E3 2014 - Xbox Media Briefing Aftermath

Fixed that for you.
:boring:

Project Morpheus, Remote Play, PSNow through even TVs, etc. Yes, clearly MS is more forward thinking than Sony and their roadmap is indestructible. And where are all the rest of better games coming this year? I can count on one finger how many games I'm excited about coming to XB1 this year... Quantum Break.

Thanks for the bite to eat. It was tasty. :rotfl:

ANYways... if XB1 ever did sell without Kinect then I'm selling mine and getting a Wii-U instead.
 
I'm selling mine and getting a Wii-U instead.

wFEeP.gif
 
I can see Microsoft's thinking behind keeping Kinect in, it was a similar gamble that worked for Wii, even though that was much cheaper. Sony have essentially pissed on Microsoft's plan for Kinect though by removing their own Camera to undercut on price.

The point of there being a Kinect with every Xbox One was an incentive for third-party developers to make use of it, but with a cheaper PS4, with no camera bundled, is there really an incentive for third-party to utilise either Kinect/Camera?

Keeping it bundled doesn't really do them any favours - other than saving face. Either way they need to drop the price hard and sell the console on the merit of its exclusive titles (E3), and appealing to multiplayer gamers with mass server support for high-profile multiplatform titles wouldn't hurt either.
 
Last edited:
I reckon we might see a price cut to £300 that is then cheaper than PS4 and comes with a Free Kinect still.

I wish dev's would use MS servers for Multiplat games, BF and COD would run so much better.
Hopefully going forward they take advantage of it.
 
Oh great, the myth that Microsoft weren't planning on launching till 2014 rears it's head again...............
heh that was only my opinion and what it feels like. i have nothing to back that up.
it seems a strange thing in videogames- whoever is the market leader in one generation always seems to get overly confident and mess up at least the beginning of the next gen
 
Have some posts been deleted or what? Otherwise I think a "that escalated quickly" gif is due about now. I can't see how we've gone from zero to elitist dick in about three posts. :eek:
 
Red dead redemption 2 or another GTA fingers crossed
 
Ahh nothing like an E3 to bring out the banter again. Let's hope it's a better of a show for all sides.
 
Three posts? Or Three months?

Think the latter is more apropos. Tones isn't the only reason I'm perhaps being a bit too overzealous though, so if you take only the last few posts in context then I can see how it would appear to have escalated rather quick.

Regardless, I'll bow out. I've come to the conclusion the XB forums are not for me.


Back on topic though, I think (and hope) that Phil Spencer has watched all of the fallout that started with last year's "Reveal" and followed on, bringing out the trolls like never before.

He will have watched Matt(p)rick take MS to places they'd never envisaged and probably wished he had J Allard on speed dial.

So, all in all, I'm expecting (and hoping for) a good period for MS, one which shows they have learned lessons from last year and one that shows that they're definitely thinking of next year.

I'm personally not 100% convinced that the MS arrogance has been eliminated, but I guess you need a does of that to succeed and all successful businesses have it in degrees.
 
Some things I would like to see from MS this conference season:
- GOG extended to XB1
- Media apps moved from behind Paywall
- Some unique gaming experiences that utilise Kinect
- Evidence of investment in 1st party studios as opposed to moneyhats
 
- Evidence of investment in 1st party studios as opposed to moneyhats

I kind of want to see that too.

It often seems to me that MS invests loads in 3rd parties and DLC tie ins and I would like to see more of that money go towards 1st party internal development.
 
Who honestly cares about this, other than 'the internet'? I can't imagine hardly anyone has an Xbox One and doesn't have an XBL Gold sub.

I think it will help bring more apps to the Xbox One.

Especially if MS allows for a more expanded App Marketplace (MS showed off stuff at the last Build conference that mentioned you can build an app and make small build config changes and other code changes to make the same app run on PC, Phone and Xbox One).

