TotalBiscuit says Microsoft won E3

[jklinders]

I'll believe Microsoft is changing it's tune when Win 10 becomes something other than a dogshit OS and not before. I am still creeped out by their Games For Windows 2.0 given how crappy the first iteration was.

Sony's been in my shitlist for a while as well. I still have not forgotten some of their bait and switch from previous platform generations. They held out a nice olive branch for this generation but the rootkit fiasco from their music label sealed the deal though as they never properly apologized for that and steadfastly refused to see the problem with it.

Generally I say fuck both of them, but I have a choice to avoid one of them so Sony does not get my money. Unless I want to go through more hassle than it's worth I'm stuck with MS though.

 

[Fhqwhgod]

I can tell you who won E3 for me: Ubisoft. And it's only for the The Fractured But Whole segment. That game is looking incredible.

I was honestly shocked by Sony's conference when they pretended that VR will work on the current model PS4. We know they are working on a better model PS4, just like Microsoft is working on a beefier Xbox 1. And the reason is that VR will simply not work on 2011-level hardware that can't even handle 1080p.
Both major consoles have that problem, both will have to put out new models but only one company was willing to tell the E3 audience just that. Did you see how terrible that ubisoft Eagle-VR game looked? This is probably all you are going to get when it comes to VR on the old hardware. If at all. Good luck with that.

 

[Fhqwhgod]

Haven't watched the video yet, but from what's being said, aren't consoles far more consumer friendly the PC gaming? It's a single, not so big investment once every few (4-5) years rather then an extremely expensive one every 2-3 years. Require no technical knowledge and already optimized for the machine.

You are then paying way too much for your games after. Even if you have to play a game day one it will be a lot cheaper on PC. Of course if all you want is a neat almost PC you can connect to your TV to occasionally play a game and maybe use as a Netflix box a console is the cheaper option. But you may have to be okay with hardware upgrades every 3-4 years. Because this generation already was way behind when it released to be able to get to a 500$ pricepoint.

 

[Dornedas]

Haven't watched the video yet, but from what's being said, aren't consoles far more consumer friendly the PC gaming? It's a single, not so big investment once every few (4-5) years rather then an extremely expensive one every 2-3 years. Require no technical knowledge and already optimized for the machine.

Yeah you're right and I have heard that they can only play Minecraft on their PC boxes. XP

I can tell you who won E3 for me: Ubisoft. And it's only for the The Fractured But Whole segment. That game is looking incredible.

That was my opinion as well until I realized that I would need an Uplay account for it.
It really seems like they tweaked the gameplay in all the right places.
And the SP games are evidence that you can make a good licensed game if you include the heads behind the license in the development.

 

[Fhqwhgod]

That was my opinion as well until I realized that I would need an Uplay account for it.

I don't mind personally. I had one since 2003 when I joined the Morrowind forums.

 

[Fallow]

Microsoft is easily the most anti-consumer company out there. Not just in gaming, either. If they're acting pro-consumer now, it's because they got spanked. The moment they're back on top they'll go back to their old ways. Microsoft has yet to prove to me that they care about the consumer when the chips are down.

Yep

It's called capitalism. MS got the feedback that they weren't doing a good job so they are changing. Once finished this change, they won't bother until someone else competes with them. That's the very essence of capitalism.
At least they aren't like some other companies who were/are losing who lobby the government to change the rules to keep others out.

Nah, I think it's a lot deeper then that. Sony, Valve, and Nintendo do some shady things too, but they're all infinitely more pro-consumer then Microsoft. Even when all were on top, and were in a position to flex their muscles, they were better then Microsoft. The reality is that they all have unique corporate cultures, and that Microsofts is the most domineering and anti-consumer.

You left out EA, which in my opinion are on par with MS for anti-consumer practises. In fact, the only company that is more anti-consumer than MS/EA would be Apple (and possibly the Devil but I'm not sure he has a company), and thank God they don't make games.

 

[Yopaz]

YOU CAN'T TRUST MICROSOFT. And their games suck compered to Sony's offer.

