139

Xbox One games are about to get cheaper, Ryse going on sale tomorrow

Ryse: Son of Rome

There are a few challenges for those wanting to make the transition to an all-digital game library with the Xbox One. A complaint echoed by many is that the games still cost too much, especially when compared to their physical disc-based equivalents. Often times retailers like Amazon or Target will offer big discounts on physical Xbox One games, while the digital version in the Xbox One game library remains at full price. Of course the Xbox One is only a few months old, so it was only a matter of time before digital games went on sale. Ryse: Son of Rome will be that first game.

For seven days you’ll be able to pick up Ryse on the Xbox One for just $39.99 USD in the Games on Demand section. It starts tomorrow, the 18th, and goes until the 24th of the month. The game is being discounted to hopefully get more gamers to play the game in anticipation of an upcoming DLC that includes new maps, new character skin and a new cooperative gameplay mode called Survival Mode.

Hopefully we’ll start seeing more Xbox One games go on sale in the Games on Demand section. Anyone who doesn’t already have Ryse thinking of picking up the game when it goes on sale? Sound off below.

Source: Xbox

4
loading...
0
loading...
56
loading...
0
loading...

Reader comments

Xbox One games are about to get cheaper, Ryse going on sale tomorrow

139 Comments
Sort by Rating

Hahahahahaha, hey some of us skipped math class.

Anywho, never thought I'd live to see the day. This is great news for us early adaptors of "TheOne".

Plus RYSE is a fantastic game.

Ryse was very underrated. It's very cinemetic, the story pacing is superb, as is the voice acting. The campaign will last you 8 hours or so the first playthrough. The multiplayer is okay--a nice mix up. For $40, it's not a bad deal.

Yes very underrated. I am guilty of sleeping on it but to my credit it's Microsoft's fault for showing a shity demo at one of their stores. I saw a walkthrough on Youtube and I was sold. the combat is so dirty.

Metacritic is not a valid source. It aggregates review scores from various sources and tries to standardize their metrics, some of which aren't perfectly converted, and gives equal weight to all "professional" reviews, even though many of it's "professional" sources are arguably not. Its user rating system is even more suspect since they are not verified user ratings (meaning, there is no evidence the people doing the ratings actually played the games).

For a better undrestanding of the true merits of the game, look at only verified user reviews (say from Amazon.com--although, even then, the sample is not truly representative), where you will see that the game consistently gets 4/5 stars from actual users. Compare that with Metacritic and the like and you can see that there is a drastic discrepancy. The game is underrated, critically. It's not a perfect game (I'd give it a 7.9/10), but it's certainly better than some of the atrocities like Gamespot's bogus 4/10 review lead you to believe.

Sure, metacritic does not give an accurate score, but to dismiss it outright is just.. wrong.

I haven't played Ryse, but the impression I get from various reviews, is that it is doing nothing new, and the things it does, others do better. I get the impression that it is a game that is worth a rental perhaps, but no more than that, especially with the huuuge selection of games available in this day and age.

P.S. while it would be wrong of me to completely dismiss any review based on the following, it did seem like the high review ones were more interested in the graphical prowess of it than the gameplay, but we've had better graphics on PC for years now, so they do nothing for me.

P.P.S. based on reviews alone, I'd give it 65-70/100.

Needs to be cheaper to make digital worth it. $30 or less. Max of $40 on release date for digital. People will switch to digital more convincingly with a proper discount.

The DLC content is way over priced as well. Most DLC's on steam are a few bucks. I'm not going to pay more than the price of the game for all the DLC content.

Too bad for you US gamers :/ For an EU gamer this deal means I'll get it for 26€, because PayPal. It's normally 70€.

I considered trying to purchase 12 month Live card today as the US store has them on offer at $39.99, but they need a US address. Annoying as it equates to only £23 for the year. Bargain.

Oh America, complaining about how expensive your video games are. Just remember those games cost $100 to $120 here in Australia. Yes our dollar is now a bit below US$0.90, but it was that cost when we were above pairity not long ago.

