Disagree. I hate online gaming. If they took away single player games I would not even waste my money on a system. Yes, I know I am the minority but you still don't want to alienate the minority either. Can you imagine the gaming world without Uncharted and Batman, two of the greatest series ever created? JMHO of course
exactly. If the lowered the price for single player games and gave you the option to pay for the online component I would be all for it.

I would have to say that out of all of the games that I own.....I only play online with one of them. And that's only in the online franchise mode of NCAA.....and that's with friends.

I ****ing despise online play for the most part.

Unless it is whisper quiet, I won't buy it. Xbox is attempting to be much more than a gaming device, and when not gaming, the noise makes it useless.

I think I have a miracle 360.. Bought at launch, never red ringed, quiet as ****..

But the way the next console war is turning out I will not be buying a MS product..

And it is dumb for them to neuter the reseller market, Gamestop is probably their biggest seller of new games.. Hell, Bestbuy and other companies have gotten into reselling games..

If they want to hinder them, drop the cost of new games down to 40bucks or cheaper.. People will buy more.. I don't buy any new games unless it is COD to play with friends..

Worth every penny, best game ever! I remember secret of mana for nes being 72.00 bucks!

I remember buying Yars Revenge for the ATARI 2600. It was $59. That was somewhere around 1982.

This isn't unique to next gen consoles.

I bought a used copy of Fight Night Round 4 at Gamestop. I never planned to play online but I found out right away that SLIDER TWEAKS (what EA Sports calls "tuners") were only available with a Fight Night Online Pass.

I ended up having to pay $10 extra dollars and would have been better off just buying a new copy, which included a FREE Fight Night Online Pass.

Tecmo Super Bowl was $60 when it first came out.

I don't play online much. Probably has the most to do with the fact that the CPU isn't a foul-mouthed 14-year old moron...

My 360s is completely silent.

I think we've been spoiled with backwards compatibility. Very few consoles have been backwards compatible. I don't think you will see too many more of them in the future, it's not worth it.

I think it depends on how long a system is out..

Originally I don't think it was feasible for them to do it from nes to snes..

You're absolutely right, it's not worth it to the manufacturers.

Allowing people to play their old game catalog is nice, but it doesn't generate SALES.

I don't like this at all


Say hello to the brave new world of console gaming

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/PlB...ation-cnet.jpg

New game console rumors are piling up -- and they're painting a pretty bleak picture. Is the future of console gaming something out of an Orwell novel?

By Jeff Bakalar, CNET

The next evolution of home console gaming is shaping up like a dystopian Philip K. Dick short story. Refueled by the latest PlayStation 4 rumor, signs continue to point to a future in which games are no longer really yours to own, instead just a virtual right to play -- just as long as you're connected to the Internet, have a unique ownership ID, and aren't playing a used copy.

This isn't the first we've heard of this either; a January report says Microsoft's next machine will attempt to thwart used games too.

Of course Sony hasn't confirmed any of these supposedly leaked details, but is it really out of the realm of possibility? The Vita is a prime example of the company's piracy paranoia. It's locked down and vacuum-sealed, made painfully apparent by how tedious it is doing trivial things like transferring files between device and computer. The reason for all the red tape? To combat piracy.

Given this recent display of aggressive protection, reading a rumor about a PlayStation 4 that's just as meticulously locked down isn't too hard to swallow.

Think this worst-case scenario is that far off? Think again. It's already starting to happen. Every EA game sold for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 now has anti-used game components built in. New games ship with one-time use codes that give the original owner access to online game play and features. If you try and play one of these titles without the code on a different console or gamertag, it'll cost you extra to get online.

The most infamous anti-used game controversy came with the release of last year's Batman: Arkham City. Players who bought the game used missed out on the entire Catwoman campaign as it required a unique code upon playing the game for the first time. Game reseller GameStop eventually made good on the incident by including codes for those who bought the game pre-owned.

Speaking of GameStop, I can't imagine the company is too thrilled about the recent rumors surrounding the PS4 and its anti-used game tech. Gamesindustry is already suggesting the game giant could theoretically refuse to sell PS4 games simply for the fact that they would be "un-resellable." Now I'm not going to lose sleep over the death of a company that makes money off buying used games at a low price and then selling them back just $5 less than retail, but GameStop isn't the only entity that could potentially see an impact from the elimination of used games.

