Xbox could be banned in the US? : Othor Games

» Sat May 26, 2012 1:26 pm

Which is why the first PS3 controller was the "Sixaxis", with no vibration.

was that the one that looked like a boomerang?

» Sat May 26, 2012 10:09 am

was that the one that looked like a boomerang?

I think that was just a concept that they eventually scrapped.

» Sat May 26, 2012 3:45 am

So maybe they're gonna push their new console sooner than expected?

» Sat May 26, 2012 4:10 pm

People seem to hate MS b/c of Windows. They go to all sorts of porm sites and then yell and scream when their OS gets infected.

» Sat May 26, 2012 4:27 am

As I recall, that suit was against both Sony and Microsoft. MS settled, Sony fought. And lost. Which is why the first PS3 controller was the "Sixaxis", with no vibration. But they clearly managed an agreement, since the Dualshock 3 eventually was released. :shrug:

Yes, you are right. MS was involved too. I only got my PS3 years after release so kind of missed that whole thing. The controller that came with my slim was the DS3.

» Sat May 26, 2012 2:27 pm

[quote name='DudeNtheRoom' timestamp='1337816219' post='20820393']
People seem to hate MS b/c of Windows. They go to all sorts of porm sites and then yell and scream when their OS gets infected.
[/quote]
No, people hate MS because they used to be the king of out-proprietarizing people with their Embrace, Extend, Exterminate practice and constantly abused their monopoly.

» Sat May 26, 2012 1:32 am

No, people hate MS because they used to be the king of out-proprietarizing people with their Embrace, Extend, Exterminate practice and constantly abused their monopoly.

That's why a few people hate them. I think for most it's either because it's the cool thing to do, they belong to an "opposing" club, or at some point they got really mad at their computer.

» Sat May 26, 2012 8:38 am

That's why a few people hate them. I think for most it's either because it's the cool thing to do, they belong to an "opposing" club, or at some point they got really mad at their computer. :tongue:

I am more at odds with Xbox itself than Microsoft as a whole. It was largely Xbox Live that introduced and proliferated what I consider the two cardinal sins of video gaming.

Achievements and DLC.

» Sat May 26, 2012 5:33 am

I am more at odds with Xbox itself than Microsoft as a whole. It was largely Xbox Live that introduced and proliferated what I consider the two cardinal sins of video gaming.

Achievements and DLC.

Achievements are completely optional and DLC can be brilliant as long as it's not just paying to unlock content already of the disk. Look at all the Fallout 3 and New Vegas DLCs, both the GTA IV DLCs, BioShock's Minerva's Den, and countless others that are fantastic gaming experiences that we'd never have been able to have otherwise. There's a lot of crappy DLC too but it's still been a force for good, IMO :shrug:

» Sat May 26, 2012 11:18 am

I am more at odds with Xbox itself than Microsoft as a whole. It was largely Xbox Live that introduced and proliferated what I consider the two cardinal sins of video gaming.

Achievements and DLC.

DLC exists because there is a market for it, no more. If people are willing pay for it, then why stop developers providing it?

» Sat May 26, 2012 1:47 am

Good thing I bought a 360 eairly then

.

» Sat May 26, 2012 12:35 am

DLC exists because there is a market for it, no more. If people are willing pay for it, then why stop developers providing it?

Pretty much. I don't understand why people get mad at corporations for figuring out ways to make money. They're machines that exist to do just that...it's nothing personal...they don't have emotions and they're (probably) not just doing it to piss you off. If you don't like what they do then don't buy their products. You can't fight markets, though, they're forces of nature. :shrug:

If a market is receptive to a product then it will sell as surely as the water will fall out of your glass when you turn it upside-down (try getting mad at the water and see if it has any effect).

» Sat May 26, 2012 12:56 am

I couldn't care less if I tried. I'm about as concerned for the console market as I am for politics or environmental movements (Read: Not a single bit).

In fact, seeing the gaming industry in general go under would finally give me something to smile about.

» Sat May 26, 2012 3:58 pm

I love how technology companies themselves are barring the expansion of the technological field with ridiculous stuff like this.

This times a million.

» Sat May 26, 2012 9:53 am

This times a million.

I think there are just a lot of companies trying to capitalize on the big tech growth markets before they stagnate like they usually do once they're sufficiently saturated (for example, the desktop/laptop computer market). Patents and standards tend to be common battlegrounds for that type of thing.

» Sat May 26, 2012 6:22 am

People seem to hate MS b/c of Windows. They go to all sorts of porm sites and then yell and scream when their OS gets infected.

