By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Xbox is becoming the unsung hero of this generation

smroadkill15 said:

Personal experience doesn't mean much when I'm talking about a fairly agreed upon idea that Xbox live was a better service. That like me saying, GWG is better than PS+ offering because I find the games to be more my taste. It's an impossible argument to go against because it's personal even though vast majority would agree that PS+ offers much better games. GFWL was terrible, and the fact I didn't know about that detail or forgot was probably due to fact hardly anyone used it. Either way, MS knows the PC community isn't going to pay for Xbox live so I'm not sure why you even think this is something that will happen later on. I'm not going to talk about the PC stuff anymore because it's off topic, and same with discussing stuff 2 gens ago. 

I don't know how personal taste equates to experiencing technical difficulties with a paid system while not on a free system. Anyway that was early 360 years, in the past. However FS2020 is still tied to XBox live (have to sign in with my gamer tag) which creates unnecessary hoops, while the online experience in FH4 was also far sub par (lots and lots of lag, people appearing/disappearing all the time) which GT Sport suffers far less from. But OK, that's PC stuff.

Perhaps it all works fine on an actual XBox. My point is, MS isn't giving me any confidence in going back to gaming on XBox. Which is why I would prefer MS to stop trying to be a jack of all trades and focus on one thing to execute well. Maybe that's what they are doing now with XBox. The way FS2020 is set up just doesn't give me the idea they're taking this stuff seriously. (The last patch finally reduced the initial download size back to 83 GB, it had bloated to 170GB download for a 102 GB total game size. Sure it's PC stuff, but don't go touting smart delivery and then launch one of your flag ship games with the worst installer in recent history)

Games for Windows Live is still an issue btw, lot of games are stuck with it and no longer compatible on Windows 10 without having to jump through hoops. Again touting BC on their consoles, yet leaving their own GFWL games behind. It's not just a few
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Games_for_Windows_%E2%80%93_Live_titles

Anyway, maybe you can see why PC gamers are skeptical when it comes to XBox PR.



Around the Network
Dallinor said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

So... cars or tracks in a MS title “count” but maps in a Sony title don’t? Bizarre. Again not even mentioning that you had to go out and buy a shitty magazine for the SOCOM maps, too, Amiibo before Amiibo. 

And no one is rewriting history. My point was, as I said, these are all businesses who have one main goal and that’s money. Personally I find the idea that MS started this or that to be laughable because MS or Sony doing something doesn’t mean the other has to follow, but they do. Because they want... money. 

So congrats, MS had “MTX” during the Xbox era and Sony had “MTX” during the PS2 era. 

Do you need a timeline or something, you seem confused?

It's incredibly simple.

Microsoft offered paid DLC first and paid MTX first. They put it in their games first, pitched the idea to other developers, and then popularized it through Xbox Live.

Your 'point' is irrelevant. You're just muddying the waters. Very obviously as well. 

There is no "congrats". Trying to lump the two together for damage control makes absolutely no sense when we're looking specifically at the origin between two companies and who popularized it. That's just trying to rewrite history.

It was Microsoft. End of Story. 

Weird how I am confused when you are the one who can't keep your definition of what is DLC and what are MTX straight. You listed three games with extra content you can buy from Xbox 360 and called them MTX. Like I said before, if a map in PDZ or some cars in PGR are MTX, then so would SOCOM II maps that you have to go out and buy a Sony magazine to get. Also, the Xbox sold like 20 something million consoles. PS2 sold like 150 or something? So who exactly "popularized" what? You're the one who seems confused here. It's not a "timeline" about who did it first. It's about who made it standard.

Xbox wasn't the first console with a unified online approach, with built in online play, or even pay to play in the console space but they are rightfully credited with making all three of those standard because they are the ones who popularized it. No one cares that the Dreamcast had a 56k browser built in, that Sega games eventually required a subscription to play, or that you could get one username on your Dreamcast to be identified across all Sega games (aka a Gamertag before the Gamertag). No one cares because the DC barely sold anything. Just like Gears is credited with how modern third person shooters play, even though games like kill.switch existed before it.

