|
On June 18 2013 18:22 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 17:44 DnameIN wrote:On June 18 2013 10:33 Fruscainte wrote:
You know, people keep asking us for these highly specific examples of when we would need to play our console in an offline mode. Yet curiously, not a single one of these people asking for these examples are providing their own reasoning as to why we need always online in the first place. If we are losing this availability to play games offline, what are we, the consumers, getting out of this? We are trading away options, what are we getting in return? I live in Poland on borders of big city. My internet connection sux whenever there is thunderstorm, huge amount of rain water, huge amount of snow, too high temeratures, too low temperatures... Sometimes I have feeling that their servers and routers are placed in the middle of glade without roof. I don't have option to switch to another ISP, they are just non-existent in my neighbourhood. Neighter I can increase my internet speed above 2mb/s >.< So, I will not invest in something that forces me to be online all the time to play. That's just stupid. It's even more stupid, when you take into account that I am using console to play single player games 95% of the time - why should I have internet connection for that? Don't worry: the quality of your internet connection in Poland doesn't matter, since no one in Poland will be allowed to play Xbox One games at launch anyway 
That is very much the case (sadly).
So I was thinking about the cost of the Box and realized Microsoft's ploy. If Microsoft took away with kinect, would it not have been the same price of Playstation 4? Granted, in terms of hardware, the Playstation 4 is superior. But in terms of cost, the kinect for Box costs approximately $100. So to me, I ask myself, why would Microsoft risk losing customers (based on cost) just to require the kinect?
Well it all comes down to the ends justify the means as a gamble. I am sure there were plenty of developers that wanted to use the but not enough people have it. So less kinect games which also means less incentive in getting it. So Microsoft decides, "well we can potentially make more money in the long run with more kinect titles if more people have kinect. So how do we have more people using it? How about simply forcing everyone to purchase one".
Since if you think about it, all Microsoft did was sell everyone a bundle. The 360 on its own costs $199.99, the console with kinect costs $299.99. All Microsoft did was remove the console version and force everyone to own a kinect (whether they wanted one or not).
So the way I see it, to appease developers and bring in more money, they gambled on forcing consumers to purchase a kinect bundle. They could not make more people to purchase the kinect so might as well force them to. Plus if they force everyone to get the kinect box bundle, it would make the "tv, tv, tv, tv, television, tv, tv, tv" option seem all the more appealing.
I am starting to see the web-like mentality of Microsoft and their plan. It is all connected you see, all connected. And the worst thing is, if one of them fail, the whole thing fails. Quite the gamble, and not worth it for myself, but shall see. Regardless of what happens, Microsoft has a massive fanbois following anyway so they are guaranteed a good amount of sales (even with droves of people moving from 360 to Playstation 4).
|
they want to force it upon consumers so that they can design their UI etc around it.
It will also be one of the bigger difference between xbox One and ps4, be it good or bad.
|
Microsoft's console price probably doesn't need to be 499, someone likely messed up and guessed the ps4 would be 499 as well or 349. Even with the kinect attached Microsoft could still sell their console at a profit at 399. The PS4 can't really drop it's price much sense Sony doesn't have the cash to support selling at a loss and the PS4 profit margins per console is razor thin so what happens if in 3 6 months after the ps4 release, microsoft just drops the price to 399 or 349. Which could happen if all this xbox1 hate is to be actually followed though.
Microsoft is pushing quite hard to put a HTPC in the living room. If a smartglass device sold with the XB1 they could have something there, really you would have pretty much a computer hooked up to your tv in the living room with an okay mouse/keyboard to navigate with. Supplemented with voice commands. The kinect is part of that plan just off of simple commands be it body or voice.
|
On June 18 2013 19:04 semantics wrote:
Microsoft's console price probably doesn't need to be 499, someone likely messed up and guessed the ps4 would be 499 as well or 349. Even with the kinect attached Microsoft could still sell their console at a profit at 399. The PS4 can't really drop it's price much sense Sony doesn't have the cash to support selling at a loss and the PS4 profit margins per console is razor thin so what happens if in 3 6 months after the ps4 release, microsoft just drops the price to 399 or 349. Which could happen if all this xbox1 hate is to be actually followed though.
Microsoft is pushing quite hard to put a HTPC in the living room. If a smartglass device sold with the XB1 they could have something there, really you would have pretty much a computer hooked up to your tv in the living room with an okay mouse/keyboard to navigate with. Supplemented with voice commands. The kinect is part of that plan just off of simple commands be it body or voice.
