Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Xbox OneFollow

#77 May 22 2013 at 8:41 AM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
Can confirm gaming with kinect voice commands with children around sucks. Madden 13 let you voice activate almost every possible pre-snap call there is. I had to turn it off cuz my kids' random shouting would call blitzes and line shifts.

Come to think of it, Skyrim would have been pretty funny on xbox since my 2yo daughter goes fus ro dah crazy while im playing that game. Smiley: lol

Edited, May 22nd 2013 7:42am by KTurner
#78 May 22 2013 at 8:44 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,496 posts
Sony, the company that tries to sue anyone who looks at their hardware in a manner they don't agree with, is going to open their hardware up enough to become the primary indie platform. Yea, that'll happen.

idiggory wrote:
I'm sure there's a market for it, but I'm not convinced it's a market that meaningfully overlaps with the gaming population.


You're looking at it the wrong way. This isn't targeted to the core gamer, it's targeted towards the average family while still maintaining it's core gaming capabilities. This is your home theater pc, cable box, Blu-Ray player, could storage media center, and gaming system.
#79 May 22 2013 at 8:57 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,265 posts
Spoonless wrote:

I don't have much of a problem with their handling of used games, probably because I'm used to there being no such thing in PC gaming. I do think that if they're going to destroy the used game market for their system, they absolutely have to adjust their price drops and sales on their direct distribution system. Of course, that won't happen because they'll likely think they can continue to get $60/game six months after its release (or is the price of new games going up, too?). People aren't going to just start paying full release price for every game they want to play; they'll just stop buying a large percentage of games they would have bought used, unless they can get those games for a reasonable price.


I think this is what they are mistaking. Like you said they see the PC market and think "Oh well people dont mind it there" the reason we dont mind it is because a lot of use never pay retail. I wanted to play Farcry 3 Blood Dragon, but I wouldnt even pay 14.99 for it. I bought a code for 4.50 the other day. If MS is going to control the used game portions with the backing from the game companies, do you think the game companies dont have a say at what MS will be pricing. Nope. I expect to see used games way higher priced because companies only want their money and dont worry about the value to the costumer. Look at EA, they copy pasta Fif1 12 changed the logo to 13 on the vita and sold the exact same game as a newer version, they dont care.

Spoonless wrote:

I don't have a problem with paying for Xbox Live, and won't until Sony's free service rivals it as far as network quality goes. And perhaps with the PS4, it will do so. Having experienced extensive multiplayer on both the PS3 and 360, my personal experience has been that the games played over Live have had less network issues than the ones on PSN. That said, there's no reason that you should have to pay for a Gold membership to access things like your Netflix account; that should be included with the free membership. I think that they could also do something like including better free Gold access with new games. Include a full month with every new game you buy.

I've usually been a Sony-first person, since most of the JRPG I like to play come out on PS and not Xbox, but I did greatly enjoy the original Xbox, and have enjoyed the 360. I'm really interested to see how this all plays out. They'll certainly still sell a ton of consoles.


I dont understand this mentality, your being charged to use the internet you already pay for. MS charges to "use their infrastucture" Sony doesnt. Sony puts that on the shoulder of the developers I believe, so its their job to make sure the netcode is good, not Sonys, they just provide the platform. As for the less network issues on Live I could back you up on this except Live is stupid easy to mess with. One of my friend used to play Halo 3 ranked a lot, one night one of his friends brought over his laptop and ran a packet sniffer to target the Xbox live code and insert intentional errors forcing the other side to hang and lag. I dont know exactly how it worked but they did it all night and won every game.

As I mentioned before PS+ IMHO is a better service than Xbox live(Gold) I mean in a year and a lahf ive spend 75 dollars. and received a TON of free games including 6 retail vita games if i pick up that system for free. Sony is putting value into the system while MS is putting ads to make more money.

I know I blam MS pretty hard, but the Xbox gold thing really gets me, because IMHO it preys on peoples niavity. Like the people with cable internet but still pay for AOL because thats how you connect to the internet is though AOL. My girlfriends mother was like this until I sat her down and explained it. She dropped AOL like a bad habit.