If there is no paywall it could encourage sales for people not wanting a gaming machine as apps like Netflix are on a lot of other services for free (excluding the subscrition for Netflix itself). Then this could also encourage developers to make more apps and make them sooner instead of arriving later once their app has hit other app stores as the userbase could be larger.

Who knows we might also see apps that are not free and this could be a possible revenue stream for MS and we might get some useful applications out of it.
 
Regardless, it's just not right that you're being charged to access a service you already pay a sub for. What if your gold sub ran out and you wanted to watch something? Hopefully MS will see sense on that one.
 
Who honestly cares about this, other than 'the internet'? I can't imagine hardly anyone has an Xbox One and doesn't have an XBL Gold sub.

I honestly care which is why it is in MY list of things that I would like to see :roll:

If I were to get one as my second console I wouldn't particularly want to buy gold on top of PS+ but if you don't have gold it's sod all use as a media device.

But yeah, as your limited imagination can't see a scenario where someone wouldn't buy gold it must only be "the internet " that cares!
 
I personally don't see this obsession with 1st party studios at all.

Titanfall was rescued by Microsoft. It wouldn't have happened without them. But respawn are in the future able to make games independently of MS if they so wish.

Why is that a bad thing? Same sort of thing with Ryse and Crytek.

Both Sony and MS are paying for exclusive games, content etc, because that is the nature of the business.

I don't care where games come from whether it be 1st, 2nd or 3rd party games so long as they are good games.
 
I personally don't see this obsession with 1st party studios at all.

Titanfall was rescued by Microsoft. It wouldn't have happened without them. But respawn are in the future able to make games independently of MS if they so wish.

Why is that a bad thing? Same sort of thing with Ryse and Crytek.

Both Sony and MS are paying for exclusive games, content etc, because that is the nature of the business.

I don't care where games come from whether it be 1st, 2nd or 3rd party games so long as they are good games.

It's not a bad thing but MS want to get people on their platform. If they make the games they most likely own the IP and can build on it.

Mass Effect was a great game which MS helped fund (and going by the credits did some QA and side stuff on too). When EA bought Bioware they got the Mass Effect IP too and that allowed ME 2 and beyond to show up on other platforms. I can imagine Titanfall 2 may come to other platforms losing exclusivity (they would have to use EAs servers or do something). This isn't bad thing as it allows more people to play the game but if MS want to get people to buy their console and pay into their ecosystem they need exclusives.

The other thing is that first party studios focus solely on MS platforms so can really dedicate themselves to getting the most out of the hardware. A lot of people might not like Rare's recent Kinect stuff but technically they get a lot of the hardware (I remember reading something about how Rare managed to get high-res textures on Kinect Sports Season 2). Turn 10 were able to get a game out that is 1080p and running at 60 frames per second on the Xbox One when a lot 3rd Party developers are struggling to hit those levels. Also 343 Industries really got a lot out of the 360 with Halo 4. If MS put more effort into 1st Party studios they could really get them to showcase what the console can do.

MS has some talented internal studios. If they invested the money and resources they could possibly get a lot out of them.
 
@iwb100 From a personal perspective I agree but if I worked for MS I would have first party games a lot higher on my list of priorities, simply because they could be the differentiator between someone choosing their console over a competitor.

Sort of like the Kinect thing - they have bet the ranch on including it, but haven't yet demonstrated the full value of it. They need to do that to attract customers.
 
It's not a bad thing but MS want to get people on their platform. If they make the games they most likely own the IP and can build on it.

Mass Effect was a great game which MS helped fund (and going by the credits did some QA and side stuff on too). When EA bought Bioware they got the Mass Effect IP too and that allowed ME 2 and beyond to show up on other platforms. I can imagine Titanfall 2 may come to other platforms losing exclusivity (they would have to use EAs servers or do something). This isn't bad thing as it allows more people to play the game but if MS want to get people to buy their console and pay into their ecosystem they need exclusives.

The other thing is that first party studios focus solely on MS platforms so can really dedicate themselves to getting the most out of the hardware. A lot of people might not like Rare's recent Kinect stuff but technically they get a lot of the hardware (I remember reading something about how Rare managed to get high-res textures on Kinect Sports Season 2). Turn 10 were able to get a game out that is 1080p and running at 60 frames per second on the Xbox One when a lot 3rd Party developers are struggling to hit those levels. Also 343 Industries really got a lot out of the 360 with Halo 4. If MS put more effort into 1st Party studios they could really get them to showcase what the console can do.

MS has some talented internal studios. If they invested the money and resources they could possibly get a lot out of them.

No I get those advantages. But some of those are negated a bit by the fact that creativity can be stifled. Churning out sequels to popular IP. And I also question whether it is the most efficient use of resources all the time.

Absolutely have some 1st party studios but I think have real quality ones like Turn 10 producing outstanding games rather than just worrying about numbers. And there is nothing wrong with gettinhg exclusivity on 2nd or 3rd party games when the situation is right. Just my view.
 
@iwb100 From a personal perspective I agree but if I worked for MS I would have first party games a lot higher on my list of priorities, simply because they could be the differentiator between someone choosing their console over a competitor.

Sort of like the Kinect thing - they have bet the ranch on including it, but haven't yet demonstrated the full value of it. They need to do that to attract customers.

I agree to an extent but also I'd be interested to know the cost of running enough 1st party studios of sufficient quality to make a quantity of quality games compared to 2nd or 3rd party options.

I think there is a balance but a bloated set of first party studios isn't the answer for me.
 
I agree to an extent but also I'd be interested to know the cost of running enough 1st party studios of sufficient quality to make a quantity of quality games compared to 2nd or 3rd party options.

I think there is a balance but a bloated set of first party studios isn't the answer for me.
I'll take quality over quantity everyday. With a AAA game taking at least 2 years (if not 3) to develop they need around 6 quality studios to get two exclusive quality games a year.

With the cost of developing a AAA game these days I think it's more likely that 3rd party will be the ones pumping out endless sequels and 1st party may be where the innovation is. What number CoD are we on now? I'm mainly playing BF4 myself. New IP for a 3rd party developer is a much bigger risk than it used to be. 1st party, with the backing of MS can afford to take more risks.
 
I agree to an extent but also I'd be interested to know the cost of running enough 1st party studios of sufficient quality to make a quantity of quality games compared to 2nd or 3rd party options.

I think there is a balance but a bloated set of first party studios isn't the answer for me.

So the alternative to what they're doing now is a bloated set of 1st party studios?

Do you regard Sony and Nintendo has having a bloated set of studios?

One of the issues for MS is that they don't provide a big enough or broad enough portfolio of games across the generation. You don't improve this by relying on 3rd parties to produce your biggest games.
 
So the alternative to what they're doing now is a bloated set of 1st party studios?

Do you regard Sony and Nintendo has having a bloated set of studios?

One of the issues for MS is that they don't provide a big enough or broad enough portfolio of games across the generation. You don't improve this by relying on 3rd parties to produce your biggest games.

Well it is about balance I guess. I don't really want to get into a "Sony vs Nintendo vs MS" argument because we all know where that leads.

End of the day what matters is quality games. IMO the better "exclusives" right now and by exclusives I mean, can play on X1 but not on PS4 and the reverse, are on the Xbox One. That is my opinion and you may disagree.

I was also under the impression that broadly the number of 1st party studios were equivalent more or less for Sony and MS. Perhaps I'm wrong there. Perhaps there is a caveat.

The game I've played most this gen and am enjoying most is TF. Not a 1st party game.

I'm most certainly not saying have no first parties, just that I'd rather have the best games not necessarily just see MS gobble up more studios to churn out games that aren't that great. And there are examples on both sides this generation of 1st party games that don't measure up to the sort of quality you really want.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom