage gamers from simply beating the game by doing multiple playthroughs). but we had not settled on an appropriate way of handling it.
Microsoft should be very, very glad that they shifted gears before they had the opportunity to hype that feature up any more than they did. I would not want to be nearby when that news hit the fan weeks down the line had they followed through with the original plan.
Console gaming is relatively cheap especially if you get one without a monthly service bill attached to it and plenty of poor people have one. It's a pretty good value per hour and its content does have frequent sales.
The Respawn guys managed to pique my interest some by name-dropping Australia in relation to the promise of XBO 'cloud' features, i.e dedicated servers.
It's a distant memory now, but Modern Warfare 2's 'new, improved matchmaking' was laughably broken for isolated regions. Australian players wound up brute forcing the matchmaking by conspiring to join the least popular playlist, and even then it would try its best to dump you on a US host.
It's a fractional amount of the market, but something MS could surely leverage after generating so much negativity in fringe locations.
First is family sharing, this feature is near and dear to me and I truly felt it would have helped the industry grow and make both gamers and developers happy. The premise is simple and elegant, when you buy your games for Xbox One, you can set any of them to be part of your shared library. Anyone who you deem to be family had access to these games regardless of where they are in the world. There was never any catch to that, they didn’t have to share the same billing address or physical address it could be anyone. When your family member accesses any of your games, they’re placed into a special demo mode. This demo mode in most cases would be the full game with a 15-45 minute timer and in some cases an hour. This allowed the person to play the game, get familiar with it then make a purchase if they wanted to. When the time limit was up they would automatically be prompted to the Marketplace so that they may order it if liked the game. We were toying around with a limit on the number of times members could access the shared game (as to discourage gamers from simply beating the game by doing multiple playthroughs). but we had not settled on an appropriate way of handling it. One thing we knew is that we wanted the experience to be seamless for both the person sharing and the family member benefiting. There weren’t many models of this system already in the wild other than Sony’s horrendous game sharing implementation, but it was clear their approach (if one could call it that) was not the way to go. Developers complained about the lost sales and gamers complained about overbearing DRM that punished those who didn’t share that implemented by publishers to quell gamers from taking advantage of a poorly thought out system. We wanted our family sharing plan to be something that was talked about and genuinely enjoyed by the masses as a way of inciting gamers to try new games.
You could technically play through the whole game if you had no problem being told every hour "HEY HOW ABOUT YOU BUY THIS", although perhaps even that was to be limited too.
Wait a second, how is CBOAT confirming it make it a fact? Lets go through his E3 Rumor list.
1. Confirmed Microsoft is actively attempting to get developers to not mention PS4 versions. If they don't say "OUR GAME IS EXCLUSIVE FOR XBONE" expect a PS4 version. #truthfact
Got this one right I guess? Then again, Sony did the same thing, so I'll call this less getting something right and more "no shit".
2. More DRM messaging at Gamescom. There is no rental strategy. Try to sweep it under the rug and hope people don't remember.
Never even got the chance to happen, so no idea. This one is "unconfirmable".
3. Cloud power was designed as DRM. Period. DRM was Microsoft's idea. EA and Ubisoft are supporters, Activision slightly less so.
Not confirmed or unconfirmed. So... yay?
4. DRM plans are actually worse than what they've stated.
Never heard even a whisper of this.
5. Mirror's Edge 2 at MS conference
Didn't happen like that, happened at EA's Keynote.
6. Prince of Persia (reboot?) at MS conference.
Not even a single word on a new PoP at E3.
7. Secret Phil Spencer game = World of Tanks?
He got one right!
8. Live paywall still there.
He got two right! (but again, no shit, so I'm not counting it)
9. Dead Rising 3, and exclusive DLC for another Capcom game at MS conference.
He got two right!
10. No online paywall for PS4. Unconfirmed.
Another wrong!
11. No DRM info for PS4.
And another wrong!
So, by my count he has 3 wrong out of 11, 2 right, 3 that absolutely anyone could have predicted and are just common sense, 1 slightly correct (as in the game exists, but wasn't announced in the way he predicted), and 2 that were never confirmed or unconfirmed (but are definitely wrong now).
If you really want to stretch it, he got 5 right out of 11, but seriously, 3 of those are just kinda business 101. This dude isn't batting 100, so I see no reason to take his word on this.
