Current Events > Microsoft did a lot of good things for consoles

(+) Yeah! (+)

- Built-in hard drives
- Universal online account that works across all games
- Indie games
- DLC
- PC architecture that is easier to develop games on
- Custom soundtracks
- Crossplay between console and PC (now crossbuy)
- FPS games (that were more like what was on PC) being popular on consoles
- Now they're doing stuff like BC and emulation that carries over all of your old purchases with better visuals

People give Microsoft a lot of shit but they brought consoles forward 5-10 years compared to what Sony and Nintendo was doing. Even now the Xbox One does things that are forward thinking.
---

Its too bad the Xbox One has been so lacking in the exclusives department, because I think it blows PS4 away in most other regards, especially the backwards compatibility
---

0AbsoluteZero0 posted...

Its too bad the One X has been so lacking in the exclusives department, because I think it blows PS4 away in most other regards, especially the backwards compatibility

It really is a shame.

Microsoft were a pretty good publisher until around 2009.

People forget that they were the original publisher for Mass Effect!
---

I have early models of both the PS4 and XB1. While I play the PS4 more due to exclusives I prefer the XB1 for the controller and the dashboard/OS.
---

DLC isn't a good thing.
---

Sounds like everything PC has been doing for a long a time

-Paying for online
-Console games as a service
-microtransactions
-DLC
-closing down studios
---

Lonestar2000 posted...

DLC isn't a good thing.

Yes it is. As every good thing it has been abused but it's fucking stupid to call all of it bad.
---

Darmik posted...

0AbsoluteZero0 posted...

Its too bad the One X has been so lacking in the exclusives department, because I think it blows PS4 away in most other regards, especially the backwards compatibility

It really is a shame.

Microsoft were a pretty good publisher until around 2009.

People forget that they were the original publisher for Mass Effect!

No they were not. EA was always the publisher.
---

Microsoft didn't even start DLC on consoles. Topic is an epic fail.
---

I remember when games released finished, not with stuff chopped out to be added later.
---

Xbox 360 was amazing and still is.
---

Monolith1676 posted...

Microsoft didn't even start DLC on consoles. Topic is an epic fail.

They kinda did with the Halo 2 maps. I can't remember an example that predates that.
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

Monolith1676 posted...

Microsoft didn't even start DLC on consoles. Topic is an epic fail.

They kinda did with the Halo 2 maps. I can't remember an example that predates that.

Dynamite Cop on the Dreamcast.
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

Monolith1676 posted...

Microsoft didn't even start DLC on consoles. Topic is an epic fail.

They kinda did with the Halo 2 maps. I can't remember an example that predates that.

Only thing I can think of that would qualify would be FF11 on PS2.
---

What Microsoft did was force companies to charge for their DLC, even if they wanted to give it away for free. I'm pretty sure Microsoft is the reason why shitty DLC practices are so rampant. Fuck them.
---

Trumpo posted...

Sounds like everything PC has been doing for a long a time

That's why the topic title says 'for consoles'

Tyranthraxus posted...

No they were not. EA was always the publisher.

Not when it originally released on the 360 in 2007. That was Microsoft.

1337toothbrush posted...

What Microsoft did was force companies to charge for their DLC, even if they wanted to give it away for free. I'm pretty sure Microsoft is the reason why shitty DLC practices are so rampant. Fuck them.

Both the OG Xbox and 360 had free DLC though
---

Free DLC was rare on the 360. Epic, a major partner, had to beg Microsoft to let them "sponsor" a free map for Gears of War.
---

1337toothbrush posted...

Free DLC was rare on the 360. Epic, a major partner, had to beg Microsoft to let them "sponsor" a free map for Gears of War.

Microsoft was the publisher for that game though. You made it sound like you were talking about third parties.
---

Monolith1676 posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

Monolith1676 posted...

Microsoft didn't even start DLC on consoles. Topic is an epic fail.

They kinda did with the Halo 2 maps. I can't remember an example that predates that.

Dynamite Cop on the Dreamcast.

Gah should have guessed Dreamcast.
---

Darmik posted...

1337toothbrush posted...

Free DLC was rare on the 360. Epic, a major partner, had to beg Microsoft to let them "sponsor" a free map for Gears of War.