This used to be the case, but not any more. Games here are easily had for less than 100, even brand new, it's still not 100% perfect in terms of us not getting shafted but it is a hell of a lot better than it used to be. Hell I would never pay more than 80 for a new release unless it was a collector's edition.

Not fair at all. $60 for a disc-based game at launch is fair because 1. it costs money to manufacture, ship, and stock such discs, and 2. you can re-sell them later to recoup some of the costs. In contrast, digital games are 1. much cheaper to distribute (no manufacturing costs, no shipping costs, only the costs of bandwith, which are cheap), and 2. cannot be resold later on. For these reasons, digital copies of games should be significantly cheaper than disc versions from the get-go, and it's bullshit that they aren't.

To be fair, they still have to pay for storing the game online somewhere for digital purchasers to download. Also, there is usually no tax included when buying digitally (at least in California) so if a game says it's $59.99, that's all I'll pay making it cheaper than the disc version. That said, it would be nice to see at least $10 knocked off the digital copy. I've been downloading games off the Xbox 360 marketplace for over a year now and I plan to continue with the Xbox One. It's so much more convenient to be able to just load up a game without swapping out discs.

We were going to be able to resell the digital later on but people bitched and complained so much that they took away features thus limiting the experiences available to the customer

Oh, I know. I was pretty annoyed at those ignormauses who rejected Microsoft's original Xbox One policies. I much prefered their original plan. As it is, digital consumers are now getting completely screwed over.

They are getting gouged. But you have to also remember that MS has made a rod for their own back. They have always been extremely poor on the discounts and sales fronts. Their digital offerings have been terribly priced. Sales were infrequent and very limited. In fact, it is only in the last 6 months that they have started to offer some really good discounts. You can't blame the public for not wanting share in the vision of inflated prices. Also the cost of a digital download should represent more value. I bought battlefield for £42, and could sell it on for approximately £22 now. So by my reckoning, the game digitally is worth £20. Also, if I have a physical copy, I can lend to a friend, and they lend me theirs. Another reason why physical is better and offers more value. The last time I looked, the download for Battlefield was near £54.99. Ouch.

That is exactly why Microsoft's original policies would've been better for everyone: every disc became a digital copy. The discs were only for installation. After that, they weren't needed. That meant that any retailer could sell any "digital" game. And we know what happens with competition: price drops (you can see this now for Xbox One disc-based games). In contrast, now Microsoft has a monopoly on digital distributioin, and thus, digital consumers are being gouged, as you agree. Had the original policies been in place, I could go to Amazon or walk into Walmart, buy a disc game on sale and used it as a digital copy. It would've been great. As it is, if I want a digital copy, there is only one source: Microsoft.

Sadly, they had built up zero trust up to that point. I have never used Steam, I know nobody that has, but I am well aware they have a Stella reputation for superb sales and offers. MS have in the last year provided college students with a chapter to study in their business text books. Sony provided them with the chapter afterwards, which explains how things should be done. In my opinion, despite having weaker hardware, MS could have done so much better. Xbox has the best controller, the best online experience, more secure, better software skills, masses of products that could share a similar ecosystem, improved motion detection hardware, deeper pockets, and still they ended up second.

Why? I'll get Titanfall at launch and will be happy to pay regular price through the Dashboard. Don't have to insert the disc, can't lose the disc, can't scratch the disc, etc.

And with a digital download you can start a game with a voice command. No need to find and insert a disc. Oh, want to play another digital download, voice to it. Again, no physical actions required.

Agreed same here just waiting for more dlc and challenges to play it again

Posted via the WPC App for Android!

Well, given the fact that today, once again, it was announced that a game - Metal Gear Solid - will run at 720p on the Xbox One and at 1080p on the PS4, I think Xbox One games should all come down in price not only because they're inferior to their PS counterparts but to also boost competitiveness.