In regards to the PS4 ones, I think what he actually said was that he didn't have any solid information about Sony's DRM strategy.
The Microsoft DRM stuff...well, those seem to have more of a 'in the future' bent to them, and those kind of fall into 'We'll never know' territory now.
First is family sharing, this feature is near and dear to me and I truly felt it would have helped the industry grow and make both gamers and developers happy. The premise is simple and elegant, when you buy your games for Xbox One, you can set any of them to be part of your shared library. Anyone who you deem to be family had access to these games regardless of where they are in the world. There was never any catch to that, they didn’t have to share the same billing address or physical address it could be anyone. When your family member accesses any of your games, they’re placed into a special demo mode. This demo mode in most cases would be the full game with a 15-45 minute timer and in some cases an hour. This allowed the person to play the game, get familiar with it then make a purchase if they wanted to. When the time limit was up they would automatically be prompted to the Marketplace so that they may order it if liked the game. We were toying around with a limit on the number of times members could access the shared game (as to discourage gamers from simply beating the game by doing multiple playthroughs). but we had not settled on an appropriate way of handling it. One thing we knew is that we wanted the experience to be seamless for both the person sharing and the family member benefiting. There weren’t many models of this system already in the wild other than Sony’s horrendous game sharing implementation, but it was clear their approach (if one could call it that) was not the way to go. Developers complained about the lost sales and gamers complained about overbearing DRM that punished those who didn’t share that implemented by publishers to quell gamers from taking advantage of a poorly thought out system. We wanted our family sharing plan to be something that was talked about and genuinely enjoyed by the masses as a way of inciting gamers to try new games.
You could technically play through the whole game if you had no problem being told every hour "HEY HOW ABOUT YOU BUY THIS", although perhaps even that was to be limited too.
Wait a second, how is CBOAT confirming it make it a fact? Lets go through his E3 Rumor list.
1. Confirmed Microsoft is actively attempting to get developers to not mention PS4 versions. If they don't say "OUR GAME IS EXCLUSIVE FOR XBONE" expect a PS4 version. #truthfact
Got this one right I guess? Then again, Sony did the same thing, so I'll call this less getting something right and more "no shit".
2. More DRM messaging at Gamescom. There is no rental strategy. Try to sweep it under the rug and hope people don't remember.
Never even got the chance to happen, so no idea. This one is "unconfirmable".
3. Cloud power was designed as DRM. Period. DRM was Microsoft's idea. EA and Ubisoft are supporters, Activision slightly less so.
Not confirmed or unconfirmed. So... yay?
4. DRM plans are actually worse than what they've stated.
Never heard even a whisper of this.
5. Mirror's Edge 2 at MS conference
Didn't happen like that, happened at EA's Keynote.
6. Prince of Persia (reboot?) at MS conference.
Not even a single word on a new PoP at E3.
7. Secret Phil Spencer game = World of Tanks?
He got one right!
8. Live paywall still there.
He got two right! (but again, no shit, so I'm not counting it)
9. Dead Rising 3, and exclusive DLC for another Capcom game at MS conference.
He got two right!
10. No online paywall for PS4. Unconfirmed.
Another wrong!
11. No DRM info for PS4.
And another wrong!
So, by my count he has 3 wrong out of 11, 2 right, 3 that absolutely anyone could have predicted and are just common sense, 1 slightly correct (as in the game exists, but wasn't announced in the way he predicted), and 2 that were never confirmed or unconfirmed (but are definitely wrong now).
If you really want to stretch it, he got 5 right out of 11, but seriously, 3 of those are just kinda business 101. This dude isn't batting 100, so I see no reason to take his word on this.
Really? First off, you're ignoring his past record, which is what got people to believe him in the first place. 360 has a HDD-less SKU, reliable NPD leaks, Dead Space 3 is a co-op shooter, Respawn's new game is XBO exclusive, Epic were announcing Fortnite at the 2011 VGAs, the XBO is having huge yield issues (proven by the short supply on pre-orders) and so on. The guy has a track record of being right and it goes back nearly 10 years.
Now, you realise he only got one thing wrong in the post you quoted, right? When he said "No DRM info for the PS4" he wasn't saying that Sony weren't going to say a thing about it, he was saying that Sony were being tight lipped over it and he didn't have a clue about it. The paywall bit was specifically stated to be unconfirmed, which does in fact give him an out. Mirror's Edge was at E3, simply at a different conference, who cares about the details? None of these conferences are planned out well in advance, they change them right up until the last minute. And that leaves Prince of Persia, which he was wrong about and he then apologised for afterwards.