I think jack (from Sony) was having an interview and flat out said, they simply could not sell at $349.99. They probably discussed it and crunched the numbers but Sony cannot afford to sell them at a net loss. So although I am sure they would want to sell it for $349.99 to make the console more appealing (and probably sell more).
|
On June 18 2013 19:22 Nilrem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 19:04 semantics wrote:
Microsoft's console price probably doesn't need to be 499, someone likely messed up and guessed the ps4 would be 499 as well or 349. Even with the kinect attached Microsoft could still sell their console at a profit at 399. The PS4 can't really drop it's price much sense Sony doesn't have the cash to support selling at a loss and the PS4 profit margins per console is razor thin so what happens if in 3 6 months after the ps4 release, microsoft just drops the price to 399 or 349. Which could happen if all this xbox1 hate is to be actually followed though.
Microsoft is pushing quite hard to put a HTPC in the living room. If a smartglass device sold with the XB1 they could have something there, really you would have pretty much a computer hooked up to your tv in the living room with an okay mouse/keyboard to navigate with. Supplemented with voice commands. The kinect is part of that plan just off of simple commands be it body or voice. I think jack (from Sony) was having an interview and flat out said, they simply could not sell at $349.99. They probably discussed it and crunched the numbers but Sony cannot afford to sell them at a net loss. So although I am sure they would want to sell it for $349.99 to make the console more appealing (and probably sell more).
Yeah i forget the exact wholesale price estimates but even with kinect attached microsoft can still sell it at 399 and make a profit not much but it would be there, or they could sell it at a slight loss at 349. Irrc the bill of materials for ps4 parts was estimated at around 275 so with other things outside of just parts probably put it around 350+ just to put it on the shelves. And the XB1 was BOM of like 300 so to get it on the shelves probably be around 375 probably less just due to microsoft being microsoft.
|
I'm a bit curious how people that already have some kind of entertainments system in their living-room will stand on the Xbox one. When you already have an smart-tv and maybe some kind of sound/entertainments system and can already do a fair share that the new Xbox can do. Obviously the Xbox takes it up a notch but will those people really see the need or desire to add another device to rule them all instead of maybe adding a PS4 to just play games on? Also considering that it's become relatively easy to connect and use an ordinary PC with you TV (wireless hdmi, steam big-picture and so on) it makes the htpc aspect somewhat redundant (I've my connected with a long ass hdmi cable and it works as well as you could hope).
|
5930 Posts
On June 18 2013 19:44 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 19:22 Nilrem wrote:On June 18 2013 19:04 semantics wrote:
Microsoft's console price probably doesn't need to be 499, someone likely messed up and guessed the ps4 would be 499 as well or 349. Even with the kinect attached Microsoft could still sell their console at a profit at 399. The PS4 can't really drop it's price much sense Sony doesn't have the cash to support selling at a loss and the PS4 profit margins per console is razor thin so what happens if in 3 6 months after the ps4 release, microsoft just drops the price to 399 or 349. Which could happen if all this xbox1 hate is to be actually followed though.
Microsoft is pushing quite hard to put a HTPC in the living room. If a smartglass device sold with the XB1 they could have something there, really you would have pretty much a computer hooked up to your tv in the living room with an okay mouse/keyboard to navigate with. Supplemented with voice commands. The kinect is part of that plan just off of simple commands be it body or voice. I think jack (from Sony) was having an interview and flat out said, they simply could not sell at $349.99. They probably discussed it and crunched the numbers but Sony cannot afford to sell them at a net loss. So although I am sure they would want to sell it for $349.99 to make the console more appealing (and probably sell more). Yeah i forget the exact wholesale price estimates but even with kinect attached microsoft can still sell it at 399 and make a profit not much but it would be there, or they could sell it at a slight loss at 349. Irrc the bill of materials for ps4 parts was estimated at around 275 so with other things outside of just parts probably put it around 350+ just to put it on the shelves. And the XB1 was BOM of like 300 so to get it on the shelves probably be around 375 probably less just due to microsoft being microsoft.
Where are you getting the BOM for the Xbox One?
