E3 2013

[MMXcalibur]

Time to geek out.
What are you looking forward too?

I'm looking forward to more on the PlayStation 4, a competent Vita lineup, and some NHL 14 news.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by loochy

BF2 was more team oreinted. Squads were more integral. VOIP was included in the game (at least on PC). BF3 requires 3rd party software to do voice comm (at least on PC). BF2 had commanders that would be in direct contact with squad leaders. The commanders could do things like see the entire battlefield, order UAV (temporary airborne radar that revealed enemy locations), send supply drops that would give supplies or repair vehicles, and send artillery strikes that worked great for softening up a flag that a squad was getting to try to take.

BF3 seemed more like a console style free for all.

Bro, I'm a BF veteran. I done played BF1942, BF:V, BF2142, BF: BC1&2. BF3 was a great game and was as tactical as you wanted. Good squads were integral for victories. True, there were no commanders like in 2142 and BF2, but that was the only difference. I didn't feel like like BF3 was FFA style ala CoD.

[Saulbadguy]

Originally Posted by Pants

Bro, I'm a BF veteran. I done played BF1942, BF:V, BF2142, BF: BC1&2. BF3 was a great game and was as tactical as you wanted. Good squads were integral for victories. True, there were no commanders like in 2142 and BF2, but that was the only difference. I didn't feel like like BF3 was FFA style ala CoD.

Did you ever play the Desert Combat mod for 1942? That was a blast.

[007]

Originally Posted by KCtotheSB

I know it's a relatively small sample size, but...

http://www.gamefaqs.com/poll/index.html?poll=5117

[007]

[New World Order]

Originally Posted by Guru

Remember only one person can be playing them at a time though.

No, you can both play it at the same time:


You can have 10 people in your 'family group'.

They can be ANY 10 people who agree to join up in a group, period.

You can only be in one Family group(no details on how/if you can leave and then join another).

When one person in this 'family group' purchases a game, they get a license, and a 'share copy'.

That one person who bought the game always has access to said game, as they are the ONLY holder of the original purchase license.

The other 9 people in the 'family group' can use the 'share copy', just not concurrently with each other.

But any one of the 9 playing the 'shared copy' CAN play concurrently with the original license holder.

If one of the 'Family group' is using the shared license, then all other 'family group' members who do not own an original game license must wait until that person is done playing before being able to access the shared copy.

If the original license holder trades the game in at a store, or gifts the game to someone outside of the 'family group', then access to the 'share copy' goes away with it.


Once people get past the "always online" deal it's bye bye sony.

[The Bad Guy]

Originally Posted by New World Order

Once people get past the "always online" deal it's bye bye sony.

LOL.

[007]

Originally Posted by New World Order

No, you can both play it at the same time:


You can have 10 people in your 'family group'.

They can be ANY 10 people who agree to join up in a group, period.

You can only be in one Family group(no details on how/if you can leave and then join another).

When one person in this 'family group' purchases a game, they get a license, and a 'share copy'.

That one person who bought the game always has access to said game, as they are the ONLY holder of the original purchase license.

The other 9 people in the 'family group' can use the 'share copy', just not concurrently with each other.

But any one of the 9 playing the 'shared copy' CAN play concurrently with the original license holder.

If one of the 'Family group' is using the shared license, then all other 'family group' members who do not own an original game license must wait until that person is done playing before being able to access the shared copy.

If the original license holder trades the game in at a store, or gifts the game to someone outside of the 'family group', then access to the 'share copy' goes away with it.


Once people get past the "always online" deal it's bye bye sony.

is there a link for that info? This is thefirst I have heard all of that.

As far as the always online thing, that isn't my issue. I just don't choose to put my money on it because it is unnecessary IMO. For now anyway, I feel PS4 is the better buy because I think Sony's exclusives have always been better than Microsofts exclusives. Not saying my opinion won't change in a couple years though.

[hometeam]

Yum Forza.