Microsoft was the publisher for that game though. You made it sound like you were talking about third parties.

The same policy applied to third-parties. If they wanted to release free content, it'd be considered a "patch". After the first patch, the developers have to pay a substantial sum. Also, a patch couldn't exceed a certain size (and it was a very restrictive size) in order to fit on the memory card for Xbox 360s that didn't have a hard drive. This restriction didn't exist for paid DLC.
---

1337toothbrush posted...

The same policy applied to third-parties. If they wanted to release free content, it'd be considered a "patch". After the first patch, the developers have to pay a substantial sum. Also, a patch couldn't exceed a certain size (and it was a very restrictive size) in order to fit on the memory card for Xbox 360s that didn't have a hard drive. This restriction didn't exist for paid DLC.

Ah fair enough.

I liked how the patches were small on the 360 but it was a different time back then.

I seem to recall Dead Rising and Crackdown had some sort of free DLC back in the day but I don't fully remember how that worked.
---

I remember all the L4D and L4D2 DLC was free on the PC and some random ass amount of MS points (or whatever it was) on Xbox because it was the absolute minimum MS would let them charge.
---

I think the minimum was 400 points. I remember seeing that number thrown around a bunch. I have no idea what was the conversion rate to dollars.
---

1337toothbrush posted...

Darmik posted...

1337toothbrush posted...

Free DLC was rare on the 360. Epic, a major partner, had to beg Microsoft to let them "sponsor" a free map for Gears of War.

Microsoft was the publisher for that game though. You made it sound like you were talking about third parties.

The same policy applied to third-parties. If they wanted to release free content, it'd be considered a "patch". After the first patch, the developers have to pay a substantial sum. Also, a patch couldn't exceed a certain size (and it was a very restrictive size) in order to fit on the memory card for Xbox 360s that didn't have a hard drive. This restriction didn't exist for paid DLC.

I assume if Microsoft let them upload all of that for free on their servers they would be eating a ton of cost. The companies had the option to not charge for their DLC though as long as MS wasn't the publisher of the game. But to assert MS should host their stuff for free is a little crazy.

Also, restricting data size of DLC was more consumer friendly than anything. Not only for bandwidth but if you happened to buy the cheaper versions of the hardware you weren't 100% fucked when it comes to DLC. Now we have 100 gig game downloads, but back then was different.
---

Microsoft impressed me how much they bring to the table compared to the other two. Their ideas are always so forward thinking and well executed.
---

Darmik posted...

- Crossplay between console and PC (now crossbuy)

sony was doing that with the PS2. iirc correctly they had crossplay with pc and xbox with ff11.
---

Pillowpantz posted...

-Paying for online
-Console games as a service
-microtransactions
-DLC
-closing down studios

This

Also FPS games are cancer, so why in the fuck would anyone say making them more popular is a good thing

Lonestar2000 posted...

DLC isn't a good thing.

---

It's way more common now but I appreciate all the EU stuff they tend to do with their big first party titles. I can't think of a game that had a prequel book like Halo CE did. I know Sonic and mascot characters had cheesy kids books but that was a proper lore thing and it was a good novel on its own. Hell they even did a Brute Force novel!

I think they popularized the common 'Limited Editions' as well. I remember Halo 2 being the first big one I remember. Around then they weren't that much more expensive (and they certainly weren't limited) and usually just had behind the scenes stuff or lore tidbits. They're all pretty crappy these days though.

I love Alan Wake's one. It came with a cool investigation book thing that tied into the game.
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

1337toothbrush posted...

Darmik posted...

1337toothbrush posted...

Free DLC was rare on the 360. Epic, a major partner, had to beg Microsoft to let them "sponsor" a free map for Gears of War.

Microsoft was the publisher for that game though. You made it sound like you were talking about third parties.

The same policy applied to third-parties. If they wanted to release free content, it'd be considered a "patch". After the first patch, the developers have to pay a substantial sum. Also, a patch couldn't exceed a certain size (and it was a very restrictive size) in order to fit on the memory card for Xbox 360s that didn't have a hard drive. This restriction didn't exist for paid DLC.

