XBone Vs PS4 Vs PC - VIDEOGAME POLITICS THUNDERDOME - PS4:900p-XBone:720p-PC::smug:

[chemgear]

I'm a little surprised they haven't at least done some kind of offline mode. They already have tons of AI bots with just 6 vs. 6 human players.

But then again, the AI bots are pretty stupid though. And offline would mean they wouldn't get the extra $50 fee from the live subscription though.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I was disappointed to hear that it was multiplayer only. Probably would have picked it up on sale if it had a full fledged campaign. Personally I am not interested in a multiplayer only games.

Same thing here. I will dabble into multiplayer but prefer the full fledged campaign modes that have a good story.

I think it is a big risk that their main system sell is multiplayer only since I believe that the casual gaming base still leans more towards campaign mode than just multiplayer.

[Hemi-Cuda]

So what happens when a parent buys their kids a $500 Xbox One Titanfall bundle, then gets complaints from the kid that he needs their credit card to play said game because it needs an Xbox Live subscription? What a stupid game to bank your new system on

[Diemenz]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

So what happens when a parent buys their kids a $500 Xbox One Titanfall bundle, then gets complaints from the kid that he needs their credit card to play said game because it needs an Xbox Live subscription? What a stupid game to bank your new system on

Oh thank god that the PS4 doesn't have some mandatory service that people have to sign up for to play games online.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

So basically, Nintendo and Microsoft are doomed in the home console market.

Go Sony?

Having one super strong console isn't a good situation as it kills innovation across all platforms. Hopefully MSFT will jettison Elop if his track record is bad and not let him hang around running the division into the ground like he did at Nokia.

Go Sony for now I guess

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Diemenz

Oh thank god that the PS4 doesn't have some mandatory service that people have to sign up for to play games online.

That's not what I meant. Microsoft is bundling a game that requires you to sign up for Xbox Live if you want to play it at all, as it doesn't have an offline component. Meanwhile the PS4 game that Sony will likely use to push console sales, Infamous 2, releases a week later and has no online requirements. Just a very stupid decision by Microsoft, uninformed buyers could get the impression of a bait and switch

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

That's not what I meant. Microsoft is bundling a game that requires you to sign up for Xbox Live if you want to play it at all, as it doesn't have an offline component. Meanwhile the PS4 game that Sony will likely use to push console sales, Infamous 2, releases a week later and has no online requirements. Just a very stupid decision by Microsoft, uninformed buyers could get the impression of a bait and switch

It also comes with a free month of live, so anyone who gets the bundle can at least get going on the game. It also states fairly clearly (on the MS store site I bought from) that Live gold is required to play. Hopefully people can read.

I fail to see how MS including their biggest game with the console is a bad decision for the consumer at all.

[OutOfTheCube]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Having one super strong console isn't a good situation as it kills innovation across all platforms. Hopefully MSFT will jettison Elop if his track record is bad and not let him hang around running the division into the ground like he did at Nokia.

Go Sony for now I guess

Not necessarily - PS2 more than tripled the total sales of GameCube and Xbox combined and that was a pretty sweet generation of games.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Just a very stupid decision by Microsoft, uninformed buyers could get the impression of a bait and switch

Sony clearly hasn't needed any single game to push console sales so far, but having Infamous certainly couldn't hurt.

But Titanfall could certainly rope in some extra Live subscriptions (and revenue) from customers - informed or not. Do they still auto re-subscribe and auto charge you after the trial period is over?

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Having one super strong console isn't a good situation as it kills innovation across all platforms.

I figured the same, but then again you have a pretty "golden age" of gaming from the PS2. EDIT: Beaten!

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Igottago

It also comes with a free month of live, so anyone who gets the bundle can at least get going on the game. It also states fairly clearly (on the MS store site I bought from) that Live gold is required to play. Hopefully people can read.

I fail to see how MS including their biggest game with the console is a bad decision for the consumer at all.

It's not that including it in their console that's necessarily a bad decision, it's the whole multiplayer aspect of it. Basically after a month it's a subscription based game with no single player replayability. They also want $60 for it retail which costs the same amount as many triple A titles that include both a multiplayer and a single player component. It's not a great cost/value proposition.

[FlameOn]

PS4 has sold 322k in it's first 2 days post launch in Japan.
http://www.famitsu.com/news/201402/25048815.html

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

They also want $60 for it retail which costs the same amount as many triple A titles that include both a multiplayer and a single player component. It's not a great cost/value proposition.

Well it seems to be route they've been going with many games so far. Lots of extra in-app microtransaction purchases in Forza, jewels in Crimson Dragon and even Ryse has them

Originally Posted by FlameOn

PS4 has sold 322k in it's first 2 days post launch in Japan.
http://www.famitsu.com/news/201402/25048815.html

Seems like a good/decent number given all the western (and lack of Japanese) games at launch.