The BOM estimate you got the PS4 was from NeoGAF and the guy, who works at an analyst firm, claims that the figure is probably too high. As for the BOM for the Xbox One, no one has any idea because Microsoft hasn't said anything regarding specs, unlike Sony, but there shouldn't be any way the Xbox One is remotely close to the BOM of the PS4 for multiple reasons:
1) Microsoft's APU has 2 billion transistors more than Sony's 3 billion transistor APU. All sources, no matter who you ask (well if we ignore Major Nelson), is claiming that the Xbox One is suffering from some extreme yield problems. Apparently Microsoft is paying for the faulty APUs so that is increasing losses per wafer. Its gotten to the point that Gamestops around the Untied State believe that they're able to get double to triple the number of PS4s on the shelf compared to Xbox Ones.
2) Because of the DDR3-2100 + embedded memory combination, Sony's GDDR5 pricing disadvantage is not really a problem at all.
3) Microsoft has a ton of propitiatory silicon like their move engines and SHAPE audio processor. Sony is pretty much picking existing crap off the shelf.
Regarding subsidising, Microsoft won't accept huge losses on the Xbox One. The "Entertainment' division is already a piss poor performer at Microsoft. What makes you think they can justify huge subsidies of their system? If anything, Sony would probably be more willing to go nuts with pricing because its one of their business backbones (but they won't and don't need to if Amazon preorders are anything to go by).
On June 18 2013 18:54 Nilrem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2013 18:22 HunterX11 wrote:On June 18 2013 17:44 DnameIN wrote:On June 18 2013 10:33 Fruscainte wrote:
You know, people keep asking us for these highly specific examples of when we would need to play our console in an offline mode. Yet curiously, not a single one of these people asking for these examples are providing their own reasoning as to why we need always online in the first place. If we are losing this availability to play games offline, what are we, the consumers, getting out of this? We are trading away options, what are we getting in return? I live in Poland on borders of big city. My internet connection sux whenever there is thunderstorm, huge amount of rain water, huge amount of snow, too high temeratures, too low temperatures... Sometimes I have feeling that their servers and routers are placed in the middle of glade without roof. I don't have option to switch to another ISP, they are just non-existent in my neighbourhood. Neighter I can increase my internet speed above 2mb/s >.< So, I will not invest in something that forces me to be online all the time to play. That's just stupid. It's even more stupid, when you take into account that I am using console to play single player games 95% of the time - why should I have internet connection for that? Don't worry: the quality of your internet connection in Poland doesn't matter, since no one in Poland will be allowed to play Xbox One games at launch anyway That is very much the case (sadly). So I was thinking about the cost of the Box and realized Microsoft's ploy. If Microsoft took away with kinect, would it not have been the same price of Playstation 4? Granted, in terms of hardware, the Playstation 4 is superior. But in terms of cost, the kinect for Box costs approximately $100. So to me, I ask myself, why would Microsoft risk losing customers (based on cost) just to require the kinect?
Microsoft has to bundle the Kinect with the Xbox One at this point. They can't take it out unless they are willing to change their whole console (i.e. take out the SHAPE processor, change how Xbox Live does things, etc.). Without the Kinect, what you have is a shittier PS4 that has media apps hidden behind a paywall...if you don't need games, why not just use AirPlay or Miracast with your much better consumption device (i.e. tablet, notebook)? It isn't even a DVR or a cable box since you need to plug your existing cable box into it. Kinect is the only thing that really positively differentiates Microsoft's system from the PS4 or any other smart device and they know it.
Their PR hasn't been able to explain why the Xbox One is better than the PS4 (without getting laughed at by everyone) and this is why. Its exactly like Sony in 2005/2006 except Sony at least could boast about Blu-Ray.
|
On June 18 2013 19:04 semantics wrote:
Microsoft's console price probably doesn't need to be 499, someone likely messed up and guessed the ps4 would be 499 as well or 349. Even with the kinect attached Microsoft could still sell their console at a profit at 399. The PS4 can't really drop it's price much sense Sony doesn't have the cash to support selling at a loss and the PS4 profit margins per console is razor thin so what happens if in 3 6 months after the ps4 release, microsoft just drops the price to 399 or 349. Which could happen if all this xbox1 hate is to be actually followed though.
Microsoft is pushing quite hard to put a HTPC in the living room. If a smartglass device sold with the XB1 they could have something there, really you would have pretty much a computer hooked up to your tv in the living room with an okay mouse/keyboard to navigate with. Supplemented with voice commands. The kinect is part of that plan just off of simple commands be it body or voice.
There is no way MS can drop its price to 399 let alone 349 not with Kinect bundle in.
Do you honestly believe that MS and Sony doing business by guessing each other's price? They know exactly what there opponent is going to sell for. MS knew or at least have a very good idea on how much PS4 is gonna sell but they take the risk.
