"XBOX ONE is Kinect, we are not going to sell them separately." My how the times have changed.
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here, and it's official, Microsoft has stopped manufacturing the Kinect 2.0 for XBOX ONE. Microsoft has finally admitted that the Kinect was a mistake, and are no longer wasting their time with it. For those of you who forgot (and I don't blame you), the Kinect was a motion control device that allowed you to control games without a controller using cameras and infra-red. It would sense joints, articulation, and interpret it as control inputs; as well as various voice commands. Now I will admit, from a purely technological standpoint, it's pretty cool. It's kind of space age sci-fi. Buuuuuttttt...that didn't make it worth while.
First, a brief history. In 2006 Nintendo released a little console called "Wii." It used motion controls as it's native input, and aided by the pack-in title Wii Sports, it became the second best selling console in history. Microsoft seeing the popularity of the Wii, Microsoft decided to make their own motion control device for the XBOX 360 and in 2010 the Kinect was released. It received generally positive reviews with how innovative of technology it was, but it didn't really latch on to gamers. Despite their best efforts to make Kinect a thing, primarily through the use of Rare, Kinect for XBOX 360 never received that killer app that made everyone want buy one like Wii Sports did for the Wii. This lack of an install base made developers not want to develop for it in fear of their game not selling. Microsoft tried to remedy this by bundling a Kinect 2.0 with every XBOX ONE and integrating it's operating system to utilize the face recognition and voice commands, forcing an install base. Unfortunately this made the XBOX ONE $100 more expensive than the PS4 which didn't have a motion control camera and gave gamers the option as to if they wanted the motion controls or not. The requirement to always have it plugged in also really blew up in Microsoft's face as it made many gamers question why Microsoft would want to do that if not for spying on them. Eventually Microsoft reversed the requirement to always have it plugged in, but didn't sell a Kinectless bundle until about a year later. The downfall of the Kinect was further advanced when the XBOX ONE S didn't come with a port specifically for the Kinect. And on October 25th 2017 Microsoft officially stopped production of the Kinect 2.0. See ya later guys, DFTBA.
OK, so with my foot of a ferret rip-off complete, let's analyze what happened and why I saw this coming 3 years ago. Kinect just wasn't a good input device for videogames, plain and simple. I now have a 360 Kinect I got at gamestop for $20 to play star wars Kinect, and it just isn't good. It's not that the controls aren't responsive, or that you need to be far away from the TV (a luxury I don't really have), while those are problems, they could have fixed those and it still would be a turd. Motion controls are just not a good input for videogames. The Wii controller could be used like a conventional gamepad; not very easily with a lot of input options, but it could be done. But not the Kinect. Almost every Kinect game I know of was Kinect only. Even if you fix the unresponsive problem, holding your hand up to an option for 5 seconds to select the menu was tedious. If you want to play the whole "Kinect in tandem" card, I know it can be done. There was an XBOX 360 game that utilized Kinect for certain control inputs but not all (name escapes me at the moment), and I saw some gameplay. Rather cool, but rather tedious to control. I'd rather just have it mapped to a controller button. It just wasn't going to be a good idea, and forcing people to buy it wasn't going to make it successful.
OK, but what about all the other OS features? You know, turning on your xbox by saying "XBOX on" and automatic sign-in based on who's playing. Well...I've been using my xbox for a while now and I don't feel like I'm missing anything. Lets look at the different features: voice commands to turn on the XBOX and select games, using Cortana, automatic sign-in, QR code reader, and skype. I've never used Cortana, and I have no intention to ever start. I'm the only one that uses my XBOX ONE, there's only 1 profile on it (mine), and it signs me in automatically every time I turn it on. Skype? I don't use skype all that much after I graduated college. The only thing that really sort of interests me are the voice commands, and that's just because some things weren't that easy to use (clip recording comes to mind). However, Microsoft has made it much easier to use these features. Now I can record with just the press of 3 buttons, no longer do I have to suspend the game, open the app, and then record. The QR code reader is pretty useful, I'll admit, since entering a 12 digit code with a "hunt and peck" on-screen keyboard using my controller is a little tedious. But, I honestly don't buy enough digital content to really make an impact, plus, I tend to have a lot of trouble lining up the QR code with the little box, so I really don't know which would be easier.
"But the Wii was the 2nd best selling console because of the motion controls." Yes, because it was a good casual gaming device that came out before mobile gaming really took off. People bought Wii sports, and maybe Wii sports resort, because they were good casual games that were pick up and play in a time when there weren't really any casual games (aka, a killer app for the console). After the casual hype died out, the Wii was able to keep a player base with Nintendo exclusive games. Remember the Wii U and how it failed? Well, Nintendo was trying to live off the hype of the Wii, and failed. People just aren't interested anymore. Luckily, Microsoft had a pretty good base console to keep itself afloat. Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and looks like XBOX ONE ISN'T Kinect.
Showing posts with label microsoft. Show all posts
Showing posts with label microsoft. Show all posts
Thursday, October 26, 2017
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Happy Gamer Tries out HTC Vive
I tried out the HTC Vive at my Microsoft Store today.
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here and I've been a little weary of VR since I tried the Wii and the Occulous Riff. I've already explained why I dislike the Wii, and why it left much to be desired. However, I don't know if I ever really explained why the Occulous Riff disappointed me. Well at my college the computer club had a demo unit and I tried it out when they were showing it off, and they had this roller coaster demo video. After a couple minutes I started feeling disoriented because my eyes were telling me I was moving, but my other senses were telling me I wasn't. It was a cool experience, but a rather negative one (even though when we were talking about it in class I was the only one able to say "I tried one out.")
Well at my local Microsoft store they had a demo unit of the HTC Vive. I got in line, signed a waver, and got to try out 3 demo games. Before the demos started, there was a "get oriented" thing where I inflated balloons and punched them away. The first game was "Deep Blue," I think it's called. It was just a "walk around and look at the fish" game. It was meant to get us used to the way things work. I had some fish fly right into my face. It was all pre-rendered as all the people in front of me had the same video. It was really cool.
Now we get into the actual games. The first game was a bow and arrow tower defense game. That was really fun. You use the 2 controllers to be the bow and arrows. Where you point is where you aim and where they fire. Now this is what I was expecting with the Wii back when that launched. It was really fun. I got quite into it, and I didn't let any of the enemies even hit my fortress door. I did quite well and probably could have kept going but my 3 minutes were up.