Anyway if you were looking at PSN Vs XboxLive you would have expected PSn to be the one to introduce Ads to offset its free nature, but instead the paid service is the one that has them.MS is slowly closing that gap to EA territory, they had an extremely popular console last cycle and now they think they're **** dont stink and they will be able to keep pushing. Kind of like Sony after the PS3, How did that turn out for them?

Sony this upcoming cycle is learning from their mistakes with the PS3 because they were headstrong, and thought they could do no wrong after the PS2. Atm I feel Xbox is headed in the same direction, because their system was he top hardcore unit last cycle that this cycle they can do what they want and consumers will eat it out of their hands.

Idk MS is lucky Xbox is still a thing honestly, If Halo didnt take off the original Xbox was dead in the water, They had the same games and a more powerful system than the PS2 and even had the basic network the PS2 didnt. But for the longest time the system struggled to find a base, they had almost no RPGs, their exclusives werent that great, or were overhyped and under delivered. Until halo 1 came out and became THE console lan party game, sales of the system were usually only to people into racing or sports games. PS2 t the time had the market with tons of games in every genre to fit many tastes. Its not the hardware that moves a system its the software (only applies to consoles)
____________________________
What I Play
Recently Played
#80 May 22 2013 at 9:09 AM Rating: Decent
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I'm sure there's a market for it, but I'm not convinced it's a market that meaningfully overlaps with the gaming population. At least not when we're talking about the fact that you can't turn the **** feature off (at least as of right now).

I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft implements a big overhaul to give a lot more control to their users regarding how omnipresent the kinect system is. It would be a horrible decision not to.


Not that I am particularly thrilled with the news here myself just playing devil advocate here.

But isn't that kind of the point of their marketing strategy. To appeal to more then just gamers?

____________________________
If cookies were milk and milk was cookies. Would Oreo's still be america's favorite brand of milk?
#81 May 22 2013 at 9:09 AM Rating: Good
***
2,265 posts
Raolan wrote:
Sony, the company that tries to sue anyone who looks at their hardware in a manner they don't agree with, is going to open their hardware up enough to become the primary indie platform. Yea, that'll happen.

idiggory wrote:
I'm sure there's a market for it, but I'm not convinced it's a market that meaningfully overlaps with the gaming population.


You're looking at it the wrong way. This isn't targeted to the core gamer, it's targeted towards the average family while still maintaining it's core gaming capabilities. This is your home theater pc, cable box, Blu-Ray player, could storage media center, and gaming system.


Uhm just because Sony had the most press for it, every other company has done it. Apple tried it til the FCC ruled that it was ok to unlock a phone. Xbox has went after hacking sites, or worse ignored the high amount of hacking and selling of Xbox accounts saying its not their problem. I dont agree its ok what Sony did in the situation, BUT you need to remember piracy was rampant on the PSP and turned it into a dead system most of the world.

Previous systems had to be modded to be hacked, and modding was already illegal in most of the world. Also wasnt easy and you needed to find the parts then solder them in. The harder something is to do the less people waste time trying to do it. But because this new way was a software mod anyone with a USB jumpstick could open the entire system to piracy. I mean at first Sony was happy to include Linux capability on their system, the only reasons they really got rid of it was hacking scares because of it and honestly I dont think many people ever used it.

Actually if you look at my last post Sony also has been pompous and arrogant because their domination last cycle (PS2) They let it get to them and tried pushing where THEY wanted and not were WE wanted. Sony from the PS1/2 Era was a much different beast, wanna know why there is so many games for both systems, because they let everyone and their mother have a Developer Kit from EA to garage start ups. It wasnt until the PS3 that they began to restrict access to it, exactly like Nintendo did with the 64. They suddenly put huge pricetags on Kits/licenses pushing out the small guys that helped build them.

Sony has been losing money the last 5? years or so, and they know that if they keep going they way hey have been its going to kill the brand. I think they know, at least for the PS4, that catering to the consumer and indie is going to be the way to go.

Edited, May 22nd 2013 10:19am by BeanX
____________________________
What I Play
Recently Played
#82 May 22 2013 at 9:13 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,265 posts
So now that we know that the kinect is always on watching the room a and listening before we find out the government can tap into it and listen or can be hacked like laptop webcams (RAT Hacks). Or that MS themselves can access it at anytime and watch you. I mean Im not a conspiracy theorist by any means (Not saying Microsoft is controlled by aliens, but they're aliens) but a camera/mic that cant be turned off and is forced to be connected to the net (Even if for a shot time a day)

No one else has a little concern about that?