MS and Sony both have their business plan laid out months before E3. Sony was going to announce PS4 at 399 no matter how much MS sell their XboxOne, even if the XboxOne was at 299, Sony will still sell their console at 399 because that's the point they can make profit.
Sony's financial situation is not that great in the last 3 years, but MS can't effort to sell XboxOne at a loss either. Sony was able to sell PS3 at a loss because they made HUGE profit during PS2 era(best selling console in history) and they want to win the format war. MS's position right now is no where nearly as strong as Sony in 2005/2006.
|
Anyone else have a feeling that a lot of the xbox 1 jazzy features like voice commands and hand movements are not going to be as fluid or crisp as everyone expects? I kind of think it will end up being a laggy mess that will only result in frustration and going back to standard input controls.
Those features always sound cool and make us fantasize about the future but in the end they are always bothersome. Perhaps they have finally nailed down these features but I remain cynical.
|
On June 19 2013 00:04 crms wrote:
Anyone else have a feeling that a lot of the xbox 1 jazzy features like voice commands and hand movements are not going to be as fluid or crisp as everyone expects? I kind of think it will end up being a laggy mess that will only result in frustration and going back to standard input controls.
Those features always sound cool and make us fantasize about the future but in the end they are always bothersome. Perhaps they have finally nailed down these features but I remain cynical.
You know those jazzy features and hand movements are not new and have been being used since Kinect launched. Theyre also pretty fluid if you're not one of those jackasses that has a coffee table, moms plants and a beanbag chair in front of the kinect and complain it can never see you.
|
How you can apparently walk into a room and say "Xbox, on" to turn on the Xbox One reminds me of how in Star Trek people would say "Computer, lights" to turn on the lights or etc.
|
On June 19 2013 00:04 crms wrote:
Anyone else have a feeling that a lot of the xbox 1 jazzy features like voice commands and hand movements are not going to be as fluid or crisp as everyone expects? I kind of think it will end up being a laggy mess that will only result in frustration and going back to standard input controls.
Those features always sound cool and make us fantasize about the future but in the end they are always bothersome. Perhaps they have finally nailed down these features but I remain cynical.
I feel the same. My point is quite simple, unless all my electronics implement this tech or all those manufacturers allow the Xbone to fully control them, having only ONE device that focuses on this new tech(gestures/voice control) is entirely useless. Fantastic that I can say Xbone ON and it functions. I still have to walk my ass to my television remote and turn it on and look at that, my Xbone control is right next to it as well. So at least for me, I just won't ever use the tech if I get an Xbone unless it has the capability to control everything in my entertainment center. I just think this needed a couple more years, maybe even a decade before forcing it on people. First Kinect introduces tech, Kinect 2 improves the tech tremendously, and Kinect 3 finally perfects the tech and is universally compatible with all recent devices.
They just pulled the trigger a bit early forcing this on everyone. Main use will still be dance games 5 years from now.
|
|
|
|
|
"Microsoft has single-handedly alienated the entire military,"
That is some pretty bad press lmfao
Name of the navy article is 'New Xbox a sin against all service members'
|
I thought that Microsoft's entertainment division was one of the bright spots in the company given the poor sales of Windows 8. The 360 has a large install base with a ton of XBOX live gold subscriptions.
|
The rift is exciting but it's very unlikely that it will get consol support for at least a while
|
On June 19 2013 06:14 Jetaap wrote:The rift is exciting but it's very unlikely that it will get consol support for at least a while
Well Sony and plenty of PC stuff will also support the Rift when it ready enough to be sold to gamers thats definitly not going to be something thats going to be exclusive about the Xbox.
http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2013/06/13/ps4-oculus-rift/
|
On June 19 2013 06:14 Jetaap wrote:The rift is exciting but it's very unlikely that it will get consol support for at least a while
Agreed, it will be sometime off before any major games are made for it specifically. You could probably throw something together if you have the technical know how (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFfMmQM3L-c <----Skyrim with Oculus/Kinect) but it wouldn't feel the same as a game made specifically with the oculus in mind.
Great possibilities though with console motion sensing and the Oculus though particularly if the Xbox One's Kinect is as good as they claim.
|
I have allways been an xbox guy but ya same old story. I live in alaska and commercial fish in the summer. Electricity, but no internet. This is when I play 95% of my single player console games. If I have internet I play online multiplayer competitive PC games. So consequently this seems completely retarded to me. I mean like to the point where I still am basically holding out hope that it can't possible be true and they will change before release.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