That's because Sony is forcing devs to only release their games in 1080p. Sure, it maybe in 1080p, but the framerate will be all over the place. Just look at COD Ghosts for PS4 vs Xbox One. The Xbox version is far smoother.

Also, Forza 5 for Xbox runs at 1080p, 60FPS.

Well, framerate can be tinkered with and corrected with an software update. But you can't upscale from 720p to 1080p (otherwise Blu-Rays would not be needed at all). So I don't think it's bad that they're forcing games to be released at 1080p.

And then, if the game has frame rate problems, Sony puts the blame on the developers. It's their fault that the game wasn't properly coded. No the PS4's fault.

In the case of Xbox One games being released at 720p, what's happening is that the developers are putting the blame on Microsoft and the Xbox One's software.

So, in the end, it's Microsoft image that suffers from the games being at 720p because it's being pinned as their fault. And, so far, I haven't seen anyone from MS coming out denying that it is

Just FYI, you can easily upscale from 720p to 1080p, it's done all the time :)
You can even update a game to run at 1080 after the release, Assassins creed 4 on the PS4 had a patch release recently which did increase the render resolution

You do know that you can also increase the resolution through an update as well, right? You need an update to get COD: Ghosts to even run at 1080p on the PS4 anyways...

The PS4 and Xbox One have the same capabilities. *theoretically* the PS4 has slightly more power, but historically it has never been utilized.

Also, these consoles just hit the market. It'll be a long time before we see them get fully utilized.

PC games are designed to have adjustable resolutions, honestly I don't see any reason why consoles can't be the same way, they are just computers after all.

Give consumers the choice, high res and horrid framerates or ower res and smoother framerates.

Hell with the advent of TV's with frigging dual and quad core processors (which is still, in my opinion, retarded) they should figure out some way of piggy backing power from it to improve games and get them all running at a solid 1080p across ALL current consoles.

This is supposed to be next gen, and yet the consoles are going to be playing catch up becuase 2015 (maybe 2016 at a stretch, but technology is moving way too fast) is likely to be the year that everyone starts buying 4k TV's and if these systems are struggling to even push out 1080P then when it comes to buzz words they're running out.

That being said patch in adjustable FSAA or whatever option they're using and that'll be the best bet, I just want rid of jagged edges, I hate them, they are a burden on visual fidelity and are still an issue. Given the fact that the new consoles have done NOTHING to advance gaming beyond "ooh, look at me, I'm prettier now" and the ability to get people to download all their games so they can no longer make back any money on them, they might as well at least get those things right.

But it will not, once developers get to know hardware and optimize correctly.

Just compare hardware in consoles. PS4 graphics is somewhere between ATI 7850 and 7870. Both are capable of running PC games in 1080p. On more demanding games you might have to turn of AA, but in general you can have full set of features enabled, and with comfortable frame rate.

XBO graphics are between on ATI 7770 - 7790. 7790 with GDDR5 is still slower than 7850. Now reduce performance and further cripple bandwidth with DDR3, and realistically you are dropping out of 1080p comfort zone.

I did some comparison against my gaming PC's aging ATI 6870. With this card, I can still play everything in 1080p, albeit new games cannot keep frame rate with AA enabled. Further, my card has only 1GB of GDDR5, so I cannot turn textures all the way up. But outside of that, I can still have pretty much everything else turned on.

Now... in best possible scenario for PS4, ATI 7870 can achieve up to 40% over my 6870, and graphics RAM is not limited to 1GB... so this will cover pretty much any game available in full glory.

On the other hand, ATI 7790 with GDDR5 is still some 10% slower than my old 6870 in actual games (some synthetic benchmarks are showing it in better light). And that is 7790 with GDDR5. Reduce performance a bit and then reduce it further with DDR3 bandwidth limits - and you get performance difference that WILL show.