I don't really agree with the notion that Microsoft is that bad. Look at the whole Xbox One controversy. We complained about the online requirement and they decided to listen after a few days. They also did much work in backwards compatibility after we complained about that.

The Vita has received a whole lot of complaints about the memory cards that are stupidly expensive and very small. Sony has decided to release a new version of the Vita which did not address the memory cards at all. They also decied to not sell the 64 GB memory cards outside of Japan and they also stopped selling memory cards larger than 8 GB in Europe. The kicker is that they stopped doing that right after they released a new revision of their console.

Also if we are going far back to the leak of user data Sony waited an awfully long time before they actually told their customers that their credit card data and user information had been compromised.

Microsoft has at least shown us that they have the potential to listen, but I feel like Sony is really treating their Vita customers like shit.

Microsoft is easily the most anti-consumer company out there. Not just in gaming, either. If they're acting pro-consumer now, it's because they got spanked. The moment they're back on top they'll go back to their old ways. Microsoft has yet to prove to me that they care about the consumer when the chips are down.

You know exaggerations make it hard to take anything you say seriously? I can easily find consumer practices that make Microsoft appear neutral to slightly consumer friendly in comparison. Demanding users to be online at least once a day vs. selling a HIV vaccine which their researchers found to be no more effective than placebo. Which one is more anti-consumer? EA also censored criticism for Dungeon Keeper by making it impossible to vote anything but 5 stars. Batman Arkham City was released in a near unplayable state for many of their users, the Wii U version of Batman Arkham Origins received DLC even after they confirmed they would not fix the remaining bugs. There are plenty of anti-consumer practices there and ranking the companies seem futile.

 

[SmallHatLogan]

Leaving aside the ludicrous idea that a giant marketing event can in any way be "pro consumer" I get his point. Microsoft are (apparently) having the same games available on the XBone, the Scorpio (which, thanks to The Simpsons, makes me think of a Bond villain), and Windows 10. A running theme of TotalBiscuit's discussions on pro consumerism is consumer choice so it makes sense that he would be into this.

Sony on the other hand was all game trailers, all they were doing was fuelling the hype machine, something that TB is not a fan of.

I personally found Sony's conference to be the only enjoyable one despite not being interested in many of their games because when it comes to E3 I only care about game trailers/footage. Listening to some executive yammering on about their latest piece of wanky technology is not my idea of a good time.

But as some movie poster once said "Whoever wins... we lose". That's generally how I feel about E3.

 

[Jandau]

First of all, just to make it clear, I'm a regular viewer of TB's content, I enjoy his work and consider him one of the more reliable reviewers/pundits in gaming. I agree with him on most points, and generally am neutral on most of his other stuff. However, I can't agree on this one.

Don't get me wrong, he argued it all quite eloquently in his video. Those are all solid arguments. However, they are predicated on an assumption that goes contrary to empirical data. That assumption is that Microsoft isn't a lying piece of garbage. Which it is. MS has been swearing that it's coming back to PC for a decade now, and it never does. At most, it tosses a port or two our way, often in a garbage condition. And it's trying to lock down PC gaming in a most unpleasant way.

As for its multiplatform releases, I just have two words for you: Quantum Break. Yeah.

Basically, MS has been shitting on PC gaming for many many years, and its practices were horribly anti-consumer. I don't buy this schtick of theirs for a minute. They are being shit on by Sony and they know it, so they're grasping at straws. They talked a bunch of guff and basically said very little. Meanwhile, Sony came in, whipped out their massive metaphorical dick made of awesome games, slammed it on the table and just said "Look at it". And it was beautiful.

So, to me, Sony "won" in as much as anyone can "win" E3, and this is coming from a PC-only gamer who knows he'll likely never get to play most of the awesome shit they showed off...

 

[hermes]

Microsoft is easily the most anti-consumer company out there. Not just in gaming, either. If they're acting pro-consumer now, it's because they got spanked. The moment they're back on top they'll go back to their old ways. Microsoft has yet to prove to me that they care about the consumer when the chips are down.

