Maybe it's the games I buy, but I've never had any problems like that. The only problems I've experienced are server issues on the back-end for EA titles, including the Battlefield games. I think NHL 09 may have had a voice chat problem, where not everyone would be able to hear one another in the game. So far I have not purchased a game, retail or download, that had any showstopper bugs. Lucky I guess?
The slow demise of the console experience [*spawn*^4]
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
Maybe it's the games I buy, but I've never had any problems like that. The only problems I've experienced are server issues on the back-end for EA titles, including the Battlefield games. I think NHL 09 may have had a voice chat problem, where not everyone would be able to hear one another in the game. So far I have not purchased a game, retail or download, that had any showstopper bugs. Lucky I guess?
I don't like having to pay for Live either tbh. But the fun I have in Live co-op games is greater than the fun I could have spending that money on other aspects of gaming, so I pay. Saving a few pounds but missing out on some of the very best that gaming has to offer isn't such a bargain, even if it involves paying into the MS party fund.
I would abandon the Xbox in a second next-gen, if there was a feature competitive service for free. There is no brand loyalty here. The thing is, for now, Live is too good to pass up.
Svensk Viking
Regular
This may be a bit OT, but I want to say that what also pisses me off with Live, is that one needs to pay for Gold for ALL GTs....I don't think I'm the only gamer who has siblings and enjoys split-screen multiplayer online in for example Halo
It's a little ironic that DLC is console bound(all GTs can play, need a license transfer if changing Xbox) but Live is GT bound...If the 50 USD price tag or whatever it costs now allowed ALL on the same console to play online, I would find it easier motivating me to pay for it
If Sony continues to have a free alternative with the PS4, I'm likely going Sony next-gen
Sorry if too much OT
Last edited by a moderator:
Honestly, I don't think it's off-topic at all. If anything, access codes, micro-transactions and service fees are what will hurt consoles, if anything does. I think the quality of the games is actually very good. Things like the Catwoman DLC for new purchases of Arkham City only, are awful. She's prominently displayed on the cover, but if you don't have an internet connection you can't download the DLC, and if you buy it used you have to pay $10, or whatever it is. EA's online activation codes are horrible. Of course, those problems also extend to the PC as well. Paying for Xbox Live is moving more towards gaming as a service, which I'm not really keen on. I just wish the competitors, including Steam, were as competent in making similar features and quality. Steam (for free) as the base online layer for PS4 would have me switching consoles in a heartbeat. For me, the quality of the games is not the problem with consoles.
Here's a good example of a bad console experience. Battlefield 3 on Xbox360:
- Redeem preorder code for weapons pack, or some crap
- Attempt to redeem code for EA gun club or something, but the website appeared not to work
- Put in game disc
- Download and install 167 MB update for online. (Never had a game update that big on Xbox 360 before, not including DLC!)
- Install HD texture pack, 1.5GB
- Attempt to view battlelog and have it fail saying I need to enter access code. Enter access code
- Attempt to view battlelog and have it fail saying I do not have a linked origin account (which I did in the Beta)
- Go to battlelog website and accept license agreement
- Attempt to play game and find out the servers are down
- Perform option game disc install while I wait for servers to come back online
We almost certainly play different games, but still I've never experienced what you describe.
Last edited by a moderator:
One of my biggest issues with the XBOX was the "death" of the PC gaming, since i always preferred the PC for games, except , well the classic console titles
But to often when i try something out it´s just a mess, i installed Doom3, oops no widescreen support, google the solution. Rage, another classic PC launch, 5 years of development and the drivers, THE DRIVERS weren't ready for launch that is totally inexcusable. On the Consoles however, the times where i have met a showstopping bug .. well i honestly can´t remember. Bugs yes, but game breaking are very very rare.
I agree with Scott_Arm, I think it's a legitimate gripe and something that tarnishes the experience. I didn't stop to think that was how split screen but online multiplayer operated.