I don't think there's too much space to maneuver around this. I hope Microsoft does well - when it comes to consoles I am Playstation guy from the days of original PS, but strong competition is always welcomed, heck - required to keep pushing industry forward... but I do fear they miscalculated a bit here. Time will tell.

A PC != A game console.

Microsoft is known for its best-in-class development software and OS's. Currently, the PS4 OS uses about 16.6% more resources (Xbox OS uses 3GB of RAM, PS4: 3.5) than the Xbox One's OS (yes, including Kinect), while having less functionality. If we take a look back to last generation, the Xbox got alot more software updates for its OS and as a result, was able to outpace the PS3 in some games, despite the PS3 being significantly more powerful than it.

Problem with PS3 was, it was real b*tch to program for, with it's architecture.

As a result, exclusives were harnesing power of CELL processor, but multiplatforms - not so much. In fact, I've read somewhere that early multiplatforms were mostly ignoring CELL's SPEs, resulting in system basically running off main single Power-PC core (which was very much the same as X360 cores, except that X360 had 3 of them). In addition, X360 was more capable, feature rich GPU than PS3's one. In theory, lack of PS3 GPU capabilities could have been mitigated by proper utilisation of SPEs, but outside of Sony exclusives, not many games were pushing architecture speciffics to the max... at least not in early years, in time games were getting better optimization for PS3's exotic architecture.

In this case, however, we have a bit different picture. PS4 is faster hardware wise, but also easier to code for. From what I have read so far, 3rd party developers are not too impressed with ESRAM involving configuration, and some estimates were that many will not utilise it well, or at all.

Eventually, you end up with gaming machine which uses DDR3 graphics. Now consider how many DDR3 graphics cards are considered sufficient for high-end gaming in PC world; I canot really think of any. Even with ESRAM and extra optimization console games receive (compared to PC versions), I'm finding XBO specs a bit risky proposition.

"DDR3 Graphics"

Stopped reading right there. You are so full of shit. DDR3 is regular RAM that you'd find in a mobo. GDDR5 is a modified version of DDR3 that is made to run on graphics cards.

Think of the Xbox as a Lumia 525, and the PS4 as a low-end Android. Sure, one may have better specs than the other one, but in the real world which one performs better? Tell you what, it's not the Android. ;)

This quote from Techradar, but if you make an effort to look around, you will find same sentiments mostly everywhere:

"Where the big differences come in are graphics and memory subsystems. PS4 and Xbox One actually use identical graphics architectures, known as AMD's GCN technology. But here's the thing. The Xbox One has 768 GCN graphics cores. The PS4 has 1,152. The two consoles run at similar clockspeeds, so right from the get go, the PS4 has 50 per cent more raw shader power.

Then there's memory bandwidth. The PS4 packs 8GB of GDDR5 running at 5.5GHz data rate and thus packs 176GB/s of bandwidth. The Xbox One? 8GB of DDR3 at 2.13GHz and thus just 68.33GB/s. Oh dear.

In mitigation, the Xbox does have 32MB of eSRAM offering another 102GB/s of bandwidth. But that's a misleading figure, since the eSRAM pool is very small compared to system memory. It certainly helps offset the PS4's bandwidth advantage. But an advantage it remains.

With all that in mind, there's no denying the PS4 is simply faster at rendering graphics. The end"

Not sure what is your problem here. Except being rude and ignorant.

Your view is flawed by only thinking in RAM cathegories like DDR3 and DDR5. You need to look at the available bandwidth. XBox One has a considerably higher memory bandwidth than both PS4 and ATI 7790. Likewise PS4 has less available bandwidth than ATI7850, because it is shared with the CPU. You can easily substract a few 10s of GByte/s for CPU processing.

So whats worth more, bandwidth or shader power? Heavily depends on the engine and used effects. In bandwidth limited situations XBox One will always be faster than PS4, In shader limited situation PS4 will be faster. It is as easy as that. The notion that PS4 has faster hardware is inherently flawed, because it assumes that shader performance is the only valid metric and that bandwidth is meaningless.

