The One X is a pretty powerful machine at a pretty good price, as far as I'm concerned. I upgraded from a launch model One and the difference was immediately noticeable, though I did already have a decent 4k TV. I'm not 100% sure I'm into the idea of mid-gen hardware bumps for consoles going forward, though...the last console gen spoiled us by lasting 10 years and providing pretty decent visual performance, as long as you weren't one of the unlucky ones who had to buy 2 or 3 of the same console because of their lousy quality control. I have yet to upgrade my PS4, and there are some exclusives coming that I'll want to play, but I've had one for over 2 years and have played like 5 games on it.
It really is a nice console. But man, it needs exclusives. Can't see a reason to get one the way I did with the PS4 and Switch.
Ugh, exclusives aren't good for gamers at all.
Yes they are. Exclusives are the means by which platform competition even exists in our industry. Without competition, there is no innovation, quality control, or drive to provide better service. The results of a lack of competition are clear and can be readily seen in the cable/internet service sector.
Our industry is dead without exclusives. The only people who cannot see that are those that are tunnel visioned on the games their platform isn't getting.
Exclusives undermine competition, not promote it. You can't compete when someone else has an exclusive.
Microsoft doesn't need exclusives. The industry needs to stop that practice and promote more cross platform interop. Remember how Sony was blowing their horn about cross play, but when Microsoft came around they're suddenly not for it.
I have 2 PS4. I'm not happy when I have to buy something through the PS4 store as an exclusive. Or when I can only get it on the DS because it's only being released on that piece of hardware. That's not good for competition or the consumer.
The internet was just up in arms over Microsoft buying EA and lamenting woefully how FIFA and NFL being exclusive would be horrible for the industry. Was that just PS4 and Switch owners crying about that?
Or how about how Tim Sweeney have been bleating on and on about how the Windows 10 store will kill gaming and quash competition?
Aside from most of your statement being bullshit, EA's exclusivity contract with the NFL/FIFA is not a good example. That's not a platform exclusive, but rather effective ownership of an entire genre, meaning that there can be no meaningful competition in that genre (as attempting to compete in the sports genre without the official brand is tantamount to suicide). It's a totally different situation which you have conflated with platform exclusivity for the sake of your argument. An exclusive game is the equivalent of Taco Bell's frequent limited time menu items - attempting to compete by offering new, exclusive experiences. EA's brand deal is the equivalent of taco bell patenting the taco (outrageous and absurd, but valid for the scenerio).
But if you wish to argue this, why don't you suggest an alternative? By what means can a console distinguish itself other than exclusive games? If hardware power alone was enough, the PS3 would not have lost to the XBOX 360 and Wii and the PSP/Vita would have driven Nintendo's inferior hardware out of the market. People do not give a shit about hardware when games are lacking.
This.
Most people buy a console related to what exclusives that console has not the performance of the console itself.
If I had the option between 3 consoles with the same games, I would just buy whatever my friends bought at that point. Keeping exclusives on a console promotes the other companies to try to make something to bring that crowd to their console and furthers the development of new ideas. We don't want to lose that. Otherwise it will all turn into one console and nothing would advance.
It would force everyone to compete on the hardware level instead of the software level. I would much rather have innovation on games than innovation on performance.
Until consoles include keyboard and PROPER mouse support (raw mouse / 1:1), the console will always be limited to caveman-like gameplay. There is only so much you can do with a controller. As far as graphics and performance, yes... consoles can certainly compete. However, I won't touch one simply because of the limited controls / horrid community.
why caveman-like? because you don't like controllers? lol
No need to call names to express your dislike towards a particular format. I love my PC but i ain't touching PC games that play with mouse only. It's all personal preference.
How deep can a game really be with a controller? You can jump, crouch, shoot, move forward, move backwards, strafe left, strafe right, and 1-2 specials... What else? Anything else would require those most annoying hud ever created. The time it would take to do anything...
Go and try to play even the most simplistic MMO with a controller. Sort your inventory. Find a group. Chat with another player. Decorate your house. Target your group leader's target, cast one of MANY different spells etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.
It's clunky. A controller would need so many different combinations that it would feel like having to pull off a Street Fighter Haduuken just to have your character sit down.
Games on the console will never feel deep because of the limited controls, which is why I consider the genre to be "caveman".
It really is a nice console. But man, it needs exclusives. Can't see a reason to get one the way I did with the PS4 and Switch.
Ugh, exclusives aren't good for gamers at all.
Yes they are. Exclusives are the means by which platform competition even exists in our industry. Without competition, there is no innovation, quality control, or drive to provide better service. The results of a lack of competition are clear and can be readily seen in the cable/internet service sector.