[chemgear]

In the spirit of the 13 GB "patch" for the game:

[McG]

Originally Posted by dino7c

you are getting picky...most people have these things lying around besides it could shave money off that build to cover peripherals and still have superior hardware

I never said consoles didn't have their advantages (in fact I said they did)...I was just "called out" because I stated you could build a hardware superior pc for less than $500 and you defiantly can if you know what your doing.

console is a box, it comes with one controller

no screen
no speakers
no games

not sure why I have to add those to pc builds...any modern card has hdmi out to hook to your tv/home theater setup

is it calling out because your $500 machine won't run? there is no operating system, no input device, no audio, no connectivity at all. in fact, you forgot a dvd player and controller if needed. no one is arguing that a properly constructed computer doesn't have the ability to be more than a console; but the fact is that your $500 computer isn't that computer. between the operating system and the controller, that is $150 right there. you can nickel and dime the rest up to $100 or $150; it doesn't matter. i may as well throw a little shipping and usd/cad conversion rate stuff in there as well. i'll give you the mobo having hdmi and maybe even a nic and perhaps even built in wifi.

the point is that a $150 video card doesn't run anything without the computer around it and that cannot be built today for $350. that's the entire point.

most people like you and i that can build a computer from scratch would already have a better computer, and yet we also have at least one console each.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I was disappointed to hear that it was multiplayer only. Probably would have picked it up on sale if it had a full fledged campaign. Personally I am not interested in a multiplayer only games.

Yep, unfortunately I will never touch this game because I have zero interest in playing multiplayer.

[TjRhythmic]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

It's not that including it in their console that's necessarily a bad decision, it's the whole multiplayer aspect of it. Basically after a month it's a subscription based game with no single player replayability. They also want $60 for it retail which costs the same amount as many triple A titles that include both a multiplayer and a single player component. It's not a great cost/value proposition.

I know it would never happen, well maybe it will, I just don't see why since it is a multiplayer only game that they don't just bundle it with a one year Live subscription. Instead of charging $60 for a game and $50 for Live, just bundle them together for $75/$80. I'm going to need Live anyways, if I see that for and extra $25/$30 bucks I get a cool game... why not.

I don't know. I still don't understand an online only game... it confuses me lol

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by TjRhythmic

I just don't see why since it is a multiplayer only game that they don't just bundle it with a one year Live subscription. Instead of charging $60 for a game and $50 for Live, just bundle them together for $75/$80. I'm going to need Live anyways, if I see that for and extra $25/$30 bucks I get a cool game... why not.

But they know they could get the full price out of many people so why reduce that fee at all business wise? Remember, these are the same guys who put things like Netflix behind the additional Microsoft Live paywall. Same thing for future games like Elder Scrolls Online (gonna have to pay extra on top of your subscription).

[ernie]

Originally Posted by TjRhythmic

I don't know. I still don't understand an online only game... it confuses me lol

I'd rather a game go fully online instead of giving me a BS 4-5 hour story mode that cons me into buying the game (i don't tend to play online that much). The only "odd" thing here is that it is an online only game on a console. PC has had countless online only games.

To be honest while Titalfall doesn't actually interest me that much I'd love nothing more than to have a great online only game for a console. Hoping Elder Scrolls will be that game but I have my doubts....

[TjRhythmic]

Originally Posted by chemgear

But they know they could get the full price out of many people so why reduce that fee at all business wise? Remember, these are the same guys who put things like Netflix behind the additional Microsoft Live paywall. Same thing for future games like Elder Scrolls Online (gonna have to pay extra on top of your subscription).

Originally Posted by ernie

I'd rather a game go fully online instead of giving me a BS 4-5 hour story mode that cons me into buying the game (i don't tend to play online that much). The only "odd" thing here is that it is an online only game on a console. PC has had countless online only games.

To be honest while Titalfall doesn't actually interest me that much I'd love nothing more than to have a great online only game for a console. Hoping Elder Scrolls will be that game but I have my doubts....

I see your points. It's the consumer in me that doesn't like it.

I usually get a game mostly for the single player. And given that I am still playing on PS3 and I have free online my biased view makes things seem like a bigger deal then they actually are.

Once I upgrade and and have to start paying for PS+ my view might change.. and honestly, I just want to contribute something to this thread. Was starting to feel left out.

And I agree about the 4-5 hour single player BS. If it wasn't for the fact I got BF4 for free and all my friends play it, I'd be very upset if I got it for the campaign alone.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by TjRhythmic

Once I upgrade and and have to start paying for PS+ my view might change..

I don't even look at PS+ as a cost of multiplayer. All the free games are more than worth it alone. Having both it and Live, the PS+ service blows it out of the water. It's not even close.