Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Crushinator Jun 3 2011, 12:18 PM

Seems like some E3 vids/trailers are dumping, publishers blowing their loads before the show, so to speak:

NeverDead - Konami



Tomb Raider - Square Enix/Crystal Dynamics

Posted by: Scan_Man Jun 3 2011, 10:49 PM

Tomb Raider looks interesting. The only thing I expect from this year's E3 is to see some new The Last Guardian footage.

Posted by: Crushinator Jun 3 2011, 11:28 PM

And then an announcement that it's not coming out till 2013 :|

Posted by: Crushinator Jun 3 2011, 11:58 PM

Uncharted 3 Multiplayer - Naughty Dog



Dark Souls - Namco Bandai

Posted by: Crushinator Jun 4 2011, 04:49 AM

Posted by: Crushinator Jun 4 2011, 05:04 AM

Posted by: Crushinator Jun 4 2011, 12:58 PM

I really like the direction they're taking with this new AC. Clearly taking pages from BF and MW as far as the presentation goes, and I dig the "over the shoulder" camera during the intense firefights.

Posted by: Crushinator Jun 5 2011, 04:47 PM

Star Wars: The Old Republic - BioWare

Posted by: Scan_Man Jun 6 2011, 12:10 PM

Microsoft conference was so bad. What the hell? Kinect and voice recognition bullshit. Ewwww. Tomb Raider looked bad ass though. But that is not an exclusive. But lots of crap to sit through to Halo 4. Not a fan of Halo, but looking at it objectively it is the type of an announcement gamers look for at E3. Gamers want games after games, the games we love.

Hopefully Sony does not focus on Move, but instead show us the games we want to see.

Posted by: Alisha Jun 6 2011, 02:31 PM

im watching the press conferences on spike so far SSX looks amazing. and the game by insomniac looks great too! oh i almost forgot the need for speed game looked awesome too!

Posted by: Wiryu Jun 6 2011, 02:39 PM

I never want to stop playing ToR.

Posted by: Scan_Man Jun 6 2011, 03:22 PM

I must say Battlefield 3 > MW3

They showed the PC demo. Holy crap the graphics are nice. I wonder what specs they are running on that thing, so I know if I need to drop money for a 2nd 580 gtx. Built a new PC two months ago to play BF3, and Mass Effect 3. Speaking of Mass Effect 3, I love the new graphics engine. I have no use for Voice recognition. Seems like a way for the consoles version to use many abilities without having to pause the action to use the radial wheel.

And yeah was totally digging SSX too.

But, the new IP Overstrike has got my interest. Seems like L4D with a sci-fi theme. Reminded me of The Incredibles. I like it.

Posted by: Knightsword Jun 6 2011, 05:03 PM

Posted by: Crushinator Jun 6 2011, 08:17 PM

As much as I fucking love Halo and am totally hyped for both Halo:CEA and Halo 4, MS was totally weak pulling that "and now the start of a brand new trilogy exclusively for the Xbox" shit. Making MORE HALO is not a god damn new IP.

Tomb Raider looks hot as hell, I'm glad we finally got to see gameplay even though it's over a year away. Barring some bombs dropping from Nintendo tomorrow I think that's the most impressive new game I've seen.

Some more vids:

Posted by: Crushinator Jun 6 2011, 10:29 PM

Posted by: Alisha Jun 7 2011, 02:05 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uPuRm9G-zA

Posted by: Scan_Man Jun 7 2011, 11:07 AM

Wii U

I'm confused. Are they just showing the controller, and how it it can stream. Seems like they are not showing the actual system. The graphics are there. But wait, what?

Posted by: Crushinator Jun 7 2011, 11:34 AM

Yeah, it's fucking stupid. Basically the Wii U houses hardware comparable to current gen systems, and can stream the video of the game wirelessly to the controller, bypassing a need for a TV (but it can still output to a TV in HD).

The controller itself has a 6.2" touchscreen, 2 analog sticks, D-pad, 4 shoulder buttons, gyro, accelerometer, speakers, mic, front facing camera... basically every god damn piece of tech Nintendo could possibly cram into it. God knows how much that monstrosity will cost.

I'll still get a 3DS, I'm excited for Star Fox and Super Mario 3D, but fuck what I've seen for the Wii U so far.




This is what the system looks like, obviously still prototype now.

Posted by: Scan_Man Jun 7 2011, 11:41 AM

It seems all strange because they kept emphasizes that this is the controller for Wii U. Nintendo is always mysterious though.