Our industry is dead without exclusives. The only people who cannot see that are those that are tunnel visioned on the games their platform isn't getting.
Exclusives undermine competition, not promote it. You can't compete when someone else has an exclusive.
Microsoft doesn't need exclusives. The industry needs to stop that practice and promote more cross platform interop. Remember how Sony was blowing their horn about cross play, but when Microsoft came around they're suddenly not for it.
I have 2 PS4. I'm not happy when I have to buy something through the PS4 store as an exclusive. Or when I can only get it on the DS because it's only being released on that piece of hardware. That's not good for competition or the consumer.
The internet was just up in arms over Microsoft buying EA and lamenting woefully how FIFA and NFL being exclusive would be horrible for the industry. Was that just PS4 and Switch owners crying about that?
Or how about how Tim Sweeney have been bleating on and on about how the Windows 10 store will kill gaming and quash competition?
Aside from most of your statement being bullshit, EA's exclusivity contract with the NFL/FIFA is not a good example. That's not a platform exclusive, but rather effective ownership of an entire genre, meaning that there can be no meaningful competition in that genre (as attempting to compete in the sports genre without the official brand is tantamount to suicide). It's a totally different situation which you have conflated with platform exclusivity for the sake of your argument. An exclusive game is the equivalent of Taco Bell's frequent limited time menu items - attempting to compete by offering new, exclusive experiences. EA's brand deal is the equivalent of taco bell patenting the taco (outrageous and absurd, but valid for the scenerio).
But if you wish to argue this, why don't you suggest an alternative? By what means can a console distinguish itself other than exclusive games? If hardware power alone was enough, the PS3 would not have lost to the XBOX 360 and Wii and the PSP/Vita would have driven Nintendo's inferior hardware out of the market. People do not give a shit about hardware when games are lacking.
Uh oh. You can't respond with an intelligent argument so you call my points bullshit. Sounds like you have nothing to counter with. You should look up the definition of exclusive. You obviously don't have a good grasp on the concept.
EA has exclusive rights to those IPs not American or Association Football. There used to be lots of football and soccer games, but it turns out no one cares if they're not attached to the big player, team names, and IP. EAs exclusive license is the perfect example of exclusivity and proves my point. You proved my point. Thanks.
I don't have to come up with a solution. That's not a requirement for proving my point, which I did. Again, you have no counter so you move the goalposts.
I'm not saying they won't or shouldn't have exclusives, from their perspective, to compete. I'm saying they're generally bad for competition, the consumer, and the industry unless you're benefiting from the exclusive.
EA has exclusive rights to Star Wars games. How is that panning out for the IP, consumers, or the rest of the industry? I'm not sure if anyone else could do better than EA but we won't know because they have exclusive rights. That's what exclusive means.
To address your point, I called your argument bullshit because it essentially amounts to "I can't buy any game I want on any console I want, and therefore that's anti-consumer." In an idealistic bubble, you might even be correct, but the games industry doesn't exist in a bubble.
The tradeoff for platform exclusivity is thriving competition between platforms and the creation of new franchises meant to go head to head with the competition. For example, we would not have had Sonic or Crash Bandicoot if Sony and Sega had not seen the value of Mario at the time and decided to throw their own answers in the ring. These franchises were system sellers in their own right and ensured constant one-upsmanship between the console holders and their flagship titles.
We also see platform exclusives funding games that otherwise would not exist. Remember the controversy over Bayonetta 2 moving to Nintendo? Well, if had not been for Nintendo, Bayonetta 2 (and the upcoming third installment) would not have been possible, and the excellent but financially destitute Platinum Games may have prematurely ceased to exist. Here we see the creation of new games as the direct result of such deals.
Moreover "moving the goal post" was not an argumentative tactic. It was an entirely relevant point in this conversation. You have made a positive claim - that the industry would function better without its backbone. It is an entirely valid and important question to ask how. How can an industry fueled by IP competition exist in a similar, better state without the ability to leverage those IPs in competition?
It seems to me that you are effectively arguing for a one platform market. That may be a positive or a negative, but we cannot currently know the implications of such.
Until consoles include keyboard and PROPER mouse support (raw mouse / 1:1), the console will always be limited to caveman-like gameplay. There is only so much you can do with a controller. As far as graphics and performance, yes... consoles can certainly compete. However, I won't touch one simply because of the limited controls / horrid community.
OK. Consoles aren't for you. Thanks for sharing your very helpful and insightful view.
