SpartyOn

@bobbyjrjr: The wording of the family policy makes the reality of it seem a lot less....flowery, than your hopes. Only one other family member can play your games at the same time AND it says that games from your "shared game library" can be played. Who knows what "shared game library means"...that could easily be a way for them to limit which games can be shared, and how many. The most likely explanation of this is that 10 people can group together (that's if microsoft doesn't conceive a way to determine who is, or is not, related) and fill a library together...and most likely a limited one as I said before. This means you will not have 10 people all adding their entire game collection to have 10 different libraries, and all play at the same time. That makes it a neat feature, but hardly as compelling as it initially sounds.

Secondly, assuming Microsoft will price like steam is giving the company too much credit. As of today, Microsoft has yet to prove it is able to fairly price its downloadable versions of retail games through the Games On Demand service....some of those games are just ridiculously priced...and sales are very very rare. They could absolutely turn it around, but I don't think they'll be able to do it just like Steam...at least for a while. Sales on steam are heavily influenced by the publisher, and often only determined solely by Valve for Indie titles. AAA multiplatform titles sell less on the PC than on consoles, it's just the reality of the industry, so do you really see EA allowing Microsoft to just go ahead and discount Madden or Activision allowing a big sale on Call of Duty? Unlikely, for now. Retailers have more power in adjusting prices, because they pay a high-set fee for each individual title. Steam is an experiment that took a while to take hold, and I think it would be presumptuous to say Microsoft is capable of matching their execution with similar success.

All in all, I think the criticisms of some of Microsoft's policies are fair, and I think it's something this generation will address sooner rather than later. It's not a consumer's job to analyze how successful a business plan should be, that's on the shoulders of the corporation. Making a business plan that limits rights from what was previously established--as Microsoft is currently doing--is an unpleasant proposition for me, as a consumer. I can't predict how successful it would be (and as I said, I shouldn't have to), when I have the option of another company that is handling things in a manner I am more accustomed to and comfortable with. I'm getting a Playstation 4 as a result. That being said, if your vision comes to pass, and Microsoft develops a platform to rival steam in my living room, I'll GLADLY purchase an Xbox One. I just feel Microsoft has more to prove to me than Sony at this point.

This seems like one of those situations where people make mountains out of molehills, and complain about something based on assumptions that the worst-case scenario is the ONLY scenario. If you feel that Sony's conference presented a more open and consumer-friendly system than Microsoft's offering, that hasn't changed. The restrictions aren't nearly as severe on the Playstation 4 as compared to the Xbox One, even if developers can do what they want. To be honest, the fact that I can borrow and lend out games, and sell them however I want, is what really matters to me. Still impressed by what Sony is doing with the PS4.

Oh, my bad. On that point, I totally agree. I think this gen is going to be really cutthroat with both major consoles launching (most likely) within a few weeks of one another. Microsoft and Sony are clearly taking different approaches to this generation judging by their different approaches to the tech, so I'll be really interested to see which tactic works best.

I don't think it will take as long as it has in the past. This is the first time the two main consoles are nearly identical in regards to their basic architecture....not only that, they're nearly identical to the 3rd big multiplatform...well, platform: The PC. In the past it took time to really get what each system was capable of, and that was a separate process for each console. This time, I think they're so similar that it will be very obvious to devs which system can squeeze out the most, and how to do it.

Yeah I disagree. Sony and Microsoft both had reveal events, and Microsoft focused on the flash while Sony focused on the games. I don't think there is a problem with people being disappointed about that. Sure, they may change that at E3, but at this point Microsoft has yet to really sell the Xbox One as a GAMES MACHINE, and it's easy to call that out when they have a direct competitor doing the opposite. Personally, I was sold on getting the next xbox before these presentation, but now I feel like Microsoft has to win be back because I'm leaning very heavily towards the PS4.

My steam name is Davissc9, and it would be awesome if anyone had a Dota 2 key to throw my way.

@canteu: You do realize that Brad never said that right? In fact, he said that the developers did a great job with the crafting system because he's heard so many different variations of this statement....just saying.

Ok y'all, I'm finally on Spring Break and since I am far too poor to go on a trip, I'm paying the Last Story instead. I'm only an hour in so I just got to the first town and I'm liking it quite a bit so far for what that's worth...and the late-title card was totally awesome.

I was just wondering if anyone else played it, what you think, and if you'd have any tips for a newbie because, if this is anything like Mistwalker's other games, I'm sure there's some nuance to it.

I wil say the one thing that's taking some getting used to is the whole gather mechanic. So far, the game has had me trigger that then essentially run away while my party attacks. It's a cool idea, but obviously I don't want to be running away all the time and would much rather be part of the offensive, so I hope this changes soon.

@lively: Totally agree, especially with what you said about the RAM. Not only did the PS3 only have 512MB, it was effectively split 50/50 between graphics and computing, so only 256 MB could be used by the GPU at any time. This jump to 8 GB can essentially be a 32x increase depending on how developers choose to use it because that arbitrary divide is apparently gone. The only thing that worries me is how this move will impact the price. Digital Foundry wrote a great article about the PS4 specs and mentioned that GDDR5 memory is only sold in smaller sticks right now, the largest of which is 512MB, so Sony either crammed 16 sticks of memory onto their board or they are using tech that hasn't been announced yet (which isn't exactly unusual for new consoles). Either way, that kind of memory doesn't run cheap, but I can't see Sony making the same pricing mistakes they made with the PS3 launch.