Look at the game rental business with services like Gamefly and sites that organize game trades between consenting players. What about those guys? It all funnels into a core concept of how ingrained used games are to the entire video game marketplace and ecosystem.

But perhaps the most overlooked element of this entire conversation is the idea of selling a game back has become such an integral part of the psychology of game buying. A customer feels much better about buying a brand new $60 game that turns out to be awful because they know there's a safety net in place that will most likely get them at least half their money back -- or more if they sell it in the right marketplace. In a world where selling back games is no longer an option, will games sell as well as they do now?

And what about the social ramifications of eliminating used games? Does this mean kids won't be able to go to a friend's house and show them the great new Portal game they just bought? That was half my childhood for crying out loud. But in this brave new world, that act may be considered trying to play a used game.

This week's PS4 rumor suggests that all games would be tied to a single PSN ID -- so could one sign into their ID on a friend's console thus allowing the "sharing" of the game? We just don't know yet.

So what does the future of gaming look like? I think a good indication of what might come to be is how Activision has approached Modern Warfare 3. Encouraging gamers to hop on board a subscription-based gaming experience not only shifts focus away from those who might want to sell a game back, but also increases overall game play value.

Modern Warfare 3 offers a one-year subscription price that includes any and all DLC over the course of a calendar year. It's cheaper to buy the membership upfront rather than picking and choosing which DLC you want.

What this really boils down to is the end of physical media. We lost a possessive right the second physical discs and material items like books, games, and music became nothing more than 0s and 1s on a drive. Sure, they might consist of the same data you'd get on an actual disc or book, but once they were made intangible, an unwritten sense of ownership was severed. There doesn't seem to be a used-game epidemic plaguing the Apple's App Store, does there?

So why is this the trend? Why does every little rumor and bit of news that leaks out all indicate that the next generation of game consoles will be fashioned this way? It can't be because console manufactures actually believe it will increase revenue when I just explained how, if anything, it might even lead to less sales.

Is there a silver lining here? Perhaps. Maybe this will could drive the cost of games down. The push towards the elimination of physical media does remove a number of middlemen from the equation, bringing overhead down. It'll also light a fire under those who can help improve the state of broadband connectivity in this country because not everyone is lucky enough to have a high-speed connection that will deliver a 50GB game in a timely manner.

Will Sony unveil details about the next PlayStation at E3 2012? Microsoft has already preemptively announced that an Xbox 360 successor will not be a topic of conversation at the big show. If the rumors are true and we do see a PlayStation 4 in 2013, Sony would also trade places with Microsoft in being the first to market with a new console, the opposite of what happened with Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 in 2005 and 2006 respectively (not counting the WiiU of course).

Whichever way the chips fall, we'll be the first to let you know as we'll be covering E3 2012 live from the show floor this June.


http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged...003839870.html

The video game business is a pretty shitty one.

Sony/MS are making a huge mistake if they're trying to push DRM'd lock down cloud-based game distribution. It's just going to lead to an eventual push to reverse engineer which eventually leads to that whole piracy thing.

Online distribution off the bat is going to **** them hard in countries that have ISP's with long established bandwidth caps and will really **** them if more ISP's in this country jump in.

After the whole 360 RRoD and the PSN network security ordeal, think I'm not buying a console for the next generation.

This is absolutely ****ing stupid

I could live with it if they would take on the Steam model and drop prices appropriately over time AND have the occasional kick ass sale.

It's not just MS and Sony. The large publishers like EA and Activision want this just as much, if not MORE, than the console manufacturers themselves.

The future of gaming is "pay for play".

Facebook has infected the mainstream gaming industry, make no mistake about it.

When EA sees a HALF MILLION people playing Farmville EACH AND EVERY DAY, they want a piece.

Thanks Apple!

This.

my kid just experienced his first online pass game. We rented Ratchet and Clank All for One. He was pissed when he couldn't go online with it. Told him there is no way I am paying for a $10 pass for a rental.

Not liking the stuff I'm reading lately....I'll stick with my old ones or go PC.

The one I really hated hearing about was a Tiger Woods golf game from a year or so ago. They forced you to buy career mode courses, so even if you bought the game new, you had to pay more to play the complete game.

There is no shortage of demand. None.