Next was the "space pirates" shooter. Now this, this is what the HTC Vive was made for. With the 2 controllers, you get the guns that you aim 1 to 1. I got REALLY into it. I used the 3 shot automatic. I was moving, dodging, crouching on the ground, all of it. When you see VR in cartoons, this is what it is like. Like, even the VR gags you would see in cartoons from 10 years ago on Danny Phantom, this is what it was like.
So now I think I should talk about the hardware. It was really comfortable. The face pads were soft and the headset wasn't really heavy like the Occulous was. It also requires a long cable to be connected to the computer, which wasn't that bad. I didn't find myself tripping over it at all. The controllers were also very comfortable, much better than the Wii and PS Move. The screen was a little pixelated, like if I get less than 1 inch away from the TV, but that is to be expected some, I guess.
So yeah, the HTC Vive is REALLY cool, but I don't think it's 3 grand cool. The HTC Vive headset, controllers, and sensors cost $800 alone. Then you need a PC that is powerful enough to run it. The store was using a $2500 Alienware with like top of the line components. The demo unit assistant said he knew a guy that built one himself for like $1000, but you still need a rather high end gaming PC. My sack of potatoes won't be able to run it, so I would need to buy all new hardware, plus all the games. Plus, I don't know how often I would play it since it is a VERY active experience.
So will I buy one? Definitely not yet. It's a really fun experience, but it's not $3000 fun. I'll wait until the Vive is $100 and the computing hardware I need is standard computer components. Well this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and lets see what comes from the HTC Vive.
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here and I've been a little weary of VR since I tried the Wii and the Occulous Riff. I've already explained why I dislike the Wii, and why it left much to be desired. However, I don't know if I ever really explained why the Occulous Riff disappointed me. Well at my college the computer club had a demo unit and I tried it out when they were showing it off, and they had this roller coaster demo video. After a couple minutes I started feeling disoriented because my eyes were telling me I was moving, but my other senses were telling me I wasn't. It was a cool experience, but a rather negative one (even though when we were talking about it in class I was the only one able to say "I tried one out.")
Well at my local Microsoft store they had a demo unit of the HTC Vive. I got in line, signed a waver, and got to try out 3 demo games. Before the demos started, there was a "get oriented" thing where I inflated balloons and punched them away. The first game was "Deep Blue," I think it's called. It was just a "walk around and look at the fish" game. It was meant to get us used to the way things work. I had some fish fly right into my face. It was all pre-rendered as all the people in front of me had the same video. It was really cool.
Now we get into the actual games. The first game was a bow and arrow tower defense game. That was really fun. You use the 2 controllers to be the bow and arrows. Where you point is where you aim and where they fire. Now this is what I was expecting with the Wii back when that launched. It was really fun. I got quite into it, and I didn't let any of the enemies even hit my fortress door. I did quite well and probably could have kept going but my 3 minutes were up.
Next was the "space pirates" shooter. Now this, this is what the HTC Vive was made for. With the 2 controllers, you get the guns that you aim 1 to 1. I got REALLY into it. I used the 3 shot automatic. I was moving, dodging, crouching on the ground, all of it. When you see VR in cartoons, this is what it is like. Like, even the VR gags you would see in cartoons from 10 years ago on Danny Phantom, this is what it was like.
So now I think I should talk about the hardware. It was really comfortable. The face pads were soft and the headset wasn't really heavy like the Occulous was. It also requires a long cable to be connected to the computer, which wasn't that bad. I didn't find myself tripping over it at all. The controllers were also very comfortable, much better than the Wii and PS Move. The screen was a little pixelated, like if I get less than 1 inch away from the TV, but that is to be expected some, I guess.
So yeah, the HTC Vive is REALLY cool, but I don't think it's 3 grand cool. The HTC Vive headset, controllers, and sensors cost $800 alone. Then you need a PC that is powerful enough to run it. The store was using a $2500 Alienware with like top of the line components. The demo unit assistant said he knew a guy that built one himself for like $1000, but you still need a rather high end gaming PC. My sack of potatoes won't be able to run it, so I would need to buy all new hardware, plus all the games. Plus, I don't know how often I would play it since it is a VERY active experience.
So will I buy one? Definitely not yet. It's a really fun experience, but it's not $3000 fun. I'll wait until the Vive is $100 and the computing hardware I need is standard computer components. Well this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and lets see what comes from the HTC Vive.
Monday, March 14, 2016
Cross Platform Online is Good for Consumers, Bad for Platforms AKA Why I Own an XBOX360
Microsoft wants to do cross platform online with Sony, and that's a bad idea for them.
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer hear and I heard that Microsoft is going to do cross platform online with the XBOX ONE and Windows 10 (not Steam, Windows 10 store), and they are trying to get Sony to do cross platform online with them, so if you have a PS4 and your friend has an XBOX ONE, both of you can play online so long as the game is on both consoles. This is something that online gamers have been dreaming about since online gaming became mainstream. However, this is a REALLY bad idea for Sony and Microsoft, and here's why.
First, lets go back to 2008; the XBOX 360 and PS3 were the current gen consoles. My brother and I were looking to get one of them (the Wii was off the table for reasons explained in numerous different posts). Since we were coming of the PS2, I said "hey let's get a PS3 because we liked the PS2 so much." He said "no let's get an XBOX 360 because that's what all my friends have and I want to play online with them," and while every online game he wanted was also available on PS3, he couldn't play with his friends on the PS3. Online didn't really matter to me since I prefer single player games, and since all I really cared about were multi-plats, we got an XBOX 360. Sure, I wanted the blu-ray and rumored Sly 4, but pretty much every game I wanted on the PS3 I could get on the 360. However, I didn't play it much because the 7th gen didn't do much for me since most games were shooters or sports (2 genres I don't care for). And even though I wanted to use the streaming services like Hulu Plus and Crackle, I couldn't because I needed Xbox Live Gold to do that, and by the time I got into streaming services neither my brother nor I wanted to pay for gold anymore.
