What's new

Xbox-One Revealed

xINFINITELIGHTx

xINFINITELIGHTx

Active Member
Yo at this point I don't care if we play on a Nintendo 64 on an arcade stick or a console if its a fighter and we're all playing it i'll get the system for it. I only got this 360 here for doa4 and i'll only get a new console for a game that makes sense for me to play. JESUS IS LORD EVERY BODY HAVE A BLESSED DAY!
 
Koompbala

Koompbala

Well-Known Member
So XBone putting the final nail in the coffin. They are trying to completely rid this world of used gaming.

[Source]
Some more details have emerged regarding the Xbox One’s new Gamerscore system, including news of a “monthly cap” on additional achievements.
According to Xbox One program manager Chad Gibson, developers will be able to add to a game’s achievements every week, but a limit will be introduced in order to prevent them from “overwhelming gamers.”
"We're seeing people get all 1,000 Gamerscore in the first two weeks, and then still be playing that game two months later," said Gibson.
"We want developers to offer Achievements and interesting things to do long after a game ships. You could be playing a game for a year and get a couple thousand Gamerscore because the developer is adding new Achievements every week or every month."
"Developers won't be adding 10,000 Gamerscore a day," Gibson continued. "The cap is, developers have Gamerscore they can spend every month. We don't want to overwhelm gamers."
When we spoke to Microsoft following the Xbone’s reveal, they said that the new achievement system will reward players not just for what they do, but also for “your playing style,” though further details have not yet been forthcoming.
Furthermore, Microsoft has also patented a system to reward gamers with achievements for watching TV. We still don’t know what form that will take and indeed whether we’ll be seeing it in action on the Xbone.
The ability for developers to add what seems like a large amount of achievements to games over the course of their lives is nailed on though. So what do you make of all this then? Will it water the system down, or are you excited about the prospect of getting more achievements for your favourite games?
[via Xbox One: The Complete Guide]
Click to expand...
 
Koompbala

Koompbala

Well-Known Member
Ever since achievements started there's also been a new brand of gamer. The achievement whore I consider myself one and I know CyberEvil does too. These new gamers some of them take the whoring to the extreme such as only play for the achievements. The way this new gamer goes about things is he/she will buy used or rent a game for cheap get 1,000 sell it back or toss it to the side to never play it again. This new achievement system will put value to games these "whores" would usually toss to the side.
 
synce

synce

Well-Known Member
I think achievements did even more damage than that. I never even look at the achievement list for a game but because of them I can't share saves without resorting to hacks and when I have a friend over we have to fuck around with profile nonsense before every game. And on the PS3 it's one extra loading screen during every startup :/
 
Saber

Saber

Well-Known Member
The main point of achievements was always to increase replayability if a game doesn't have enough of actual content. The incentive was adding those points to your Gamerscore. So I think this would actually do games some good since people do like to achieve as much as they can (so far, it's the only good news about the Xbox One for now).

Of course, this means that the player won't feel like they can be finished with the game and be done with it. But it's not like I care that much about how high my Gamerscore is.

I don't think I've ever Platinum-ed a game in my life.

And (as ridiculous as it sounds) achievements for watching TV? I wonder if I can just leave my TV on the entire night. Oh wait, the Kinect will have to make sure the person is 'visually' watching the show. XD

I hope nothing that preposterous actually gets implemented.
 
Koompbala

Koompbala

Well-Known Member
synce said:
I think achievements did even more damage than that. I never even look at the achievement list for a game but because of them I can't share saves without resorting to hacks and when I have a friend over we have to fuck around with profile nonsense before every game. And on the PS3 it's one extra loading screen during every startup :/
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to why you think this. Trophies I understand considering they came post releasePS3. You gotta load up trophies cause of that. Achievements you do not, so scratch one possibility. Now profiles saves are connected to profiles. Thats fantastic now I can have multiple saves on one console. I don't need a memory card either. PS3 certain games only use one save no matter what profile your on.

So you gotta erase/ copy your data just to let someone else start fresh. Thats even if you can put the data on a flash drive to begin with. With PS3 its a hit or miss if data can be copied on a flash drive. 360 90% of the games can be carried over maybe even more. If you want to bring your data over to a friends. Flash drives are cheaper than what memory cards use to cost and hold more. Profiles are not a hard concept to understand. 360 has been around for 8yrs and yet people still don't know how to work the damn thing that is more surprising to me.

Now achievements it sounds like your biased towards achievements for no reason. You sound like one acquaintance I got who purposely gets as little achievements as possible. Just because he hates them that much. Sure I'm a achievement whore, but I've heard it all from haters some valid some not. It sounds like that your trying to find excuse to hate achievements.

How many games really are effected by achievements? Very few games actually require you to get all achievements for something to unlock. Even then is that one thing necessary? Sometimes its useless shit. If you wanna get technical. I've been an achievement whore long before achievements. From the sounds of it. It would appear you been a lazy ass way before achievements came around too. Unlocks is absolutely nothing new dont blame achievements for that. All achievements did is they gave a name to these unlocks.

Its nothing new having to beat arcade with every character to unlock a boss. Its nothing new to have to go through arcade without continues for an unlock. Hell in rpg's I was the guy to get a guide. Get all the weapons, armor, and characters just because. I know how tedious unlocks are, but point being "they're optional" "achievements are optional". While I got my unlocks I bet you were the person to pop in a game genie to get all the unlocks, or cheat for easy unlocks.

All I'm hearing right now is I hate unlocks. I'm too lazy to unlock things myself. That being said you were pre-determined to hate achievements. Again achievements gave unlocks a name. Unlocks are optional and very few games are effected by achievements. You remember how said I heard valid reasons to hate achievements? Clearly I don't think your reasons are, but one I do is. "Achievements are fuckin stupid and they don't do anything but make a number bigger" that's a valid reason. Is there an actual reason you hate achievements? Or is it you just hate unlocks?