Until consoles include keyboard and PROPER mouse support (raw mouse / 1:1), the console will always be limited to caveman-like gameplay. There is only so much you can do with a controller. As far as graphics and performance, yes... consoles can certainly compete. However, I won't touch one simply because of the limited controls / horrid community.
why caveman-like? because you don't like controllers? lol
No need to call names to express your dislike towards a particular format. I love my PC but i ain't touching PC games that play with mouse only. It's all personal preference.
I dunno about the community or caveman-like comment, but in a game with K:M support, putting folks into competitive matches with mixed controller/K:M is a recipe for disaster.
All connotations aside, mouses are the more precise instrument for aiming the cursor.
The Xbox1x is definitely an improvement over the Xbox1 no question there at all, but if you have even a half decent gaming PC then there is really no good reason to buy one over either a Switch or a PS4, in fact, depending on your preferences the Switch and PS4 probably make more sense. The PC, at least those built for gaming, even the budget ones are without question far better games machines, particularly if you enjoy playing games at over 30 fps, or have a PC that is able to run games at 'real' 4k rather than the chequerboard pseudo 4k that the PS4 and Xbox1x use. It is likely irrelevant anyway, the Xbox1x is a latecomer to a party that is pretty much over and done with, an interesting footnote for the current generation of Consoles, which hopefully Microsoft will bear in mind while developing the Xbox2 for the next round of console wars because with the advent of the PS5 the Xbox1x will be at an even bigger disadvantage as while it is the newest 'Xbox' it is still behind the 'tech' curve, you can upgrade a PC after all, but Consoles thats not an option, although the Xbox1x is better than the Xbox1 its somewhat irrelevant as its still 'generationally speaking' old tech. The future of the Xbox is imo dependant on the next round of the Console wars, this time the war was won by Sony, but with Nintendo's Switch doing as well as it has been, the next round may well be more 'complicated' and likely not a 2 horse race, if Microsoft wants to win the next round, then they seriously need to up their game, because if there is one thing that does describe the Xbox1x is that it was too little, and too late.
Until consoles include keyboard and PROPER mouse support (raw mouse / 1:1), the console will always be limited to caveman-like gameplay. There is only so much you can do with a controller. As far as graphics and performance, yes... consoles can certainly compete. However, I won't touch one simply because of the limited controls / horrid community.
Until consoles include keyboard and PROPER mouse support (raw mouse / 1:1), the console will always be limited to caveman-like gameplay. There is only so much you can do with a controller. As far as graphics and performance, yes... consoles can certainly compete. However, I won't touch one simply because of the limited controls / horrid community.
why caveman-like? because you don't like controllers? lol
No need to call names to express your dislike towards a particular format. I love my PC but i ain't touching PC games that play with mouse only. It's all personal preference.
I dunno about the community or caveman-like comment, but in a game with K:M support, putting folks into competitive matches with mixed controller/K:M is a recipe for disaster.
All connotations aside, mouses are the more precise instrument for aiming the cursor.
but that precision only applies to pvp shooters, and it also only applies if you want to compare it to the PC version. As long as everyone is on the same level using the same peripherals there shouldn't be any problem in a pvp shooter.
EDIT: and by the way, even on PVP shooters, mouse precision only applies on hitscan guns. Lob projectiles are equally viable regardless of peripherals. I get more kills with Junkrat in Overwatch on PC using a controller than in a call of duty match using a mouse. The mouse precision argument is becoming more and more isolated to hitscan pvp weapons only.
We also see platform exclusives funding games that otherwise would not exist. Remember the controversy over Bayonetta 2 moving to Nintendo? Well, if had not been for Nintendo, Bayonetta 2 (and the upcoming third installment) would not have been possible, and the excellent but financially destitute Platinum Games may have prematurely ceased to exist. Here we see the creation of new games as the direct result of such deals.
You could say the same every time a large publisher steps in and funds a niche game or indie game, but it's hypocrisy to praise Nintendo for it and cry for boycotts of EA when they do it. Just saying.
It sounds like a good machine at a decent price (for the performance), but I still see zero reason to get an XBox... I mean sure, if you squint hard enough it looks like a mid range gaming PC; but it's still limited in every way that makes consoles bad (can't upgrade, limited software, limited compatiability, limited games, etc.)... and as for the good, the PS4 and Switch make a much better argument if you just want to play some games from the couch (i.e. they at least have a few great games that you can't play on PC).
The major thing for me on the Xbox is the 4k blueray drive. Why Sony does not include this option is beyond me, but you have not watched video until you have seen 4k blueray. Anyone that tries to tell me they can stream 4k at peak evening times, they are either fooling themselves or are on a rare line that does not see much use.
PS4 Pro supports 4k blurays, I can stream 4k video just fine but I have a 150MBs line.