Well in 2011 Wreck it Ralph came out and I said "I refuse to get this movie on DVD, I am getting a blu-ray player of some kind so I can watch this movie right." Since there was a killer deal on a black friday PS3, we bought a PS3. From then on, the PS3 was our primary gaming machine. Every multi-plat from then on we bought was for the PS3. We bought multiple exclusives like Last of Us and Sly 4. Once we bought the PS3, it became our primary gaming device with our XBOX 360 collecting dust. We bought maybe 3 XBOX360 games since buying the PS3, and those were exclusives I got for cheap at garage sales. Even after Microsoft dropped the whole "you need XBL Gold for streaming services" we prefer to use the PS3 for streaming. If it wasn't for platform locked online, we probably wouldn't have an XBOX 360. (Well, we wouldn't have an XBOX 360 as our 7th gen console. I'm a collector, I would have bought an XBOX 360 eventually because I want every console, but it wouldn't have been before I got a PS3).
And there you have it. My family wouldn't have bought an XBOX 360 if my brother could have played with his XBOX 360 friends from a PS3. It would have been great for us, but it would have cost Microsoft a sale. If I were an online gamer, I would be really happy about this because it is great for consumers. However, we honestly wouldn't have bought an XBOX 360 as our primary platform and bought all our games and live gold if cross platform online was an option in the 7th gen. Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and if I were Sony I wouldn't agree to cross platform online.
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer hear and I heard that Microsoft is going to do cross platform online with the XBOX ONE and Windows 10 (not Steam, Windows 10 store), and they are trying to get Sony to do cross platform online with them, so if you have a PS4 and your friend has an XBOX ONE, both of you can play online so long as the game is on both consoles. This is something that online gamers have been dreaming about since online gaming became mainstream. However, this is a REALLY bad idea for Sony and Microsoft, and here's why.
First, lets go back to 2008; the XBOX 360 and PS3 were the current gen consoles. My brother and I were looking to get one of them (the Wii was off the table for reasons explained in numerous different posts). Since we were coming of the PS2, I said "hey let's get a PS3 because we liked the PS2 so much." He said "no let's get an XBOX 360 because that's what all my friends have and I want to play online with them," and while every online game he wanted was also available on PS3, he couldn't play with his friends on the PS3. Online didn't really matter to me since I prefer single player games, and since all I really cared about were multi-plats, we got an XBOX 360. Sure, I wanted the blu-ray and rumored Sly 4, but pretty much every game I wanted on the PS3 I could get on the 360. However, I didn't play it much because the 7th gen didn't do much for me since most games were shooters or sports (2 genres I don't care for). And even though I wanted to use the streaming services like Hulu Plus and Crackle, I couldn't because I needed Xbox Live Gold to do that, and by the time I got into streaming services neither my brother nor I wanted to pay for gold anymore.
Well in 2011 Wreck it Ralph came out and I said "I refuse to get this movie on DVD, I am getting a blu-ray player of some kind so I can watch this movie right." Since there was a killer deal on a black friday PS3, we bought a PS3. From then on, the PS3 was our primary gaming machine. Every multi-plat from then on we bought was for the PS3. We bought multiple exclusives like Last of Us and Sly 4. Once we bought the PS3, it became our primary gaming device with our XBOX 360 collecting dust. We bought maybe 3 XBOX360 games since buying the PS3, and those were exclusives I got for cheap at garage sales. Even after Microsoft dropped the whole "you need XBL Gold for streaming services" we prefer to use the PS3 for streaming. If it wasn't for platform locked online, we probably wouldn't have an XBOX 360. (Well, we wouldn't have an XBOX 360 as our 7th gen console. I'm a collector, I would have bought an XBOX 360 eventually because I want every console, but it wouldn't have been before I got a PS3).
And there you have it. My family wouldn't have bought an XBOX 360 if my brother could have played with his XBOX 360 friends from a PS3. It would have been great for us, but it would have cost Microsoft a sale. If I were an online gamer, I would be really happy about this because it is great for consumers. However, we honestly wouldn't have bought an XBOX 360 as our primary platform and bought all our games and live gold if cross platform online was an option in the 7th gen. Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and if I were Sony I wouldn't agree to cross platform online.
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
PC games on XBOX ONE is not what you think
Steam will never come to consoles. Never, ever.
So I was watching AlphaOmegaSin's video about PC games being able to be streamed to XBOX ONE soon, and he says some bold statements about PC streaming on consoles. Here's the original video.
The big thing he said was "will Sony release a Steam app to compete with XBOX?" The short answer, no. The short reason, competition. Now for the rambling.
A steam app to play steam games will NEVER come to dedicated hardware, plain and simple. Sorry, it just will never happen, because steam is the competition. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and maybe OUYA/Nvidia all sell games through their online marketplaces. If you have the option to buy a game through steam or the XBOX Live market place, and you get more bang for your buck from Steam and Microsoft gets nothing from the deal, then they're losing a sale and it's not in their best interest to offer that service. Console manufacturers make all their money in game licensing and typically sell the hardware at a loss of close to cost (I think now they're sold with like a 1% mark up, but that's not enough to keep a division alive). We once had consoles where the manufacturers made their profit off hardware, it was the 3DO, and it failed miserably because the consoles were $700 or more alone. It would be the same as Sony adding the XBOX LIVE marketplace to the PS4, or Pepsi delivering Coke in their trucks, or EA selling their games through Steam.
And for you PC elitists that say "nu uh, PC is not in the same league as console gaming," that may be true from a consumer stand point, but to a company that sells videogames through a digital marketplace, anyone who also sells games through a digital marketplace is competition. If you wanted a game and you had the option to either pay $2 for it through steam on sale or through PSN for $20, you're going to get it through steam, and Sony won't make any money off the deal since it's a completely different service. Even Sony and Valve worked out some kind of deal where Valve paid a 3% licensing fee to Sony for every game sold through steam through the PS4 steam app, Valve will just raise the price through Steam for PS4 by 3% to cover the costs. NO, lord Gabben is NOT being "super pro-consumer" because it's cheaper on PC, he's just being a smart business man because valve is making the same on every sale regardless of PC or PS4. You might get something like uplay for Wii U where you can get all your uplay achievements for ubisoft games you bought for Wii U, but you can't buy ubisoft games through the uplay app and all games you bought through uplay can't be played on the Wii U.
And if you're wondering "how are PC games streamed to XBOX ONE?" I'm pretty sure that the PC games that you can stream are the ones available through the Windows store, and only the ones through the windows store. They aren't steam, they aren't GOG, they aren't Amazon games, or any of those services. These are games you buy directly from Microsoft, so as far as Microsoft is concerned they're getting your money one way or another, and they don't care so long as they get it. I think this was mentioned at E3. You won't be able to play steam games, you won't be able to play GOG games, you won't be able to play amazon store games, you will just be able to play Microsoft store games.