But its the same thing about how I feel about Kinect and Move. I don't care to play games like that. When basic controls have worked well for years, no need to reinvent the wheel. Its neat piece of tech, but I want to play games the way I've been playing them. And most hardcore gamers are going to say "well this does not offer me anything I can't find on 360 or PS3." Just like in the past it will come down to Nintendo exclusives, and third party will not sale on it (unless the graphics capability is quite ahead of 360 and PS3).

Now Nintendo did say the goal of this system is so gamres can play how and what they want. So you can use classic style controllers. But, still a big what the fuck!



Edit: yeah I see the new system itself on Kotaku. So it comes down to specs I guess.

Posted by: Scan_Man Jun 7 2011, 11:47 AM

I think I'm most excited about Sony after this E3. *Bout to go pick up Infamous 2*

Posted by: Alisha Jun 7 2011, 12:04 PM

i havent seen nintendos conference yet but im excited for the VITA.

Posted by: Scan_Man Jun 7 2011, 12:18 PM

Yeah I like the Vita. I would rather get one of those than a 3DS. Nice features and price point. However you have factor in the monthly data plan from AT&T. I don't know why one would get it and not utilize it's online features. But, it's the same problem I have with the PSP is I want to play "console like" games in HD on a big screen not a small screen. I don't have that much issue with DS because it has exclusive more simpler games that are more, with the exception of certain games like Pokemon, are pick up and play when you out of your home.

Posted by: Crushinator Jun 7 2011, 01:34 PM

You talk like getting the 3G version of the Vita is required. I think the PSVita is just a viable in the WiFi only model. No way in hell I would get a second dedicated cellular data plan just for a handheld I'll only play when I'm shitting or on an airplane.

Jokes aside, I can't really imagine playing PSVita in any place where I wouldn't already have some kind of access to WiFi, and I find it hard to justify playing the extra for data when its only real use would be online play/downloading games. If i need to use the web/skype/whatever on the go, that's why I have an iPhone.

Posted by: Wiryu Jun 7 2011, 02:11 PM

As it still houses every mascot from my childhood, and never fails to give up a good in house multi-player experience, I'll still get a Wii U. I might just be misunderstanding the reactions here, but did any of you expect nintendo to stop going down the road they have been? Anyone should have expected that this wasn't going to be a Nintendo 360 based on the past 10 years of nintendo hardware releases.

Posted by: Wiryu Jun 7 2011, 02:16 PM

http://kotaku.com/5809566/this-is-surely-the-first-of-many-wii-u-super-mario-bros-games

I honestly like the way it's set up.

Posted by: Scan_Man Jun 7 2011, 02:30 PM

In the conference they said AT&T will be the exclusive carrier for Vita. I used to work for AT&T a couple years ago, and I took this to mean they are going to sell you a data plan or a service plan of some type regardless of what version you get. In the conference it was specifically mentioned you can use the Wifi hotspots free if you already have an AT&T service plan. The wifi only plans were about 20 bucks a month for laptops. I understand most of the popular places with Wifi use AT&T. There are likely going to use the line of "it pulls a lot more data over our network compared to people with laptops browsing the internet, so you have to pay to use online at places like Starbucks." I don't know it just sounded like they want to charge you for mobile access one way or the other, both wifi and 3G.

But if you want to use Wifi via your internet at home that is a different thing. I'm looking at it strictly from the mobile perspective of using the online features almost anywhere, and going off based what was said in the conference.

Posted by: Crushinator Jun 7 2011, 03:39 PM

I think you might have missed the two separate SKUs. Yes ATT is the exclusive 3G partner, but you can also get a WiFi only version of the PSVita for only $249, the 3G enabled version is $299.

I figure it will be similar to how Apple positions the different versions of the iPad. You can get a standard one with WiFi only, or you get get the 3G enabled version that requires a separate cellular data plan.

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/06/playstation-vita-launches-globally-by-end-of-2011-starting-at/

Posted by: Scan_Man Jun 7 2011, 03:43 PM

Well yeah, you're right.