But whatever, if you want to believe that family sharing was going to be everything you hoped and dreamed it'd be, nothing's going to stop you from doing so.
You're forgetting the most important aspect of the Cboat verification. Evilore knows who it is, personally. Which means information that he/she leaks is true at the time of posting. It's perfectly reasonable, for example, for a new Prince of Persia to have been pulled at the last minute.
Or for Mirror's Edge 2 to have been moved to EAs conference at the last minute too. Which is of course missing the entire point of that prediction which is that Mirror's Edge 2 existed in the first place, which is no small gamble.
NeoGAF have no special features inherent to their forum. All they have to stay afloat is insider information. It is a clearinghouse for industry news. You know the old adage, GAF>Internet>GAF. That matters, and part of why it matters is because rumors and speculation are shut down with ferocity, and lies or misinformation get you permabanned.
The fact that the Cboat thread wasn't locked and the account wasn't banned should tell you a lot about the murky background to the whole thing. Some of their predictions were wrong, sure, but others were incredibly specific and completely accurate. So that should tell you it is someone on the inside.
You're forgetting the most important aspect of the Cboat verification. Evilore knows who it is, personally. Which means information that he/she leaks is true at the time of posting. It's perfectly reasonable, for example, for a new Prince of Persia to have been pulled at the last minute.
Or for Mirror's Edge 2 to have been moved to EAs conference at the last minute too. Which is of course missing the entire point of that prediction which is that Mirror's Edge 2 existed in the first place, which is no small gamble.
NeoGAF have no special features inherent to their forum. All they have to stay afloat is insider information. It is a clearinghouse for industry news. You know the old adage, GAF>Internet>GAF. That matters, and part of why it matters is because rumors and speculation are shut down with ferocity, and lies or misinformation get you permabanned.
The fact that the Cboat thread wasn't locked and the account wasn't banned should tell you a lot about the murky background to the whole thing. Some of their predictions were wrong, sure, but others were incredibly specific and completely accurate. So that should tell you it is someone on the inside.
And since some of them were wrong, apparently being on the inside doesn't mean you know everything.
You're forgetting the most important aspect of the Cboat verification. Evilore knows who it is, personally. Which means information that he/she leaks is true at the time of posting. It's perfectly reasonable, for example, for a new Prince of Persia to have been pulled at the last minute.
Or for Mirror's Edge 2 to have been moved to EAs conference at the last minute too. Which is of course missing the entire point of that prediction which is that Mirror's Edge 2 existed in the first place, which is no small gamble.
NeoGAF have no special features inherent to their forum. All they have to stay afloat is insider information. It is a clearinghouse for industry news. You know the old adage, GAF>Internet>GAF. That matters, and part of why it matters is because rumors and speculation are shut down with ferocity, and lies or misinformation get you permabanned.
The fact that the Cboat thread wasn't locked and the account wasn't banned should tell you a lot about the murky background to the whole thing. Some of their predictions were wrong, sure, but others were incredibly specific and completely accurate. So that should tell you it is someone on the inside.
And since some of them were wrong, apparently being on the inside doesn't mean you know everything.
You're forgetting the most important aspect of the Cboat verification. Evilore knows who it is, personally. Which means information that he/she leaks is true at the time of posting. It's perfectly reasonable, for example, for a new Prince of Persia to have been pulled at the last minute.
Or for Mirror's Edge 2 to have been moved to EAs conference at the last minute too. Which is of course missing the entire point of that prediction which is that Mirror's Edge 2 existed in the first place, which is no small gamble.
NeoGAF have no special features inherent to their forum. All they have to stay afloat is insider information. It is a clearinghouse for industry news. You know the old adage, GAF>Internet>GAF. That matters, and part of why it matters is because rumors and speculation are shut down with ferocity, and lies or misinformation get you permabanned.
The fact that the Cboat thread wasn't locked and the account wasn't banned should tell you a lot about the murky background to the whole thing. Some of their predictions were wrong, sure, but others were incredibly specific and completely accurate. So that should tell you it is someone on the inside.
And since some of them were wrong, apparently being on the inside doesn't mean you know everything.