There is an additional issue with XBOx One though, in order to allocate all render targets in eDRAM, you need to tile the render targets, which most mainstream engines do not do out of the box, mainly because it is not necessary on PS4 and PC. This holds in particular for 1080p, for 720p all render targets might already fit into eDRAM out-of-the box.

No.

ESRAM has higher memory bandwidth... but there's only 32MB of ESRAM. In unlikely scenario where complete game/app could fit in 32MB, XBO would kill PS4 bandwidth wise.

Now, my understanding is... depending on how well developers manage to keep 32MB of most accessed code/data at any moment of time in ESRAM, XBO will reduce bandwidth deficiency accordingly. But that means that developers will have to jugle data in ESRAM a lot, as games are usually dynamic and scenario changes all the time. And even if they do manage to keep the most critical data in ESRAM all the time (while the game is running), they will never manage to keep in there everything that could benefit from more speed than what DDR3 can provide. Also - the more you need to move data from DDR3 to ESRAM (and back), the more you are hit by speed of DDR3.

Eventually, developers will have to decide carefully the good compromise between shifting data to/from ESRAM and keeping data in ESRAM. According to a few developers' interviews I've seen, the whole process is "pain in the...", nou unlike juggling with PS3 CELL coprocessors.

Ryse is exclusive, how does your comment relate?
+Ryse is the best looking game of this generation so far, and that's the general opinion..

"Hopefully we’ll start seeing more Xbox One games go on sale in the Games on Demand section. "

 

Am I the only one that reads the articles until the end?

No, I wasn't commenting on Ryse per se. From all the XbOne's games they presented at launch, Ryse was actually one of the few that really got my attention. So I commented on Xbox One games in general and why I think more should go on sale (actually, permanently drop the price)

Dropping the price because it plays in 720p makes no sense. Dropping the price because digital media has no distribution, packaging, shipping and other costs is the real and business reason to drop the price.

One could say that the added convenience of not waiting for a game to be delivered via Amazon or not needing to run down to my local Best Buy, is worth paying extra. I have no problem paying more for a digitally downloaded game.

The biggest reason that digital games should never ever cost more than a disc game (and, in fact, should cost less), is because you can re-sell disc games to recoup a pretty big chunk of the initial costs of the game. Can't re-sell digital copies (although, that was part of Microsoft's original strategy; now it's gone).

"From all the XbOne's games they presented at launch, Ryse was actually one of the few that really got my attention"

What about Dead Rising 3 and Killer Instinct! Those games are crazy fun. Forza 5 was superb too, if you like racing games, but I highly recommend Dead Rising 3 if you like fun and Killer Instinct if you like fighting games! Great games, both received well but were still underrated, in my opinion.

Nope not interested. Got Ghosts, BF4, FIFA 14. Ryse and Assassins Creed are maybes.
I am digital only. I don't do physical media at all. So waiting for prices to come down. I can wait.

I am enjoying AC4, after not being overwelmed with AC3 (beside naval battles, which were mighty fun in AC3).

Dropping the price because of a resolution difference makes little sense. Apply that same logic for every PC game versus console game...ever. Im pretty sure the difference has much to do with Xbox dev kits being behind schedule, ESRAM complexity and initial Kinect hardware constraints pulling 10% of Xbox One's hardware. Dont expect to see too much of a difference in the future. Also, if I cared more about graphics than FUN I would promptly build a PC to oggle at miniscule differences.

Sorry, but no. The resolution has pretty much nothing to do with development costs, so why should it affect the pricing?

Wow, you should try buying games in Australia, most console games are $110 each ($115-$120USD). Come back and complain when they cost you that much. That's why I don't game on console, way cheaper on PC (and better).

Its incredibly easy to buy from the US store digitally. That's how I buy all my Xbone games now. Roughly $20 cheaper depending on the exchange of the day. All you have to do is head to the US Xbox store in a browser, set up PayPal billing with a US address in a state with no sales tax, then after the purchase head to my apps and games on the Xbox to download. Stuff buying anything from the overpriced AU store on my Xbox or EB Games.