I think most hardcore gamers, deep down, that care about Nintendo games, want to play Nintendo games and all those great 3rd party games all on one platform. With this, as of now, there is no reason to give up Xbox 360 or PS3 in terms of 3rd party (refer to what I said above in regards to this). That is unless the GPU is doing directx 10 or 11 (the biggest factor). Also, if the the system has enough VRAM to actually support full 1080p games (even Anti-aliasing) like you find on PC. Xbox 360 games and PS3 games (some few exceptions like FFXIII and the home screen) run in 720p upscaled to 1080p. Playing in real 1080p versus something upscaled is a world of difference in terms of visuals. Then it would have an edge there when it comes to 3rd party at least for a little while until Sony and Microsoft comes with there new consoles. People may leap frog Wii U much like they did with the Dreamcast.

Another wild card is their online. No friend codes please.

The interview done with Reggie seems like they really want to push 3rd party by helping them market the games 3rd parties produce this time around. We will see.

I think the tech is neat as hell. But, it is not for me. Much like how I tired of motion controls on Wii, so don't care for Move or Kinect either. Maybe they will get some of those great small indie games that you find on Steam or on iPad. Lots of opportunity there. HD Angry Birds, that can be played on the big screen or on the controller. I see this being the number one platform for that sort of thing.

Posted by: Scan_Man Jun 7 2011, 05:06 PM

I know there are two Skus, but in the conference why would he mention AT&T Wifi hotspots being free if you have an AT&T service plan? Sounded to me that you have to pay if you want to use network features at AT&T Wifi hotspots at Starbucks (free last I checked), McDonalds, and Airports for example. If you have the data plan you would not need Wifi unless reception is bad, so they give you the Wifi access as part of the package. If you have the Wifi only model, it sounded to me, you would still have to pay a separate plan or fee to use the Vita network while mobile. When I worked at AT&T that is how we sold the data plans for over-the-air internet, we offered another plan to gain access to all AT&T hotspots around the country. If it is not like that, then why the distinction of free with service plan?

http://www.att.com/gen/general?pid=5949

Looking it up what it is now. This is what I am referring to. It's 20 dollars a month for Wifi at AT&T hotspots. It includes roaming in case you need to use public Wifi on a non-AT&T network. But, 3.99 if you opt to pay per session over an AT&T network, or whatever non-AT&T Wifi hotspots charge. I don't know what they are doing, but he when said they are partnered with AT&T it just screams to me they want to charge you for using Vita mobile network features whether it is from a Wifi hotspot or over 3G. A plan applying to the Vita similar to the ones in the link might be the case.

Paying for Wifi sessions in some places is expected. But, then again I have not heard how Playstation Network factors into this, if Sony wants to charge for this like its Plus service. Or even if some network features are tied to the exclusive deal with AT&T (can you blame them after getting hacked?). And, like I said, I don't see reason for someone to get this (there are exceptions of course) and not use these online features to there full potential even with Wifi only sku. By the time this comes out one might be able to get a PS3 at a $50-$100 price drop for 160GB and 320 GB putting them at the same price as the Vita. So for the same price you have the opportunity to play the real games in these series, and not off-shoots, in HD and you get a blue-ray player too on a PS3. I just don't see the value in this device if strictly used as an offline gaming device.

Posted by: Crushinator Jun 7 2011, 05:44 PM

Vita is still a PSN device, you won't have to pay extra to use online multiplayer or marketplace type features. Just like the PSP and PS3, you don't need to have a separate subscription or any kind of "plan" to hook those devices up to a WiFi network.

If you're at an AT&T branded hotspot, then yes you'd need their plan to use them for "free" (since your paying in the first place it's not really free), but the WiFi is a part of the hardware itself. If you're always on WiFi (say in your house, school, train, or wherever the hell you're getting online) then you'd never have to connect via the 3G connection.

But your line of thinking seems to be backwards, as if the WiFi access is AT&T's "gift" to the consumer as a part of the 3G data plan. WiFi access itself is inherently free and a part of the PSVita's hardware, its just the access to AT&T branded WiFi spots which is "thrown in" with the plan.

Maybe the AT&T plan will have some exclusive perks (like PSN+ type content, video calls, or something?) but the basic functionality of the device would remain the same, save for the fact that with 3G you'll be "always online" just like a smartphone. But for a dedicated gaming device I do not see the value of this to the point of paying a monthly data fee.