Yep

It's called capitalism. MS got the feedback that they weren't doing a good job so they are changing. Once finished this change, they won't bother until someone else competes with them. That's the very essence of capitalism.
At least they aren't like some other companies who were/are losing who lobby the government to change the rules to keep others out.

Nah, I think it's a lot deeper then that. Sony, Valve, and Nintendo do some shady things too, but they're all infinitely more pro-consumer then Microsoft. Even when all were on top, and were in a position to flex their muscles, they were better then Microsoft. The reality is that they all have unique corporate cultures, and that Microsofts is the most domineering and anti-consumer.

Mhh... Nintendo at their height were pretty shady. Mob-level shady.

Only we didn't noticed because Internet was not there, and were mostly shady to other companies, not consumers.

 

[anthony87]

So why is it suddenly negative when an optional microtransaction system is also included?

Because Jim Sterling doesn't like them.

Amiibos are fine though apparently.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Also, not sure why PC gamers would even be excited over that since Xbox brand has always raked PC gaming over the coals.

Buying my game on one system and being able to own it on another? Yeah why would that possibly be a good pro consumer thing? And to be honest if the game is good on both systems then thats fantastic. If it's only good on one then still fine.

Only if you buy it in the windows store. It's not like you can buy on steam and play on your xbox. You also can't buy a physical copy and then play that on both either. It's only if you jump into that place called the windows store.

Yeah but we already deal with this through EA's Origin and Ubisoft's UPlay services. The problem with UWP so far has been that it's missing basic PC options and functionality and has been the home of shoddy ass ports. Make it a functional storefront that releases well optimized games and watch people throw cash at the screen. I was an xbox owner before I switched to PC and while I've raised my eyebrows at everything Microsoft has done, recent interviews with Phil Spencer and their commitment to releasing all their first party games on Windows is actually really cool and surprising and sounds less like trying to turn the PC into an xbox. He was quoted in an interview with PC Gamer just recently as specifically avoiding that. If they just get their games to run properly that would do a lot to quell the hate from the PC crowd. It still doesn't allow us to use mods but it's a step in the right direction. Getting to play Forza/Gears/Halo etc on my PC is good news as far as I'm concerned.

All this being said, time will tell. No one "wins" a trade show except the shareholders when the cream their pants thinking about all the cash they just secured through hype. Right now, Microsoft has me listening. They start saying the same bull shit they have been up till now and I'll be the first to rescind my praise.

 

[Ishigami]

So? I watched it and he made some valid points.

I personally see Sony ahead because they had more games I might enjoy. The thing is I own a XO and a PS4 but how many games do I own? 4! 4!
Never in history had I this few games for two systems in 3 years.
So all I want right now is games for the systems that currently only collect dust and nothing else.
So I'm cool with only more games.

I'mcool with MS too actually since I basically can trash my XO and if I truly want something just buy it on PC.

 

[CaitSeith]

Haven't watched the video yet, but from what's being said, aren't consoles far more consumer friendly the PC gaming? It's a single, not so big investment once every few (4-5) years rather then an extremely expensive one every 2-3 years. Require no technical knowledge and already optimized for the machine.

"Extremely expensive one every 2-3 years..."

Tip: don't trust everything the Internet says. Unlike consoles, you don't have to buy a brand new PC every time. Instead you spend in a new individual component when it's needed (and if you're smart, you resell the old one).

 

[deleted+75193]

DELETED

 

[MrFalconfly]

Haven't watched the video yet, but from what's being said, aren't consoles far more consumer friendly the PC gaming? It's a single, not so big investment once every few (4-5) years rather then an extremely expensive one every 2-3 years. Require no technical knowledge and already optimized for the machine.

I'd say PC's are more consumer friendly, given they are more flexible, and provide the user more freedom to do things like they want to do, rather than how the dev wanted. And I'm not even talking about mods, but peripherals.