I won't buy a PS4 but cause I refuse to be price gouged just for being Australian. Their games and DLC are still region locked digitally like last Gen.

This. In Finland new ganes cost $95, so when XO launches here I'm gonna buy all my games from the US.
matter of fact, I akready bought Crimson Dragon and Lococycle from those sales, and I'm gonna buy this one too. Ryse is 26€ against 70€..

I'm still more inclined to purchase physical copies since you can sell them when you're done, or trade with a friend.

Me too. I am still waiting for my dream of a Game app that allows you to purchase digitally and then trade back in (ie some permanent deletion method). MS are missing a trick with this, and so are the bricks and mortar stores.

Microsoft wanted to do this with the xbox one but the internet kicked off and screamed DRM and ms were forced to stop development of it.

worst decision ever if you ask me.

I have been contemplating buying this for a few days after seeing some clips. This may just be the thing that pushes me over the edge

That's the upside of a digital copy: you don't need the disc on the tray. So you can hot swap to any game ("Xbox, go to Killer Instinct. Xbox, go to Dead Rising 3") and instantly it goes. No more getting up and swapping out discs. I'll never be able to go bac to that!

I'm a bit old-fashioned, I like disks. I'm still on ADSL, running to local shop is usually faster than DL for any large game. I'm also pretty sure with OD, not complete game will be copied to HDD... so my 500GB HDD will last longer, space wise. I can borrow game(s) to and from my mates, even if on-line content is limited to the original owner. And finaly, I can collect games - I do like collecting interesting things in general.

All games are 100% installed to the hard drive, so the disk space used is the same. I prefer having the convenience of not having to physically swap out discs. Love saying, "Xbox, go to Killer Instinct." and then "Xbox, go to Dead Rising 3". So convenient.

Well it's only taken about a month for Digital to equal the Physical copy price one can find in store.
Used to take several months for X360 titles.

Digital copies should always be cheaper. Developers/publishers should prefer the option with less distribution costs and no lost sales to used game purchases.

If you haven't picked this game up, I recommend that you do! It's a bit repetitive, but once you get the timing of everything down it's a ton of fun, and then ending is AWESOME.

One thing that I wish they would do is allow you to download a digital copy if you've purchased the disc. I'm too lazy to get up and change discs when I want to play a new game! :p

That's the big benefit of the digital copy: hot swapping without having to change discs. If they gave you a free digital copy with a disc purchase, you could just keep the digital copy and sell the disc copy, so they'd lose out on a sale.

Hmm. Tempting. You would have had me at $30 but Ryse is not on my radar but feel the need for a newer game. Might hold off for Titanfall instead. 

Well, Titanfall is a must buy. To hold you off till then, I really enjoyed Dead Rising 3, Killer Instinct, and Tomb Raider.

It's really not. I played it all weekend: looks and runs fantastic, and the gameplay is amazing.

Regardless, I have no interest in PC gaming. I much prefer a controller to a keyboard and mouse, and I much prefer sitting on the couch than sitting at a desk. Finally, I really like the uniformity of the Xbox Live system: cumulative friends list, leaderboards, gamerscore, etc. across all games. Yeah, sorry, PC gaming is not for me.

All of those things are exactly the same on Steam, you could even use a controller. However I refuse to believe that anyone who has actually played a FPS on PC could possibly prefer a controller. There is a reason why games aren't cross platform multiplayer between pc and consoles, PC gamers would win, plain and simple, the level of accuracy simply doesn't compare. You can also tone down settings to get those extra few frames which make all the difference. This is getting into the competitive scene though which most aren't interested in.