Most people hate Microsoft either because of bad experiences with the Xbox or because they own a PS3, and it's just the "right" thing to do. (Mind you, this works both ways)

I am more at odds with Xbox itself than Microsoft as a whole. It was largely Xbox Live that introduced and proliferated what I consider the two cardinal sins of video gaming.

Achievements and DLC.

Where's the harm in achievements? If anything it encourages people to get the most out of a game. And DLC was bound to come along anyway. Microsoft, Sony, developers, etc all want to get the most they can out of a release, so they make more content, which I don't see why that's a bad thing if it adds more content. Unless said content was already made by the time of release and cut from the game for the sole purpose of money making.

» Sat May 26, 2012 5:36 am

Where's the harm in achievements? If anything it encourages people to get the most out of a game. And DLC was bound to come along anyway. Microsoft, Sony, developers, etc all want to get the most they can out of a release, so they make more content, which I don't see why that's a bad thing if it adds more content. Unless said content was already made by the time of release and cut from the game for the sole purpose of money making.

Achievements are pointless and the developers could have instead used the time to improve gameplay. Sometimes they create DLC in 5 minutes (like clothes DLC or horse armor) and sell it for $15. People hate M$ for their evil, nickel and dime, exploit, bribe, etc. business tactics.

» Sat May 26, 2012 4:11 am

This is why i own guns. My Xbox! MINE!!!

» Sat May 26, 2012 5:06 am

Achievements are pointless and the developers could have instead used the time to improve gameplay.

That's what they already do for many people... It's not like they'd be saving much time or money by omitting achievements, which are simple enough to program into the game.

» Sat May 26, 2012 3:56 am

Achievements are pointless and the developers could have instead used the time to improve gameplay.

Again, it encourages you to play more of the game. Also, how much work is taken away from the day of making achievements for a game? Basically none.

Sometimes they create DLC in 5 minutes (like clothes DLC or horse armor) and sell it for $15. People hate M$ for their evil, nickel and dime, exploit, bribe, etc. business tactics.

They are the developers. Not much to do with Microsoft. And yes there are those ridiculous DLC's, but what's even more ridiculous is the people who spend $15 on horse armor. All purchases are completely optional. If you can't resist buying every DLC, then you really need to learn some self-control and to research before you purchase something.

That's like saying well, I bought this car for 6k, but, I can get a shiny shift knob for another 1.5k!

» Sat May 26, 2012 2:03 pm

People hate M$ for their evil, nickel and dime, exploit, bribe, etc. business tactics.

Then don't give your money to them. Nobody's forcing any actions on your part.

» Sat May 26, 2012 8:50 am

That's what they already do for many people... It's not like they'd be saving much time or money by omitting achievements, which are simple enough to program into the game.

I heard the opposite. I heard achievements have to be programed in (which takes time) then when the game is being tested they have to see if they work properly. Also if you are a developer and want to make a console game or port you are forced to add achievements whether you like it or not.

Then don't give your money to them. Nobody's forcing any actions on your part.

That's easier said than done especially since they have a monopoly. If I don't give them money they won't go bankrupt sadly.

» Sat May 26, 2012 8:50 am

I heard the opposite. I heard achievements have to be programed in (which takes time) then when the game is being tested they have to see if they work properly. Also if you are a developer and want to make a console game or port you are forced to add achievements whether you like it or not.

The content the achievements are based on already exists. All they have to add is some sort of trigger that gives you the achievement when you complete the content. And they'll be testing that content anyway, if their QA team is at all competent. The achievement popped up when the content was being tested? Good, it works. Moving on.

» Sat May 26, 2012 4:16 pm

That's easier said than done especially since they have a monopoly. If I don't give them money they won't go bankrupt sadly.

Microsoft? Monopoly? I'm sorry, what? What about Sony? Apple? All that other crap?

(Did I just end every bit of that with a question mark? Is that awesome or what?)

» Sat May 26, 2012 3:28 am

I heard the opposite. I heard achievements have to be programed in (which takes time) then when the game is being tested they have to see if they work properly. Also if you are a developer and want to make a console game or port you are forced to add achievements whether you like it or not.

They do have to be programmed in, which consists of adding a trigger point for when the achievement is activated... and that's about it. And the game is tested all the way through either way, so it'd take no more time than without them.

That's easier said than done especially since they have a monopoly. If I don't give them money they won't go bankrupt sadly.

So, is this about hurting their business, or saving your money by not buying DLC's you think are stupid? I'm pretty sure they don't have a monopoly anyway.

Edit: I just got double ninja'd... How embarrasing.