I would imagine it's a bit of things changing at short notice and a bit of not being so on the nose as to reveal you identity. You don't want to narrow the venn diagram of different insiders with different information to the point where you can be found out. Much like how cboat codes his/her posts to nigh incomprehensibility.
Posts
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
It does sound weird using this language if it was a glorified demo, but they might have just been that fucking stupid.
It would explain how the fuck MS would have gotten publishers on board because the idea of basically giving a free copy to everybody who purchases a game sounds really insane.
Some points:
- Lots of people have internet access, even poor people. The problem is they often don't have broadband piped into their home, and may rely on slower connections, mobile internet, or using the internet at a library or McDonalds.
- There is a tension developing between the style of content publishers want to deliver, and the people who will be available to deliver it to. Even if I didn't care that less wealthy people want to play games and have been quite successfully playing games up until now, I would still be paying attention to the fact that publishers seem to want to contract the market to only those willing and able to pay the highest prices for their content. Meanwhile, we've been ostensibly transitioning to a blockbuster model on the consoles. Can we have both? Can the rarefied few support a market that needs millions of sales to break even?
http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/hhgq98/pach-attack--why-all-the-gamestop-hate-
First world problems, you know? And I don't mean that with snark; I'm saying this is a totally non-accusatory way, but there are people who just genuinely don't get that Real Bad Things happen. How about a month or two of no power because a nasty storm hits? The business you're a part of failing and putting you out of work as a result? Telcomms playing shitty games with connections in an area? Just plain being too far away from an urban center to have good telcomm service? Living in an area where infrastructure hasn't developed up to broadband yet?
These aren't even theoreticals for me; I've had each and every one of them happen at least once, and the Xbone DRM would have made some hard times even more miserable for no real benefit except to Microsoft. Some people are lucky enough or choose to live in heavily-developed areas their whole lives, and other people skip around a bunch. If you move around a bunch, a lot of this stuff happens to you.
Internet may be a first-world business essential, but it's far from a total necessity anywhere like water or power are.
Really, if the family sharing plan wasn't full of restrictions that made it almost useless then MS is really, really stupid for not shouting it from the rooftops. It wasn't even mentioned during the E3 conference.
But really, it's not that less wealthy people deserve to be able to game, it's that together they still represent some percentage of paying gamers, so whatever moves you make that cut them out better make enough money to make up for it.
Also, my local library system has both PS3 and Xbox360 games available to be borrowed.
And, when you come right down to it, $40 for a used copy of Skyrim that your kid will play for 100 hours isn't that bad of a value.
* This goes way back, actually. There's a famous flawed study that linked hours of TV watched with fearfulness and perceptions of danger - i.e. it concluded that people who watched more TV felt more afraid.
What later researchers realized was that the study relied heavily on people from around the researchers university, which was in a horrible inner city area. Looking more closely at the data, they realized that inner city residents relied far more on the TV for entertainment, because it was dangerous to go outside. Their fearfulness wasn't because of hours of TV they watched, but rather that they lived in a scary place.
Perhaps Titalfall will get a first mover advantage on consoles by being so close to launch and any competition will have to fight among themselves.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
That being said, as someone who's not a hardcore online shooter guy, learning it's multiplayer only completely killed my interest in it. I definitely would have something against paying full price for a multiplayer game with no singleplayer, whereas if it only had a mediocre singleplayer I would consider it. Personally, I like having offline to make sure I'm not 100% noob at something before I go make a fool of myself online. I'm not sure if this is a bias, or if I'm just not the customer that they want, though.
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
I know I've bitched about Battlefield 3's pre-release hype focusing a lot on their singleplayer and in the end having a campaign that was absolute fucking trash. They're saying, for BF4, that Battlefield is no longer a multiplayer-only game. Look, I'm not against you putting more game in your game, but if you're going to half-ass the other part, then what the hell are you doing? (Who knows, maybe BF4's singleplayer isn't the same boring COD-style schlockfest. Maybe it will be good. I'm not exactly waiting with bated breath.) It's the inverse of shoehorning MP into a heavily SP-focused game.
As to if they're worth the $60 without an SP/MP part, I wouldn't know. I'm not exactly rolling over myself to pluck that much down on any single one game to begin with. I'm doing my part to destroy the industry by not preordering and buying at crazy sales and shit.
