Google+

We Recommend By ZergNet

337 comments

  • codystovall - May 26, 2013 7:17 p.m.

    Well seeing how xbox one is now evil and corrupt and wants to punish us for used games and with internet connections, I will be switching from 360 to ps4. F**k you xbox, it was fun while it lasted.
  • DeafAtheist - May 26, 2013 9:29 p.m.

    Details about the used games are sketchy. We don't have all the information on that yet. As for internet, it's not required to be constantly connected, only needs to be connected periodically for routine system updates and such. But you can still play single player games and watch blu ray movies without being connected to the internet.
  • BladedFalcon - May 26, 2013 11:21 p.m.

    Nope, check your info again, Microsoft stated that a 24 hour check needs to be done in order to play ANY game, even single player ones.
  • DeafAtheist - May 30, 2013 3:50 a.m.

    Once every 24 hours isn't constant dude... constant means it requires an internet connection at all times. That if your connection drops you'd not even be able to play a single player game. That was the original fear that Microsoft has confirmed to be false.
  • ParagonT - May 30, 2013 11:39 a.m.

    I'll get back to this comment after work.
  • NeutralFan - May 30, 2013 2:14 p.m.

    For people with limited internet connection (or indeed none at all), connecting once every 24 hours can be impossible - and there's no reason they should to play single-player games.
  • Lordchrome375 - May 30, 2013 8:09 p.m.

    I'm sorry but, what? So what if I enjoy playing single player? You see gamers have become spoiled thinking everything has to be multiplayer. If you cannot fathom the idea of solo gaming, you need to stop playing games.
  • NeutralFan - May 31, 2013 1:57 p.m.

    Eh? Sorry, but I think you've completely misunderstood what I'm saying. What I said was that many people don't have stable internet connections (or even internet connections at all) and use their consoles solely for playing single-player games - something which the Xbox One's pseudo-always-online system gets in the way of. That these people would be prohibited from playing games which do not require an internet connection is completely ridiculous.
  • NeutralFan - May 31, 2013 2:47 p.m.

    Sorry, that was meant to be addressed to Lordchrome above.
  • Lordchrome375 - May 31, 2013 4:45 p.m.

    I understand where your coming from. I guess I'm not much a co-op player so this doesn't affect me at all. I do see what you mean, it is unfortunate the Xbox One is doing this, but this console IMO is perfect for gamers like me.
  • DeafAtheist - May 31, 2013 6:29 p.m.

    That's true, but still. Once every 24 hours isn't constant. That's the only point I was making. To say that it requires a constant internet connection is quite simply false. It would lead people to believe that in order to play a single player game they must always be connected and this just is not true. But yes, you're right it still alienates people that live in areas were internet isn't available. We don't really know yet how accurate the routine connection information is at this time the 24 hour figure came from a single source. It's not yet reliable information in which to base a decision on when deciding what console to buy next gen for console gamers. As bad as things sound for Microsoft at this point Sony could end up having even worse policies. So really all we can do is see what happens at E3.
  • Adi_9194 - May 31, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    Dude, you are being too literal. I can understand that once every 24 hours is not "constant", but I come from a place where getting steady Internet is more of a 'luck of the draw' situation. I just want to plop myself down in front of the TV and play a game or two without waiting for the Internet to stop being a bitch. So, PS4 it is for me.
  • gadjo - June 4, 2013 12:49 a.m.

    same here. If I want to play my xbox without internet that's my goddamn business.
  • punkamisto - May 26, 2013 5:24 a.m.

    To be honest I´m not impressed with any of these new generation consoles. Wii U, Ps4 or Xbox one..I think the real winner here are PCs which keep boosting better specs and gaming experience, with one or two exceptions, but consoles are getting less and less exclusives. For ex. I can already play Dark Souls on PC when it was only a PS3 exclusive, or Alan Wake that only belonged to XBOX. Just plug in a controller and voila, it´s like a console but with better graphics and faster. Sure I know it can get expensive having a good pc and all, but its completely worth it for me, not to mention most indie games are on PC and Mods also. Skyrim and Fallout, for ex. are better on PC since there are tons of mods that makes great games into even greater games. To sum it up, I really think PCs are the best platform for gaming nowdays and consoles will have to dig deeper to keep up with it. Ok now everyone can come and say that consoles are better and blah blah blah :P
  • DeafAtheist - May 26, 2013 9:37 p.m.