I assume if Microsoft let them upload all of that for free on their servers they would be eating a ton of cost. The companies had the option to not charge for their DLC though as long as MS wasn't the publisher of the game. But to assert MS should host their stuff for free is a little crazy.

Also, restricting data size of DLC was more consumer friendly than anything. Not only for bandwidth but if you happened to buy the cheaper versions of the hardware you weren't 100% fucked when it comes to DLC. Now we have 100 gig game downloads, but back then was different.

Bandwidth was cheap, even back then, and certainly later into the generation. Companies did NOT have the option to not charge for their DLC. I already explained this. Here is a link to proof (Left 4 Dead on Xbox 360 was NOT published by Microsoft and was NOT developed by them either, obvious, so it's absolutely a third-party game):
http://www.shacknews.com/article/60365/microsoft-forces-valve-to-price

The first DLC either falls under the first free "patch" or was a special case. Microsoft forced everyone to charge for DLC. The restrictions on data size of patches (not DLC. Come on, work on your reading comprehension skills) was entirely due to Microsoft stupidly making the hard drive not a standard so they could hawk the Core and Arcade versions of the 360, all so they could claim a smaller initial cost (but of cost it'd end up being more expensive in the long run). The restrictions went away as they phase out those models.
---

1337toothbrush posted...

The restrictions on data size of patches (not DLC. Come on, work on your reading comprehension skills) was entirely due to Microsoft stupidly making the hard drive not a standard so they could hawk the Core and Arcade versions of the 360, all so they could claim a smaller initial cost (but of cost it'd end up being more expensive in the long run). The restrictions went away as they phase out those models.

I wouldn't really say that was a stupid decision for the time. The Xbox had a built-in hard drive and that just kept the price up. They were keeping their options open so they could shift in either direction and adjust to the market accordingly.

Even with the hard drive accessory it was still quite a bit cheaper than the PS3.
---

Darmik posted...

FPS games

This is a flaw actually. Damage to the industry
---

Consoles had plenty of FPS games before Halo. Plenty of them were successful.

Most of them had awful controls and level design though.
---

Darmik posted...

Consoles had plenty of FPS games before Halo. Plenty of them were successful.

Most of them had awful controls and level design though.

So they took a problem and made it worse?

That's not something to be commended.

Nah, I just detest how shooters were the dominant genre unlike like, at least 2012. I hate them in general
---

Darklit_Minuet posted...

Darmik posted...

Consoles had plenty of FPS games before Halo. Plenty of them were successful.

Most of them had awful controls and level design though.

So they took a problem and made it worse?

That's not something to be commended.

How is making better games making it worse?
---

Darmik posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

Darmik posted...

Consoles had plenty of FPS games before Halo. Plenty of them were successful.

Most of them had awful controls and level design though.

So they took a problem and made it worse?

That's not something to be commended.

How is making better games making it worse?

They didn't make better games. All shooters are garbage. What they did was make them more popular, tainting the video game scene for most of my teenage years. It took years for gaming to recover

Darklit_Minuet posted...

All shooters are garbage

You're a funny guy.
---

I don't know if I'd agree with them bringing PC style FPSes to consoles. When I think PC FPS I think 8-10 weapons at a very fast pace. Halo wasn't that.

That's not to say Halo didn't have a major impact on FPS design, plenty of games after that copied the "two weapons+dedicated grenade and melee buttons" scheme, but I feel like that was more them making a popular console control scheme and that being brought to PC instead of the other way. FPSes feel like they're finally starting to get back to Quake/UT speeds now that people are so comfortable with the standardized controller scheme.
---

Link43130 posted...

I don't know if I'd agree with them bringing PC style FPSes to consoles. When I think PC FPS I think 8-10 weapons at a very fast pace. Halo wasn't that.

That's not to say Halo didn't have a major impact on FPS design, plenty of games after that copied the "two weapons+dedicated grenade and melee buttons" scheme, but I feel like that was more them making a popular console control scheme and that being brought to PC instead of the other way. FPSes feel like they're finally starting to get back to Quake/UT speeds now that people are so comfortable with the standardized controller scheme.

That's a good point.

Maybe making console FPS's into their own thing would be a better way to put it.
---