Edit: Im not trying to scare anyone or rumor monger, its a valid concern. When people in the thread started talking about it being forced to be on all times its the first thing I thought.

Edited, May 22nd 2013 10:14am by BeanX
____________________________
What I Play
Recently Played
#83 May 22 2013 at 9:19 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Raolan wrote:
Sony, the company that tries to sue anyone who looks at their hardware in a manner they don't agree with, is going to open their hardware up enough to become the primary indie platform. Yea, that'll happen.


Ostensibly, they've already opened it. They cut development costs for the Vita, and they've lowered barriers for PSN publishing. Early return from indies seems pretty good.

What games come of it, we'll see. And I don't think there's any reason to think they'll "become the primary indie platform" - I doubt they even hold out that kind of hope. But they've already made moves.

Edited, May 22nd 2013 11:19am by Eske
#84 May 22 2013 at 9:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
BeanX the Irrelevant wrote:
So now that we know that the kinect is always on watching the room a and listening before we find out the government can tap into it and listen or can be hacked like laptop webcams (RAT Hacks). Or that MS themselves can access it at anytime and watch you.
[...]
No one else has a little concern about that?

I assume it's programmed to listen for the sound of fapping and then activate.

I have "concern" about it in that I'm not buying one anyway but agree that it sounds sketchy. I have zero confidence in MS to develop security that someone else isn't going to hack and distribute some "Spy on anyone by their Xbox ID" software.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#85 May 22 2013 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,265 posts
Jophiel wrote:
BeanX the Irrelevant wrote:
So now that we know that the kinect is always on watching the room a and listening before we find out the government can tap into it and listen or can be hacked like laptop webcams (RAT Hacks). Or that MS themselves can access it at anytime and watch you.
[...]
No one else has a little concern about that?

I assume it's programmed to listen for the sound of fapping and then activate.

I have "concern" about it in that I'm not buying one anyway but agree that it sounds sketchy. I have zero confidence in MS to develop security that someone else isn't going to hack and distribute some "Spy on anyone by their Xbox ID" software.



That awkward moment when your Kinect recognizes you have a ***** and suggests **** sites.
____________________________
What I Play
Recently Played
#86 May 22 2013 at 9:45 AM Rating: Decent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
BeanX the Irrelevant wrote:
I dont understand this mentality, your being charged to use the internet you already pay for. MS charges to "use their infrastucture" Sony doesnt. Sony puts that on the shoulder of the developers I believe, so its their job to make sure the netcode is good, not Sonys, they just provide the platform.
I enjoy my Xbox enough that it's worth paying $5/month to play its games online. Would I like it to be free? Sure. But it's still something I decided was worth it to me to pay for. If I enjoy WoW, I'll pay $15/month or whatever to play it. There's no free service to play your Xbox games online, so I don't see how it's preying on naivety, like with your AOL example.
____________________________
Banh
#87 May 22 2013 at 9:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
BeanX the Irrelevant wrote:
That awkward moment when your Kinect recognizes you have a ***** and suggests Mass Effect fan-**** sites.

____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88 May 22 2013 at 9:53 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,737 posts
Screenshot
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#89 May 22 2013 at 9:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
Spoonless wrote:
BeanX the Irrelevant wrote:
I dont understand this mentality, your being charged to use the internet you already pay for. MS charges to "use their infrastucture" Sony doesnt. Sony puts that on the shoulder of the developers I believe, so its their job to make sure the netcode is good, not Sonys, they just provide the platform.
I enjoy my Xbox enough that it's worth paying $5/month to play its games online. Would I like it to be free? Sure. But it's still something I decided was worth it to me to pay for. If I enjoy WoW, I'll pay $15/month or whatever to play it. There's no free service to play your Xbox games online, so I don't see how it's preying on naivety, like with your AOL example.


Besides the obvious "anything is worth whatever somebody will pay for it" reply, how is it worth it? You pay (most likely overpay) for your internet already which is the brunt of the infrastructure, you pay for the games that have multiplayer as an intended game mode, and then you still have to pay 5 bucks a month to MS to play it?