Now the last argument you may have is the different video streaming services available on consoles even though you can buy movies and TV shows through XBL and PSN, well that's because the primary objective of XBOX and PlayStation is not to sell movies and TV shows, it's to sell games. Sony and Microsoft want you to buy their hardware so you will buy their software (games). Streaming services like netflix, hulu plus, Amazon Instant Video, and the like were originally added as incentives to get you to buy their hardware over the competition, and it's still the same today (I could get the games I want on either PS4 or XB1, and XB1 has more streaming services I am interested in, I think I'll get an XB1). Now you buy an XBOX 1, Microsoft makes a little money on that, and then you buy the games where they make all their money. If you could buy the games through Steam, then Microsoft only makes a few pennies on the sale of the hardware.
And if you pay close attention, only STREAMING is available on console. On PC you can download Amazon and Vudu videos to your hard drive in addition to streaming, but you can ONLY stream Amazon and Vudu on consoles. You can only download movies and TV shows if you buy them through XBL or PSN. But once again, the XBOX and PlayStation are gaming machines that can stream video. If they let the competition eat into their primary food source, then they're just going to be all the more hungry and eventually starve to death.
Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and 3rd party game marketplaces will never come to first party hardware.
So I was watching AlphaOmegaSin's video about PC games being able to be streamed to XBOX ONE soon, and he says some bold statements about PC streaming on consoles. Here's the original video.
The big thing he said was "will Sony release a Steam app to compete with XBOX?" The short answer, no. The short reason, competition. Now for the rambling.
A steam app to play steam games will NEVER come to dedicated hardware, plain and simple. Sorry, it just will never happen, because steam is the competition. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and maybe OUYA/Nvidia all sell games through their online marketplaces. If you have the option to buy a game through steam or the XBOX Live market place, and you get more bang for your buck from Steam and Microsoft gets nothing from the deal, then they're losing a sale and it's not in their best interest to offer that service. Console manufacturers make all their money in game licensing and typically sell the hardware at a loss of close to cost (I think now they're sold with like a 1% mark up, but that's not enough to keep a division alive). We once had consoles where the manufacturers made their profit off hardware, it was the 3DO, and it failed miserably because the consoles were $700 or more alone. It would be the same as Sony adding the XBOX LIVE marketplace to the PS4, or Pepsi delivering Coke in their trucks, or EA selling their games through Steam.
And for you PC elitists that say "nu uh, PC is not in the same league as console gaming," that may be true from a consumer stand point, but to a company that sells videogames through a digital marketplace, anyone who also sells games through a digital marketplace is competition. If you wanted a game and you had the option to either pay $2 for it through steam on sale or through PSN for $20, you're going to get it through steam, and Sony won't make any money off the deal since it's a completely different service. Even Sony and Valve worked out some kind of deal where Valve paid a 3% licensing fee to Sony for every game sold through steam through the PS4 steam app, Valve will just raise the price through Steam for PS4 by 3% to cover the costs. NO, lord Gabben is NOT being "super pro-consumer" because it's cheaper on PC, he's just being a smart business man because valve is making the same on every sale regardless of PC or PS4. You might get something like uplay for Wii U where you can get all your uplay achievements for ubisoft games you bought for Wii U, but you can't buy ubisoft games through the uplay app and all games you bought through uplay can't be played on the Wii U.
And if you're wondering "how are PC games streamed to XBOX ONE?" I'm pretty sure that the PC games that you can stream are the ones available through the Windows store, and only the ones through the windows store. They aren't steam, they aren't GOG, they aren't Amazon games, or any of those services. These are games you buy directly from Microsoft, so as far as Microsoft is concerned they're getting your money one way or another, and they don't care so long as they get it. I think this was mentioned at E3. You won't be able to play steam games, you won't be able to play GOG games, you won't be able to play amazon store games, you will just be able to play Microsoft store games.
Now the last argument you may have is the different video streaming services available on consoles even though you can buy movies and TV shows through XBL and PSN, well that's because the primary objective of XBOX and PlayStation is not to sell movies and TV shows, it's to sell games. Sony and Microsoft want you to buy their hardware so you will buy their software (games). Streaming services like netflix, hulu plus, Amazon Instant Video, and the like were originally added as incentives to get you to buy their hardware over the competition, and it's still the same today (I could get the games I want on either PS4 or XB1, and XB1 has more streaming services I am interested in, I think I'll get an XB1). Now you buy an XBOX 1, Microsoft makes a little money on that, and then you buy the games where they make all their money. If you could buy the games through Steam, then Microsoft only makes a few pennies on the sale of the hardware.
And if you pay close attention, only STREAMING is available on console. On PC you can download Amazon and Vudu videos to your hard drive in addition to streaming, but you can ONLY stream Amazon and Vudu on consoles. You can only download movies and TV shows if you buy them through XBL or PSN. But once again, the XBOX and PlayStation are gaming machines that can stream video. If they let the competition eat into their primary food source, then they're just going to be all the more hungry and eventually starve to death.
Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and 3rd party game marketplaces will never come to first party hardware.
Monday, October 6, 2014
Kinect Bundles are Still a Thing? Well not Anymore on Amazon
I've not been a supporter of the kinect. You can read about it twice here and here. Anyways, Microsoft released a kinectless xbox one bundle about 4 months ago. I gotta say, I don't think anyone missed it. No games were really developed for kinect. No games were showcased with kinect features. After releasing the kinectless xbox one, there were some commercials that still showcased kinect, but those lasted a couple weeks and then were forgotten. In fact, until I read this article, I essentially forgot kinect 2.0 existed. And you know what, that's a good thing.
First, I want to talk about what this means for the kinect. You're dead. No one wants you. Amazon doesn't think you're worth their warehouse space, and they stock some stupid things. You'll be sitting alone in a corner along with the unsold kinect 1.0, and playstation eyes and move. Accept your fate and die in the ditch.
