hottgamer31's forum posts

  • 11 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for hottgamer31
hottgamer31

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 hottgamer31
Member since 2010 • 25 Posts
[QUOTE="drekula2"]why are cutting edge graphics and artistic direction seen as mutually exclusive. look at the bioshock series for example, technological and timeless both. nintendo has managed to make a lot of games look good despite technological limitations. mario galaxy and metroid prime 3 looks great, as does skyward sword. but why exclude third parties with dated hardware? why not give them the choice? nintendo has focused so much on the controller, they forgot about the platform itself.

Yeah, I didn't mean that Nintendo or third-parties never seek a balance. I was just assessing how a popular trend has been contributing to Nintendo's third-party woes.
Avatar image for hottgamer31
hottgamer31

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 hottgamer31
Member since 2010 • 25 Posts
[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]Gonna have to disagree with most of this. Microsoft was attempting to remove the value of the disc entirely- and even with the backpeddling, they still haven't changed that. Xbox 360 was perfect as far as the balance between physical media and digital software. The game you buy at the store is the disc. Installing the disc to your machine is optional, but you also have the digital marketplace. That gave you a choice, purchase one copy of the game to do with as you see fit, or license a digital copy to play for as long as they want to allow you to. The Xbox One is trying to shift that balance away from ownership toward licensing. The fact that you can still buy or sell you games due to their original policy reversal is a big win, sure, but since all the games are still subject to mandatory installs, the game is still their property since it no longer plays directly from the disc. They're still taking ownership(based on the importance of the disc in playing the game) away from you. That, and the NSA spycam, is the reason I still won't be buying an Xbox One. Playstation 4 is my bet for the next gen, though I'm even doubting that, as PS3's habit of forcing installations points to PS4 following suit. I'll be waiting at least two years, and judging on what I hear by then, I'll decide whether or not I'm done with console gaming entirely. I expect I will be. Wii U seems most likely to be my last home console, unless Nintendo stays the course with whatever comes afterward. And if they don't, well, it'll just be me and my handhelds.

Yeah, I was going to talk about that balance, but I couldn't fit it into my column.
Avatar image for hottgamer31
hottgamer31

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 hottgamer31
Member since 2010 • 25 Posts
With all the dominant attention given by third-parties to engine prowess and how that propels basic graphics, it's easy to forget that there is one more beneficial component to a game's visual presentation. That component is artistic direction. And an issue with modern third-party projects, which naturally became an issue with the quantity and quality of Nintendo's outside support, is that the potential impact of artistic direction is often overlooked in favor of graphical flair. In turn, important modern third-party properties often enough, from a visual standpoint, rely too heavily on "real-world" elements to be compatible with Nintendo's hardware philosophy. This fact would lead many to believe that the Wiiu is under-powered and its predecessor the Wii was as well. But, such is not the case. Nintendo has never been a fan of realism overtaking artistic direction, and began to reflect that outlook more evidently in the Wii era. Artistic direction in games like No More Heroes, MadWorld, and Red Steel 2 managed to save the Wii's third-party support and it's going to take a similar effort to make the Wiiu's third-party support shine.
Avatar image for hottgamer31
hottgamer31

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 hottgamer31
Member since 2010 • 25 Posts
First off, I'd like to congratulate the gaming community for the victory of persuading the Xbox One's policy reversals. Now that that is out of the way I'd like to discuss what I believe went wrong with Microsoft's failed attempt to market the Xbox One's former usage policies and how the company could have made them work. Many would think that the Xbox One's former restrictions were inspired by the PC market, and I believe that they were also inspired by the mobile market. Perhaps Microsoft, in recognizing the publisher friendly success of digital mobile gaming, originally intended for the Xbox One to be an all digital console but saw too big a risk in fully abandoning the disk, as retail performances for home consoles were still peaking. So in turn the company decided to keep the disk format while experimenting with standard digital distribution laws, hoping to harmoniously bring together two worlds. But the dilemma with that is that current digital distribution laws and the concept of physical ownership would naturally clash, and with the Xbox One they did. And what resulted seemed more like a half step. It was a step that was considerably half way in the direction of physical distribution or half way in the direction of digital distribution, take your pick. Either way, the message wasn't clear and that didn't sit comfortably with consumers. Consumers were guaranteed to be either frustrated that you had to purchase a disk that you couldn't throw away but would need only once or frustrated and confused by how one couldn't use their physical media like...well...physical media. Overall, due to Microsoft's failure to fully commit to the Xbox One's digital prowess, its original concept got lost in translation. To clarify, the concept would have possibly worked if Microsoft was willing to convert all its efforts to Xbox Live, in turn creating a singular, focused, and effective system of digital software management for the user. Either way, gamers can now rejoice in the fact that with a renewed commitment to physical distribution the company is now headed in one focused direction, with the most important benefits of physical media intact.
Avatar image for hottgamer31
hottgamer31

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 hottgamer31
Member since 2010 • 25 Posts
I made some changes to my column, folks. Gonna make some more changes later. Thanks for reading.
Avatar image for hottgamer31
hottgamer31

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 hottgamer31
Member since 2010 • 25 Posts

wrong forum

gatsbythepig
Yeah, did it sound Negative? I wasn't trying to be negative towards Microsoft. I just wanted to knock people out of the hypno-ray that is the media.
Avatar image for hottgamer31
hottgamer31

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 hottgamer31
Member since 2010 • 25 Posts
Outside of a bold pricing announcement and a necessary proclamation on rejecting policies, Sony hasn't given much encouragement about the future of the PS4. None of the company's E3 announcements warranted even a three day long run in the front pages. The company's two lacking conferences have given the media the impression that there's not much to write about beyond the fact that we're getting games that will feature graphics unaccomplished on a home console. Naughty Dog's latest groundbreaking achievement? Not on the PS4. The next upcoming installment in a big first-party racing franchise? Not on the PS4. The Last Guardian? Nowhere to be found. But somehow even with all that being true the company has managed to gain for the PS4 a comfortable spot on a pedestal of future-proof achievement. Why did this happen? Because Sony knows how to get wanted attention. Meanwhile, Microsoft has been dubbed the underachiever despite two solid and in fact superior conferences effectively painting the Xbox One as a new and balanced generation of streamlined experiences. And in the end, the public ended up hating the company and even its console with the passion of a terrorist plot. But, these problems for Microsoft are mostly due to a lack of wanted attention. There was little proper coverage on the company's console reveal and an effective lack of balanced coverage on the company's policies. Without Microsoft or media outlets reporting on possible policy benefits, gaming consumers are yet to have a well rounded view of what these policies would mean. Potential consumers aren't getting a proper chance to weigh the pros and cons, and in turn are giving in to paranoia. Sound familiar? That's because it is. It's how things work in politics. Let's pretend that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are competing for the presidency in the upcoming generation. Nintendo, for the most part, would be the older but well versed politician who doesn't get the popular vote do to his lack of commitment to modern standards. Sony would be the younger, associative, and fiery politician who doesn't currently have much to offer but can still make a presentation that inspires hope in the people. Microsoft, while being the youngest politician, would enter the race with new ideas, a see saw track record, and executive friends, automatically the politician you're less likely to trust. Naturally, out of the three, more people are going to migrate towards the associative and fiery politician. And in turn, political groups will form to ensure that his competitors don't get votes. And in the world of politics, the biggest way to accomplish that has always been to get the media on his side. And trust me folks, somebody is pulling strings to keep the media on Sony's side. You can be assured that no matter how many questions go unanswered, or how little Sony achieves in its presentations, the media, for the moment, will be seeing Sony through. Note: I was wondering if anyone else was baffled by consumers calling the Xbox One's policies "greedy'" seeing as how they will bring Microsoft no profit, or do they know that? And does anyone else think Sony is campaigning this "no used game and drm policies" thing a little too hard? I mean, it's not really an achievement. It's just the company's decision to do nothing. I mean, it's the way the console industry's been doing it before the PS4. That's why Nintendo isn't sweating it. Well, I guess I can see how it would highly benefit Sony in particular, seeing as how a PlayStation at it's core can serve as an alternative to an Xbox. Anyway, the only way Microsoft can crawl out of its current media rut is to gain wanted attention. But can that happen? Only time will tell.
Avatar image for hottgamer31
hottgamer31

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 hottgamer31
Member since 2010 • 25 Posts

I am a huge xbox 360 fan, but I refuse to give in to all the bs restrictions MS is putting on the gamers with xbox1.

I pay $60 for my games plus the $60 anual live gold subscription. What I do with my games after I buy them is nobody's business. I have cable internet but there have been times that the service has gone out for days, and the fact that xbox1 has to check in every 24 hours would make the console useless in situations like that. And I couln't care less about the kinect. Heck, I don't even have room to put the damn thing. And to tell me that I HAVE to have kinect connected for the console to even turn on is total bull. The $500 price tag on top of everything I mentioned... NO THANKS! It's been good knowing you xbox.