Do you get anything else from XBL gold? You get to watch netflix which you already pay for too.
#90 May 22 2013 at 9:59 AM Rating: Excellent
I watched like 30 seconds of this hype train on Spike. But it felt like sitting through a work a meeting so I turned it back off. I've had to go to these in Redmond in person before for new versions of Exchange or SharePoint. They do sometimes have good catering though. Walking up to a giant tray of 100s of slices of bacon...

Think I'll make some bacon now.
____________________________
An old silent pond...
A frog jumps into the pond,
splash! Silence again.

~ Matsuo Basho
#91 May 22 2013 at 10:00 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,265 posts
Spoonless wrote:
BeanX the Irrelevant wrote:
I dont understand this mentality, your being charged to use the internet you already pay for. MS charges to "use their infrastucture" Sony doesnt. Sony puts that on the shoulder of the developers I believe, so its their job to make sure the netcode is good, not Sonys, they just provide the platform.
I enjoy my Xbox enough that it's worth paying $5/month to play its games online. Would I like it to be free? Sure. But it's still something I decided was worth it to me to pay for. If I enjoy WoW, I'll pay $15/month or whatever to play it. There's no free service to play your Xbox games online, so I don't see how it's preying on naivety, like with your AOL example.



Because How many familys you think knew Xbox couldnt play games online without a fee when buying it for their children. When i was working as a Gamestop managers, other than RRoD at least 2 times a day I would get parents ******** about it, so much to the point that we had to inform everyone buying 360s as presents of the hidden charge.

I understand how you're justifying it to yourself. But you dont really get a choice, you either pay it or dont play online, simple as that. You pay for WoW because you like that game and see the value in paying the sub. But out of the 3 systems Nintendo and PS dont charge to be online, and they also dont toss ads on your paid service. Thats the big tipping point for me. I can understand having cross game chatting etc and having to pay for that service, but when you toss ads into something I pay for (I do NOT have cable) I drop you like a bad habit. Hulu plus did this to me on a free trial, I was going to pay for it so I could watch some anime without ads, yet still had ads I unsubbed less than an hour later.

If it was free and had ad's great dont mind. Also you can play WoW without paying (you just cant access end game).

Xbox Live sub costs breaks down to peer pressure + greed plain an simple, they dont give you anything that you cant get elsewhere and barely add any value to the service. Its there because Little jimmy cant play with his friends without paying it (Peer Pressure) and because MS can get away with it.

I choose to pay for PS+ not because Im forced to to play my games, I already bought, on my internet, I already pay for, but because It add value to my experience on that system. It boils down to the whole argument of companies cutting out parts of services/games to sell you later ala carte to put more money in their pockets

Edit: Do you think your enjoyment would be less without Xbox Gold, If so they are forcing you to pay, If not why pay for it at all? The whole arguement reminds me of this scene

Edited, May 22nd 2013 11:07am by BeanX
____________________________
What I Play
Recently Played
#92 May 22 2013 at 10:17 AM Rating: Good
***
2,265 posts
Jophiel wrote:
BeanX the Irrelevant wrote:
That awkward moment when your Kinect recognizes you have a ***** and suggests Mass Effect fan-**** sites Errect.




Edited, May 22nd 2013 11:18am by BeanX
____________________________
What I Play
Recently Played
#93 May 22 2013 at 10:34 AM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
KTurner wrote:
Can confirm gaming with kinect voice commands with children around sucks. Madden 13 let you voice activate almost every possible pre-snap call there is. I had to turn it off cuz my kids' random shouting would call blitzes and line shifts.

Come to think of it, Skyrim would have been pretty funny on xbox since my 2yo daughter goes fus ro dah crazy while im playing that game. Smiley: lol

Edited, May 22nd 2013 7:42am by KTurner


There are plenty of videos online of friends actively trolling their friends via Kinect.

Raolan wrote:
Sony, the company that tries to sue anyone who looks at their hardware in a manner they don't agree with, is going to open their hardware up enough to become the primary indie platform. Yea, that'll happen.

idiggory wrote:
I'm sure there's a market for it, but I'm not convinced it's a market that meaningfully overlaps with the gaming population.


You're looking at it the wrong way. This isn't targeted to the core gamer, it's targeted towards the average family while still maintaining it's core gaming capabilities. This is your home theater pc, cable box, Blu-Ray player, could storage media center, and gaming system.


I didn't say otherwise. I wasn't commenting on the potential, overall success of the device, I was just commenting on it relative to gamers.

Laxedrane the Irrelevant wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I'm sure there's a market for it, but I'm not convinced it's a market that meaningfully overlaps with the gaming population. At least not when we're talking about the fact that you can't turn the **** feature off (at least as of right now).

I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft implements a big overhaul to give a lot more control to their users regarding how omnipresent the kinect system is. It would be a horrible decision not to.


Not that I am particularly thrilled with the news here myself just playing devil advocate here.

But isn't that kind of the point of their marketing strategy. To appeal to more then just gamers?



Yes, but losing your core demographic in the process rarely works out well for companies. An expanding demographic and marketing strategy is great. Expanding your demographic and marketing strategy by moving to entirely new groups is a really poor one.

For one, it's a huge gamble. You're moving from a known quantity to an unknown one. The 360 was a huge success in the gaming market. Barring some extreme risk factors with the demographic (which I don't see here), it's not smart to just drop that.

That's because modern consumers have a VERY strong sense of brand loyalty, which translates to a very strong sense of brand betrayal. Central to brand loyalty is the notion of trust - your primary consumer needs to trust that you actually do have their best interest at heart. It's crazy, but it's essentially the center of modern marketing strategies. You NEVER want your audience to remember that your bottom line is a profit motive.

A perception that you're ******** them, or abandoning them, or don't care about them, is one of the best ways to ***** yourself out of your entire audience.

That can be fine, when you have a new audience lined up. If there was already an xbox in every home, for the purpose of a multimedia, then this would be a different conversation. But there isn't, because everyone who has an xbox 360 has one for gaming, primarily.

If you want to transition your brand, then transition it. You DON'T do that by abandoning your core demographic. You do it by creating a device your core demographic desperately wants (for all the things important to them), and then add a lot of features other groups want. But your first goal is to SELL THE DEVICE. Because profits and market momentum fund development and marketing to expand into those new areas.

The smartest move would have been to get every gamer possible excited to own this, AND include the cool new features that weren't gaming-centric. Then very actively transition the device and its marketing, over its lifespan, into one that's awesome for anyone with a TV. The NEXT device then launches into an audience receptive to all those other features.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#94 May 22 2013 at 11:17 AM Rating: Decent
BeanX the Irrelevant wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
BeanX the Irrelevant wrote:
I dont understand this mentality, your being charged to use the internet you already pay for. MS charges to "use their infrastucture" Sony doesnt. Sony puts that on the shoulder of the developers I believe, so its their job to make sure the netcode is good, not Sonys, they just provide the platform.
I enjoy my Xbox enough that it's worth paying $5/month to play its games online. Would I like it to be free? Sure. But it's still something I decided was worth it to me to pay for. If I enjoy WoW, I'll pay $15/month or whatever to play it. There's no free service to play your Xbox games online, so I don't see how it's preying on naivety, like with your AOL example.



Because How many familys you think knew Xbox couldnt play games online without a fee when buying it for their children. When i was working as a Gamestop managers, other than RRoD at least 2 times a day I would get parents ******** about it, so much to the point that we had to inform everyone buying 360s as presents of the hidden charge.

I understand how you're justifying it to yourself. But you dont really get a choice, you either pay it or dont play online, simple as that. You pay for WoW because you like that game and see the value in paying the sub. But out of the 3 systems Nintendo and PS dont charge to be online, and they also dont toss ads on your paid service. Thats the big tipping point for me. I can understand having cross game chatting etc and having to pay for that service, but when you toss ads into something I pay for (I do NOT have cable) I drop you like a bad habit. Hulu plus did this to me on a free trial, I was going to pay for it so I could watch some anime without ads, yet still had ads I unsubbed less than an hour later.

If it was free and had ad's great dont mind. Also you can play WoW without paying (you just cant access end game).

Xbox Live sub costs breaks down to peer pressure + greed plain an simple, they dont give you anything that you cant get elsewhere and barely add any value to the service. Its there because Little jimmy cant play with his friends without paying it (Peer Pressure) and because MS can get away with it.

I choose to pay for PS+ not because Im forced to to play my games, I already bought, on my internet, I already pay for, but because It add value to my experience on that system. It boils down to the whole argument of companies cutting out parts of services/games to sell you later ala carte to put more money in their pockets

Edit: Do you think your enjoyment would be less without Xbox Gold, If so they are forcing you to pay, If not why pay for it at all? The whole arguement reminds me of this scene

Edited, May 22nd 2013 11:07am by BeanX



Not to mention the fact it doesn't have built in wireless like every other system from that generation. The wireless unit I believe was close to 100 bucks at the time it was released.(Now it's less)

Also, I agree with most of your post but the whole "I paid for the internet thing" doesn't fly for me completely when talking about games. Netflix, internet browser, and anything otherwise free for computers should be free on the xbox. But it's not an uncommon pratice for certain games to charge for being able to get online. Especially anything with MMO in front of it. Your internet company does not pay for the servers these games are run on. That's not included in their offer to you.
____________________________
If cookies were milk and milk was cookies. Would Oreo's still be america's favorite brand of milk?
#95 May 22 2013 at 11:31 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
The newer 360's do have a built in wi-fi, but you're right; it did take far too long to implement.
Quote:
I understand how you're justifying it to yourself. But you dont really get a choice, you either pay it or dont play online, simple as that.
Isn't that your choice? If you buy an Xbox and intend to play games online, you pay the $60/year. You can still play the single-player components of your games without Gold. If you want to play games online but don't want to pay extra for the service, than the Xbox isn't the system for you. It's not like they're not upfront about this.
____________________________
Banh
#96 May 22 2013 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,883 posts
Laxedrane the Irrelevant wrote:
Not to mention the fact it doesn't have built in wireless like every other system from that generation. The wireless unit I believe was close to 100 bucks at the time it was released.(Now it's less)


To be fair, PS3 wireless built in is **** (at least, my old fat 80GB PS3). I would love to pay 100 dollars right now and upgrade my PS3 to work as fast as my 360 does on my wireless home network.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#97 May 22 2013 at 11:42 AM Rating: Good
****
9,526 posts
Spoonless wrote:


This announcement served its purpose. It let the most casual of followes know that there's a new Xbox coming out, and that it will have the highly popular CoD and EA Sports games. Most serious console gamers are not going to base their decision purely on the initial presser. This announcement wasn't for them. That's what E3 is for. This was for the general media and the large demographic of Xbox users who don't regularly follow video game news.


This. My manager, who as far as I know doesn't even own a video game system of any kind, mentioned it yesterday. So did another non-gaming coworker.

I rolled my eyes both times. The only thing this new generation does for me is raise my hopes of getting a cheap used PS3 so that I can play the exclusives, and raising the bar so things look/handle better ported to my PC. I might consider the PS4 if it is backwards compatible, but otherwise meh. Really especially in the first 2 years of a console where there are no interesting games to speak of.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#98 May 22 2013 at 11:43 AM Rating: Good
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
TirithRR wrote:

To be fair, PS3 wireless built in is sh*t (at least, my old fat 80GB PS3).


Mine is too, what's up with that?
#99 May 22 2013 at 12:07 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
****
4,444 posts
I watched the reveal trailer which apparently was released yesterday and it just seemed like 90% of it was showing what the console looks like. I thought they ditched the plan to ban used games on the system about a month or two ago?

One of the things I am curious about is the watching TV. Does this mean we plug our cable into the Xbox and completely remove the need for having our $10 a month DVR box from the cable company? Because that in itself would be an incentive to purchase it. Been nice if they had shown some games, talked about backward compatibility, gave some info on the specs, etc. Didn't really need to watch a minute and a half of video showing what the box looks like...
____________________________
Hi
#100 May 22 2013 at 12:15 PM Rating: Decent
KTurner wrote:
TirithRR wrote:

To be fair, PS3 wireless built in is sh*t (at least, my old fat 80GB PS3).


Mine is too, what's up with that?


Screenshot
____________________________
If cookies were milk and milk was cookies. Would Oreo's still be america's favorite brand of milk?
#101 May 22 2013 at 12:16 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Apparently you still need your cable box. I don't know if the Xbox will have DVR abilities.
____________________________
Banh
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 92 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (92)