OK so now that I've rightfully added insult to injury, what does it mean that I, the most obsessive videogame collector and trivia aficionado I know, say I forgot the kinect bundles existed? I, a gamer who said "I will not buy an xbox one so long as I need to buy a kinect," forgot that the kinect is a thing. Well, it means Microsoft is doing something right. They really alienated consumers with the launch debacle; always online DRM, no used games, and mandatory kinect purchase and use. Well, that's blown over. Now instead of being points of distaste and not buying it, it's a memory of "boy you screwed up." Not being required to have gold to do everything except buy things and play offline is good as well, making it more competitive. I know some people are upset that Microsoft didn't stick to their guns, like Adam Sessler, but it was a goose egg, and best to just get rid of it. So...yeah, Microsoft, good job at making us forget about how you screwed up. It'll be a while before you get my money, but only because you haven't given me any system seller games. Sure, fanboys will continue to bring up the launch failure, I'm sure BlackBusterCritic is still bring it up, but fanboys will be fanboys.
I know it was short, but honestly I don't have much else to say, and I'm pretty tired. Well this has been happy gamer signing off, and if you make a goose egg, get rid of it and pretend it didn't happen, because we'll forget.
First, I want to talk about what this means for the kinect. You're dead. No one wants you. Amazon doesn't think you're worth their warehouse space, and they stock some stupid things. You'll be sitting alone in a corner along with the unsold kinect 1.0, and playstation eyes and move. Accept your fate and die in the ditch.
OK so now that I've rightfully added insult to injury, what does it mean that I, the most obsessive videogame collector and trivia aficionado I know, say I forgot the kinect bundles existed? I, a gamer who said "I will not buy an xbox one so long as I need to buy a kinect," forgot that the kinect is a thing. Well, it means Microsoft is doing something right. They really alienated consumers with the launch debacle; always online DRM, no used games, and mandatory kinect purchase and use. Well, that's blown over. Now instead of being points of distaste and not buying it, it's a memory of "boy you screwed up." Not being required to have gold to do everything except buy things and play offline is good as well, making it more competitive. I know some people are upset that Microsoft didn't stick to their guns, like Adam Sessler, but it was a goose egg, and best to just get rid of it. So...yeah, Microsoft, good job at making us forget about how you screwed up. It'll be a while before you get my money, but only because you haven't given me any system seller games. Sure, fanboys will continue to bring up the launch failure, I'm sure BlackBusterCritic is still bring it up, but fanboys will be fanboys.
I know it was short, but honestly I don't have much else to say, and I'm pretty tired. Well this has been happy gamer signing off, and if you make a goose egg, get rid of it and pretend it didn't happen, because we'll forget.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
XBOX Changes, XBOX ONE kinect free bundle and Gold is only needed for multiplayer
"I will never buy an XBOX ONE so long as I have to buy a Kinect." I don't know if I've ever said that here on this particular blog, but I know I've said it in the comment section on countless articles and videos about the XBOX ONE. This was not an idle threat, I hate the idea of being required to buy something I will never use and the potential will never be fully utilized except in maybe 1 game. Like before, not sure if I ever did my comparison of the Wii and the kinect on this particular blog, but I know I've said it whenever someone said "the technology in Kinect 2.0 is so much more advanced than the original kinect and it opens up the doors to so much." Yeah, the wii remote also had loads of potential, but all we got from that was 3 games that actually utilized the motion controls while the rest was shovelware or tacked on. The same exact thing was going to happen with the kinect. But back to me never buying xbox with kinect. I saw some amazing exclusives at E3. I saw some amazing exclusives on TV and in demo stations. I thought to myself "that sure looks like it'd be grand fun, to bad I'll never buy an XBOX ONE so long as kinect is a required purchase." Now praise the lord that the kinect is no longer mandatory. With that gone, I'm now considering the XBOX ONE as my next console.
On a less publicized note, Microsoft is now unlocking all the streaming media apps and other features from behind the XBOX Gold payment wall. Yeah, you heard right, you will not longer need XBOX Gold to use streaming apps like netflix, hulu plus, crackle, youtube, internet explorer, MLB, NFL, vevo, amazon instant video; the list goes on and on. What do I have to say to that, well thank-you for wising up Microsoft. Absolutely no other device, at least to my EXTENSIVE knowledge, required you to pay a payment wall to access services that are completely free elsewhere or only require you to pay the subscription for the single service. My PS3, all I have to do is pay my hulu plus subscription, buy the episodes or movies through Amazon instant video, or watch some commercials on Crackle. I don't need playstation plus to access these services. The same goes for the Wii, Wii U, Roku, any cell phone or tablet, apple TV, 3DS, PC, and EVERY OTHER DEVICE! When I heard that, I thought "hmm, looks like I'll be able to finally use my XBOX360 for something other than offline gaming." I only had gold for that 1 free month you get for creating an xbox live account. Never had it since. Never needed it. I don't like online multiplayer and they didn't have all the streaming apps I cared about before I got my PS3. Good on you Microsoft, you're giving us options. They're also reworking games with gold where you get free games for having gold, so now it's more like playstion plus, which is a plus. If I ever get the time to actually play videogames again, maybe, just maybe, I might want to get gold for the first time
Now for something that really irks me, when I read articles about people complaining about the kinect news. They're all sad that now we aren't forced to buy a kinect. The make it sound like Microsoft is completely dropping kinect support. News flash, it's still available, but now we don't have to buy it if we don't want to. "But without the known install base developers can't confidently develop for the kinect." Yeah and how well did that work with the Wii? All 3 of the games I played that actually utilized the motion controls were first party nintendo games. All the others were tacked on motion controls or shovelware. The same exact thing was going to happen to the kinect. And you know what, if a developer has an amazing idea for kinect integration or a kinect game, they're going to make it. Really, no developer is going to say "I have this amazing idea for a game that utilizes kinect and would be a system seller, and people would buy a kinect just to play this game, but I won't do it because there's not enough of an install base." If a serious developer went to Microsoft with that pitch, Microsoft would probably give them kinect royalties. But who am I kidding, no one is taking the kinect seriously except for Microsoft and a couple of crazy reporters and fanboys.
Well, that's enough rambling for this topic. This has been Happy Gamer signing off, and remember, you can't please all the people all the time, but you can please almost all of the people by removing crap.