The least MS could do is allow people to have a console-based licence option to compliment DLC, where you pay to have anyone who plays on a single, physical system able to use Gold features for the duration of their playtime on that system. You know, like how a cable or satellite tv option works.
Hahaha! That's why people don't bother with PC gami...
I've yet to play a console game that I couldn't put the disk and the drive and be playing it within 10 minutes and that extreme was only if I'd missed a console update. Obviously everyone has different experiences (and wants), but from my perspective the console experience has never been better.
I pay for xbox live for xbox live because it's worth it. I buy DLC if I think it's worth it. There are alternatives if you find better value elsewhere, but the ability to download titles and the improvements in online experience greatly outweighs the small losses in other areas (load times/codes).
I really don't understand the gripes about crap like horse armor, the only problem I would have if there is content you are required to buy to be competitive or the game is incomplete without.
I pay for xbox live for xbox live because it's worth it. I buy DLC if I think it's worth it. There are alternatives if you find better value elsewhere, but the ability to download titles and the improvements in online experience greatly outweighs the small losses in other areas (load times/codes).
I really don't understand the gripes about crap like horse armor, the only problem I would have if there is content you are required to buy to be competitive or the game is incomplete without.
First i must say that i'm a PC gamer, but i do think the consoles are becoming like PC's (with hard drives, game installation, bugs and patches, mods in some games, etc) and the PC gaming experience is becoming like consoles, with services like Onlive and Steam, etc, IMO the line between the two platforms is blurring and i think it will merge in the future.
Sigfried1977
Legend
While the PS3 has its fair share of games with annoying installation routines, it certainly has become a lot better. Arkham City installed within a couple of minutes. Including downloading the Catwoman content, I was zipping across the rooftops within 10 minutes. I can live with that. And I've never encountered a game breaking bug.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
On PS3 things are worse. Some of the updates there can take quite a bit of time. All in all I've never had nearly as big issues with consoles as I've had with the PC. I certainly never have had to create and force a custom resolution from the control panel and then manually change a config file to make a console game output the proper resolution unlike on the PC.
The updates on the PS3 is annoying.. because as a Plus user i know it´s something that easily can be handled. When i booted GT5 Spec 2.0.. the updates was already applied and ready i did not have to download something, the PS3 did all that over night, something that every PS3 user could have if Sony just let them. And it´s pretty awesome
If we are in the middle of a slow demise of the console experience, then I am going to happily enjoy the trip downward.
It’s my opinion that this generation of games in terms of sheer numbers of quality titles would literally crush any previous generation in comparison.
This holiday season we had or will have UC3, Gears 3, BF3, Halo:CEA, COD4, Forza 4, Dark Souls, AC:R, Skyrim, Batman AC and Deus Ex:HR released. This isn't the 2nd or 3rd year into the generation but the sixth!!! And next year will bring us ME3, Bioshock:Infinite, Metal Gear:RS, Witcher 2, Ninja Gaiden 3, Max Payne 3, Halo 4 and GTA5. Name any other generation with such a lineup this late in their lifespan.
Other than holiday season 2006 when Gears was clearly the top AAA release, every year since there have been several AAA titles holiday releases with a more delaying to the next spring due to the crowded schedule. I don't recall any previous generation being like this at all.
I will happily accept 1st day patches, 30 fps, long installs and a bug here and there because the volume of quality of games from this generation has been phenomenal. And the main issues that most have complained about are simply symptoms of a more aggressive developer/publisher mindset and a more competitive landscape in terms of both software and hardware.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
It’s my opinion that this generation of games in terms of sheer numbers of quality titles would literally crush any previous generation in comparison.
This holiday season we had or will have UC3, Gears 3, BF3, Halo:CEA, COD4, Forza 4, Dark Souls, AC:R, Skyrim, Batman AC and Deus Ex:HR released. This isn't the 2nd or 3rd year into the generation but the sixth!!! And next year will bring us ME3, Bioshock:Infinite, Metal Gear:RS, Witcher 2, Ninja Gaiden 3, Max Payne 3, Halo 4 and GTA5. Name any other generation with such a lineup this late in their lifespan.