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
http://www.heyuguysgaming.com/news/12507/heartbroken-xbox-one-employee-lets-rip-must-read
It has since been confirmed by CBOAT, which makes it truthfact.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=598291
You could technically play through the whole game if you had no problem being told every hour "HEY HOW ABOUT YOU BUY THIS", although perhaps even that was to be limited too.
But you could play those first 15-45 minutes over and over to your hearts content.
So basically glorified demos.
So losing it was no real loss at all, and the new set up for the xbone is much better.
so if you could access it an unlimited amount of times but only for a certain time before being booted to the marketplace, you theoretically could complete the game.
they even said directly in that quote
Ah, sorry, reading fail, my mistake.
It's a distant memory now, but Modern Warfare 2's 'new, improved matchmaking' was laughably broken for isolated regions. Australian players wound up brute forcing the matchmaking by conspiring to join the least popular playlist, and even then it would try its best to dump you on a US host.
It's a fractional amount of the market, but something MS could surely leverage after generating so much negativity in fringe locations.
Wait a second, how is CBOAT confirming it make it a fact? Lets go through his E3 Rumor list.
Got this one right I guess? Then again, Sony did the same thing, so I'll call this less getting something right and more "no shit".
Never even got the chance to happen, so no idea. This one is "unconfirmable".
Not confirmed or unconfirmed. So... yay?
Never heard even a whisper of this.
Didn't happen like that, happened at EA's Keynote.
Not even a single word on a new PoP at E3.
He got one right!
He got two right! (but again, no shit, so I'm not counting it)
He got two right!
Another wrong!
And another wrong!
So, by my count he has 3 wrong out of 11, 2 right, 3 that absolutely anyone could have predicted and are just common sense, 1 slightly correct (as in the game exists, but wasn't announced in the way he predicted), and 2 that were never confirmed or unconfirmed (but are definitely wrong now).
If you really want to stretch it, he got 5 right out of 11, but seriously, 3 of those are just kinda business 101. This dude isn't batting 100, so I see no reason to take his word on this.
The Microsoft DRM stuff...well, those seem to have more of a 'in the future' bent to them, and those kind of fall into 'We'll never know' territory now.
Furthermore, region locking was worse than what was known at the time by a bit, and was revealed at E3.
Really? First off, you're ignoring his past record, which is what got people to believe him in the first place. 360 has a HDD-less SKU, reliable NPD leaks, Dead Space 3 is a co-op shooter, Respawn's new game is XBO exclusive, Epic were announcing Fortnite at the 2011 VGAs, the XBO is having huge yield issues (proven by the short supply on pre-orders) and so on. The guy has a track record of being right and it goes back nearly 10 years.
Now, you realise he only got one thing wrong in the post you quoted, right? When he said "No DRM info for the PS4" he wasn't saying that Sony weren't going to say a thing about it, he was saying that Sony were being tight lipped over it and he didn't have a clue about it. The paywall bit was specifically stated to be unconfirmed, which does in fact give him an out. Mirror's Edge was at E3, simply at a different conference, who cares about the details? None of these conferences are planned out well in advance, they change them right up until the last minute. And that leaves Prince of Persia, which he was wrong about and he then apologised for afterwards.
But whatever, if you want to believe that family sharing was going to be everything you hoped and dreamed it'd be, nothing's going to stop you from doing so.
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
Or for Mirror's Edge 2 to have been moved to EAs conference at the last minute too. Which is of course missing the entire point of that prediction which is that Mirror's Edge 2 existed in the first place, which is no small gamble.
NeoGAF have no special features inherent to their forum. All they have to stay afloat is insider information. It is a clearinghouse for industry news. You know the old adage, GAF>Internet>GAF. That matters, and part of why it matters is because rumors and speculation are shut down with ferocity, and lies or misinformation get you permabanned.
The fact that the Cboat thread wasn't locked and the account wasn't banned should tell you a lot about the murky background to the whole thing. Some of their predictions were wrong, sure, but others were incredibly specific and completely accurate. So that should tell you it is someone on the inside.
And since some of them were wrong, apparently being on the inside doesn't mean you know everything.
Pfft, lies. Just ask Microsof...oh wait...
I would imagine it's a bit of things changing at short notice and a bit of not being so on the nose as to reveal you identity. You don't want to narrow the venn diagram of different insiders with different information to the point where you can be found out. Much like how cboat codes his/her posts to nigh incomprehensibility.
Plausible deniability and all that.