@Aterons: Yes, I actually take that into account. I have separate data sets for each gaming website I visited, as well as religious websites, public schools, universities, NRA websites, etc, meaning the data is complied with all of that in mind. You quote physics and chemistry as if you understand them, but your knowledge of science is concerning. These constructs, or surveys, that you have insulted twice now, are created with all of your criticisms in mind. The mathematical analysis I will conduct on my data will demonstrate this, so I appreciate your criticisms, however incorrect they may be. I am a graduate student my friend, not a high school student. They are shown to be reliable and valid through deep statistical analysis. Your argument is basically, "that doesn't sound right to me" or "I don't agree", and quite frankly, you're opinions are about as worthless to science as anything can be. Psychologists work hard to make results reliable and valid, and assuming they don't in order to criticize the studies makes you sound very uneducated on the subject. For psychology, a standard error is less than 5% for small studies, and less than 1% for large studies. This means that less than 1% (or 5%) of the results shown can be attributed to random chance or extraneous factors. If you discredit a properly done psychology study, then you must discredit the physics and chemistry you quote because they use the same mathematics.

I'm afraid all of your arguments so far, have been completely unfounded in any reasonable or valid form of logic. You're comparing one field of science to another, and basing your quality of each field on that comparison? Really? Physics, for as accurate and astounding as it is, fails to account for what gravity really is, which is one of it's 4 fundamental laws.....so let's take that into consideration when referring to you're belief that psychology is useless unless we understand the brain completely. I'm afraid it's difficult to impossible to have a reasonable discussion regarding the merits of science with someone who fails to grasp what science truly is, such as yourself. Even your baby crying theory is incorrect. Scientific "fact" is not derived from correlational studies, which the fake study you created would qualify as. Scientific fact is based on experiment and observation....or empirical study. Psychology is no different.

Now I apologize for using Wikipedia here, but it isn't to show fact, just support a claim...Here are some popular psychological theories used today. I don't mean to be offensive here (which is a courtesy considering the fact that you're posts are agressive, condescending, and full of unnecessary cuss words...) but you're arguments are based off of the following assumptions:

1. Psychology is prone to error it can't get around---->false, psychology uses statistical analysis and experimental control, following the same scientific method as physics and chemistry, to promote valid and reliable research.

2. Psychology is useless because we don't fully understand the brain yet--->false, the studies conducted have garnered support for a reason....they are empirical and show reliability between tests and experiments. We don't need a full understanding of the brain's physiology to understand how the mind manifests. Psychology has even led to increased understanding of physical ailments, which is why psych consultations are standard practice in cases of brain damage....this means neurologists request the opinions of a psychologist.

3. Physics and Chemistry know more, don't make mistakes, and have everything answered (I think this is insane and obviously so, but it is the only way to interpret what you're saying) so because psychology doesn't, it sucks---> Again, apologies for wikipedia, here is a list of a few of the unsolved problems in physics. No science is perfect, and they perfect themselves over time. Physics once believed the Earth to be flat and the center of the universe. It once thought electricity flowed like a fluid. It once thought the Universe was eternal. Physics was, and continues to be, one of the most corrected and rewritten fields of science. Insulting another field because it is currently in its infancy is lunacy, and completely against the principles on which science was founded.

I could list more, but I'm actually pretty busy today, so i'll just conclude: you're wrong. I am not one to call opinions wrong, but we're talking about science so I'm afforded the luxury. Science has 4 major branches, and psychology falls under the "social science" branch. Clearly, you have a disdain for that branch, which is unfortunate, as science is a cumulative study, meaning you'll never be a complete scientist (you'll also have to correct you're language, spelling errors, logical fallacies, assumptions, etc.).

@Laivasse: You're making the same mistakes he is, and assuming everything is causality. The brain controls every aspect of the human body, so don't take any medication until we understand the brain completely. Don't go in for surgery either. You know, just stop seeing your doctor, because he, according to you, can't know what he's talking about. The mind is a product of the brain, that isn't a claim, question, or assumption, so I'm not sure how you could claim that isn't true. Not every brain gives birth to a mind, but there is no mind without a brain to give birth to it (I use that language because one day that "brain" could be mechanical or virtual.) The thing is, we can show things like games to be a factor in violence. We have studies, constructs and procedures that allow us to do just that. By dismissing that, you're dismissing statistics, the scientific method, other forms of mathematics, observational study, experimentation, etc. You're picking and choosing what you like or don't based on some gut feeling or assumption, and that isn't something that any scientist, psychologist or otherwise, should respond to, because it's worthless to science (again no offense), because you're "feelings" don't matter to science.

Finally to your last point, there is corruption in all forms of science, as well as every other field, and I cannot tolerate an attack on one field of science because it is subject to the same failures as every other field. Do you discredit chemistry, physics, biology, zoology, etc. because of the same concerns? I doubt it. I enjoy lively debate, but this is difficult to participate in. Science seeks to answer questions and provide explanations for phenomena. It is broken into fields so that each question can be categorized and researched appropriately. Studying behavior and cognition is reserved for psychology, so why is there an issue with you two, with psychology seeking to answer and explain behavioral and cognitive phenomena? I would strongly urge both of you go read any legitimate source regarding some psychology research and then return before responding, because you two do not have very much information on the field you're critiquing.

Until then, Happy Holidays and it was a pleasure debating with the two of you!