On a less publicized note, Microsoft is now unlocking all the streaming media apps and other features from behind the XBOX Gold payment wall. Yeah, you heard right, you will not longer need XBOX Gold to use streaming apps like netflix, hulu plus, crackle, youtube, internet explorer, MLB, NFL, vevo, amazon instant video; the list goes on and on. What do I have to say to that, well thank-you for wising up Microsoft. Absolutely no other device, at least to my EXTENSIVE knowledge, required you to pay a payment wall to access services that are completely free elsewhere or only require you to pay the subscription for the single service. My PS3, all I have to do is pay my hulu plus subscription, buy the episodes or movies through Amazon instant video, or watch some commercials on Crackle. I don't need playstation plus to access these services. The same goes for the Wii, Wii U, Roku, any cell phone or tablet, apple TV, 3DS, PC, and EVERY OTHER DEVICE! When I heard that, I thought "hmm, looks like I'll be able to finally use my XBOX360 for something other than offline gaming." I only had gold for that 1 free month you get for creating an xbox live account. Never had it since. Never needed it. I don't like online multiplayer and they didn't have all the streaming apps I cared about before I got my PS3. Good on you Microsoft, you're giving us options. They're also reworking games with gold where you get free games for having gold, so now it's more like playstion plus, which is a plus. If I ever get the time to actually play videogames again, maybe, just maybe, I might want to get gold for the first time
Now for something that really irks me, when I read articles about people complaining about the kinect news. They're all sad that now we aren't forced to buy a kinect. The make it sound like Microsoft is completely dropping kinect support. News flash, it's still available, but now we don't have to buy it if we don't want to. "But without the known install base developers can't confidently develop for the kinect." Yeah and how well did that work with the Wii? All 3 of the games I played that actually utilized the motion controls were first party nintendo games. All the others were tacked on motion controls or shovelware. The same exact thing was going to happen to the kinect. And you know what, if a developer has an amazing idea for kinect integration or a kinect game, they're going to make it. Really, no developer is going to say "I have this amazing idea for a game that utilizes kinect and would be a system seller, and people would buy a kinect just to play this game, but I won't do it because there's not enough of an install base." If a serious developer went to Microsoft with that pitch, Microsoft would probably give them kinect royalties. But who am I kidding, no one is taking the kinect seriously except for Microsoft and a couple of crazy reporters and fanboys.
Well, that's enough rambling for this topic. This has been Happy Gamer signing off, and remember, you can't please all the people all the time, but you can please almost all of the people by removing crap.
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Hapy Gamer Rambles, a look at XBOX ONE's used game DRM
OK, so welcome to part 2 of the XBOX ONE original design look. Last time I talked about the always online aspect. Today I'll talk about the used game DRM. Next time, I'll talk about the kinect. Now with the used game DRM, I believe Microsoft was trying to accomplish 2 things, control over the market and no more used games, and make the XBOX ONE an all digital machine.
Now like always online, you can't sell me on only digital and no used games. I'm a collector, I like my physical copies for display reasons. I also hate digital only since I've missed some digital only releases and now I can't get them anywhere. There have been launch titles that are no longer produced, and if not for used physical copies, I would be out of luck. Not only that, with physical I don't have to worry about my console running out of space. I'm only limited to how much shelf space I have. Also, as a collector, I refuse to sell games. Even if the game is utter crap, it is now part of my collection and I will not sell it. Again, I'm not the norm, but this time there are more people who would agree with me. There are a lot of people that like physical copies.
So, where did Microsoft go wrong? Well here's how they treated physical copies. "If you buy the game physically, the game is then installed onto your hard drive and is locked to your account. With this, you don't need to have the disc in the tray and you've got family share. You can't sell it unless at a specified retailer. You can only loan the game to 1 friend, and now the game is tied to their account forever. Basically, you can't simply sell or loan your games." So what's the problem here? Well Microsoft basically missed the entire point why people buy physical copies. You don't buy a physical copy to have it treated exactly like a digital copy. If you buy a physical copy, you buy it so you could easily trade with with friends, easily sell it, and play the game off the disc. If you wanted disc-less play, no way to sell your game, and no way to trade your game, you buy it digitally. Whether you wanted to control used game sales or wanted to go all digital, this was not the way to do it.
So, controlling used game sales. I can see where they come from, developers don't get money from used sales, they need to keep the servers running, and they might not have gone under if more people bought it new. Here's one thing though that I think developers forget; used games are far different than pirated games. With pirated games, one once legal license can be used entertain an infinite amount of people. With a used game however, only one person can enjoy it, and the original owner forfeits all rights to enjoying it later. With used games, people do experience seller's remorse, because now they can't enjoy that game ever again unless they buy another copy. I will save the details on my explanation of why people sell their games and how to avoid that for a later date, but here's the gist; people sell their games because they're board with them and don't want them anymore and would rather have some money. If you don't want people to sell their game, make a game they won't want to sell. Xenoblade Chronicle was going for $70 used, because that's the price it took to get people away from it. Bear in mind, new it cost $40. It was so good, people considered it worth more than the new price. If those developers released more copies at $40, they would have sold so many more. In fact, GameStop got into some trouble because they got some new copies and they opened them and called them used because it would make more money due to used costing $30 more. If you don't want people to sell your game, make a game they won't want to sell.
So I addressed preventing used games, what about going all digital. Well that's a very simple answer that developers don't seem to grasp; pass the savings in shipping and production onto the customer. When a game is physical, there's far more costs than just digital; shipping, packaging, printing, disc writing, the middle mans cut, and things like that. All in all, the developer and Microsoft might only get like $45 together after all the other costs of doing physical. So without all these added costs, how much do digital games cost? Exactly the same as if you bought it physically. Sure, developers now make more per game and financially it's the same for the consumer, but then that means that the consumer has to deal with all the draw backs to digital, aka, no flexibility on sharing or selling and hard drive space. Sure they get the perks of disc-less play, but that doesn't necessarily make up for the drawbacks. If you want people to buy digitally, make it financially advantageous. "OK physical copy costs $60, if you're going to buy digitally, we'll subtract the cost of printing the disc, making the packaging, shipping the game to the retailer, the retailer's cut, let's round that down to the nearest dollar, so now your final price is $45." That's 25% off physical. Do you know why Steam can do all those sales? It's because it's an all digital platform without any middle men or production costs, and they pass the savings onto the consumer. They did do some physical releases, but they made it better financially to buy it digitally. You make digital cheaper than physical, people will then buy digital, and you can naturally phase out physical. I fear the day when that happens, but that's how you do it.