No, you can't use a controller if you play online PC games, for the very reason you mentioned. The keyboard and mouse setup is much too advantageous, forcing everyone to use one. I prefer gamepads and uniformity: console gaming is for me. I don't care about minute graphical differences. Xbox One games look fantastic. I'm content. Likewise, Steam doesn't have the same reach as Xbox. I can add to my Xbox gamerscore playing games on Xbox One, Xbox 360, Windows 8, Windows RT, and Windows Phone. That's a lot of platforms.

2.5x the number of pixels and a stable high count frame rate are hardly "minute". The Xbone isn't able to achieve 60fps with Titanfall running at 792p.

Unless one has two 42"+ HDTVs right next to each other for comparison, none of that's going to matter. If you're sitting 8 feet away from a 40" HDTV and a game boots up in 720p instead of 1080p, the differences are minute. Few people would notice much of a difference unless they had a point of comparison right next to it. Regarding framerate, plenty of studies have shown that any stable framerate above 30fps is enough for the naked human eye. Again, unless you have a 30fps game and a 60fps game running right next to each other, few people would notice. In my book, that's minute.

Regardless, I played the Titanfall beta on Xbox One all weekend long. It looks and runs fantastic and, most importantly, it's fun as  hell.

Maybe if you're clinically blind. On my 24" Sony 3D display, 1080p 240hz, the difference between Titanfall's 792o, BF4's 900p, and Forza 5's 1080p are all easily to distinguish. And sure Titanfall is moderately fun, and I can even live with the terrible resolution, but the frame rate instability is inexcusable. If dropping to 720p allowed the FPS a steady 60 instead of dropping to sub 30, I would be all over it. Instead I have to skip out because it is too disturbingly jarring, and controller response suffers for it.

You can see how screen size, pixels, and viewing distance stack up here. Getting worked up over an instable framerate in a beta is pretty silly. It's in beta. Beta. The framerate will be locked down for the final release.

I am well aware of the relation. And depending on the angle of inclination of my chair, my eyes are three feet tops from my screen. The Xbox One has yet to have a retail game that runs at a locked 60fps. The closest contender is Forza 5. But it even dips to high 40s/low 50s during strenuous sections like the TopGear test track, which is an abnormal track I'll grant you. Typically there are no dips below 55. Everything else averages sub 50 fps.

If you're aware of that relation, and you're aware that my previous post said that the differences are minute if you're sitting 8 feet away from an average-sized television (as most people are), you should be aware of how my statement was accurate. Instead, you started talking about being clinically blind and reiterating how you're sitting 3 feet from your monitor, a condition that isn't relevant to my original statement. Yes, I agree, if you're 3 feet away from your monitor, you'll notice some differences in resolution.

As for framerate issues: the Xbox One has been out for less than 3 months. Developers have not had enough time to learn the ins and outs of the hardware, nor has Microsoft had enough time to tweak system settings for optimization of resources. If two years from now the framerate inconsistencies persist, then, sure, it'll be a concern. But until then, let's not blow it out of proportion.

The distance from your screen is typically directly proportional to the size of the screen as a certain amount of your field of view to be filled by the screen is preferable. As the example, my 46" is right at 7ft away from the eyes, and my 42" inch is right at 6ft. And per the chart, within limits for 1080p to be beneficial.

I think you forget that the new consoles follow the x86 architecture. This makes "learning a console" mostly a thing of the past. Essentially no different from coding for a PC and optimizing for various hardware configurations. Whereas previous generations have used things such a PPC, and you see a significant improvement by end of life of the hardware, you see much less of a difference from beginning to end this generation and all future generations based on x86.

I know this is Xbox but same issue on WiiU. I want ZombiU but I'm trying to go digital and it's still 60 on eshop but under 20 on amazon. Steam is really turning me back into a PC gamer. That and I have so many games on my 360 that are digital that I'm basically just giving up because I don't want two consoles, controllers for basically the same thing. Its frustrating.

This is one of the reasons why I prefer PC, almost every game I have has been bought at a discounted price, even some new releases (like Baman Arkham Origins for example I paid half price). 

Personnally multi format games such as Lego Marvelous\BF4\Ghosts and alike should of come in at the same price as the 360 equivalents. It is hard enough to wean off the 360 when not all your friends have the console but to also expect them to pay more is a non starter.

Also the price as others have said is already too high. It is like you are paying for Blu Ray version but without any significant benefit other then exclusivity in some cases.

Having said all that will be paying full ridiculous price for Titanfall but then some games you just need to buy and you cannot wait for the deals.

 

I will never buy a digital copy of a game unless its significantly lower than the disc version. In the UK games are around £49 at release. For me to buy the digital copy it would need to start at £39.

You do realise that the box and disc make up a miniscule fraction of the game price? You're paying for the development costs mainly, you know. That said, I do think that the price should come down a bit quicker, given how quickly physical copies do. However, if you want to have a rant about the cost of TV shows on XBox Video, I'm with you!

Yeah, the costs of buying and renting TV shows and movies on Xbox video is exorbitant. Why would I rent an "HD movie" for $6-7 when I can walk 30 yards down the street and rent a Blu-Ray from Redbox for $1.50?

Yes, it's true that the manufacturing, shipping, and stocking of the game aren't that much, but even if they shaved $5 off the price of digital games, that would make a difference (especially since you can't re-sell them).

It's the TV shows that did for me; I ended up buying the Blu Ray of Big Bang Theory Seasons 1-6 for £40, it would have cost me about £180 to get all 6 seasons in HD on Xbox Video as they have no concept of multi-season box sets.

 

Actually, no.
distribution costs money. The retailer cut, the logistical shipping costs etc all add a big physical margin.
The cost to digitally distribute games is pennies, literally. Check out Azure data out charges, its literally pennies.

Granted that the retailer cut is around 50%, but there's no way in the world that MS can just take that off the price, or all the physical retailers are going to kick up a massive fuss. The logistical cost on that volume of items is really not that large either.

As for the Azure costs, it's £152 for 2000 GB of bandwidth (the maximum amount the slider goes up to), so assuming a game size of 30GB, that's £2.29 for the bandwidth. I'm not convinced that the logistical costs are going to be much more than that, as these things get shipped out in their thousands.

 

When shop rents are several thousand a month, you can bet there is healthy margin on physical games sales, not the "actual" cost, but profit margin.

By cutting that out, the costs can come down.

Don't forget, MS don't pay their actual retail costs of their own service. They will peer with massive carriers like Level 3 and their CDN costs will be literally pennies.  But even if they were 2 quid, thats easily swallowed in the profit once by a distribution company, and the retailer profit margin. Easily.

 

This isn't the first Xbox One game to get a Deal of the Week treatment, that honor goes to Powerstar Golf which was discounted by 25% four weeks ago.  Crimson Dragon also had a 25% discount three weeks ago, and Lococyle actually had a 50% permanent discount two weeks ago (although that permanent drop brought it in line with the XBLA and Steam prices that the game was about to launch at the same week).

I would like to get Ryse when it's cheaper.

If the $39.99 exchanged to £24 then I might go for it, chances are it won't be though. :(

It's down to £37 for the retail disc now, which you can sell on when you're done with the game, unlike the games on demand version.

 

Yes, I've been itching to get it, but I still have SO many that I haven't finished, it'll be MONTHS before I get to it...but better to get it now when there's incentive! ;)

I planned to play Ryse through once and sell it, but after 2 playthroughs and a lot of MP, I got a good offer for it (getting 80% of what I paid for it back) and realized I dont want to sell it at all.

I would also recommend checking user reviees, they are very different to gaming media reviews. Definitely worth a playthrough one way or another

Its still 59.99 for me in the games section of Xbox one even though it says discounted on the game tile??

Suppose they got to sell more some how. Don't want to sound fanboyish but PS4 is storming ahead. What with the latest news about MGS only running at 720p. I can tell you, some of my xbone friends are starting to regret their purchase.