Forgive me, I know very little about the technology, but isn't "the cloud" just a ****ing server? I like having my own games on my own disc, and my game data and game saves on my own console hard drive. That way if something ****s up on their end, I'm not shit outta luck. As far as streaming games, it makes sense for the gaming industry due to piracy, but I hate having to rely on an internet connection to play games. Call me old fashioned, but I like to put the ****in game in the ****in system and hit start.

I really hate the way this is going. Considering how shitty most newer games are anyway (christ most games I play now are HD collections of older generation game trilogies for example) I might just consider myself a casual "retro" gamer. I still own a NES, SNES, PS2. Still so many great games I haven't played for those systems. With so little time to play games anymore, I might just stick to that. Although I know I'll probably splurge and get a next-gen console once a few really awesome games are out, making this whole rant entirely pointless.

What they want is irrelevant in the end. EA and Activision wanting it just makes it an easier sell.

This really screams as a license to fleece GameStop to me.

Technically, the "cloud" is a NETWORK of servers.

If the hard drive or storage stick fails in your console, your game data is gone. FOREVER.

The appeal of the cloud is that your game data and game saves are stored in a place where they could NEVER be lost. They are stored on one or more servers that are backed up constantly and continuously.

And while I certainly understand the sentiment of not wanting to rely on an Internet connection, we crossed that bridge a decade ago. Games are frequently shipped now and require a Day 1 patch, which means without an Internet connection they are somehow unplayable.

How do you figure that? EA, Activision, and Take Two control something like 85% of the game distribution industry. What they WANT is what we will GET.

And it goes much, much more deep than just digging at Gamestop. This will essentially kill rentals, used games, and any other revenue stream that doesn't flow directly to them and the console manufacturers.

EA has been looking at Zynga and Playfish - there's a reason they payed $750 MILLION for PopCap games.

The future of gaming is being nickeled and dimed to death...

That's true about the patches. And while I think the cloud is great for storage, I'd like to have my game date and saves stored on my console hard drive and then backed up on the cloud servers. But you're right, it's nearly impossible to buy a brand new game and just play it without having to install a patch immediately. It's pretty lame in my opinion but what can we do about it. After all, this is a world we're living in where the few ruin everything for the majority. Meaning the pirates. Sad.

According to an article on Mashable, a 56-page document from Microsoft was released regarding the highly rumored Xbox 720.
So what all do we know about the next-gen Xbox?

Life cycle of the new Xbox will be 10 years
1080p output and native 3D
Blu-ray player
SmartGlass

A release date possibly for 2013 with a price tag of $299

A new concept was also released. Under the name Project Fortaleza, these are glasses. These glasses will be able to connect to Wi-Fi,* incorporate augmented reality in gaming and should be releasing around 2014. There are no specifics available regarding these glasses.
Based upon the design images leaked it looks like the Xbox 720 may look like more of a DVD player than the Xbox 360s we know now.

http://aggregame.com/news/2012/06/16...-720-for-2013/

Welcome to the future, boys.

I like the 10 year life span and including a blu-ray player, I figured if they tried to move away from discs for games they wouldn't include a blu-ray player. The price point seems right as well.

I call BS on the price. There is no way they will open up at $299 even on the base model.

Of course they will. They make so much ****ing money after it is in your living room.

They are having you pay for a machine that opens up countless ways to create more revenue.

Looks like it will be a kick ass machine.

Exactly this. Everyone is going with the Apple/Amazon model now, and why not.
Posted via Mobile Device

apples and oranges

totally different devices and models.

True, but im saying the business model is the same now.

Sell a media access device up front for less and lose a little on the front end.

Make millions on the backend with downloadable media content and subscriptions.

Apple has massive profit margins on what they sell, so they get the best of both worlds: profit on the device, plus locking the buyer into their ecosystem. Microsoft and Amazon do it a bit differently.

Obviously Microsoft wants an Xbox in every home, but $299 still seems low to me.

I will be shocked if the new console comes in at less than $499. The only way they do $299 is if they lock you into 3 years of Live or something along those lines.

I tried reading this sentence five times and I still don't understand it.

They will make all their money on people that buy gold live without a discount..

But you are probably correct with the newer 360 deal, that is probably the price with 15bucks a month live for two years..

and probably 4GB of storage too.

