caesius6's forum posts

#1 Edited by caesius6 (180 posts) -

@spraynardtatum said:

@theacidskull said:

So when PS4 does it, it's fine, but when Xbox One does it it's horrible? Yeah no.

It's sad that people won't be able to play this, but it's also sad that I and many other Xbox One owners won't get to play Last Of Us, Bloodborne, Uncharted, God of War, and etc.

Being sad is fine, but this is a bit ridiculous.

Jesus Christ! Why is everyone saying this! No! What planet are you living on!? Stop trying to spin this into some fake console war thing.

Halo, Gears, Killer Instinct, Forza, Fusion Frenzy, Dead Rising, Quantum Break, Project Spark yada yada yada! People didn't flip shits over those games either!

This specifically has to do with Tomb Raider being announced and then later de-announced (real word) for PS4.

Apples and Oranges.

The Fusion Frenzy add... priceless. Also yeah, It about the IP being on all platforms and shifting to only one. Its cutting of the people who are fans of the first one and spinning it into a marketing ploy for MS. Most (if not all) other platform exclusive IPs start on one platform and open up to others later and to a broader audience.

No it's not. The same thing happened with Cuphead, and Scalebound during E3. Please, enough with the skirting around the bullshit that fanboys spit out.

#3 Edited by caesius6 (180 posts) -
@excast said:

@zels said:

I don't get it. Why kill a sucessful reboot just like that? Even if it's timed, it's going to tank the sales on the other platforms.

Does SE really need the exclusivity money that badly? The first game sold quite well, and was well received by the players and press - surely this one was only going to do even better.

Because the companies involved respect Microsoft's deep pockets more than they do the fans who helped make the reboot a success after so many failures.

And all the companies involved in making games exclusive to Playstation somehow respect the fans, right? Your logic is flawed, as if every developer should be honored to put a game out on the Playstation, they can do no harm.

#4 Edited by caesius6 (180 posts) -

@iconmaster: Really? Still the TV-TV-TV thing? Give it a rest, we get that you need to justify your purchase of a PS4.

#5 Edited by caesius6 (180 posts) -

@kylesweet777: The controller update cannot install unless it's plugged and prompted by the user. At that time, the headset should be plugged in to receive any updates to that as well, there is no BS there. If the headset is not plugged in, problems may arise with chat.

Have you guys tried contacting Tritton and see if they have any suggestions? I use Astro's and I know they update their firmware separately - does Tritton do this as well and is there a new firmware available?

#6 Edited by caesius6 (180 posts) -

@lylebot: As a heavy Premiere and AE user, I agree, it's really disheartening that they did that. Knowing that I can stick with CS6 is of little benefit as I know I won't be able to receive future updates without paying them per month. It's actually really shitty. Maybe if the prices were lower? But even then... I'm assuming piracy of the Master Collection has led them to this point - among many other things.

I don't believe we'll ever need a sub to play a game - that feels like they'll be shutting out an entire subset of people to their games. The way it is now is that you pay to play vault games, which is an expanding catalogue (and is pretty awesome), and you get a discount on new DLC and games, as well as trials with transferable progress. $5 for a 30 day rental on 4 (or more, in the future) games is not a bad deal by any means. Maybe competition will drive these prices down even further, who knows. My point is that they wouldn't end up putting new games on a service like this and charging the same price, as it's a shot in the foot. If Madden was given to users who subscribe at a $40/yr service (theoretical price) rather than $60/game transaction, they'd be losing money. Even more so when you factor in that there are other games coming out that would need to be included in that subscription that they'll still only be making money once, not twice, or three or four times.

I can't see it going in the direction of a cheap yearly sub, just to have the permission to buy a game - judging by the way the market has been lately, there would be an enormous consumer backlash, and that will revert that business decision.

#7 Posted by caesius6 (180 posts) -

@pr1mus said:

From the start Microsoft has acted as a company willing to do anything to exploit their customers and will not treat people with respect for any reasons as long as sales don't tank...Microsoft has long proven they don't belong to that group.

If you don't mind, can you please post all these examples that you elude to, and maybe compare them to all the fantastic wonderful things the companies you "approve of" do in comparison?

#8 Posted by caesius6 (180 posts) -

@liquidprince: Don't pretend like slow installations are an X1 problem, they happen on the PS4 as well - while not an owner, I have co-workers that have it and they complain of it every time a new game comes out.

And your first sentence? Basically just reaffirms Charlie_victor_bravo's point. People got upset, so things changed, then people get upset they changed and refuse to see anything positive in pretty much everything. It's a shame.

#9 Posted by caesius6 (180 posts) -

I have experienced this - the stream quality on X360 is marginally better than on Xbox One. People on the /r/XboxOne sub have had similar issues as well.

Not sure what the problem is. If I wasn't so damn lazy, I'd use my 360 for Netflix, but I'm too used to voice controls so I settle for watching something that looks like I'm streaming really low quality amateur porn.

#10 Posted by caesius6 (180 posts) -

@davekap said:

If Kinect suffers a slow death because of this week's news, it won't be Kinect's fault.

I cannot agree with this statement at all. Leveraging the Kinect correctly made for a fun experience, yes, but only momentarily. It never made for a long-lasting, deep, engrossing experience. It never made for the kind of entertainment that normal controller-driven gaming gave. Maybe it was never supposed to, maybe it never should have, but if that were true then the Kinect and its resulting games shouldn't have been priced any higher than the 10 dollar toys they were. Those demos linked? Those are fun for minutes, not hours. And if the Kinect was supposed to deliver that strong, long-lasting entertainment value, then it would need to have been built better with higher fidelity and zero latency issues. Either way I look at it, it's Kinect's and Microsoft's fault.

You're looking at this entire thing subjectively whereas Patrick is taking an objective approach.

Whether you can see it or not, (or want to see it, or not) the device had potential. It just wasn't implemented correctly.