PDA

View Full Version : What do you still think about ROTTB being an exclusive?



SavannahCroft
27th Oct 2014, 15:17
as long we're getting ROTTB, i'm happy as ever. :D

(edit: meant to put 'timed' next to exclusive. oops.)

Telekill
27th Oct 2014, 15:39
Timed exclusive doesn't necessarily mean it's coming to PS4. This is why I'm pissed still. Almost all Microsoft exclusives end up on PC but I don't put it passed them to pay Square extra to forget the PlayStation fans. I also don't put it passed Square to be perfectly willing to accept the money and give us the middle finger.

Fan hopes and speculation aren't enough for me. I want confirmation from the horse's mouth that this is coming to PS4 as well.

pidipidi39
28th Oct 2014, 21:30
Personally, I'm still pretty upset.

Error96_
28th Oct 2014, 23:02
The same. I still think CD/SE screwed us over. I don't mind so much about waiting a bit longer for the game but more about them treating us PS/PC gamers like second class.

Though CD have confirmed what MS said about the deal being timed they havn't actually confirmed other versions.

Murphdawg1
29th Oct 2014, 00:58
Still not happy about the situation but there are other games to look forward to which takes my mind off the whole thing.

Jurre
29th Oct 2014, 01:08
I think it is a matter of waiting and seeing what happens. It might very well be that crystal d just needs this financial input from microsoft and if because of this they can deliver the most ambitious tomb raider ever as they claim then the ps and pc crowds will profit from that as well when it eventually comes to those platforms. Even when its like six months waiting - it will seem like a trifle when some time has past after its release....

But when it comes out on ps and pc they better have eliminated all the bugs and such that were encountered in the xbo version and also give out all dlc and extra outfits for free. If it is an inferior version of the xbox version as was the case with underworld, that's unacceptable. And if dlc is gonna be xbox exclusive forever, or if they bring up other ways to screw over the non-xbox crowd, that would be beyond unacceptable and i think in that case i will join the ones who insist on buying their copy second hand....

Metalrocks
29th Oct 2014, 07:49
I think it is a matter of waiting and seeing what happens. It might very well be that crystal d just needs this financial input from microsoft and if because of this they can deliver the most ambitious tomb raider ever as they claim then the ps and pc crowds will profit from that as well when it eventually comes to those platforms. Even when its like six months waiting - it will seem like a trifle when some time has past after its release....

But when it comes out on ps and pc they better have eliminated all the bugs and such that were encountered in the xbo version and also give out all dlc and extra outfits for free. If it is an inferior version of the xbox version as was the case with underworld, that's unacceptable. And if dlc is gonna be xbox exclusive forever, or if they bring up other ways to screw over the non-xbox crowd, that would be beyond unacceptable and i think in that case i will join the ones who insist on buying their copy second hand....

lets hope so that they will give us everything, fix the problems, especially for the pc and call it a complete edition or what ever they want to call it. just as long we can play it and have fun with it.

unfortunately for pc there wont be any second hand copies. so if they do this crap, i think i skip out on this game entirely, if not the franchise.

at the moment i still feel upset about it that i tend to not care anymore for it once its out for the crapbox.

Tecstar70
29th Oct 2014, 08:17
As the PS4/PC versions will be released so soon after the Xbox version I think that the likelihood of including DLC or any freebies is slim. Using TR2013 as an example a year after both are released you will probably see a GOTY edition. At best it will include bug fixes.

There's always Star Wars Battlefront next Christmas instead!

NSW_pride
29th Oct 2014, 13:24
I'm still as outraged as I was when they made the bloody announcement. And I will probably stay this way until they bloody well confirm a PS4 & PC release.

Jurre
29th Oct 2014, 14:05
As the PS4/PC versions will be released so soon after the Xbox version I think that the likelihood of including DLC or any freebies is slim. Using TR2013 as an example a year after both are released you will probably see a GOTY edition. At best it will include bug fix.
So soon? The ps&pc versions haven't been annaunced yet; there's no telling how soon or not so soon they will be released. And the tr9 definitive edition did came with all dlc; it's pretty common practise to do that for later versions. Unless of course microsoft insisted on square enix crapping all over the non-xbox crowd as much as they can....

Tecstar70
29th Oct 2014, 15:19
So soon? The ps&pc versions haven't been annaunced yet; there's no telling how soon or not so soon they will be released. And the tr9 definitive edition did came with all dlc; it's pretty common practise to do that for later versions. Unless of course microsoft insisted on square enix crapping all over the non-xbox crowd as much as they can....

Nope, but based on my (MANY!) posts here that is my belief. The TR: DE is not comparable to what was mentioned here. The DE was fairly unique as an introduction to the new-gen consoles and prior to that you had the GOTY Edition on the last-gen consoles which was released some time after the original launch. SE will want to make money from any DLC on ALL platforms.

WinterSoldierLTE
29th Oct 2014, 21:53
I stand now where I stood a couple months ago. I'm not burning my TR games & merch, but I'm not happy either. Like I've said before: I'll never forget what CD/Microsoft/Eidos have possibly taken away from me, but I'll also never forget the things CD & Core have already given to me. If I never get to play another TR it'll be very disappointing, but I have 9, er, 8 excellent TR games I can play any time I want to, and I have great memories of all of them. Tho some of those memories are tinged with a bit more frustration than others ('Last Revelation' & 'Chronicles'). And I'm hoping 'Temple of Osiris' is a big enough hit that the 'Lara Croft' stand alones continue on. Multi-platform, of course.

FalloftheTR
29th Oct 2014, 21:55
I'm over it. I do own both a PS4 and Xbone, and plan to support the game on both systems.......what the hell.....


maybe PC but only if they do a 2480p 80fps version....

Lara_Fan_84
29th Oct 2014, 22:37
I am still mad but have hope they will go to PS4 and PC. I don't own a PS4 but the only reason why I would get one is for the series of games I play which move over to next generation, currently that's Metal Gear Solid and Tomb Raider. I also play Grand Theft Auto games but it seems like new games come out less and less. I think they are running out of ideas.

Anyway, I know it being a timed exclusive doesn't mean PS4 and PC will ever get it. Pretty much only time will tell. I'd be less angry if we knew very soon that PS4 and PC are getting it. It is unfair to make a sequel to a new series like this exclusive. Everyone wants to know what happens next and some of us might never get the chance to find out.

medievil
30th Oct 2014, 02:29
same as before, I have my PS4 if it doesn't release on it I am no longer interested int he series...why should I continue to support a series that has zero interest in supporting it's root fanbase all for the want of money?

Metalrocks
30th Oct 2014, 06:41
I am still mad but have hope they will go to PS4 and PC. I don't own a PS4 but the only reason why I would get one is for the series of games I play which move over to next generation, currently that's Metal Gear Solid and Tomb Raider. I also play Grand Theft Auto games but it seems like new games come out less and less. I think they are running out of ideas.

Anyway, I know it being a timed exclusive doesn't mean PS4 and PC will ever get it. Pretty much only time will tell. I'd be less angry if we knew very soon that PS4 and PC are getting it. It is unfair to make a sequel to a new series like this exclusive. Everyone wants to know what happens next and some of us might never get the chance to find out.

very possible this could happen. M$ did it with halo so i can see them doing it again.

Valenka
30th Oct 2014, 17:42
Is it bad that I saw 'ROTTB' and thought 'Rise of the Tomb Boobie?" :lol: God, I'm silly today. :nut:

The sad truth is, timed exclusive means nothing other than "it will be exclusive to Xbox One and Xbox 360 for a duration of time." There's no contextual guarantee that it'll come to other platforms and that's what annoys me. I've seen Xbox games with the 'timed exclusive' hullabaloo never make it to other platforms. After the duration, it goes from being exclusive to Xbox 360 to exclusive to Xbox 360 and PC. :rolleyes:

I still think its ludicrous that ROTTR won't make it to PS3 and PS4, but I'm just taking everything at face value and with a grain of salt.

SindyCroft
30th Oct 2014, 23:39
What's gonna happen? Its not gonna sell a lot on the xbox one so they'll release it for the ps4 and pc

motoleo
31st Oct 2014, 15:01
It's just like luxury retailers. Tomb Raider is to the gaming industry what Saks Fifth Avenue is to the fashion industry. They don't do sales. They don't have to. TR is just that good.

Crystal Dynamics knows they don't have to have a multi-platform title. And they want to grab that new audience who may also be buying Xbox One's.

Flintmelody
31st Oct 2014, 17:36
I'm still mad about it and feel the need to keep pushing CD to change their mind for the longer term good of our series.



Crystal Dynamics knows they don't have to have a multi-platform title. And they want to grab that new audience who may also be buying Xbox One's.

If CD ever did move TR to be a permanent Xbox exclusive series then a big proportion of TR fans would never forgive or like them ever again. CD really DO need to have a multiplatform series with TR if they want any kind of respect from the gaming community.

Metalrocks
1st Nov 2014, 05:02
It's just like luxury retailers. Tomb Raider is to the gaming industry what Saks Fifth Avenue is to the fashion industry. They don't do sales. They don't have to. TR is just that good.

Crystal Dynamics knows they don't have to have a multi-platform title. And they want to grab that new audience who may also be buying Xbox One's.

still see this more as a huge fail for a game that was multiplatform since day one. and from the looks of it, not many will be getting a crapbox just for TR. i sure will not.

and CD knows that by now too. so yeah, what flint said.

Mick2412
1st Nov 2014, 11:24
Still think it sucks. Any game developer should know better than to pull stunt like this. I won't be getting an xbox one and hope they don't do this type of thing again.

motoleo
1st Nov 2014, 19:41
You don't have to get an Xbox One. But if you want to play Tomb Raider, and the other next generation games coming out in 2015, you'll have to upgrade at some point.

Valenka
1st Nov 2014, 22:59
You don't have to get an Xbox One. But if you want to play Tomb Raider, and the other next generation games coming out in 2015, you'll have to upgrade at some point.

Have you considered that perhaps the person to whom you're speaking chose the PS4 as their upgrade or is a PC gamer? ;)

DamianGraham
1st Nov 2014, 23:19
Not gonna lie, I'm happy to see that fans are still angry- The moment that this gets swept under the rug and forgotten in the fans' minds, is the moment that corporate greed and selling out wins. I've been a very vocal naysayer on this deal since day 1, and will continue to be until we see not only a PC release, but Playstation as well. I'm not okay with exclusivity in 3rd party, timed or otherwise. Even Sony handled the Destiny exclusivity different, by making the DLC exclusive. Xbox owners still experienced the game at launch, and know that the deal ends in a year on DLC. Where is the courtesy for Tomb Raider fans from Micro$oft?

I will be angry, right up until the day that Crystal, Square, or Micro$oft announce that the game WILL be on Playstation 4. Until then, I'm never purchasing Square Enix or Microsoft products again. (which kills me, because I wanted Kingdom Hearts 3, guess I'll buy used). I'm not giving money that I earned through hard work, to a company that could care less about it. As the consumer, WE make the industry. Don't let the anger die until ALL fans are treated equally as we once were with this franchise. Tomb Raider doesn't belong on just Xbox or PC. Playstation sold 13.5 million consoles, we have a market.

liujeffqi
1st Nov 2014, 23:56
i actually still don't get what is the Timed exclusive mean? how long is the time? 1 month, 1 year? forever?

for that i still pissed, I mean how long i have to wait? whatever i preorder the TR9 but this time i will just wait until rise of tomb raider PC version (if there is one) like 5 dollar to pull the trigger, it is like they make me wait for PC, I will let them wait for my money.

Metalrocks
2nd Nov 2014, 02:04
You don't have to get an Xbox One. But if you want to play Tomb Raider, and the other next generation games coming out in 2015, you'll have to upgrade at some point.

ok, so the ps4 is clearly better performance wise than the crapbox. so i would say that the crapbox is a downgrade towards the ps4 and pc. :whistle:



i actually still don't get what is the Timed exclusive mean? how long is the time? 1 month, 1 year? forever?

for that i still pissed, I mean how long i have to wait? whatever i preorder the TR9 but this time i will just wait until rise of tomb raider PC version (if there is one) like 5 dollar to pull the trigger, it is like they make me wait for PC, I will let them wait for my money.

no one knows besides CD/SE and M$.
but im sure it will take some time. M$ to make sure that they sell more crapboxes. they want to break everyone. knowing just too well how popular TR is.

Tecstar70
2nd Nov 2014, 08:55
ok, so the ps4 is clearly better performance wise than the crapbox. so i would say that the crapbox is a downgrade towards the ps4 and pc. :whistle:




no one knows besides CD/SE and M$.
but im sure it will take some time. M$ to make sure that they sell more crapboxes. they want to break everyone. knowing just too well how popular TR is.

Ok, we get your opinion of the Xbox One. You don't like it. Fair enough. You are never going to have anything good to say about it as a product. But you know what, lots of people do like it. More people have bought PS4's, that is true, but everyone has their reasons for buying a platform. A lot of people in my gaming community are increasingly disappointed with the PS4 experience and are selling them for Xbox Ones so graphics aren't everything and its a personal experience that is as important.

MS want to make a short-term gain winning over casual buyers next Christmas. This deal isn't aimed at gamers who post on these kind of forums so of course no-one here is going to rush out and buy an Xbox One. It won't do either MS or SE any favours if they make the exclusivity period too long. As someone on the forum who works in the retail game industry has said, 90 days is the MAXIMUM period anyone would see any benefit to this kind of deal at retail so all those casual buyers in the Christmas market ARE the target. Why would SE want to push it for longer if after 90 days there is little or no return?

People can be and can stay annoyed, but using reason to deduce a likely outcome seems to be ignored and countered with MS hate which just keeps people annoyed.

Lord Martok
2nd Nov 2014, 10:09
I would likely have an Xbox One if M$ hadn't pulled their shenanigans.
I'm sure it's a good console, but it is my trepidation of the future that prevents me from getting one.

However, if you would like to hear about the hypocrisy of some Xbox One gamers....over at the Bungie forums, Xbox One gamers are complaining about Destiny's prime content going to PS4, while they have to wait.

Really?

Microsoft engages in "content found on Xbox 360/One first" all the freaking time....so why are they complaining about Destiny's good stuff going to PS4/PS3 first?

They're even decrying Bungie for doing so, since the Xbots are saying: 99 percent of your (Bungie) fanbase is on Xbox! Why are you turning your backs on Xbox players and giving Sony all the love?

And you wouldn't believe how many people are saying the same thing I always have: Bungie got out from under M$'s thumb.

Tecstar70
2nd Nov 2014, 11:34
I would likely have an Xbox One if M$ hadn't pulled their shenanigans.
I'm sure it's a good console, but it is my trepidation of the future that prevents me from getting one.

However, if you would like to hear about the hypocrisy of some Xbox One gamers....over at the Bungie forums, Xbox One gamers are complaining about Destiny's prime content going to PS4, while they have to wait.

Really?

Microsoft engages in "content found on Xbox 360/One first" all the freaking time....so why are they complaining about Destiny's good stuff going to PS4/PS3 first?

They're even decrying Bungie for doing so, since the Xbots are saying: 99 percent of your (Bungie) fanbase is on Xbox! Why are you turning your backs on Xbox players and giving Sony all the love?

And you wouldn't believe how many people are saying the same thing I always have: Bungie got out from under M$'s thumb.

Exactly! Its the same thing. Sony did a deal. MS didn't. Fans of any game on any platform would be unhappy about such a deal. This situation isn't just exclusive to RotTR. Xboxers are unhappy but they'll get the content eventually. In this case its a lot longer than people will be waiting for RotTR on PS4 and PC. I would be more annoyed about Destiny's poor storyline though and paying 20 quid for measly DLC.

a_big_house
2nd Nov 2014, 13:41
Exactly! Its the same thing...

Is it though? I mean, a game does not equate to DLC. Well, it might to MS, but not to actual people
:D

Metalrocks
2nd Nov 2014, 13:44
Ok, we get your opinion of the Xbox One. You don't like it. Fair enough. You are never going to have anything good to say about it as a product. But you know what, lots of people do like it. More people have bought PS4's, that is true, but everyone has their reasons for buying a platform. A lot of people in my gaming community are increasingly disappointed with the PS4 experience and are selling them for Xbox Ones so graphics aren't everything and its a personal experience that is as important.

MS want to make a short-term gain winning over casual buyers next Christmas. This deal isn't aimed at gamers who post on these kind of forums so of course no-one here is going to rush out and buy an Xbox One. It won't do either MS or SE any favours if they make the exclusivity period too long. As someone on the forum who works in the retail game industry has said, 90 days is the MAXIMUM period anyone would see any benefit to this kind of deal at retail so all those casual buyers in the Christmas market ARE the target. Why would SE want to push it for longer if after 90 days there is little or no return?

People can be and can stay annoyed, but using reason to deduce a likely outcome seems to be ignored and countered with MS hate which just keeps people annoyed.

but i think you have to agree that what M$s original plan was with the box is wrong. trying everything possible to convince people its not as bad as it sounds. in the end they were forced to change their plans since sony clearly was the winner.
and now this stunt with being exclusive is just another desperate attempt to sell their product. not that i blame them for it but still aggravating regardless.

of course now with xmas coming up, they would sell more boxes. there are enough people out there who have idea about the original idea of M$ or simply dont care.

Lara_Fan_84
2nd Nov 2014, 20:11
I feel like they should have gone a different route, not MS personally but in general. Like all the systems get the game but each system gets their own DLC or something and maybe one can be better than the other, such as awesome outfits or weapons to make people want to get it. This may just be me speaking, because I don't have an XBox but I don't have a PS4 yet either.

Jurre
2nd Nov 2014, 21:38
I feel like they should have gone a different route, not MS personally but in general. Like all the systems get the game but each system gets their own DLC or something and maybe one can be better than the other, such as awesome outfits or weapons to make people want to get it.

Eh... That would be a pretty bad idea.

If Crystal D really needs this money I'd say they should have tried to make a deal with another company that is not game related, but who's product will then appear in the game. Product placement in other words. Like Legend was sponsored by Ducati and thus the motorcycle and the biker clothing were from Ducati.

The reason why I wouldn't mind - and in fact even would like, believe it or not - product placement, if done right and kept within reasonable bounds, is that it makes the game feel more connected to the actual world, when stuff from the real world appears in the game... Like the reference to Gordon Ramsey did as well.

So if Lara would go to a bar and drink a bottle of Coca Cola there, at least three people would be happy: mister Coca Cola for having his product in the game and now everybody will start drinking Coca Cola as well after having seen Lara doing it - Crystal Dynamics, for having received a boatload of money from mister Coca Cola to make the game awesome - and me, for having a reference to a real world thing in the game, as well as having a more awesome game that Crystal Dynamics could make because of the boatload of money from mister Coca Cola.

So who wouldn't be happy about that? Other than mister Pepsi...

Metalrocks
3rd Nov 2014, 01:15
Eh... That would be a pretty bad idea.

If Crystal D really needs this money I'd say they should have tried to make a deal with another company that is not game related, but who's product will then appear in the game. Product placement in other words. Like Legend was sponsored by Ducati and thus the motorcycle and the biker clothing were from Ducati.

The reason why I wouldn't mind - and in fact even would like, believe it or not - product placement, if done right and kept within reasonable bounds, is that it makes the game feel more connected to the actual world, when stuff from the real world appears in the game... Like the reference to Gordon Ramsey did as well.

So if Lara would go to a bar and drink a bottle of Coca Cola there, at least three people would be happy: mister Coca Cola for having his product in the game and now everybody will start drinking Coca Cola as well after having seen Lara doing it - Crystal Dynamics, for having received a boatload of money from mister Coca Cola to make the game awesome - and me, for having a reference to a real world thing in the game, as well as having a more awesome game that Crystal Dynamics could make because of the boatload of money from mister Coca Cola.

So who wouldn't be happy about that? Other than mister Pepsi...

like the idea and sounds better as well. even when i dont ride a bike and most likely never will, i had to smile when i saw ducati written on the bike.

also in splinter cell 3 we had airwaves gum. even sam took one which was amusing as well. seeing any particular famous brand in a game is amusing at times. ho knows, maybe we could see a jeep product in a future TR game.

Lord Martok
3rd Nov 2014, 02:01
Exactly! Its the same thing. Sony did a deal. MS didn't. Fans of any game on any platform would be unhappy about such a deal. This situation isn't just exclusive to RotTR. Xboxers are unhappy but they'll get the content eventually. In this case its a lot longer than people will be waiting for RotTR on PS4 and PC. I would be more annoyed about Destiny's poor storyline though and paying 20 quid for measly DLC.

Well, not necessarily. Remember, Bungie was a "first party developer" for M$. Bungie might have dev'd the game, but M$ maintained almost total control.

Now, Bungie is a third party dev who can seek out their own choice of publisher and make their own deals. I think their giving exclusive content to Sony was sort of their middle finger to M$.

Tecstar70
3rd Nov 2014, 08:07
but i think you have to agree that what M$s original plan was with the box is wrong. trying everything possible to convince people its not as bad as it sounds. in the end they were forced to change their plans since sony clearly was the winner.
and now this stunt with being exclusive is just another desperate attempt to sell their product. not that i blame them for it but still aggravating regardless.

of course now with xmas coming up, they would sell more boxes. there are enough people out there who have idea about the original idea of M$ or simply dont care.

MS screwed up at E3 2013 no doubt about that. Whatever market research they did was flawed (if indeed they did any!). They clearly did not have a good enough grip on what the consumer wanted and they paid the price.
Looking at it objectively I think MS took a route that was too early for the marketplace. If you go diskless play, you have to have DRM otherwise everyone would share one disc and you wipe out the gaming market. That was the reason, as far as I can tell, for the always on approach. Now there may well have been other things tagged on to the always on DRM check, such as Family Sharing etc but the biggest stinker for me was the inability to sell your old games in the same way as we do now.

I don't buy in to all that spying nonsense going over the level of what Google are already doing. I would be happy to go diskless play and have DRM checks for it, but not to the extreme of what MS were trying to do. Its funny because if Sony did it we would probably having the reverse conversation with Sony as the bad guy and MS as the white knight. If (for whatever mad reason) the marketplace embraced MS's approach Sony may well have been implementing it themselves.

On your last two points, yes and yes!

Tecstar70
3rd Nov 2014, 08:10
Well, not necessarily. Remember, Bungie was a "first party developer" for M$. Bungie might have dev'd the game, but M$ maintained almost total control.

Now, Bungie is a third party dev who can seek out their own choice of publisher and make their own deals. I think their giving exclusive content to Sony was sort of their middle finger to M$.

So by doing something because they wanted to they have angered a large number of fans and Xbox owners, and they did it despite that.

Sounds familiar to me! :)

Lord Martok
3rd Nov 2014, 15:37
So by doing something because they wanted to they have angered a large number of fans and Xbox owners, and they did it despite that.

Sounds familiar to me! :)
Well.... Perhaps I should've ended with "in my humble opinion". Only Bungie knows why Bungie did what Bungie did. :). But it seems logical enough. :)

In truth, Bungie tried to do something so radical with Destiny that gamers on all consoles are rather irked that they felt like they didn't get the game they were promised.

-"If you can see it, you can get to it.". Meaning if you saw something in the landscape, you could get to it and interact with it. Scale tall buildings, etc. That has not proven to be the case.

-"Become Legend!" Well, the story mode seemed (for some) to be very bare bones. The special missions, raids, and strikes are nothing more than elements of story missions you've already played through, but harder, with more mutators (Mission parameters that make the mission harder), with raids requiring a minimum of 3 players in a fireteam. However, I am thinking that the "Become Legend" aspect lies largely with its raids and competitive online multiplayer.....and that's stretching ita bit.

-Vast and rewarding loot system. More like random and often frustrating reward and loot system. Thanks to some gamers exploiting the original loot system, which had them basically waiting outside of caves for a loot chest to appear, and grab potentially high value gear, and ending up with more HVG than Bungie had planned, Bungie made a patch to reduce those probabilities considerably. Also, before a recent patch, the reward system was frustratingly random. You could get a Legendary engram (high value), and only get a Rare, or lesser valued weapon or piece of armor....or a piece of currency that you couldn't use until later. Now, with the patch, an engram WILL yield an equivalent (or rarely better) item, or good currency. However, the probabilities are far less now. Honestly, I have not done too badly at all in the many hours I've put into the game, and I never used any glitches or exploits. I have all Legendary and Exotic weapons and armor. I have 5 Exotic (best quality) weapons of across all levels (Primary, Special, and Heavy), and three Exotic helmets. Everything else, weapons and armor, is Legendary (second best quality).

Gamers also keep complaining about an unbalanced weapons system....how it seems almost too much like "rock, paper, scissors", and not enough like "how good are you with a given weapon". Now, good weapons are getting "nerfed" (reduced in effectiveness). However, two weapons I despise in multiplayer are sniper rifles (which, in real-life, are not run'n'gun weapons, even though I know this is just a video game). And yet cowardly players use them for their stand-off, often "one hit kill" capabilities, or will run around with them, getting close enough to players that they just squeeze the trigger when in an enemy player's face, without aiming down scope, and getting the one hit kill. And shotguns, which are ridiculously powerful and twitchy. Players will run around with them, just twitch firing them at point blank range, and getting one hit kills cheaply. At least the weapons I userequire a modicum of skill, and I can take actual pride in the kills I score. :). However, even though I feel strongly about snipers and shotties, I do not complain to the Bungie forums about them because I can usually hold my own in multiplayer. The key is to keep practicing with your weapons of choice, and getting good with them so that the cheap players are not so much an irk to get your undies in a bundie about. :)


Lots of players on all consoles have walked away from Destiny, dejected with its product. But most still stick with it, enjoying the multiplayer, and new players are constantly joining. However, I have a feeling when Call of Duty Advanced Warfare releases tomorrow, there'll be a fundamental shift of multiplayer power.


Now, going back to the "sounds familiar" schtick.... I separate publishers into tiers. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are both "console manufacturers" and " publisher/developers". They are what I call "first tier". They are the ones using the golden rule to its fullest. ("He who has the gold makes the rules."). They are the ones who make the deals for exclusivity, and also negotiate deals for first party developers (Bungie--which is now its own developer, and 343 Studios for Microsoft, Naughty Dog and Guerilla Games for Sony, and whatever first party devs Nintendo has in its pockets,.) Why? They have consoles to sell.

Then there are the "second tier" publishers like Atari and Sega. These companies used to be console manufacturers, and have now simply gone to publishing (and occasionally developing) games. From what I've seen, they are not targets of opportunity for "console exclusives" because of their middle ground, almost independent status. (personal observation only....not sure how factual that surmise is.) :)

Then there are the "third tier" publishers.... Square Enix, Eidos, Activision, and EA Games come to mind....who were developers that grew into publishing. These are usually the ones that the "first tier" publishers will target because of the epic quality of the games they publish to try and get the third party exclusives. Right now, Square Enix/Crystal Dynamics' Rise of the Tomb Raider is the hot topic of contention among gamers regarding exclusivity for a title that is well known to be "cross-console".

Tecstar70
3rd Nov 2014, 16:44
Thanks Martok. I get the distinction between the tiers. It's still a situation that's causing ire among fans of each franchise though, even if this distinction applies.

Thanks also for your breakdown of Destiny. I am a late starter with a lot of games - I've only just bought Titanfall! (and loving it).

I was very hyped for Destiny before it's release but as time goes on I am wondering if I should bother. People still say its a good game though, just not as great as expected.

Driber
3rd Nov 2014, 17:33
Its funny because if Sony did it we would probably having the reverse conversation.

Completely baseless assumption. And most likely wrong.

Tecstar70
3rd Nov 2014, 18:05
Completely baseless assumption. And most likely wrong.

What I meant was that we would be mad at Sony for trying to introduce DRM and not MS. Is that what you thought I meant? I have just re-read my post and maybe I wan't clear in that bit.

Driber
3rd Nov 2014, 18:24
It indeed wasn't clear. From the way you phrased it, it seemed like you were claiming that Sony would have been praised for what MS has been hated for. I think the "reversed" part in particular threw me off. Thanks for clarifying, heh.

Tecstar70
3rd Nov 2014, 18:40
It indeed wasn't clear. From the way you phrased it, it seemed like you were claiming that Sony would have been praised for what MS has been hated for. I think the "reversed" part in particular threw me off. Thanks for clarifying, heh.

No, sorry! That's what I thought you thought I meant! My wording wasn't great, I admit. I'll look to change it.

Lord Martok
3rd Nov 2014, 22:47
If Sony had tried all that stuff that M$ tried, and M$ didn't, I'd probably be playing Xbox One instead.
But Sony still believes in gaming. M$ wants to be Big Brother.

Tecstar70
4th Nov 2014, 07:41
But Sony still believes in gaming. M$ wants to be Big Brother.

Depends what you mean by Big Brother. Whether you use the internet or not data is collected about you every day. Customer data is used to increase profits for most large organisations from the supermarket loyalty card to Google click throughs. I am pretty sure that Sony collect just as much data from their console users as MS do. They want to know whos buying what, when and how so they can maximise their store front.

Of course if you are talking about the Kinect in terms of Big Brother, well I haven't been able to take any of the conspiracy theories seriously enough to worry about that. What about the PS camera? Are there similar conspiracy theories about that too?

Lord Martok
4th Nov 2014, 10:00
Oh, I'm sure that there are as many CT's about Sony's eye camera. As there are for Xbox One's Kinect.

Thing is, Sony didn't try to say, the Camera must be used with the PS4. M$ did try that...and folk were not happy about it.

Tecstar70
4th Nov 2014, 10:45
Oh, I'm sure that there are as many CT's about Sony's eye camera. As there are for Xbox One's Kinect.

Thing is, Sony didn't try to say, the Camera must be used with the PS4. M$ did try that...and folk were not happy about it.

That is true. I love the Kinect personally. It's not perfect but its a lot better than the first Kinect. Commands work well. "Xbox on" turns on my Xbox and TV and "Xbox Turn Off" turns them both off. "Record That" captures clips. "Mute" for when the phone goes. The auto-sign in is great and using it for Skype video calls with the family is great too. I can see why MS wanted it part of the Xbox experience but if people aren't concerned about this stuff I can also see why they view it as an unnecessary expense. Whether they make it more useful than the first version going forward we will see.

medievil
4th Nov 2014, 10:55
MS screwed up at E3 2013 no doubt about that. Whatever market research they did was flawed (if indeed they did any!). They clearly did not have a good enough grip on what the consumer wanted and they paid the price.
Looking at it objectively I think MS took a route that was too early for the marketplace. If you go diskless play, you have to have DRM otherwise everyone would share one disc and you wipe out the gaming market. That was the reason, as far as I can tell, for the always on approach. Now there may well have been other things tagged on to the always on DRM check, such as Family Sharing etc but the biggest stinker for me was the inability to sell your old games in the same way as we do now.

I don't buy in to all that spying nonsense going over the level of what Google are already doing. I would be happy to go diskless play and have DRM checks for it, but not to the extreme of what MS were trying to do. Its funny because if Sony did it we would probably having the reverse conversation with Sony as the bad guy and MS as the white knight. If (for whatever mad reason) the marketplace embraced MS's approach Sony may well have been implementing it themselves.

On your last two points, yes and yes!

You DO realize that diskless means 20-50GB downloads right?? Most of the top big budget games on PSN and Live are huge..with the state of broadband int he US (and potentially worse if the FCC allows ISP's to go usage payment routes which would effectively kill the downloading of games or streaming music or movies for the average person)
Diskless is a bad idea any way you look at it

Tecstar70
4th Nov 2014, 11:41
You DO realize that diskless means 20-50GB downloads right?? Most of the top big budget games on PSN and Live are huge..with the state of broadband int he US (and potentially worse if the FCC allows ISP's to go usage payment routes which would effectively kill the downloading of games or streaming music or movies for the average person)
Diskless is a bad idea any way you look at it

Yes I am aware and you are right, for people without decent broadband this would be a nightmare. Even now despite broadband availability and the higher price of games over retail there are some people who do go diskless.

WinterSoldierLTE
4th Nov 2014, 12:32
I don't like the idea of diskless. It's good in theory, but servers go down, files can be corrupted, and systems can break. I'd rather have a physical copy I can play anytime and really get my money's worth.

Tecstar70
4th Nov 2014, 13:48
I don't like the idea of diskless. It's good in theory, but servers go down, files can be corrupted, and systems can break. I'd rather have a physical copy I can play anytime and really get my money's worth.

You are right there. I bought Outrun on the Xbox Live Store and now its been pulled so you can't buy it any more. If anything happens to my Xbox i'm not sure I can get it back again. The halfway house (which what MS was proposing) was to install from disk but use DRM so you didn't have to insert the disk every time, but the next logical step on from that is completely diskless!

Error96_
5th Nov 2014, 01:45
You are right there. I bought Outrun on the Xbox Live Store and now its been pulled so you can't buy it any more. If anything happens to my Xbox i'm not sure I can get it back again. The halfway house (which what MS was proposing) was to install from disk but use DRM so you didn't have to insert the disk every time, but the next logical step on from that is completely diskless!

It's not the same when it comes to like say Christmas when you get a download your own present gift. Is like being given a book voucher. My old laptop broke a while back and thinking if that happened to a console with diskless games you could lose hundreds of pounds. There would need to be some good FREE backup systems. It is the way things will go eventually but the longer until that the better.


That is true. I love the Kinect personally. It's not perfect but its a lot better than the first Kinect. Commands work well. "Xbox on" turns on my Xbox and TV and "Xbox Turn Off" turns them both off. "Record That" captures clips. "Mute" for when the phone goes. The auto-sign in is great and using it for Skype video calls with the family is great too. I can see why MS wanted it part of the Xbox experience but if people aren't concerned about this stuff I can also see why they view it as an unnecessary expense. Whether they make it more useful than the first version going forward we will see.

These being recorded on camera and social networking elements feel so intrusive with the talking to a console just the most awkward thing. Far worse than just unnecessary some of us gamers who are more introverted like myself may find inclusion of these features a big negative.

Lord Martok
5th Nov 2014, 04:16
Personally, I don't like strictly digital media either. ... however, the nice thing is, as long as you maintain accounts with most services that deal in digital media, you can re-download items you might have deleted/ lost at no extra cost.

I still prefer hard copies though. :)

Tecstar70
5th Nov 2014, 07:16
It's not the same when it comes to like say Christmas when you get a download your own present gift. Is like being given a book voucher. My old laptop broke a while back and thinking if that happened to a console with diskless games you could lose hundreds of pounds. There would need to be some good FREE backup systems. It is the way things will go eventually but the longer until that the better.



These being recorded on camera and social networking elements feel so intrusive with the talking to a console just the most awkward thing. Far worse than just unnecessary some of us gamers who are more introverted like myself may find inclusion of these features a big negative.

Yes, a backup system would be good but then they might as well give you a disk!

You aren't forced to use the social networking stuff or to be recorded on camera. Those are options open to you. I don't tweet, for example, or record myself for gaming clips. As for talking to the console, I do mix and match between voice commands and controller and once you learn the commands it doesn't feel strange, but if someone like yourself doesn't want to use these features you would need another reason to buy a Kinect.

Driber
5th Nov 2014, 08:09
Oh, I'm sure that there are as many CT's about Sony's eye camera. As there are for Xbox One's Kinect.

Thing is, Sony didn't try to say, the Camera must be used with the PS4. M$ did try that...and folk were not happy about it.

Yep. And that is where Tecstar's supermarket loyalty card analogy falls flat - it's as if the supermarket forced you to use a loyalty card or else you can't shop there, at all.

And I myself don't use any supermarket loyalty cards, for the very same reason that I don't like BB spying on my personal life through the items I purchase in a supermarket.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/

As for the other reasons given in defence of MS - sure, we can't avoid BB entirely, not unless we go completely off the grid and live on a farm somewhere in the middle of nowhere and grow our own food, etc. But just because there are some things that we can't avoid, doesn't mean we should bend over and take whatever BB throws at us.

Not everything is a conspiracy theory. It used to be a theory that the government was looking at your private webcam sessions. Well, now it's a fact.

Lord Martok
5th Nov 2014, 08:34
Yep. And that is where Tecstar's supermarket loyalty card analogy falls flat - it's as if the supermarket forced you to use a loyalty card or else you can't shop there, at all.

And I myself don't use any supermarket loyalty cards, for the very same reason that I don't like BB spying on my personal life through the items I purchase in a supermarket.
D'accord. (With all due respect to Tecstar. :) )



http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/

YIKES!



As for the other reasons given in defence of MS - sure, we can't avoid BB entirely, not unless we go completely off the grid and live on a farm somewhere in the middle of nowhere and grow our own food, etc. But just because there are some things that we can't avoid, doesn't mean we should bend over and take whatever BB throws at us.
No kidding!



Not everything is a conspiracy theory. It used to be a theory that the government was looking at your private webcam sessions. Well, now it's a fact.
I hope they got my best side! :D (j/k)