Saber said:
The main point of achievements was always to increase replayability if a game doesn't have enough of actual content. The incentive was adding those points to your Gamerscore. So I think this would actually do games some good since people do like to achieve as much as they can (so far, it's the only good news about the Xbox One for now).

Of course, this means that the player won't feel like they can be finished with the game and be done with it. But it's not like I care that much about how high my Gamerscore is.
Click to expand...

Indeed that was my whole point it puts extra value in a game for those type of gamers. Therefore less likely to sell games which would create a used market.

Saber said:
And (as ridiculous as it sounds) achievements for watching TV? I wonder if I can just leave my TV on the entire night. Oh wait, the Kinect will have to make sure the person is 'visually' watching the show. XD

I hope nothing that preposterous actually gets implemented.
Click to expand...

That got me thinking haha I wonder if Kinect could recognize a dummy as a person? There's gonna be people investing in mannequins just for those TV achievements.
 
Koompbala

Koompbala

Well-Known Member
Yeah I seen that on related videos didn't watch it cause of how long it was. Watched it now don't agree with some of the stuff he said. Nothing compares to how bad Wii conferences have been or MS's press conference at E3 post launch Kinect. That was just god awful the whole press conference was about Kinect and Kinect games. "Hey guys looks at this stupid little kid talk to Skittles on Kincetimals".
 
Saber

Saber

Well-Known Member
Koompbala said:
Indeed that was my whole point it puts extra value in a game for those type of gamers. Therefore less likely to sell games which would create a used market.
Click to expand...
I don't think this point would affect used games significantly, if at all, because people buy used games when they're on a budget or if a game isn't worth the $60 price tag.

Also because if people buy a game and theyre done with it or they don't like it, they sell it to at least get some money back.

According to an NYU study, the professors used the Japanese gaming market to simulate the effects of the elimination of used games. If game prices stay as they are and the used game market is eliminated, profits per game wold drop by about 10%. IF (big key word) game prices go down by 33% than what they currently are (meaning prices should be about $40) and the used game market is eliminated, then profits would rise by 19%.
(source: http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2013/05/nyu-used-games-study/ )

Not saying that I want used games to be eliminated completely, but thought it was worth mentioning.
 
Koompbala

Koompbala

Well-Known Member
Saber said:
I don't think this point would affect used games significantly, if at all, because people buy used games when they're on a budget or if a game isn't worth the $60 price tag.

Also because if people buy a game and theyre done with it or they don't like it, they sell it to at least get some money back.

According to an NYU study, the professors used the Japanese gaming market to simulate the effects of the elimination of used games. If game prices stay as they are and the used game market is eliminated, profits per game wold drop by about 10%. IF (big key word) game prices go down by 33% than what they currently are (meaning prices should be about $40) and the used game market is eliminated, then profits would rise by 19%.
(source: http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2013/05/nyu-used-games-study/ )

Not saying that I want used games to be eliminated completely, but thought it was worth mentioning.
Click to expand...

No actually that is a really cool and interesting study. I don't wanna go back on my words, but I believe I never stated whether, or not these achievements whore gamers play a huge role. I still believe this is a ploy to rid the market used games, but this will only affect the few achievements whores who play only for achievements. The whores are the minority that I'm fairly sure about. This is just another way to make "buy new" appeal to all. I do realize the casuals and usual gamers don't see it like that.

But that study a friend and I got in a dumbass argument about the new gen. I was saying the Publishers are greedy assholes all these price hikes started with them. Then my friend was saying gamers are cheap asses and they need to stop bitching about used games. Mind you this guy argues for the sake of arguing and he was broke almost a decade prior to Sep. 2012 before actually making good money. Needless to say it was asinine for him to say gamers are cheap when he was in their shoes not to long ago. It was also even more asinine that I actually humored the guy and argued back.

Anyway about the article so yeah Publishers. There was no reason to make games $60 during this generation. Especially since disc's weigh less than cartridges so cheaper to ship. Also this green movement going on now in-game manuals are a thing, or online manuals. Cases now have less material in them too. Costs are down as far as that goes, so publishers just wanted more money. I use to have a goal of becoming a developer not anymore. Devs are just the grunts while Publishers have full control over their creations cause they got the money.
 
Force_of_Nature

Force_of_Nature

Well-Known Member
Standard Donor
Koompbala said:
Anyway about the article so yeah Publishers. There was no reason to make games $60 during this generation. Especially since disc's weigh less than cartridges so cheaper to ship. Also this green movement going on now in-game manuals are a thing, or online manuals. Cases now have less material in them too. Costs are down as far as that goes, so publishers just wanted more money. I use to have a goal of becoming a developer not anymore. Devs are just the grunts while Publishers have full control over their creations cause they got the money.
Click to expand...

I also find it interesting that companies like EA and Ubisoft usually have a small note on their "manuals" that tell you that their elimination of manuals is their way of "saving Earth's natural resources". This is also supplemented by, like, a dozen full coloured advertisements in EA's games. It's one thing to obviously want to cut back on costs, but if 0% of those savings are passed on to the consumer, don't have the fucking audacity to act like you're in any way doing that for the environment. If cutting down a fucking forest would save EA money, they'd do it. This is also why I'd never pay $60 for a digital release.

How about cutting back on executive bonuses before cutting back on the quality of your own product? Just a thought...
 
D

Deleted member 473

Guest
BL18HzECEAAm0Ux.jpg


Leaked E3 Microsoft lineup
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ALL DOA6 DOA5 DOA4 DOA3 DOA2U DOAD
Top