Poll: Xbox One or PS4 Revote

[VADER]

X1 because better exclusives

[cfusionpm]

Originally Posted by wallace03

I think it went a little something more like:

Microsoft: Hey, lets create a system that requires users to buy only new copies of games, and will not be able to share it; This will maximize profits. They also have to be connected to the internet at all times so we could possibly sell their information or increase advertisement related to what the user is interested in and since no one reads the user agreements we can get away with it. They'll have to buy the system since their hands are tied, unless all of the current xbox owners want to opt out and go with ps4.

Customers: Seriously, microsoft........? We're gonna go with the cheaper and more powerful system that allows to share, play used games, and not be connected to the internet at all times just to play a singler player game.

Microsoft: SHiznit. They called our bluff.

My point is they aren't doing it for us. They wanted to see where our boundaries were. If 100% of the potential buyers said they weren't happy with the design but will still buy the system, microsoft would have just left it the way it was.

Except that information is grossly misrepresented, and at worst entirely inaccurate. Most of that was perpetuated by people who either didn't fully understand the system, or just had an ax to grind because they need reasons to hate on Microsoft. Granted it wasn't exactly sunshine and rainbows, their vision was that of a fully integrated and connected system. With that requirement, developers are free to explore advancements like the driver AI in Forza that learns patterns from you and others online. Or the cloud computed AI characters in Titanfall. These can still be accomplished, but would require an internet connection. Without a system wide requirement, devs now have to re program (or remove) those features to function offline.

And you're entirely naive if you think Sony didn't plan their entire E3 showing around a middle finger to Microsoft. Because it's not like any of the actual games or features they showed were all that great.

[n2oinferno]

Originally Posted by cfusionpm

These can still be accomplished, but would require an internet connection. Without a system wide requirement, devs now have to re program (or remove) those features to function offline.

It doesn't have to be a system wide requirement. The Division and The Crew will both be online-only, across both systems. All they have to do is plaster a notice on the box that "GAME REQUIRES INTERNET CONNECTION" or something, and you're covered. Of course, people will probably not like it (see Diablo 3 or SimCity) but they don't have to completely tear down what they were working on at all.

[M-17]

XBOX One!

Fuq ps4... hehe.

[Mango22]

Originally Posted by cfusionpm

It's a shooting game, not rocket science. What we (the shooting game players) want is a fun and balanced game...

lol, suddenly you are the collective opinion of "all" the shooting game players. Speak for yourself since you aren't a certified mind reader of all gamers. And don't start quoting articles that slant to "your" opinion, I could do the same but it doesn't make me the collective voice of all gamers. You are a piece of work.

[cfusionpm]

Originally Posted by n2oinferno

It doesn't have to be a system wide requirement. The Division and The Crew will both be online-only, across both systems. All they have to do is plaster a notice on the box that "GAME REQUIRES INTERNET CONNECTION" or something, and you're covered. Of course, people will probably not like it (see Diablo 3 or SimCity) but they don't have to completely tear down what they were working on at all.

And they're getting big backlash from gamers for doing so. At least they are from much of the Sony camp. Never said it couldn't be done (look at MAG for PS3), it just puts the developers on the hot seat for whether or not they want to make that kind of game. It's never been a problem for PC and games like WoW are some of the most popular in history. I guess it's just weird not seeing the same sentiments translated to the console world.

[cfusionpm]

Originally Posted by Mango22

lol, suddenly you are the collective opinion of "all" the shooting game players. Speak for yourself since you aren't a certified mind reader of all gamers. And don't start quoting articles that slant to "your" opinion, I could do the same but it doesn't make me the collective voice of all gamers. You are a piece of work.

Been playing pvp shooters since the mid 90s. From Doom and Quake to GoldenEye and Perfect Dark to Unreal Tournament to Call of Duty today. Probably have well over 1000 hours just in the past two modern warfare games. Titanfall will not be the next BioShock or Half Life. But it was never meant to be. It might just be the next Call of Duty or Halo though, especially considering the studio it's coming out of.

[n2oinferno]

Originally Posted by cfusionpm

And they're getting big backlash from gamers for doing so. At least they are from much of the Sony camp. Never said it couldn't be done (look at MAG for PS3), it just puts the developers on the hot seat for whether or not they want to make that kind of game. It's never been a problem for PC and games like WoW are some of the most popular in history. I guess it's just weird not seeing the same sentiments translated to the console world.

I think the mentality is you can skip one game if it requires an internet connection. If your console requires that connection, you have to skip all of the games.

[Mango22]

Originally Posted by cfusionpm

Been playing pvp shooters since the mid 90s. From Doom and Quake to GoldenEye and Perfect Dark to Unreal Tournament to Call of Duty today. Probably have well over 1000 hours just in the past two modern warfare games. Titanfall will not be the next BioShock or Half Life. But it was never meant to be. It might just be the next Call of Duty or Halo though, especially considering the studio it's coming out of.

I have the same gaming resume' but I don't represent all gamers, obviously. Stop the "us" against "him" crap.

[cfusionpm]

Originally Posted by Mango22

I have the same gaming resume' but I don't represent all gamers, obviously. Stop the "us" against "him" crap.

So going back to my original point, would you rather have slow, clunky, unbalanced gameplay? You just told me I don't speak for shooters but didn't offer an alternative opinion. Or do you just have a beef with the xbox and gotta be a hater? Your "xbone" comments don't exactly help your credibility.

[BlueSTaR]

Please, Sony kids, go to your local gamestop and buy some used PC games.

[n2oinferno]

Originally Posted by cfusionpm

So going back to my original point, would you rather have slow, clunky, unbalanced gameplay? You just told me I don't speak for shooters but didn't offer an alternative opinion. Or do you just have a beef with the xbox and gotta be a hater? Your "xbone" comments don't exactly help your credibility.

While it's been a while since I've played CoD (Battlefied is my preference) I don't know that the games are very balanced. Generally the better players get the better perks. Or the lucky ones, in my case, that get a bunch of kills end up with the superperks and can dominate with them. So you end up with the best players on an uneven playing field. I completely understand that you need to dangle a carrot in front of people to drive them to play more (unlocks, progression, etc) but it seems like there should be a better way. I just don't get paid the big money to decide how.



Sure it works great assuming everyone is of the same skill level, but they're not. And even the best matchmaking systems I've been a part of can't weed out all of the trolls and griefers.

And XBone is already the name the collective internet has given to the next console. So it shall be.

[cfusionpm]

So play one of the several modes with those disabled. Or hardcore. Great games as long as you have a group of people who can communicate well. Lots of overpowered stuff was nerfed for MW3 and many have viable counters. It's not the best selling series for nothing.

Battlefield is excellent if you have a good team and good communication. Absolutely sucks trying to play by yourself. Most of my friends play late nights and I have a real job where I'm up at 6 every day, so I trended towards a game I could dominate on my own. Original Rainbow Six Vegas is probably my all time favorite.

[Mango22]

Originally Posted by cfusionpm

So going back to my original point, would you rather have slow, clunky, unbalanced gameplay? You just told me I don't speak for shooters but didn't offer an alternative opinion. Or do you just have a beef with the xbox and gotta be a hater? Your "xbone" comments don't exactly help your credibility.

There u go again, deflecting the "we" part and trying to spin some other point that was never being debated. You deflect well.

I did give an alternative opinion, the Occulus Rift, which will change the same ole same ole, run and gun, regurgitated games that you somehow think are next gen, ground breaking and exciting. Accepting your views about Titanfall is accepting mediocrity.

And the xbone is short for Xbox one, as OP is short for original post/er, as is PS4 short for ...
Get a grip dude.