This is the definition of double dipping. Microsoft earn from every PC sold, so they are going to put all their games on the PC right, support the platform? Well they did at first but then they saw $$ signs up for grabs.
Instead they release a console and put their games on there so they can earn from every console sold. If you have a PC and want to play their games you need a console as well. KERCHING!
Now that may be backfiring somewhat, but whatever they lose on PC sales they get back on the Xbox, so the situation is still a total win for them.
Most of the heavy hitters is available to play on pc with xbox live on Windows 10 without buying the console version. I don't use or care, but know that it exists.
Wrong, PS4 Pro only supports blueray, it does NOT support 4k blueray.
Xbox exclusives, albeit less, are so superior to PS it s not even fair.
You're insane.
We all have different tastes. I do tend to look back on Sony's exclusives with rosier glasses than Microsoft's, but I could see how it might be a toss up for those of us who aren't really into most of the Japanese-developed exclusives like Persona, Nier: Automata and the like. I do lean slightly in favor of Uncharted, The Last of Us and God of War over Halo and Gears of War, though, but if I were heavier into online multiplayer I'd think Xbox has the edge. Signs are pointing to Crackdown 3 being a disappointment, as well, and it doesn't help when they cancel stuff after showing it off for 2 or 3 years, like with Scalebound. I do prefer Xbox Live over PSN, though, as well as the UI and controller. Every platform has its pros and cons, I guess.
Hell no, I love tweaking around on my PC and having actually powerful gear that can be used for other stuff too, like you know, working in Indesign or Photoshop.
Guess a console looks good now that crypto made GPUs cost so much, but if/when the market comes to its senses the XboxoneX will yet again be just a pretty cheap RX580 stuck on a CPU that is so bad it was shit even 6 years ago when AMD launched it.
And you know what, sincerity is key. So how about we mention that you have the opportunity to actually "try" many games before buying on PC? I cannot count how many titles I've given a spin for 1 hour and ditched them. If it was for console, I would have had to pay full price, and if lucky could return it on Steam. Make a good game, like Witcher 3, and I'll buy it, and its expansions. Make a shit game and you can make sure I'm not paying a penny.
Until consoles include keyboard and PROPER mouse support (raw mouse / 1:1), the console will always be limited to caveman-like gameplay. There is only so much you can do with a controller. As far as graphics and performance, yes... consoles can certainly compete. However, I won't touch one simply because of the limited controls / horrid community.
Consoles support keyboard and mouse. Most games don't allow it though, because not everyone likes to use a K&M and those who would will have a tremendous advantage over others in many games.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
Xbox exclusives, albeit less, are so superior to PS it s not even fair.
That's cute, but Persona 5 alone is far better than anything XBox has had to offer this entire generation, much less last year. Truly a magnificent, unique, stylish-as-fuck game.
I have always been a PC gamer first and foremost, but I bought a PS4 Pro for my youngest daughter this past Christmas. She knows more about consoles than I do and was dead set on PS4 and not xbox. Her friend has both and they both have roughly the same performance so it came down to games and PS has a better selection of games and exclusives that Xbox can't touch.
I played some of them and they are great, but I can't stand playing shooters of any type with a controller. M&KB any day of the week over a controller for shooter type games.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
The problem with the xbox one platform has always been the games. I would've bought a system with lower graphics than its competitor if the games were there. PS4 has been the system to own because it had the exclusive titles that were "must-haves" that xbox didn't. I have literally been begging MS to give me a reason to buy the xbox - literally begged. Every time I get a bonus at work, or a tax return, I revisit the xbox library and I'm always disappointed to find that there hasn't been a single "console-seller" exclusive game released. I love the new xbox one x; the hardware is truly something special. So again I find myself - as a PS4 owner - begging MS to give me a reason to buy one..
Comments
Most people buy a console related to what exclusives that console has not the performance of the console itself.
If I had the option between 3 consoles with the same games, I would just buy whatever my friends bought at that point. Keeping exclusives on a console promotes the other companies to try to make something to bring that crowd to their console and furthers the development of new ideas. We don't want to lose that. Otherwise it will all turn into one console and nothing would advance.
It would force everyone to compete on the hardware level instead of the software level. I would much rather have innovation on games than innovation on performance.
How deep can a game really be with a controller? You can jump, crouch, shoot, move forward, move backwards, strafe left, strafe right, and 1-2 specials... What else? Anything else would require those most annoying hud ever created. The time it would take to do anything...
Go and try to play even the most simplistic MMO with a controller. Sort your inventory. Find a group. Chat with another player. Decorate your house. Target your group leader's target, cast one of MANY different spells etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.
