X-Box, Playstation, and Wii Game News


The only new feature I need for this app is the ability to snap video like you can for MLB.tv, Netflix, and most other apps. I got some Dish credentials to get live NFL Network and NFL Redzone through this Xbox One app but as soon as you try to snap the app you lose the live footage and only get their short news update videos instead. If you are going to stream me video in the snapped form why cant you just stream the video I was actually watching instead of outdated updates.

I give full attention when the Lions are on and I watch NFL Redzone the rest of the time. I would love to be able to snap Redzone to the side while I run some patrols in Destiny. It seems like this would be a no brainer but the ESPN app has the same dumb limitation. I don't get why this works for some apps but not others.
 
Well, TIL I can watch Red Zone and NFL Network on my Xbox One using my dad's cable credentials. Doesn't do much good since I don't watch football anymore but it's good to know.
 
Well, there's a new Silent Hill coming out......



BTW I've never seen a greater dislike to like ratio ever before. I mean it's more than it is for THIS video..
 
This made me laugh harder than it should have...

gNx6b0f.jpg
 
Jim Sterling, one of Konami's more outspoken critics, has released a video detailing some more of Konami's business practices. They're rather unflattering to say the least, and just adds on to the disappointment that I and many other gamers have knowing that this once great game publisher is just pissing away all the goodwill it earned and is focused solely on profits as opposed to contributing to the video game industry. And yes I realize that ALL game publishers want to make profits, but this stuff (if true, as it comes from anonymous sources) is just insane. NSFW language.

 
Capcom has officially announced that they have started development on the a remake of Resident Evil 2 stemming from incredible fan feedback/support for such a thing.

http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/resid...fficially_in_development_capcom_confirms.html

Not sure how they plan to pull this off. Resident Evil 0 and 1 remakes were done because they basically just did a resolution bump/cleanup of the GameCube versions, same with RE 4. But RE 2 was on the Playstation 1, so none of the assets can be used/upgraded. There is a GC version of the game, but it's literally just the PS1 version with a texture bump. They can't really be enhanced anymore. So unless they're simply planning on doing a direct port of that awful looking game, Capcom is going to have to start from scratch to make this, so it likely won't be out for a while either. And it can be hard to make money on such a thing, when remakes are basically made to make games cheaply as opposed to brand new games, which this basically will be. Still, I feel that RE 2 is the best of the old school RE games so I guess I'm for this.

 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Peter Moore has a unique view of the complaints about on-disc DLC.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/new...s-On-Disc-DLC-Complaints-Are-Usually-Nonsense

I don't think that headline accurately describes what he says in the article. He isn't really saying complaints about on disc DLC are nonsense. He is saying the fact that people think DLC is already on the disc is nonsense. They are trying to cause controversy with a click bait headline when what he actually said makes sense.

Here is the quote of what he actually said.

"A lot of that resistance comes from the erroneous belief that somehow companies will ship a game incomplete, and then try to sell you stuff they have already made and held back," Moore said in a recent interview with Gamespot. "Nonsense. You come and stand where I am, next to Visceral's studio, and you see the work that is being done right now. And it's not just DLC, this is free updates and ongoing balance changes."

Moore elaborated further by explaining that on-disc DLC isn't technically "content" - it's more of the support code which helps the actual DLC launch run smoothly. "Think of them as APIs," Moore said. "Knowing down the road that something needs to sit on what you've already made, means you have to put some foundations down. What people are confused about is they think DLC is secretly on the disc, and that it's somehow unlocked when we say."
 
Okay there's a few things going on here..

First off, on disc DLC is a very real thing. While what Peter said also exists, where the so called "on disc DLC" is just a placeholder and "api" for the upcoming releases, there have also been numerous instances of where literally the entire DLC is on the disc, and what you're purchasing is simply the ability to unlock it. Capcom is probably the most famous offender, but they are far from the only ones. Hell I remember playing Return to Castle Wolfenstein on my original Xbox and all their DLC was on the disc locked away. I knew this because with each new map, when you downloaded it, was like 100KB (not MB, KB). So really, it's an instance of Peter Moore not truly grasping the question, similar to when asked about why a SP campaign wasn't included in Battlefront. The main complaint people have is that you shouldn't have to pay extra for stuff that is already there. They argue that if they paid already for the disc, then they should get EVERYTHING on the disc. Gaming already has many issues with microtransactions, where people don't want to pay $60 for the game and then pay extra to get the "complete" version of it.

Personally, while I'm no fan of microtransactions necessary to unlock content already on the disc, I think the problem lies more in that games are becoming SO huge and SO expensive, and with $60 being the basic inelastic price ceiling that hasn't changed in years (I remember when Phantasy Star 4 came out in '95 the MSRP was $100; imagine something like that happening today) it's getting harder and harder for these games to be profitable, so microtransactions and locking away content is an easy way to recoup those costs. You can't blame a company for trying to make money, BUT you CAN blame them when you buy a game for $60 and then later find out you have to pay MORE to get the complete experience. To EA's credit they haven't done such things, but I honestly wouldn't put it past them. Yes, EA has gotten significantly better after being the only company to be voted worst company in the world twice in a row (which they did NOT deserve either time, but gamers are nothing if not vocal) but they still could be better. The whole industry could be better quite frankly, but still it could be worse.
 
I remember that happening on the original Xbox too. I think it's harder to get away with these days since people expect something to actually download when they buy DLC now.

I see where you are coming from but at the same time I don't think he should have to speak for the entire industry. If EA isn't including DLC on the disc and then charging for it later he isn't the culprit. People still make claims that EA and other companies are doing this whether they actually are or not.
 
Looks like the review embargo for MGS V is ending on the 23rd. Curious as to which versions this counts. This is coming out on 5 different systems, so hopefully we won't get a Watch Dogs/Arkham Knight scenario where just the best version is sent out while all the other ones are tangibly inferior.

 
http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/08/18/former-double-fine-coo-launches-new-crowdfunding-platform-fig

Justin Bailey, the former COO of Double Fine, launched his own crowd funding website specifically for games. The thing that makes this one different is that backers can get a share of the profits.

This is the #1 problem I have had with Kickstarter from day one. I'm an accountant and I deal with funding all the time. Nothing else in the real world is anything remotely like Kickstarter. A normal business can't just get funding for their project and not have to pay it back (plus interest).

The way I see it Kickstarter, and the companies that use it, have been ripping the public off for years. Any dollar you give them over the price it takes to get a copy of the game is basically a 0% interest loan that they never have to pay back. They are using their fans to fund development and then charging more fans to buy the game after release. There is absolutely no risk on their end and they get 100% of the profits.

What's worse is when situations like Shenmue 3 happen. That game absolutely had private funding before they even stepped foot on Sony's stage. They then fleeced their fans for the largest video game Kickstarter ever. They had a publisher and didn't need crowd funded money but they took it anyways because it's free money. A CORPORATE publisher asked fans to DONATE money and people ate it up. They are hardly the first ones to do this either.

This new website makes way more sense to me. If something like Shovel Knight is pitched you can give your money and have a stake in the profits. It goes from a weird donation scheme to a possible investment. The problem is that I'm not sure why anyone would use this to fund their games. Why would Shenmue use FIG and share the profits with the people who helped make it happen when they can use Kickstarter and keep everything themselves?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Top