Sony also popularized the Online Pass, and now $70 games. Again, there is blood on every companies hands. It's about time people got over it.



smroadkill15 said:
SvennoJ said:

I did not experience a superior online service on 360, in fact I cancelled Live Gold over the poor performance and all the trouble I had with it. 90% of the online matches I tried in Test Drive Unlimited resulted in incompatible NAT errors. The headset had a terrible echo and poor sound quality, I couldn't understand what most people were saying and stuff just kept echo'ing around. I bought another headset, same thing. It worked on XBox, no clue what happened on 360.

After I cancelled live gold I got into GT5 online, played it for many months without any issues. Same with Resistance 2 co-op. Always just worked. I never looked back to live Gold, MS lost me there. Also all the ads plastered over the new dashboard were a pita and when you had the 360 offline you got empty squares all over the UI. To me it was the inferior online experience.

Yes people would prefer free online. MS also tried to introduce paid online to PC, it did not work. They might try again when GP gets big, or simply add it into the cost of game pass at some point when they get enough people in the locked windows store ecosystem.

So you're example of Xbox live not being as good was a 3rd party game and the headset? You didn't play Halo 3, Gears of war, Shadowrun, Forza? Halo 3 population numbers trounced any 1st party game on PSN, and Xbox was able to keep those services up with hardly any issues. Xbox live brought the feature of party chat, Cloud saves, made dedicated services a common place on consoles, and at least it included a headset. Shit, I would take the Xbox 360 mic over the Ps4 one Sony packed in with the console. PSN was subject to going offline more frequently, getting hacked, DDoSed, and was even hacked and brought offline for roughly a month or so. Nothing on that scale happened on Xbox live. Many 1st party games on the 360 are still online to this day. How many 1st party PSN games are still online? 

Now adays both services are roughly the same. I do not recall MS trying to make paid online for PC, and if they did they clearly learned quickly it wasn't going to work, and there is no way in hell they would try this now. So you are trying to make a 'what if' statement with nothing to back it up? Okay...

That's a good question about the first party PS3 games still running, my guess would be not many at all. If any.

Every time I look at my PS3 sitting in its box I remember how horrible the online play was on it, but I don't know if it was because of PSN itself or just how bad the PS3 performed in some areas. I remember plenty of times getting a message while playing online and going to check it and the system might lock for three minutes while it struggled to load the UI and let me see the message. Then there was the problem with every different game allowing you different usernames, horrible voice quality, couldn't change your PSN name, no party chat, etc.



Xbox still doesn't have a decent exclusive to this day,
They can play as martyr but they won't close the gap with ps5 this current gen



SvennoJ said:
smroadkill15 said:

Personal experience doesn't mean much when I'm talking about a fairly agreed upon idea that Xbox live was a better service. That like me saying, GWG is better than PS+ offering because I find the games to be more my taste. It's an impossible argument to go against because it's personal even though vast majority would agree that PS+ offers much better games. GFWL was terrible, and the fact I didn't know about that detail or forgot was probably due to fact hardly anyone used it. Either way, MS knows the PC community isn't going to pay for Xbox live so I'm not sure why you even think this is something that will happen later on. I'm not going to talk about the PC stuff anymore because it's off topic, and same with discussing stuff 2 gens ago. 

I don't know how personal taste equates to experiencing technical difficulties with a paid system while not on a free system. Anyway that was early 360 years, in the past. However FS2020 is still tied to XBox live (have to sign in with my gamer tag) which creates unnecessary hoops, while the online experience in FH4 was also far sub par (lots and lots of lag, people appearing/disappearing all the time) which GT Sport suffers far less from. But OK, that's PC stuff.

Perhaps it all works fine on an actual XBox. My point is, MS isn't giving me any confidence in going back to gaming on XBox. Which is why I would prefer MS to stop trying to be a jack of all trades and focus on one thing to execute well. Maybe that's what they are doing now with XBox. The way FS2020 is set up just doesn't give me the idea they're taking this stuff seriously. (The last patch finally reduced the initial download size back to 83 GB, it had bloated to 170GB download for a 102 GB total game size. Sure it's PC stuff, but don't go touting smart delivery and then launch one of your flag ship games with the worst installer in recent history)

Games for Windows Live is still an issue btw, lot of games are stuck with it and no longer compatible on Windows 10 without having to jump through hoops. Again touting BC on their consoles, yet leaving their own GFWL games behind. It's not just a few
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Games_for_Windows_%E2%80%93_Live_titles

Anyway, maybe you can see why PC gamers are skeptical when it comes to XBox PR.

I'm not the person to talk about PC gaming because I don't game on PC. I couldn't tell you one way or the other. This specific thread about about the Series X|S, and from my experience and from others that have the system will tell you it's really well made system and easy to use. I've been gaming on Xbox's since the original and it's easily the most intuitive and fleshed out system they have made. 



Around the Network
LivncA_Dis3 said:

Xbox still doesn't have a decent exclusive to this day,
They can play as martyr but they won't close the gap with ps5 this current gen

Gears Tactics was a launch 1st party game for the Series X|S and pretty damn good game, and I would consider The Medium decent. The Ascent is releasing next month and looks excellent. PS5 will sell better this gen, but Series X|S will probably sell better than last gen just based on how it's going now. 



LudicrousSpeed said:

Weird how I am confused when you are the one who can't keep your definition of what is DLC and what are MTX straight. You listed three games with extra content you can buy from Xbox 360 and called them MTX. Like I said before, if a map in PDZ or some cars in PGR are MTX, then so would SOCOM II maps that you have to go out and buy a Sony magazine to get. Also, the Xbox sold like 20 something million consoles. PS2 sold like 150 or something? So who exactly "popularized" what? You're the one who seems confused here. It's not a "timeline" about who did it first. It's about who made it standard.

Xbox wasn't the first console with a unified online approach, with built in online play, or even pay to play in the console space but they are rightfully credited with making all three of those standard because they are the ones who popularized it. No one cares that the Dreamcast had a 56k browser built in, that Sega games eventually required a subscription to play, or that you could get one username on your Dreamcast to be identified across all Sega games (aka a Gamertag before the Gamertag). No one cares because the DC barely sold anything. Just like Gears is credited with how modern third person shooters play, even though games like kill.switch existed before it.

Sony also popularized the Online Pass, and now $70 games. Again, there is blood on every companies hands. It's about time people got over it.

Yes, it really is.

For the third time- Microsoft did.

"The predatory game monetization tactics of today began with Microsoft. After experimenting with paid DLC for its first-party titles on the original Xbox, Microsoft planned to launch the Xbox 360 with a storefront populated by the newfangled "microtransaction." Speaking to WIRED in 2005, Microsoft described the microtransaction system as one that would provide a profitable new revenue stream for publishers - one they would be foolish to skip out on. According to US Gamer, Bethesda was the first third-party publisher to accept Microsoft's idea, offering a pack of in-game horse armor for Oblivion players at a $2.50 price point."

"Elder Scrolls director Todd Howard claimed Bethesda had tried to price the pack lower, but someone at Microsoft insisted on $2.50."

Screen Rant 2020- Source.

I agree, it's about who made it standard...Microsoft.

So if you're done with this boring history lesson, I'll just carry on. Or maybe you want to talk more about utterly irrelevant points like the Dreamcast, PlayStation Magazines or $70 games. 



 

Still harping on timelines.

also, the SOCOM maps were before Oblivion horse armor.

At least you’re right about the boring part.



LudicrousSpeed said:

Still harping on timelines.

also, the SOCOM maps were before Oblivion horse armor.

At least you’re right about the boring part.

Yes we establish who introduced it first and who popularized it with a timeline.

Yes, and the $4.99 Microsoft DLC for Mechwarrior was before SOCOM.

And everything else.



 

He didn’t say DLC though, he said MTX. You claimed three 360 titles had map and car MTX first, I was pointing out SOCOM had map MTX a generation prior.

You even said Mechwarrior DLC. No need to shift the goalposts, just stick to your original words. And again the SOCOM MTX were worse because they required you to go out and buy a magazine to get the disc. Amiibo before Amiibo. It also required a $100 adapter. Of course, I’d also argue that Sony games such as Last of Us, The Show, and Destruction All-Stars utilize MTX in worse ways than any MS game I’ve ever seen. See, I can shift goalposts too. Enjoy the last word, no point in wasting any more time here.