Weren't they talking about going to "the cloud" style storage?

that is just storage though. You would still need a HDD to actually play the Live arcade games that take up to 1gb each depending on the game. Now if they are going to try and do the Onlive thing well then.....

EDIT

Went back and read that thread. It wasn't cloud storage, it was eliminating the optical drive. Two totally different things.

It was from the OP.

The 720, on the other hand, has an unusual rumor making rounds saying that the new console will use Cloud for storage which have been redirected from the fact that Steam has done so well on PC over the years. Now it is being thought if the 720 games will actually feature on a disc at all, or will be simply downloaded from Cloud whenever they will be required.

You don't need much space if the games are stored somewhere else. Demos and a couple downloadable addons are the only things that take up space for me right now.

You don't play the games through the cloud though. YOu have to download and store them on the HDD in order to play them. LIke a said, if they are going the course of Onlive then it can work but I haven't heard them say anything like this at all. Plus, without decent storage on the unit itself you will have to download every single game every time you want to play it. Consumers won't go for that.

So what was the Buzz on the Wii U? Seems like i didnt hear much about it out of E3. Did it get bad buzz?

Nintendo stocks fell pretty much says it all

The reason that this is absolutely idiotic, is because the Hackers are still going to find a way to steal their media. They will never be stopped. All this is going to do is **** up some of the best parts of gaming, and force some nerds to miss a few nights sleep.

I just had my DVD Rom in my xbox 360 go out yesterday. Refuses to read any disc. This is my second 360 that needs an out of warranty repair. This along with a PS3 that died on me(Thank god for American Express), I am not even going to think about buying the next gen consoles unless they have a 2 year warranty.

Give it all the bells and whistles you want, I have no faith that a console from Sony and especially Microsoft will last the full life cycle like my XBOX, PS2, PS, N64, SNES and NES did.

They just dont build them like they used to.;)

That is because it creates a new revenue stream for them.

I had my XBOX 360 repaired once every 3-6 months for three years before I finally got rid of it and have since had two PS3's.

My Nintendo and Super Nintendo STILL work. My PS2 kinda works but it occasionally has hiccups reading discs.

yeah by the end of it my PS2 was struggling reading discs but it was a launch console. I finally bought the hard drive ripper for it just so I could play games without Disc read errors. I turned my original xbox into a media center that worked amazing for years. I finally upgraded to a modded Apple TV and HTPC when I wanted to watch high def content.

All of my PS, Dreamcast, Sega Genesis, and SNES are in boxes in my closet, but still work. I need to build a MAME so i can play all those old games again.

FWIW, my fiance's Wii still works, but it is hardly used. Even then, I wouldnt buy the Wii U because that looks DERPtacular.

Sony’s radical PlayStation 4 controller concept: A motion-control device you can split in half

http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/LV...gw619h426crop1


While Nintendo (NTDOY) has been busy innovating with unique controllers on the Wii and Wii U, Sony’s (SNE) DualShock controller for its PlayStation, PlayStation 2 and PlayStation 3 has remained virtually the same since 1997. A newly discovered patent reveals Sony might be planning on a radical overhaul of the DualShock for the PlayStation 4 that’s rumored to arrive next year. U.S. patent 20120302347A1 details a “hybrid separable motion controller” that resembles a DualShock controller with two PlayStation Move sensor balls attached to it. Much like how the Wii Remote and Nunchuk controller combo separated the left and right hand input, the Sony controller patent goes one step further by allowing the two halves to be split and combined at any time – all without reducing the amount of buttons available.


The patent also highlights the inclusion of a “connection sensor for determining whether the controller is in a connected configuration or a disconnected configuration.”

One of the PlayStation Move’s biggest disadvantages is that it’s a separate controller and not the default one. As a result, most developers either saw it as merely a Wii Remote clone or as a niche controller with a limited install base not worth programming special controls for. If Sony were to include proper 1:1 motion controls within the default PS4 controller without turning its back on the “core” controller, it could greatly appeal to casual and core gamers.

Such a controller can be considered a natural evolution of the current DualShock 3 controller that sports limited motion controls using its three-axis accelerometer and gyroscope.

Of course, the controller is only a patent that may never make it to market, so don’t get your hopes up if it doesn’t happen.

http://news.yahoo.com/sony-radical-p...151003000.html

I shelled out for the Wii U for my son for Christmas. He has been so excited for it, I sure hope it doesn't disappoint. It looks pretty amazing.