Exclusivity sucks ass, I want Forza PC :/

[Pants]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

Did you ever play the Desert Combat mod for 1942? That was a blast.

Yeap. Second best mod of all time.

[New World Order]

Originally Posted by Guru

is there a link for that info? This is thefirst I have heard all of that.

As far as the always online thing, that isn't my issue. I just don't choose to put my money on it because it is unnecessary IMO. For now anyway, I feel PS4 is the better buy because I think Sony's exclusives have always been better than Microsofts exclusives. Not saying my opinion won't change in a couple years though.

PS3 exclusives were much better than 360, the problem is I only play a select number of games. I will probably wait and see what MLB The Show looks like on ps4, if it blows me away I'll go ps4, if not then I'll go Xbox.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by New World Order

PS3 exclusives were much better than 360, the problem is I only play a select number of games. I will probably wait and see what MLB The Show looks like on ps4, if it blows me away I'll go ps4, if not then I'll go Xbox.

It probably will. The Show is awesome.

[RINGLEADER]

Just got back from my last meeting at this E3. I'm beat.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

Just got back from my last meeting at this E3. I'm beat.

What do you do, RINGLEADER, if you don't mind sharing?

[aturnis]

Looks freaking sweet.

[silver5liter]

This was posted on pastebin by supposedly a Microsoft Engineer. Sounding better and better to me. Can you imagine if games came out as being 39 bucks?

>The thing is we suck at telling the story. The whole point of the DRM switch from disc based to cloud based is to kill disc swapping, scratched discs, bringing discs to friends house, trade-ins for shit value with nothign going back to developers, and high game costs. If you want games cheaper then 59.99, you have to limit used games somehow. Steam's model requires a limited used game model.

>The thing is, the DRM is really really similar to steam... You can login anywhere and play your games, anyone in your house can play with the family xbox. The only diff is steam you have to sign in before playing, and Xbox does it automatically at night for you (once per 24 hours)

>It's a long tail strategy, just like steam. Steam had it's growing pains at the beginning with all it's drm shit as well. [...] For digital downloads steam had no real competition at the time, they were competing against boxed sales. At the time people were pretty irate about steam, (on shhhh too...) It was only once they had a digital marketplace with DRM that was locked down to prevent sharing that they could do super discounted shit.

>Think about it, on steam you get a game for the true cost of the game, 5$-30$. On a console you have to pay for that PLUS any additional licenses for when you sell / trade / borrow / etc. If the developer / publisher can't get it on additional licenses (like steam), then they charge the first person more. [...] If we say "Hey publishers, you limit game to 39.99, we ensure every license transfer you get 10$, gamestop gets 20$" that is a decent model... Microsoft gets a license fee on first and subsequent game purchases, compared to just first now? That's a revenue increase.

>Competition is the best man, it helps drive both to new heights. See technology from the Cold War. If we had no USSR, we'd be way worse off today. TLDR: Bring it on Steam

2/4

>Yeah we passed that around the office at Xbox. Most of us were like "Well played Sony, Well played". That being said they are just riding the hype train of ZOMG THEY ARE TRYING TO **** US FOR NO REASON. Without actually thinking about how convienent it would be for the majority of the time to not find that disc your brother didn't put back... [...] just simpleminded people not seeing the bigger picture. Some PS4 viral team made them all "U TOOK R DISCS" and they hiveminded.

>Everyone and their mother complains about how gamestop ****s them on their trade ins, getting 5$ for their used games. We come in trying to find a way to take money out of gamestop, and put some in developers and get you possibly cheaper games and everyone bitches at MS. Well, if you want the @#$@ing from Gamestop, go play PS4.