    I don't get why PC gamers constantly claim that PC games have better graphics. PCs may very well be CAPABLE of having better graphics, but the fact is not every PC gamer has the top of the line PCs that are capable of rendering much better graphics than consoles and therefore in order to be compatible with most PC gaming computers developers make their games with system requirements that are compatible with the majority of PC gaming computers. Also most 3rd party games are made for consoles and t then ported to PCs so they don't generally improve the graphics and such beyond what consoles are capable of. The Xbox One and PS4 are both capable of BETTER graphics and such than the current gen system requirements for PC games. So for probably the next year or so games will likely actually look better on the next gen consoles than they will on PC.
  • Redeater - May 26, 2013 11:20 p.m.

    If this is what the average console gamer thinks of PC gaming it's........you know what? I can't even finish that. There is just so much wrong with this. No one games on PC with the bare minimum. If you think that then you seriously haven't touched a PC game within the last 15 years. I also had a PC that recognized microphone commands back in the mid 90's. It did it just as accurately as the Kinect does.....by which I mean it was a novelty and worked poorly. Did you ever ask yourself why Uncharted 1 had motion controls and Uncharted 3 had none? Or why they had to implement a patch so Lair could be played via sticks? I suggest you join us in the year 2013, go play a PC that can actually run modern graphics, then com back and bitch about how adding piss poor voice recognition and shitty motion controls would improve the experience.
  • DeafAtheist - May 27, 2013 9:29 p.m.

    This didn't come directly from me, well not all of it. I stand corrected on the voice controls. However I'm not wrong about the development process for games. Have you read the most recent issue of Game Informer? I tried to find the relevant article from the issue online but I'm a print subscriber and even if I switched to digital I wouldn't be able to share the article publicly. But there was on opinion piece in it written by a game developer with 16 years of experience in gaming. He's worked on every console and PCs since the original Playstation and Dreamcast through the current gen. I won't repost the entire article here, just a couple of relevant paragraphs... Dispelling the Myth: Today's High-End PC is NOT true Next Gen Gaming -Torbjorn Olsson When Sony revealed the PlayStation 4, I read some of the comments regarding the console online and noticed one persistent myth kept appearing - current PC games are already the next generation. That's simply not true. The reality is that high-end PC is a small market for developers and publishers, although it has seen some significant growth over the last few years. I played Crysis 3 and it's a beautiful game. However at it's core Crysisi 3 was designed to also run on current gen consoles and less powerful PCs. Every graphical enhancement you see on a high-end PC, no matter how pretty it is, is just eye candy. Crytek could not design levels and enemies that would impact gameplay unless those elements would also work on Xbox 360 and PS3. Core design has to work on all system, which limits developers working on today's consoles compared to those who are working on the next-generation consoles. ----------------------------------------------------------- So basically the current gen consoles set the bar for what games are designed to do, not PCs. So while PCs may very well be capable of outperforming even the next gen consoles, games are made to be compatible with them. If games were made to the specs of high-end PCs they would be too much software for consoles to handle and therefore could not be ported to them. So really, what's the point in spending hundreds more than a console for a PC that plays games at similar specs as a console anyway?
  • NeutralFan - May 31, 2013 2:09 p.m.

    Actually, since the vast majority of people already own a computer anyway, and since PC games are generally significantly cheaper, PC gaming is often the economical choice for serious gamers. And I'm talking about economical with a standard high-midrange gaming set - say, £700-£800. Coupled with the better graphics and sound (and they ARE significantly better; no need to invest in four GPUs and a £500 sound card) and the ever-customisable nature of a PC and you have a no-brainer for serious thinking gamers. Depending on your set-up, you may also be able to save money on a TV and home cinema set-up; why bother if you have a decent monitor and speakers? The XBox One and PS4 are not capable of better graphics, but rather more-or-less-on-par-with graphics - the PC with the equivalent hardware (easier to calculate now that the PS4 actually works like a PC) would be a decent enough midrange computer. That's it. The only real draw to console gaming is exclusives.
  • NeutralFan - May 31, 2013 2:47 p.m.

    Also, despite what you say, PC developers actually make games with scalable graphics settings so you can pick settings which suit your system. Thus, if you can run BF3 on low settings on a modest setup (I'd wager much less than the price of your console and the computer you wrote this on put together) - incidentally just as good as if not better than the 720p PS360 version - or, for your serious +£1000 watercooled gaming box, you can set everything to 11: 10000x AA, 10000p definition spread in 3D across your twelve-screen 19568430x016689076 pixel IMAX cinema screen, lighting effects down to individual photons and particle effects down to quarks, 26.1 surround sound and an on-tap champagne dispenser whenever you win a ribbon. Got a bit carried away but you get the point - there's settings to suit all budgets (and budgets to suit all settings...).
  • NeutralFan - June 1, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    Sorry, this comment was intended for someone else. I'm not even sure who now TBH. Gamesradar keeps messing up my posts...

Showing 181-200 of 337 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.