That looks stupid.

I also think it looks like it would be difficult to play :shrug:

I'm going with Durango, or Xbox 8 or whatever the **** it's going to be called. It's going to have a controller with MS Surface, built in Kinect 2.0 and 0 weird ass Japanese games. :thumb:

Screw the next Gen, unless all releases are on PC in which case bring em' on to get rid of shitty PC ports with graphics being held back to suit the consoles. Btw I had a 360 for 10 years and hated the pos, just got a PS3 and it is worlds better...hard to explain why.

only thing ps3 imo is better at is Blu Ray and for media streaming. Loved the media streaming alot better then the xbox's. To bad it died, it was a launch system. 60 gb BC one.

Both have their places in the world.

I've had it a week and a half and it's more stable than the 360 ever was. I went through 5 360's, I hate everything Microshaft...It just takes the fun out of gaming. The Ps3 controller is A LOT more comfortable and responsive to me.

Unfortunately, that's a common complaint with the 360. I was one of the fortunuate ones. I had my launch system from Day 1 and only got rid of it because I traded it in for a 360s when they came out. I had to send it in once because the graphics chipset needed to be repaired, otherwise I NEVER had a problem with it.

On the controller, I've finally gotten used to the PS3 controller. That being said, I've also noticed over this weekend that if I play for more than 4 hours in a single sitting, the carpal tunnel on my left hand starts to hurt. :(

Funny/stupid story: I went out and got a launch 360 and loved it. About 6 months after owning it, my basement flooded, and the 360 happened to be resting on the carpet at the time. After cleanup and all that jazz, I tried to use the console and it didn't work. I was pissed (assumed water damage), so I didn't touch the thing for about a year. For some reason, I got a wild hare to try it again - of course, it didn't work. Then I thought to try a different power source from the one that was flood damaged. Bingo. It still works to this day.

You look stupid.

So you're saying that the 360 controller is more comfy for you? I can play with the ps3 controller for hours with no problem, but the 360 controller never feels right..too big, clunky and somewhat unresponsive.

Yeah, the 360 controller was ALOT more comfortable. And ironically, I have quite small hands...

Getting old sucks. :D

I completely agree. Frankly, the only things that keep me from getting a PS3 are the controller and the lack of party chat online.

Probably has something to do with the fact that i've been using a controller just like it for 3 gaming generations..uhhh whatever that means. ;)

This. 360 controllers are much better contoured to fit hands IMO.

The 360 controller is quite possibly the most ergonomic thing ever designed. It's like 50% responsible for me sticking to a 360. I always HATED HATED HATED having to play FIFA on those crap PS3 controllers at my friends' houses. I just hope M$ doesn't go crazy with the Surface part and keeps the shape somewhat close to the current gen.

Wait... so the controller will be a big ass tablet? Like the WiiU?

That's the word. I think there might be two separate controllers, though. One is going to be something like the current gen one and be used for games and the other is going to be an M$ Surface tablet for multimedia, etc. I don't know, man.

Yeah, I can't play any FPS with a playstation controller, hopefully they redesign the thing but I doubt it.

I hope this gen isnt too expensive, I have been hearing the gpu is a radeon 7 series and a 8 core cpu. You combine that with blu ray, kinect, and most likely a touch screen controller. My god that would cost 600 +

I used to feel that way about the xbox controller but I prefer that PS3 controller now.

Mine had to be replaced 2 times, it still works, except for the disc drive, well it works, it just doesnt eject, but i bought another one, because i wanted HDMI input. The only way to do that was to buy a slim, so i did.

Controller wise, imma give it to the 360 as well, i like that it feels like im holding something. Plus, its just more comfortable for me. I dont like how, also the triggers on the 360 controller are 10x better then the ps3 ones.

I never replaced my ps3, i got to the point where i was like why bother, the next gen will be out soon anyways, and i have a 360 and i play fighting games on it, and thats the system everyone uses for online play. ps3 online for fighting games are ghost towns late at night.

Anyways, its just eveyones personal taste. We will have to see what system seems better for the next gen before i decide what im going to buy.

The 360 is only 7 years old. I have played both. They each have their pluses and minuses. I went with 360 because most of my friends had/have 360s.