>The goal is to move to digital downloads, but Gamestop, Walmart, Target, Amazon are KIND OF ****ING ENTRENCHED in the industry. They have a lot of power, and the shift has to be gradual. Long term goal is steam for consoles. [...] If you always want to stay with what you have, then keep current consoles, or a PS4. We're TRYING to move the industry forwards towards digital distribution... it'sa bumpy road

>Publishers have enourmous power. Microsoft is trying to balance between consumer delight, and publisher wishes. If we cave to far in either direction you have a non-starting product. WiiU goes too far to consumer, you have no 3rd party support to shake a stick at. PS4 is status-quo. XB1 is trying to push some things, at the expense of others. We have a vision, we'll see if it works in the coming years

>Living room transformation. We want to own the living room. Every living room TV with an XBox on input one. It's the thing that gives the signal to your TV, everything is secondary. The future, where games, TV, internet telephony, all that shit happens magically on some huge ass screen with hand / voice gestures... That's our goal.


3/4

>Google TV + PS4 + Minority report level gestures, that combined with a sick second screen experience (which is really hot for TV, I know I know.. tv tv tv tv tv... but it's ****ing sick when you have it). Games will be the same, there are more exclusives to MS then PS atm, and Kinect 2 makes Kinect 1 look like a childs toy.

>By default it's on, listening for "Xbox On". You can turn it off tho, and turn the console like OFF off. OFF off is required for Germany / other countries that require it (no vampire appliances) [...] It has to be plugged in for the console to post. You can turn off everything it does from the settings. Think of it like airplane mode for the iPhone. You can't just unplug the cellular radio, but you can turn it off.

>Instead of 10mins, is 24hrs for your console, and 1 or 2 at a friends house. Really the majority of people have a speck of internet at least once a day. And if you don't. Don't buy an Xbox 1. Just like if you didn't have a broadband connection don't get Live, and if you don't have an HDTV the 360 isn't that great for you either. New tech, new req. This allows us to do cool shit when we can assume things like you have a kinect, you have internet, etc.

>Current plan is basically you're ****ed after 24 hours. Yeah... I know. Kind of sucks. I believe they will probably revist the time period and / or find a diff way to "call in" to ensure you haven't sold your license to gamestop or something... but there is no plan YET. I'm hoping the change it, but I don't work on that so I don't have much influence there /sigh

>If the power goes out you ain't playing shit. I'm assuming you mean the internet goes out but you have power for TV and Xbox. Yes, You're ****ed for single player games. Again, that's the PoR (Plan of record), but I expect it to change after the e3 cluster****

>What fee? There is no fee to play your games at your friends house. Never has, never will. Even x360 digital downloads could do that.


4/4

>The cloud capabilities is the shit they like the most. We basically made a huge cloud compute shit and made it free. What people are doing with it is kind of cool. THe original intention was to get all the Multiplayer servers not requiring 3rd party costs (Like EA shutting down game servers to cut costs), as well as taking all the games that servers hosted by the clients (Halo, etc), and have all that compute done in the cloud allowing more CPU cycles for gameplay. That will really expand what developers can do. Anything that doesn't need per frame calculation and can handle 100ms delays can be shifted to the cloud. That's huge.

>SmartGlass + IE is going to be pretty freaking sweet. 1 finger cursor, 2 finger direct manip. Basically if you think of a laptop trackpad where your phone/ slate is the trackpad and the monitor is your TV... it's that. The tech is there, just needs to be applied. There is some really cool shit going on with Petra + controllers that pairs people with controllers. So if person with controller two trades controlers with controller 1, their profiles magically switch. It's sick. What does this matter? Now if you lean left/right it knows which person is leaning, even if 4 people are all int he same room. It's awesome.

>New service using Azure for cloud compute. Allows developers to not use clients for hosting multiplayer servers, or other tasks that do not require per frame calcuations. It's pretty sweet.

>Honestly, if you care about anything other then pure games AT ALL. Xbox 1 > PS4. If all you do is play games, and nothing else, PS4.

This was all from the Microsoft engineer that was on /b/ last night.

>It's not worth my time to prove it, or risk my Job. I work in Studio A, 40th ave in Redmond, Wa. The thai place in the studio cafeteria has double punch wednesdays. Go ahead and call them and verify if you want.