 

[Trunkage]

Microsoft is easily the most anti-consumer company out there. Not just in gaming, either. If they're acting pro-consumer now, it's because they got spanked. The moment they're back on top they'll go back to their old ways. Microsoft has yet to prove to me that they care about the consumer when the chips are down.

Yep

It's called capitalism. MS got the feedback that they weren't doing a good job so they are changing. Once finished this change, they won't bother until someone else competes with them. That's the very essence of capitalism.
At least they aren't like some other companies who were/are losing who lobby the government to change the rules to keep others out.

Nah, I think it's a lot deeper then that. Sony, Valve, and Nintendo do some shady things too, but they're all infinitely more pro-consumer then Microsoft. Even when all were on top, and were in a position to flex their muscles, they were better then Microsoft. The reality is that they all have unique corporate cultures, and that Microsofts is the most domineering and anti-consumer.

I'm not disagreeing with you. What I'm trying to point out that if MS is a 0.1 out of 5, Sony would be at best 0.5

 

[MrFalconfly]

Haven't watched the video yet, but from what's being said, aren't consoles far more consumer friendly the PC gaming? It's a single, not so big investment once every few (4-5) years rather then an extremely expensive one every 2-3 years. Require no technical knowledge and already optimized for the machine.

I'd say PC's are more consumer friendly, given they are more flexible, and provide the user more freedom to do things like they want to do, rather than how the dev wanted. And I'm not even talking about mods, but peripherals.

But the question is what's the precentage who will actually enjoy the freedom, plus what does it mean "do things like they want to do, rather than how the dev wanted"

I'd say that, so long as that percentage is above zero, it's worth it to actually provide that freedom.

And openly antagonizing people who want that freedom (by making products always online, or otherwise blocking off mods and possible peripheral control inputs) is definitively anti-consumer.

As for "do things like they want to do, rather than how the dev wanted".

If I buy a product, what right does the dev have to dictate how I choose to modify it?

Ace Combat is a pretty good example.

It's a mostly console exclusive Flight Game, which means if I want to play it, I'm basically forced to play it with a gamepad, and the dev may indeed have intended for me to play it with a gamepad, but what if I wanted to play it with a proper flight stick?

On a PC, that'd be as simple as plugging in my Logitech Extreme 3D stick, fiddle a bit with some control settings, and that's it. But Ace Combat is on consoles which doesn't give me that freedom. This example was why I generally ranked Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. higher than Ace Combat, because H.A.W.X. didn't force me to play with a gamepad or a keyboard. I could play that with a stick. Not to mention, I could mod it to include any aircraft which the devs may have neglected, provided that another aeronautics nut like me with greater 3D modelling skills had made a mod like that.

EDIT:

I don't know, just buying a top of the line graphics card seems to cost 3/4 as much as a PS4.

Who says you need top of the line gear?

You just need gear that can do the job (which instantly causes the price to drop drastically).

 

[LonePunman]

I go along with the popular opinion on this one - both Msoft and Sony had good "conferences", but Sony's was leaner, meaner, and classier, even if only by a small margin.

 

[CaitSeith]

Haven't watched the video yet, but from what's being said, aren't consoles far more consumer friendly the PC gaming? It's a single, not so big investment once every few (4-5) years rather then an extremely expensive one every 2-3 years. Require no technical knowledge and already optimized for the machine.

"Extremely expensive one every 2-3 years..."

Tip: don't trust everything the Internet says. Unlike consoles, you don't have to buy a brand new PC every time. Instead you spend in a new individual component when it's needed (and if you're smart, you resell the old one).

I don't know, just buying a top of the line graphics card seems to cost 3/4 as much as a PS4.

Which are already more powerful than the one in a PS4 (cards with the same power are cheaper), which gives them a longer lifespan than the later. And when time comes to buy the next gen console, you have to keep your old one or you'll never be able to play your old games again. Meanwhile, even PCs with top of the line components can run easily games that are decades old (except if they have a shitty DRM like Microsoft's past attempt of making PC games more console-like: Games for Windows Live).