Posted by: Scan_Man Jun 7 2011, 11:33 PM

You are putting words in my mouth with this gift thing and taking what I said out of context. You did that initially too by suggestion I was just talking about just the 3G version. I wasn't, so I clarified with my next response. I've always been talking about it in the context of AT&T hotspots, with using it as a online mobile device "almost anywhere" for both models because that is what was mentioned in the Conference, and what I am most interested in. You seemed to have missed what I was talking about, the Wifi only model as it relates to its connectivity with AT&T hotspots. I thought that was made clear when I added using Wifi at home being different, since you will not be paying. I don't know how you got to thinking what I said meant I did not know there were two SKUs. Therefore, I tried to clarify in the next response because of I took it as unacknowledged due to misunderstanding of what I said.

So, some AT&T hotspots are free, like Starbucks. So that sorta contradicts what was said in the Conference. But, I've known AT&T to ban MAC Addresses on devices that "pull too much data" on their Wifi hotspot networks even when paying the session fees, and other Wifi hotspot providers doing the same. They have that Wifi only plan for a reason, to make money. It's just I've seen this before while I worked there, so it is just a concern. And I'm being a bit cynical.

I am in no way saying it is a requirement to purchase such a plan if you opt out of using AT&T hotspots, or others, by using free ones if you have the Wifi only model. When I worked for AT&T we were told to sell "Wifi hotspot only plans" all the time to people with laptops who opted out of over-the-air cards, and those that opted not to get a full data plan for their Wifi capable Pocket PCs. I don't see how this is any different. Just they seem to want to sell the customer one of these plans (think of it as "offering it as an option" if you are stuck on the world "sell"). Of course they want to, it's money.

To illustrate the distinction I am making, I'll use the 3DS as an example. The 3DS has Wifi capability, but Nintendo, or a partner (some ISP), is not selling you a specific internet service that will connect the device to the internet. On the other hand, Sony seems to be doing that very thing; offering a specific ISP so the customer can gain access to the Vita/PSN network while mobile, even on just Wifi at an AT&T hotspot location. That is what I mean by it seems THEY WANT to charge you. Which is not the same as THEY WILL charge you, which I did not say.

I'm not talking about Wifi enabled hardware at all, back to your gift comment, I'm talking about using the online features via a public AT&T Wifi connection for the Wifi only model or 3G with the 3G plus Wifi model. Considering it is a mobile device one must think about possible charges to use its online features when out-of-the-house, if he or she plans to use it as a mobile device, when looking at the whole of the cost of the device. Since this is how the device is partly being marketed, with mobile online connectivity in mind. I don't see how it makes sense to travel around and only play offline. Paying for hardware features one is not going to use is not a good purchase in my opinion. But I understand the exception of someone really wanting to play a game on the device, but does not care about the online. But I do not fall in that category, so my first impressions are gut reactionary in nature. Much like you calling the Wii U stupid, and me yesterday saying Kinect was bullshit.

Posted by: Alisha Jun 8 2011, 01:30 AM

i think you are over complicating this. i took it too mean that if you already have another data plan that you use with say an ipad that you can use that same data plan to connect with your vita.

Posted by: Scan_Man Jun 8 2011, 07:53 AM

That is what I took it to mean too. But, I don't have such a plan. So, if I wanted to save 50 bucks by getting the Wifi model I would ultimately still have to factor how I much will be paying to use these online features mobile yearly. And I would plan to use every online feature anywhere I can, even if I opted for Wifi only model. Using said features is what I think makes most sense to me. Since, I don't see the use for a device that offers strictly a console experience on a small screen, for around the same price as a real console, playing it just at home. I don't plan on buying a 3DS at that price point for this very reason. I have no interest in 3D, so it basically would replace the functionality (grab and go play) of my DSLite which I originally paid $130 for. I like Vita over the 3DS because of the features I might actually use for the price they are selling it. I don't have an iPad, or iPhone, but Vita seems compelling to use as a mobile media device, that also has games and online gaming.

Same goes for Wii U. No need it for based on what I've seen; screen on the controller. If I am at home, I am going to play games on my HD 1080p screen. Now if the GPU can do directx 11, has decent online features, and there are solid exclusive games around launch, then maybe I will look into it replacing my PS3 (which I bought half as a blue ray player and other half so I can also play exclusive games like Uncharted and eventually Last Guardian) as my main gaming console. But, price has to be $300 or less. Maybe I will go as high as $400 if there is some kick ass Nintendo first party games at launch.

To put this on in perspective, to show where I am coming from, I am primarily a PC gamer. I've been happy just playing the PC games released on Steam. But with a PC I can do a lot more than a console, which justifies the price. So yeah I want to know what else I can do on these systems for the price. I'm only interested in paying for compelling features I will use.