It's clunky. A controller would need so many different combinations that it would feel like having to pull off a Street Fighter Haduuken just to have your character sit down.
Games on the console will never feel deep because of the limited controls, which is why I consider the genre to be "caveman".
The tradeoff for platform exclusivity is thriving competition between platforms and the creation of new franchises meant to go head to head with the competition. For example, we would not have had Sonic or Crash Bandicoot if Sony and Sega had not seen the value of Mario at the time and decided to throw their own answers in the ring. These franchises were system sellers in their own right and ensured constant one-upsmanship between the console holders and their flagship titles.
We also see platform exclusives funding games that otherwise would not exist. Remember the controversy over Bayonetta 2 moving to Nintendo? Well, if had not been for Nintendo, Bayonetta 2 (and the upcoming third installment) would not have been possible, and the excellent but financially destitute Platinum Games may have prematurely ceased to exist. Here we see the creation of new games as the direct result of such deals.
Moreover "moving the goal post" was not an argumentative tactic. It was an entirely relevant point in this conversation. You have made a positive claim - that the industry would function better without its backbone. It is an entirely valid and important question to ask how. How can an industry fueled by IP competition exist in a similar, better state without the ability to leverage those IPs in competition?
It seems to me that you are effectively arguing for a one platform market. That may be a positive or a negative, but we cannot currently know the implications of such.
OK. Consoles aren't for you. Thanks for sharing your very helpful and insightful view.
All connotations aside, mouses are the more precise instrument for aiming the cursor.
The PC, at least those built for gaming, even the budget ones are without question far better games machines, particularly if you enjoy playing games at over 30 fps, or have a PC that is able to run games at 'real' 4k rather than the chequerboard pseudo 4k that the PS4 and Xbox1x use.
It is likely irrelevant anyway, the Xbox1x is a latecomer to a party that is pretty much over and done with, an interesting footnote for the current generation of Consoles, which hopefully Microsoft will bear in mind while developing the Xbox2 for the next round of console wars because with the advent of the PS5 the Xbox1x will be at an even bigger disadvantage as while it is the newest 'Xbox' it is still behind the 'tech' curve, you can upgrade a PC after all, but Consoles thats not an option, although the Xbox1x is better than the Xbox1 its somewhat irrelevant as its still 'generationally speaking' old tech.
The future of the Xbox is imo dependant on the next round of the Console wars, this time the war was won by Sony, but with Nintendo's Switch doing as well as it has been, the next round may well be more 'complicated' and likely not a 2 horse race, if Microsoft wants to win the next round, then they seriously need to up their game, because if there is one thing that does describe the Xbox1x is that it was too little, and too late.
https://www.windowscentral.com/first-games-xbox-keyboard-and-mouse-gameplay-support-coming-soon
EDIT: and by the way, even on PVP shooters, mouse precision only applies on hitscan guns. Lob projectiles are equally viable regardless of peripherals. I get more kills with Junkrat in Overwatch on PC using a controller than in a call of duty match using a mouse. The mouse precision argument is becoming more and more isolated to hitscan pvp weapons only.
You could say the same every time a large publisher steps in and funds a niche game or indie game, but it's hypocrisy to praise Nintendo for it and cry for boycotts of EA when they do it. Just saying.
You're insane.
We all have different tastes. I do tend to look back on Sony's exclusives with rosier glasses than Microsoft's, but I could see how it might be a toss up for those of us who aren't really into most of the Japanese-developed exclusives like Persona, Nier: Automata and the like. I do lean slightly in favor of Uncharted, The Last of Us and God of War over Halo and Gears of War, though, but if I were heavier into online multiplayer I'd think Xbox has the edge. Signs are pointing to Crackdown 3 being a disappointment, as well, and it doesn't help when they cancel stuff after showing it off for 2 or 3 years, like with Scalebound. I do prefer Xbox Live over PSN, though, as well as the UI and controller. Every platform has its pros and cons, I guess.
Guess a console looks good now that crypto made GPUs cost so much, but if/when the market comes to its senses the XboxoneX will yet again be just a pretty cheap RX580 stuck on a CPU that is so bad it was shit even 6 years ago when AMD launched it.
And you know what, sincerity is key. So how about we mention that you have the opportunity to actually "try" many games before buying on PC? I cannot count how many titles I've given a spin for 1 hour and ditched them. If it was for console, I would have had to pay full price, and if lucky could return it on Steam. Make a good game, like Witcher 3, and I'll buy it, and its expansions. Make a shit game and you can make sure I'm not paying a penny.
I played some of them and they are great, but I can't stand playing shooters of any type with a controller. M&KB any day of the week over a controller for shooter type games.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.