TraXxX
Yeah, it's crazy about the 24-hour deal, but it's only there because the XBox One was designed to be the next best thing to Steam Box. Also, the company didn't mention it, but the new Kinect is smaller and designed to be mountable on the X1. And you don't have to use the Kinect to turn it on. The Kinect will not get in the way. Believe it or not, you won't have to use it once. I'm sure the company will encourage its use though. But, as the company stated, you can always use the 360 for continuous offline gaming, hence why there's lots of games still coming for it. Oh and one more thing, Microsoft doesn't want to block used games, but rather change the method of trade, and the X1's used game policy won't be as bad as you think, not to mention that it'll possibly reduce the cost of newly packaged games. The media doesn't want you to know these things for some reason.
Avatar image for hottgamer31
hottgamer31

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 hottgamer31
Member since 2010 • 25 Posts
Yeah, nice article. Might of turned a bit biased towards the end though. By the way, casual gamers were introduced to the home console market by the Wii. Other than that the market has always been core.
Avatar image for hottgamer31
hottgamer31

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 hottgamer31
Member since 2010 • 25 Posts
Gotta love the political spectrum of modern gaming. As I observed the social chaos surrounding Microsoft's upcoming console, I thought to myself "Why aren't gamers asking enough questions and how could they be so narrow minded?", but I came to realize. It's not the gamers' fault. They're just misinformed. I had to remember that public opinion is almost always based on the questions asked by the media and the media's following judgement based on the answers given. And the media likes to tip the scale dramatically in one direction, regardless of objectionable matters. Here's an example: no one, not one soul has asked how the Xbox One's new policies are to benefit Microsoft and publishers, and even us gamers for that matter. Yes, there are some cons, but surely no company would make a bold business decision if there were no important benefits. With that being said, I understand why gamers are asking only half the questions they need to ask. They're waiting for a good chunk of the media to ask the other questions first. And therein lies a problem that leads to misconceptions. Those who haven't taken the time to read the personal interviews with Microsoft's heads that explain the specifics of Xbox One's hardware and policies are missing out on understanding what a brilliant concept it really is. And I'll explain why I think it will pull ahead. After swallowing Microsoft's plan for marketing their next console, I was less than impressed at Sony's E3 announcement on network specifics and used games policies. Why? Because there were none. And seeing as how the PS4, much like the X1, will usher in a new era of high-cost PC level software production and essential network innovations like cloud gaming, it wouldn't be realistic to expect success by doing business the same old way. I was hoping for Sony to announce specifics on their cloud gaming structure and a strategy for managing the impending expenses of PS4 software production. While people cheered at Sony's lack of new direction, publishers didn't. And that's a problem. What a number of gamers don't understand because of a (possibly intentional) lack of assessment by the media is that Microsoft's stance on the upcoming Xbox's policies is not really about making profit, but about securing profit along with securing user functionality, and securing stability. The DRM policy and connection policy is there for nothing more than to protect the user's account and the performance of essential cloud based feaures. And as stated in an (not widely distributed for typical reasons) interview, the used games policy pertains to royalties for outside publishers. Those royalties which would surely attract publishers and developers alike would create a secure financial foundation for companies being effected by the almost inevitably rising costs of software production. A lot of gamers should realize that these flashy new engines being shown off by developers cost millions just to develop, and aside from that a low budget game built for the core market currently runs at a minimum of 1-1.5 million dollars. Add to that that these companies have to make a sizable profit after paying for distribution while charging a less than agreeable price at retailers and you'll get where I am going with this. And here's an unmentioned fact that will knock your socks off, that same used games policy which would probably raise the cost of used games can in parallel reduce the cost of newly packaged games. This has already been proven in the PC market where a similar system of policies to the Xbox One's has kept unopened software cheaper for the consumer, much cheaper in fact. And in considering once again that the two upcoming consoles are going to be going for a balanced structure of cloud enhancements and high-end PC components, it looks like Microsoft is taking some initial steps to make a good start and prevent the potential disaster that the tremendously costly PC market avoided by outlining clear online components and creating financially secure software policies. The PS4 does have its appeal, but from a point of view of proper business knowledge one can predict that the Xbox One will hold more value on the market to software investors (already evident in the X1's more robust software lineup), who will see it as less likely to contribute to an industry crisis. Just my two cents. Oh, and picture me confused when I heard some gamers say about the ending to Sony's conference "Thank you, Sony, for not bending to the will of publishers" ...You mean the publishers that make your games, you idiots! And I use the term "idiots" with respect. Game on, gamers. I'm going to sleep now. Note: I would have included Wiiu in this column if it wasn't for Nintendo's unique ability to thrive without third parties.
  • 11 results
  • 1
  • 2