So, when Microsoft got rid of the DRM, they got rid of the "features" like disc-less play and family share. I already addressed disc-less play and if people want that feature they'll just buy it digitally, but what about family share? Well, we really don't know what we lost with that one. The details were kind of hazy as to what that would actually do. There was something about being able to share your entire game collection with 10 people in your family, and those 10 people could use the same license. An example they gave was a dad and his 2 college sons playing CoD together off the same license with the dad at home and the sons off at their respective colleges. The way it sounds is that you could have shared your entire game collection with 10 "family members," aka friends. How would this have worked, we don't know. Would there have been 10 permanent people you call family that could use it? Would that mean you could be logged onto 10 different consoles? Would it have meant that you could call 10 consoles your "console" and everyone on that console had access to your games? No one really knows. Microsoft did try to advertize the DRM as a good thing, and to that I must give them some credit, but it ultimately failed because people still hated it and DRM is almost never the way to go. People expect a certain level of DRM with digital games. If you want to get rid of physical games, you need to make digital more appealing than physical, not destroy the whole reason people buy physical in the first place.
OK, that's enough for today. Next time, the kinect. Well this has been happy gamer, and if you want to get rid of physical copies and used games, DRM is not the way to go.
Now like always online, you can't sell me on only digital and no used games. I'm a collector, I like my physical copies for display reasons. I also hate digital only since I've missed some digital only releases and now I can't get them anywhere. There have been launch titles that are no longer produced, and if not for used physical copies, I would be out of luck. Not only that, with physical I don't have to worry about my console running out of space. I'm only limited to how much shelf space I have. Also, as a collector, I refuse to sell games. Even if the game is utter crap, it is now part of my collection and I will not sell it. Again, I'm not the norm, but this time there are more people who would agree with me. There are a lot of people that like physical copies.
So, where did Microsoft go wrong? Well here's how they treated physical copies. "If you buy the game physically, the game is then installed onto your hard drive and is locked to your account. With this, you don't need to have the disc in the tray and you've got family share. You can't sell it unless at a specified retailer. You can only loan the game to 1 friend, and now the game is tied to their account forever. Basically, you can't simply sell or loan your games." So what's the problem here? Well Microsoft basically missed the entire point why people buy physical copies. You don't buy a physical copy to have it treated exactly like a digital copy. If you buy a physical copy, you buy it so you could easily trade with with friends, easily sell it, and play the game off the disc. If you wanted disc-less play, no way to sell your game, and no way to trade your game, you buy it digitally. Whether you wanted to control used game sales or wanted to go all digital, this was not the way to do it.
So, controlling used game sales. I can see where they come from, developers don't get money from used sales, they need to keep the servers running, and they might not have gone under if more people bought it new. Here's one thing though that I think developers forget; used games are far different than pirated games. With pirated games, one once legal license can be used entertain an infinite amount of people. With a used game however, only one person can enjoy it, and the original owner forfeits all rights to enjoying it later. With used games, people do experience seller's remorse, because now they can't enjoy that game ever again unless they buy another copy. I will save the details on my explanation of why people sell their games and how to avoid that for a later date, but here's the gist; people sell their games because they're board with them and don't want them anymore and would rather have some money. If you don't want people to sell their game, make a game they won't want to sell. Xenoblade Chronicle was going for $70 used, because that's the price it took to get people away from it. Bear in mind, new it cost $40. It was so good, people considered it worth more than the new price. If those developers released more copies at $40, they would have sold so many more. In fact, GameStop got into some trouble because they got some new copies and they opened them and called them used because it would make more money due to used costing $30 more. If you don't want people to sell your game, make a game they won't want to sell.
So I addressed preventing used games, what about going all digital. Well that's a very simple answer that developers don't seem to grasp; pass the savings in shipping and production onto the customer. When a game is physical, there's far more costs than just digital; shipping, packaging, printing, disc writing, the middle mans cut, and things like that. All in all, the developer and Microsoft might only get like $45 together after all the other costs of doing physical. So without all these added costs, how much do digital games cost? Exactly the same as if you bought it physically. Sure, developers now make more per game and financially it's the same for the consumer, but then that means that the consumer has to deal with all the draw backs to digital, aka, no flexibility on sharing or selling and hard drive space. Sure they get the perks of disc-less play, but that doesn't necessarily make up for the drawbacks. If you want people to buy digitally, make it financially advantageous. "OK physical copy costs $60, if you're going to buy digitally, we'll subtract the cost of printing the disc, making the packaging, shipping the game to the retailer, the retailer's cut, let's round that down to the nearest dollar, so now your final price is $45." That's 25% off physical. Do you know why Steam can do all those sales? It's because it's an all digital platform without any middle men or production costs, and they pass the savings onto the consumer. They did do some physical releases, but they made it better financially to buy it digitally. You make digital cheaper than physical, people will then buy digital, and you can naturally phase out physical. I fear the day when that happens, but that's how you do it.
So, when Microsoft got rid of the DRM, they got rid of the "features" like disc-less play and family share. I already addressed disc-less play and if people want that feature they'll just buy it digitally, but what about family share? Well, we really don't know what we lost with that one. The details were kind of hazy as to what that would actually do. There was something about being able to share your entire game collection with 10 people in your family, and those 10 people could use the same license. An example they gave was a dad and his 2 college sons playing CoD together off the same license with the dad at home and the sons off at their respective colleges. The way it sounds is that you could have shared your entire game collection with 10 "family members," aka friends. How would this have worked, we don't know. Would there have been 10 permanent people you call family that could use it? Would that mean you could be logged onto 10 different consoles? Would it have meant that you could call 10 consoles your "console" and everyone on that console had access to your games? No one really knows. Microsoft did try to advertize the DRM as a good thing, and to that I must give them some credit, but it ultimately failed because people still hated it and DRM is almost never the way to go. People expect a certain level of DRM with digital games. If you want to get rid of physical games, you need to make digital more appealing than physical, not destroy the whole reason people buy physical in the first place.
OK, that's enough for today. Next time, the kinect. Well this has been happy gamer, and if you want to get rid of physical copies and used games, DRM is not the way to go.
Friday, December 20, 2013
The Uncanny Valley of Graphics, Happy Gamer Rambles
What happens when graphics are so good they almost look realistic. Well this is what happened.