Other than holiday season 2006 when Gears was clearly the top AAA release, every year since there have been several AAA titles holiday releases with a more delaying to the next spring due to the crowded schedule. I don't recall any previous generation being like this at all.
I will happily accept 1st day patches, 30 fps, long installs and a bug here and there because the volume of quality of games from this generation has been phenomenal. And the main issues that most have complained about are simply symptoms of a more aggressive developer/publisher mindset and a more competitive landscape in terms of both software and hardware.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Onkl Bjorni
Newcomer
Frame rate and IQ are the reasons that I've not owned a console since I had a PS2.
Frame rate I could kinda live with but its the IQ that really does my eyes in on the consoles.
Going from stupid amounts of AF & MSAA on my PC to the piss poor IQ on consoles is a tough thing to adjust too.
Frame rate I could kinda live with but its the IQ that really does my eyes in on the consoles.
Going from stupid amounts of AF & MSAA on my PC to the piss poor IQ on consoles is a tough thing to adjust too.
Many of the 60 FPS PS2 games had their share of framerate issues at certain points. Both MGS2 and Zone of the Enders 2 are good examples of games experiencing huge slow downs during heavy scenes. As the system got older, games tended to go after higher graphics fidelity instead of 60 FPS, which I think was a good move in order to push more detail. For example, MGS3 at 60 FPS probably would've been infeasible without really destroying what was a graphical apex title for the PS2.
As per 60 FPS vs 30, the higher framerate is certainly a nice thing to have, but these days, games are competing so heavily on graphics as well as gameplay. Luckily, graphics are still reliant on art assets, and I think that is why CoD can get away with it's generally subpar graphics implementations, with it's decent balance of rendering for 60 FPS. The visual design of the game saves it from visual mediocrity. Though, more or less it's the chance happenings of success on the consoles and gameplay of CoD that I think kept it afloat for so long.
And yes, Iove the irony of consoles becoming more like computers. I've already pondered and pretty much theorized that "true" videogame consoles probably have one or two more generations to go, eventually ending up as broad media boxes with gaming their number one aim of use. Especially for the next Xbox, I easily see MS by implementing Win8 on the next Xbox for the sake of creating a very harmonious ecosystem between the next Xbox, Win8 PCs, and Windows Phone. The aim will be software platform commonality, not hardware. Xbox 720 discs playable on Win8 PCs perhaps?
As per 60 FPS vs 30, the higher framerate is certainly a nice thing to have, but these days, games are competing so heavily on graphics as well as gameplay. Luckily, graphics are still reliant on art assets, and I think that is why CoD can get away with it's generally subpar graphics implementations, with it's decent balance of rendering for 60 FPS. The visual design of the game saves it from visual mediocrity. Though, more or less it's the chance happenings of success on the consoles and gameplay of CoD that I think kept it afloat for so long.
And yes, Iove the irony of consoles becoming more like computers. I've already pondered and pretty much theorized that "true" videogame consoles probably have one or two more generations to go, eventually ending up as broad media boxes with gaming their number one aim of use. Especially for the next Xbox, I easily see MS by implementing Win8 on the next Xbox for the sake of creating a very harmonious ecosystem between the next Xbox, Win8 PCs, and Windows Phone. The aim will be software platform commonality, not hardware. Xbox 720 discs playable on Win8 PCs perhaps?
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy Idol
Legend
well, I am on your side...that is why I have now a PC...I play only exclusive console games on PS and Xbox...probably due to tradition
I am most sensitive to IQ (don't care that much for framerate...hey, I even finished Mass Effect 1 on the Xbox360
)...and I observ that modern games trade in IQ (by using post processing AA...see KZ3 and UC3 as an example) to enhance other graphics stuff...I do not like this to be honest, I hope that this trend ends fast!!
Last edited by a moderator:
