Do you think Microsoft changed the gaming industry for the better?

#51Leon_HisaragiPosted 8/28/2013 5:43:31 AM
TYWlN_LANNlSTER posted...
They have made it entirely worse. This video may contain strong language but it summarises their involvement with the industry perfectly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0fK4JKPvE4

"That Xbox reveal was a reveal. It was a reveal showing Xbox and Microsoft in their true form. That machine that they're going to sell to you, and that company, are an affront to gamers' loyalty. They're trading in a history that isn't ****ing theirs.

They bought their way into an industry that they knew, they KNEW, was vulnerable. Forget language like target demographics and market share, they saw people who could be exploited.

'A buying public who have an affection and love, not just for the games makers, but also for the hardware that opens the windows to these joyous worlds... Hahaha... those fools will be conquered!"

And so... they slid their way in, and they brought their racists, and their homophobes, and their ****ing bragging rights with them. And with your loyalty, they are now so bloated and arrogant, that they don't even bother to disguise their disregard for your pathetic, silly hobby.

Buy the Xbox One. You owe them! You owe them for all the happy memories playing games on the fifteen 360's you bought.

Buy the Xbox One. Enslave yourself. Willingly sign up to degrade your own rights. Let that precedent be set. And talk... like you love it. See if you can lie to yourself for another generation. I'm ****ing glad... I don't know you!"


Now of course, all that was pre-DRM reversal, but let's not kid ourselves. They only reversed them because they were about to suffer a major rejection by the industry and a console that's sales would have made the Dreamcast look like a PS2 by comparison.

If they get enough support for this console, I absolutely promise you they will pull the classic bait-and-switch, and you will see a return of all those policies they overturned, and far worse than that.

---
"The truth is, you're the weak, and I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm trying Ringo. I'm trying real, hard, to be the shepherd."
#52LapanuiPosted 8/28/2013 5:45:14 AM
BigAl519 posted...
bessy67 posted...
HungoverHero777 posted...
"No" is winning by a pretty large margin. Interesting.


How so? We already knew about the huge number of trolls and their alternate accounts on this board. Or if they're not trolls then 67% of people don't like online functionality on their consoles...


HAHA Online functionality was doing just fine before MS came in and screwed up modern gaming for everyone.

Or shall I assume you are not old enough to have heard of Sega channel, Satallaview, Xband, NET link or N64DD?

Or how about seganet on Dreamcast?

MS did nothing to the online industry that wasn't being done a long time before it.


MS have done a lot for online functionality. Not only that, but without them, we would still be stuck with logging into one account at a time like Sony and Nintendo...

On the Xbox, I can log myself in and my brother can be logged in, we can both play games online, collect achievements together, on the same Xbox.

On the Playstation, only one of us can be logged in and only one of us can collect trophies.

We would have no party chat, no competition between Sony and MS.
---
GT: Zichu PSN: Zichu NNID: Zichu1
#53BigAl519Posted 8/28/2013 5:52:56 AM
Lapanui posted...
BigAl519 posted...
bessy67 posted...
HungoverHero777 posted...
"No" is winning by a pretty large margin. Interesting.


How so? We already knew about the huge number of trolls and their alternate accounts on this board. Or if they're not trolls then 67% of people don't like online functionality on their consoles...


HAHA Online functionality was doing just fine before MS came in and screwed up modern gaming for everyone.

Or shall I assume you are not old enough to have heard of Sega channel, Satallaview, Xband, NET link or N64DD?

Or how about seganet on Dreamcast?

MS did nothing to the online industry that wasn't being done a long time before it.


MS have done a lot for online functionality. Not only that, but without them, we would still be stuck with logging into one account at a time like Sony and Nintendo...

On the Xbox, I can log myself in and my brother can be logged in, we can both play games online, collect achievements together, on the same Xbox.

On the Playstation, only one of us can be logged in and only one of us can collect trophies.

We would have no party chat, no competition between Sony and MS.


lol wow, them some revolutionary perks you are talking about there. I mean, wow! The ability to add to your virtual epeen by logging into two accounts and earning achieves! GENIUS!!

Party chat! Oh wow! The ability to talk in a party outside of the game! Which was around for years before the MS threw it on a console lol. Not to mention it is no longer a relevant argument as its an option on both Sony and MS's consoles. Either way I see little use for it when games offer party chat to begin with. If I wanted to talk to people in a party outside of games I would log onto a much better server like Ventrillo and use my wireless headset.
---
90% DVR 10% Gaming all thrown into one!
#54MrImpatient35Posted 8/28/2013 5:55:56 AM
I find it VERY hard to believe the results of polls regarding X1, when there's plenty of fanboyism going on on these boards. Regardless of how I truly feel, I could vote no, just to make MS/X1 look bad. Damn near every poll regarding MS or X1 is highly negative in the results. You could do a poll asking if X1 will be able to do 4K, and the leading result will prolly be no, even though it can. Anything to make the console look bad.
---
Dost thou even hoist?
Dead Rising 3 and Assassin's Creed 4 are already a done deal!
#55PraetorXynPosted 8/28/2013 6:29:22 AM
No. They are almost solely responsible for the following trends in gaming:
1. Release Day DLC - Before Xbox 360, there were full expansion packs, and any map packs etc. for FPS games came a reasonable amount of time after release, so they were actually ADDITIONAL content.
2. Paid DLC - The map packs etc. mentioned above were pretty much always free before Xbox 360.
3. Charging developers to release patches (they've reversed that policy now, but all last gen they were charging developers like $47k or so to release a patch, which meant a lot of games didn't get patches on the 360 but got them on PC where it was free).
4. GFWL - Finally closed down now, but the DRM still affects a bunch of AAA games on PC, most notably the Arkham games. With GFWL, y our game saves are encrypted "to prevent cheating for achievements," so if you install the game on a new hard drive, or if your save gets corrupted (happens a lot with GFWL games) and you try to restore from a previous backup, you can't and you must start over.
5. Achievements - Subjective obviously, but my personal opinion on them is: If there are no achievements I don't mind, but if there are achievements I feel like I have to get them all. So I'd rather there weren't any.
6. Console / PC homogenization with a negative impact on both markets. Before the 360, there were basically two kinds of games with minimal overlap, PC games and console games. It was worth owning the PS2 because it offered a vastly different library of games than PC did. After the 360, pretty much every console game is available on PC, and consequently PC games were simplified and dumbed-down mechanically. Oblivion and Skyrim being perfect examples.
7. Microtransactions in a non-Android/iOS game - It's hard to blame MS for this one, but the first instance I saw of it was Fable 3 where you could buy DLC from within the game's "menu." I argue that Xbox LIVE showing publishers that gamers were willing to pay for anything is the root cause of microtransacrtions.
---
Console war in a nutshell:
http://imgur.com/xA6GJZ9
#56DesperateMonkeyPosted 8/28/2013 6:31:01 AM
Whether people like to admit it or not, MS is the biggest influence on modern gaming these days. Everyone is trying the MS model. Its quite clear that Sony modeled both the PS3 and PS4 off of MS (aside from trying to push Bluray for their format).

PSN wouldn't have been half of what it was if it wasn't for the original XBL and its popularity and MS's development on the 360. Most of PSNs features were added in later to function like MS.

MS standardized voice chat for consoles and later standardized party chat and cross game chat. They also provided in game music, achievements and gamerscores and were the ones to lead the explosion of the console market place.

They are also responsible for the explosion of indies into the mainstream by heavily investing in exclusives, timed exclusives and advertising for their indie games like Castle Crashers, Braid, Limbo, Alien Hominid, Dishwasher Samurai and so on.

In terms of genres, the shooters aren't the most numerous but they are of the highest quality these days because of the heavy competition for the market stirred by the original Halo (and yes, anyone with half a brain who checks on metacritics will see that shooters have been out "released" by indies and at least 3 other genres).

Think about games like Bioshock. System Shock sold nothing and warranted no further investment. However, the console FPS scene became so strong that people went out to buy these high quality, low sales developers to make a sequel with a huge budget.

One of the reasons people bash MS is because the existence of shooters apparently means the non-existence of other genres. However, we've seen a huge ass load of fighting games, racing games, action adventure games, indie games, wRPGs, Schmups and even a crapload of RTS games in this last generation that makes it one of the most diverse ever so clearly this fallacy doesn't hold water.

The other issue people complain about is paying for extra content. However, this argument isn't a logical one as most complain about getting less content for $60.

As has been proven countless times, the HD generation has on average, far more content PRE-DLC and budgets also have skyrocketed for the vanilla games. So people are finding reasons to invest more in the initial game because they can make it a profit further down the line and it also allows developers to add more content than was previously possible.

People aren't investing less in the initial game, they are investing MORE. It is the same concept as the F2P model which is all about player base. The same % of people are predicted to buy DLC and useless fluff like costumes. More initial install base means more people buying the cheap stuff that is extra.



Anyways, its hard to find logical and critical arguments on the subject around here. Most people want to just jump on a bandwagon and regurgitate shallow comments like "lol Party chat has existed before!" without realizing the impact of how Xbox designed their console. Party chat may have existed but the difference is its integration and fluidity. Inviting someone to my vent server is a very different experience to inviting someone to an XBL party. Mics with all consoles truly helped facilitate the community as well, something PS4 is doing this time around.
---
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H
#57gambit444Posted 8/28/2013 6:33:26 AM
HungoverHero777 posted...
Tbh, the only good thing that came out of them was the (then revolutionary for consoles) online play.


Oh, is that all? the online play? you know, the thing thats pretty much required in every game now?

I think they have had a tremendous impact and will continue to.
---
Show me a hero and I will write you a tragedy.
-F. Scott Fitzgerald
#58DesperateMonkeyPosted 8/28/2013 6:45:41 AM
PraetorXyn posted...
No. They are almost solely responsible for the following trends in gaming:
1. Release Day DLC - Before Xbox 360, there were full expansion packs, and any map packs etc. for FPS games came a reasonable amount of time after release, so they were actually ADDITIONAL content.

Lets back up what you say. Please give us a decent list here.

2. Paid DLC - The map packs etc. mentioned above were pretty much always free before Xbox 360.

Which console was this? Most games didn't even have map maps in the past. Games themselves were far more scarce on content to begin with.

3. Charging developers to release patches (they've reversed that policy now, but all last gen they were charging developers like $47k or so to release a patch, which meant a lot of games didn't get patches on the 360 but got them on PC where it was free).

So you aren't comparing the 360 to consoles but PCs? Well news flash, the 360 was a console and before the xb original and XBL, games barely ever had patches (or they just couldn't have patches period).

4. GFWL - Finally closed down now, but the DRM still affects a bunch of AAA games on PC, most notably the Arkham games. With GFWL, y our game saves are encrypted "to prevent cheating for achievements," so if you install the game on a new hard drive, or if your save gets corrupted (happens a lot with GFWL games) and you try to restore from a previous backup, you can't and you must start over.

Yes bad DRM indeed. I hate it myself. However, this isn't anything big. I've had plenty of trouble with UPlay as well. They won't even let me play my single player file that I started online after I went offline... Its a problem with PC DRMs in general, nothing to do with MS.

5. Achievements - Subjective obviously, but my personal opinion on them is: If there are no achievements I don't mind, but if there are achievements I feel like I have to get them all. So I'd rather there weren't any.

This isn't anything negative for the industry, just seems you have OCD or something. Many people are the same way about collectibles.

6. Console / PC homogenization with a negative impact on both markets. Before the 360, there were basically two kinds of games with minimal overlap, PC games and console games. It was worth owning the PS2 because it offered a vastly different library of games than PC did. After the 360, pretty much every console game is available on PC, and consequently PC games were simplified and dumbed-down mechanically. Oblivion and Skyrim being perfect examples.

Actually these are one of the only examples that get repeated over and over and over... Also, its only the controls. Also, quite clearly the PC gamers prefer dumbed down versions since they bought much more of Oblivion and Skyrim than previous ES models. I also don't get your problem that consoles games are RELEASING on PCs. Are you one of those hardcore fanboys who thinks games are worthless unless they are exclusive to your platform?

---
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H
#59DesperateMonkeyPosted 8/28/2013 6:45:51 AM
7. Microtransactions in a non-Android/iOS game - It's hard to blame MS for this one, but the first instance I saw of it was Fable 3 where you could buy DLC from within the game's "menu." I argue that Xbox LIVE showing publishers that gamers were willing to pay for anything is the root cause of microtransacrtions.

Microtransactions have been on the rise long before MS came out with Fable 3. This is mostly from PC gaming. But thats beside the point. There is nothing wrong with Microtransactions unless they are a Pay to Win model or are releasing games with scarce content to begin with. Since Fable 3 had more than both previous games, the MTs are just extras which is how it was in a lot of PC games.

---
GT: ZiiX360 PSN: BoxFighter85
PC: i7 930@4Ghz | EX58 UD5 | GTX 460 SLI | 8GB DDR3 | 500GB Spinpoint | Vertex 2 180 SSD | Cooler Master HAF X | VG236H
#60DoctorCinnamonPosted 8/28/2013 6:53:22 AM
teehee23 posted...

Microsoft is the heart and soul of the gaming industry.


I just saw this and laughed so hard, my professor just gave me the death stare.
---
3DS Code of Friendship - 1762-2766-3591