So I went to my local mall and they just put in a Microsoft Store. Being the fan of windows that I am, I decided I'd check it out. It was pretty cool, and they had on display an XBOX ONE demo on a 60 inch TV. Love them or hate them, admit it, you'd try out any console or PC if it was on a 60 inch TV. I have to say, the graphics are stunning. In fact, they're so good, they're absolutely terrible and hurt my eyes. So what do I mean by that? I'm talking about "The Uncanny Valley."
For those of you who don't know, the uncanny valley is "when human features look and move almost, but not exactly, like natural human beings, it causes a response of revulsion among human observers;" according to wikipedia. Basically, it means that, in terms of graphics, things look so good but since it isn't an actual video shot on a video camera, it looks terrible. You brain wants to think that it's real, but since there's subtle nuances that don't look real, you perceive it as ugly.
Now how does this relate to the XBOX ONE? Well as I said earlier, the graphics are amazing. These were like 1080p 60 FPS, or whatever. Everything moved so smoothly. Everything had such detail. However, because it still looked enough like a video game, the "hyper realistic" graphics confused my brain and I concluded that it looked terrible.
Now you PC gamers might be thinking "ha, console peasant, that's what you get for not using PC quality graphics." Well ya know what, I'd probably say the same thing about your precious PC graphics. My guess, they're even further down in the valley. "But...the resolution, the frame rate, the textures, they just look so amazing." Yes, and that's the point. They do look amazing, but the more amazing they look, the more off put I am because it still doesn't look like I'm playing real life. Keep your amazing graphics, I'll stick to "it looks so fake that it doesn't look bad."
Now wait, maybe I'm just being to hard on it. I mean I liked The Last of Us and that looked pretty real right? Well...not quite. With Last of Us, they were going for "realistic physics and animations," not "realistic looking visuals." The visuals, though striking with how well they captured human emotions and movements, wasn't trying to make Joel or Ellie look like actual humans, if you get what I'm saying. It looked like a really well done animated movie with a realistic art style, not an animated movie that put so much emphasis on trying to look like live action that it looked bad. It's hard to explain. Basically, it felt real without trying to look real.
I may just be old fashioned. Really, at the time of writing this, I only started gaming on an HDTV 2 years prior. Before then, I played on a 26 inch, 4:3 aspect ratio, tube TV. I still do when I play old school because the old consoles look bad on my HDTV, but that's a ramble for another day. It could have also been the TV. I know when I go to stores like Costco or Sears, they have a movie playing and the TV has a smoothing effect that like adds more frames or something. I don't really know how it works, but I know it makes the movie look like the foreground is completely separate from the back ground and things don't move right. More uncanny valley right there. But it really could be that 1080p 60 fps just looks bad. Well this has been happy gamer and you can keep your ugly 60 frames per second, 1080p resolution. I'll stick with 720p 30 fps where things aren't in the uncanny valley.
PS: As for the rest of the XBOX, I'm very meh. The controller does feel really nice. The interface kind of sucks. They didn't have the Kinect on, but that things just looks terrible. I wouldn't be caught dead with that sitting on my TV stand simply because it looks bad. The UI felt very gimped without the Kinect. I played Forza 5, did not like the physics. The game was in manual. Turning was way to complicated I kept hitting the wall. I am not impressed.
So I went to my local mall and they just put in a Microsoft Store. Being the fan of windows that I am, I decided I'd check it out. It was pretty cool, and they had on display an XBOX ONE demo on a 60 inch TV. Love them or hate them, admit it, you'd try out any console or PC if it was on a 60 inch TV. I have to say, the graphics are stunning. In fact, they're so good, they're absolutely terrible and hurt my eyes. So what do I mean by that? I'm talking about "The Uncanny Valley."
For those of you who don't know, the uncanny valley is "when human features look and move almost, but not exactly, like natural human beings, it causes a response of revulsion among human observers;" according to wikipedia. Basically, it means that, in terms of graphics, things look so good but since it isn't an actual video shot on a video camera, it looks terrible. You brain wants to think that it's real, but since there's subtle nuances that don't look real, you perceive it as ugly.
Now how does this relate to the XBOX ONE? Well as I said earlier, the graphics are amazing. These were like 1080p 60 FPS, or whatever. Everything moved so smoothly. Everything had such detail. However, because it still looked enough like a video game, the "hyper realistic" graphics confused my brain and I concluded that it looked terrible.
Now you PC gamers might be thinking "ha, console peasant, that's what you get for not using PC quality graphics." Well ya know what, I'd probably say the same thing about your precious PC graphics. My guess, they're even further down in the valley. "But...the resolution, the frame rate, the textures, they just look so amazing." Yes, and that's the point. They do look amazing, but the more amazing they look, the more off put I am because it still doesn't look like I'm playing real life. Keep your amazing graphics, I'll stick to "it looks so fake that it doesn't look bad."
Now wait, maybe I'm just being to hard on it. I mean I liked The Last of Us and that looked pretty real right? Well...not quite. With Last of Us, they were going for "realistic physics and animations," not "realistic looking visuals." The visuals, though striking with how well they captured human emotions and movements, wasn't trying to make Joel or Ellie look like actual humans, if you get what I'm saying. It looked like a really well done animated movie with a realistic art style, not an animated movie that put so much emphasis on trying to look like live action that it looked bad. It's hard to explain. Basically, it felt real without trying to look real.
I may just be old fashioned. Really, at the time of writing this, I only started gaming on an HDTV 2 years prior. Before then, I played on a 26 inch, 4:3 aspect ratio, tube TV. I still do when I play old school because the old consoles look bad on my HDTV, but that's a ramble for another day. It could have also been the TV. I know when I go to stores like Costco or Sears, they have a movie playing and the TV has a smoothing effect that like adds more frames or something. I don't really know how it works, but I know it makes the movie look like the foreground is completely separate from the back ground and things don't move right. More uncanny valley right there. But it really could be that 1080p 60 fps just looks bad. Well this has been happy gamer and you can keep your ugly 60 frames per second, 1080p resolution. I'll stick with 720p 30 fps where things aren't in the uncanny valley.
PS: As for the rest of the XBOX, I'm very meh. The controller does feel really nice. The interface kind of sucks. They didn't have the Kinect on, but that things just looks terrible. I wouldn't be caught dead with that sitting on my TV stand simply because it looks bad. The UI felt very gimped without the Kinect. I played Forza 5, did not like the physics. The game was in manual. Turning was way to complicated I kept hitting the wall. I am not impressed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)