On June 21 2013 03:28 Go0g3n wrote: So they took out all the features I actually liked: the family Live account sharing plan, digital copies added to live account even if you purchase a game on Blu-ray, - all for the sake of poor teenagers. Might as well buy a Wii-U now.
My, my. How privileged and haughty you are. Nevermind the fact, which was stated multiple times in this thread, that XB1 requires broadband, and the main market's infrastructure, the US, is absolutely abysmal unless you live in an urban town on the coasts. Nevermind that force-feeding your customers with unfamiliar new features that limit and restrict what I, a customer paying for this product and service, can do is more a slap to the face than a gateway to the future. Nevermind that the orginal design was set out to monitor the consumers emotions, preferences, and personal habits to sell that information to other companies. But NOPE, I just don't want to carry a disc around or get up from my chair to swap games if need be. Absolutely disgusting.
The family Live account idea never made sense to me. Do all separate family members need their own Live account to make this work? Or do we all share one Live account on different profiles? If the former, then that is not only financially inefficient, but just fundamentally retarded on many levels. If the latter, how different is this from how it works currently? Oh noes, my sister is unlocking achievements for me! Most games leave room for multiple save files, so overwriting progress is not even an issue.
I don't know why people don't realize this, but digital copies for consoles work differently than digital copies for PC for one reason: Backwards compatibility. Who's to say the next generation of consoles will allow you to keep your "digital licenses" instead of repaying to upgrade to the later console? Combating the used market and the consumer is just a ploy for publishers and developers to continue churning out their "AAA" games which have been degrading in content and quality over the past decade. There have been only a handful of current high-production games have kept me coming back to replay over and over, while many of them have been shelved after a 6-hour single playthrough. The ability to sell and redistribute games should rightfully so be considered a slap to the face to devs; I'm disappointed to hear that their response isn't to improve on their development, but rather to put down the people who buy their crap in the first place.
I am sorry, but this seems like nonsense to me.
I am aware that roughly a third of americans have access to broadband internet. Add to that all gamers from other parts of the world who do have broadband access and you get more than enough clients for your always-on console.
PS4 does not offer anything new or interesting to me. In terms of gaming innovation it falls behind the Wii-U and even the latest PSP. As a PS3 owner I do not need a simple hardware upgrade, i have a PC for that. At this very moment PS4 looks to me like a $800 PC upgrade which is offered at half the price with a controller thrown in.
Friends and family sharing, day one/disc-to-digital availability are the two features that do not exist even on Steam. Kinect, even though I do not care for it, looks like a good feature, they sold ~25 million of the things so far, I guess some people liked it. Throw in voice control and cloud-computing or whatever and you get yourself a decent set of new features.
As far as privacy goes, I find it ironic that "tinfoilers" don't seem to understand that a camera in a plastic case can be turned to the wall or put into a drawer. Those are the same people whose cookies are being monitored by google, personal social networking data sold by Facebook and so on so forth on every single step of the way.
X1 restrictions to me also look like a barrier that could somewhat split "kids" from people who consider gaming a hobby, much like a mandatory MMORPG subscription versus F2P. Paid multiplayer adds to that as well.I don't mind a reasonable paywall.
This argument is ridiculous. So now you're saying it's okay for Microsoft to be more exclusive? From the previous XB1 press conferences, they seemed pretty intent on making the XB1 available to everyone. "We want the XB1 to be the next water cooler." "We want an XB1 in every family's living room." "TV TV TV SPORTS SPORTS" They tried pushing all of these features, these gimmicks, so that they could broaden their market demographic while discarding the core demographic a gaming console is supposed to cater to. Ironically, Microsoft managed to alienate even the most casual of crowds with the always-online crap they offered. You even have members of the navy and army complaining about the XB1 connectivity. Even on the few hours they have to themselves, those that even have internet can't even play with buddies back home due to region-locking, system not available, etc.
You make a claim how the XB1 is supposed to split the "kids" from people who actually game. Bwahaha! Tell me, which demographic is more likely to be impressed by "new features" and "new things"? Which group likes the shiny beep boops, the fancy techno-lingo, the techno-babble, and all the bright lights? I'll tell you who. The kids. The kids are the ones who'll immediately buy up that shit. I, as a gamer, only expect one thing from a video game console: To play some GAMES. Games that I can play by myself or with a friend. Games that I can share with buddies and vice versa. Games that we can play no matter whose house we go to. And that's one thing the PS4 offered, that the XB1 clearly forgot, and why I'm leaning more toward Sony.
Money talks man. Money does all the talking. I don't know exactly what happened between E3 and this week, but Sony's prevalence over Microsoft was so absolutely crushing, MS had to revert on all the statements they made earlier. Think about it. They were so gung-ho, so determined to push out the XB1 with all the fancy features it had; there are so many quotes and videos in this thread proving it (i.e. We have a console you can play offline. It's called the Xbox 360!). Either all the vitriol and hate from the internet community, or the crushing number of preorders PS4 has over XB1 (I wouldn't know this, I'm not an Amazon-preorder-analyst) caused them to flip. Remember it's not about you. It's not about the consumer base, not the community. It's always about the money.
On June 21 2013 08:35 Zooper31 wrote: Because they are mortal enemies. You don't fraternize with the enemy. PSN might see PC users at neutral hence the allowance. Though you'd think Xbox (Microsoft) would allow PC users to connect seeing as they are 90% using Windows OS and just other Microsoft customers.
But PSN has no restriction on xbox user connect to them, if / when XBL allows so. In fact MS made exception during early stage of 360 release (FFXI is fully synced between PC / PS2 / 360 since 360 release), but has been refusing to do so since. It can benefit users alot also it might actually help their sell. For example, if when someone in JP to buy a 360 they wouldn't be cutoff with all their PS3 friends, they'd be more likely to do so.
X1 restrictions to me also look like a barrier that could somewhat split "kids" from people who consider gaming a hobby, much like a mandatory MMORPG subscription versus F2P. Paid multiplayer adds to that as well.I don't mind a reasonable paywall.
You're just wrong. Check wow community, did 15$ tag ever stopped millions of kids, idiots and trolls from playing it? Nope. I've played to enough mmos to see it, it's the same story all over again and 50$ box price + 15$/month later doesn't help. Same thing with XBL on 360. I've seen enough of cheaters, trolls etc, doubt anything would change during the next gen. And if it will, it probably will get even worse.
Also why would I pay 100$ more for a spying device, that I must put "into a drawer" in order to keep my privacy? Yes, maybe I don't care about my privacy enough to use a VPN when I'm using google, but at least they are spying for free. Not using any social networks either. So that's actually a kinda funny step by Microsoft. You'll be forced to buy a spying device and have it on for 100% of the time for you own money.
I wonder if Microsoft will change that "feature" as well if people keep pushing...
On June 21 2013 03:28 Go0g3n wrote: So they took out all the features I actually liked: the family Live account sharing plan, digital copies added to live account even if you purchase a game on Blu-ray, - all for the sake of poor teenagers. Might as well buy a Wii-U now.
My, my. How privileged and haughty you are. Nevermind the fact, which was stated multiple times in this thread, that XB1 requires broadband, and the main market's infrastructure, the US, is absolutely abysmal unless you live in an urban town on the coasts. Nevermind that force-feeding your customers with unfamiliar new features that limit and restrict what I, a customer paying for this product and service, can do is more a slap to the face than a gateway to the future. Nevermind that the orginal design was set out to monitor the consumers emotions, preferences, and personal habits to sell that information to other companies. But NOPE, I just don't want to carry a disc around or get up from my chair to swap games if need be. Absolutely disgusting.
The family Live account idea never made sense to me. Do all separate family members need their own Live account to make this work? Or do we all share one Live account on different profiles? If the former, then that is not only financially inefficient, but just fundamentally retarded on many levels. If the latter, how different is this from how it works currently? Oh noes, my sister is unlocking achievements for me! Most games leave room for multiple save files, so overwriting progress is not even an issue.
I don't know why people don't realize this, but digital copies for consoles work differently than digital copies for PC for one reason: Backwards compatibility. Who's to say the next generation of consoles will allow you to keep your "digital licenses" instead of repaying to upgrade to the later console? Combating the used market and the consumer is just a ploy for publishers and developers to continue churning out their "AAA" games which have been degrading in content and quality over the past decade. There have been only a handful of current high-production games have kept me coming back to replay over and over, while many of them have been shelved after a 6-hour single playthrough. The ability to sell and redistribute games should rightfully so be considered a slap to the face to devs; I'm disappointed to hear that their response isn't to improve on their development, but rather to put down the people who buy their crap in the first place.
I am sorry, but this seems like nonsense to me.
I am aware that roughly a third of americans have access to broadband internet. Add to that all gamers from other parts of the world who do have broadband access and you get more than enough clients for your always-on console.
PS4 does not offer anything new or interesting to me. In terms of gaming innovation it falls behind the Wii-U and even the latest PSP. As a PS3 owner I do not need a simple hardware upgrade, i have a PC for that. At this very moment PS4 looks to me like a $800 PC upgrade which is offered at half the price with a controller thrown in.
Friends and family sharing, day one/disc-to-digital availability are the two features that do not exist even on Steam. Kinect, even though I do not care for it, looks like a good feature, they sold ~25 million of the things so far, I guess some people liked it. Throw in voice control and cloud-computing or whatever and you get yourself a decent set of new features.
As far as privacy goes, I find it ironic that "tinfoilers" don't seem to understand that a camera in a plastic case can be turned to the wall or put into a drawer. Those are the same people whose cookies are being monitored by google, personal social networking data sold by Facebook and so on so forth on every single step of the way.
X1 restrictions to me also look like a barrier that could somewhat split "kids" from people who consider gaming a hobby, much like a mandatory MMORPG subscription versus F2P. Paid multiplayer adds to that as well.I don't mind a reasonable paywall.
Your problem is that you are looking at "innovation" like those random sheep that want innovation for innovation's sake. Innovation by itself isn't good; it's only good if there is something that is worth it to innovate for. At this point, there really isn't; any advanced technology is too far off (for a number of reasons). The PS4 does what it could realistically do best; it improves on what's available and doesn't push forward too fast like the XB1 is trying. It's significantly improving hardware (even better than the XB1) and it's fixing a lot of mistakes that it made with the PS3. That is perfectly fine for one console generation to the next. You don't need crazy-awesome new technology every generation, or you end up with stupid stuff like the XB1.
Oh, and XB1 market was pathetic. 30% of Americans and the vast majority of the rest of the world locked out from using the XB1? Great market.
And you're looking at innovation like the random sheep that doesn't know what's actually innovative until years after the fact... way to be an asshole? And I don't know if you've read up on how innovation works, but company's are supposed to make products that people don't know they want until it's out there, and then they beat out the competition that tries to do the same. And the problem is that people like you jump on the "fuck microsoft wtf is this xbox shit kinect spying on me" train immediately and now we don't even get to see the possibly interesting and different features they had in the system and how those would've worked out.
There's no "crazy-awesome new technology" in the XB1. All I see is focused Kinect integration more DRM restrictions, and Microsoft pushing into the television market, hardly "crazy new".
And a lot of people were definitely interested in the family sharing idea, and it's pathetic that you dismiss them all as "random sheep".
There's a difference between innovation to try to come out with a product that people didn't know they wanted, like the first iPod, and innovation to try to come out with a product that people don't want. I do not doubt that many people were interested in the family sharing features that Xbox One was initially announced with, but obviously they weren't as loud as the people who didn't like the limitations and restrictions that come with the console. Unfortunately Microsoft decided you can have one or the other, but not both.
There are many objective reasons for people's complaints, and you labeling them as bandwagoners is similarly disrespectful. Even after the changes, the Xbox One is still going to launch at $100 more expensive than the PS4 with a required peripheral that has privacy concerns associated with it and is seen as a quirky gimmick at best by most core gamers. The hardware itself is weaker than the PS4, and the online subscription associated with the console doesn't come with nearly the same benefits or perks that the equivalent one does for the PS4.
There will be a point in the future when always-on systems won't be a problem because of how widespread good internet connections are, and we'll be able to play games in virtual reality in our living rooms using a system very similar to the Kinect, but consumers need to believe in those technologies before they dump $500 on a console with Kinect that might not end up being very next-generation. All indications, past and current, have shown that voice and movement recognition software have very serious limitations that make them almost impossible to implement in core gaming experiences. Until we are shown otherwise, why should we think this new Kinect is any different? Or will it sit on my Xbox collecting dust while I play games I could have been playing on PS4 or PC in better quality for less money?
It's great Microsoft is willing to listen to their consumers when they organize themselves en masse, but the PR damage has been done, and the fact that they are able to change these features so late in the game means they weren't as necessary and integral to the system as Microsoft first let on. Seems to me like they were playing a rather risky game of chicken with their consumer base and we called their bluff on always-on DRM, game sharing/selling, and region restrictions.
You are absolutely, positively correct, especially with regards to the Kinect. M$ had an opportunity to demonstrate the "advanced technology" of the Kinect and assure people of its quality during the Xbone's unveiling, but what did good 'ol M$ do? They gave us a demonstration on voice recognition, sure, but it wasn't done in real-time. It was staged. Why should we trust M$ when they say "Voice recognition and other stuff on our product is super duper advanced!" if they weren't even confident enough to do a live test? They sold us a lie with the "See how fast and simple that was?" comment during the event.
So they're forcing people to pay an extra $100 for a product many people don't want and whose quality is unverified? Thanks, but no thanks. They should make the Kinect optional and have a standard $399 Xbone package if they hope to compete with the PS4.
X1 restrictions to me also look like a barrier that could somewhat split "kids" from people who consider gaming a hobby, much like a mandatory MMORPG subscription versus F2P. Paid multiplayer adds to that as well.I don't mind a reasonable paywall.
You're just wrong. Check wow community, did 15$ tag ever stopped millions of kids, idiots and trolls from playing it? Nope. I've played to enough mmos to see it, it's the same story all over again and 50$ box price + 15$/month later doesn't help. Same thing with XBL on 360. I've seen enough of cheaters, trolls etc, doubt anything would change during the next gen. And if it will, it probably will get even worse.
Also why would I pay 100$ more for a spying device, that I must put "into a drawer" in order to keep my privacy? Yes, maybe I don't care about my privacy enough to use a VPN when I'm using google, but at least they are spying for free. Not using any social networks either. So that's actually a kinda funny step by Microsoft. You'll be forced to buy a spying device and have it on for 100% of the time for you own money.
I wonder if Microsoft will change that "feature" as well if people keep pushing...
I don't see Microsoft ever making a kinect free Xbone. At that rate they may as well not even release the Xbone and stick with the 360. They're going to force it on people and there is no stopping it. They want developers to start making games with it in mind and that doesn't work if you don't have 100% saturation with it. Developers now don't do anything with it because whats the point of making it a part of your game if most people don't have one? That's time and money wasted on something that most likely will never be seen so no one makes anything for it besides the same crap, dance and fitness games.
I think the Kinect is just as stupid as the next guy. Granted I think it's better than the Move or Wii but that's not saying much. Motion control to me is a gimmick that doesn't serve any real purpose to most gamers. The voice controls are the only redeeming quality of the thing. So while I, and most others, think its stupid, there is a reason it's forced upon you if you want an Xbone. They want to see what devs can do with it and the only way to do that is to force you to have one.
On June 21 2013 03:28 Go0g3n wrote: So they took out all the features I actually liked: the family Live account sharing plan, digital copies added to live account even if you purchase a game on Blu-ray, - all for the sake of poor teenagers. Might as well buy a Wii-U now.
My, my. How privileged and haughty you are. Nevermind the fact, which was stated multiple times in this thread, that XB1 requires broadband, and the main market's infrastructure, the US, is absolutely abysmal unless you live in an urban town on the coasts. Nevermind that force-feeding your customers with unfamiliar new features that limit and restrict what I, a customer paying for this product and service, can do is more a slap to the face than a gateway to the future. Nevermind that the orginal design was set out to monitor the consumers emotions, preferences, and personal habits to sell that information to other companies. But NOPE, I just don't want to carry a disc around or get up from my chair to swap games if need be. Absolutely disgusting.
The family Live account idea never made sense to me. Do all separate family members need their own Live account to make this work? Or do we all share one Live account on different profiles? If the former, then that is not only financially inefficient, but just fundamentally retarded on many levels. If the latter, how different is this from how it works currently? Oh noes, my sister is unlocking achievements for me! Most games leave room for multiple save files, so overwriting progress is not even an issue.
I don't know why people don't realize this, but digital copies for consoles work differently than digital copies for PC for one reason: Backwards compatibility. Who's to say the next generation of consoles will allow you to keep your "digital licenses" instead of repaying to upgrade to the later console? Combating the used market and the consumer is just a ploy for publishers and developers to continue churning out their "AAA" games which have been degrading in content and quality over the past decade. There have been only a handful of current high-production games have kept me coming back to replay over and over, while many of them have been shelved after a 6-hour single playthrough. The ability to sell and redistribute games should rightfully so be considered a slap to the face to devs; I'm disappointed to hear that their response isn't to improve on their development, but rather to put down the people who buy their crap in the first place.
I am sorry, but this seems like nonsense to me.
I am aware that roughly a third of americans have access to broadband internet. Add to that all gamers from other parts of the world who do have broadband access and you get more than enough clients for your always-on console.
PS4 does not offer anything new or interesting to me. In terms of gaming innovation it falls behind the Wii-U and even the latest PSP. As a PS3 owner I do not need a simple hardware upgrade, i have a PC for that. At this very moment PS4 looks to me like a $800 PC upgrade which is offered at half the price with a controller thrown in.
Friends and family sharing, day one/disc-to-digital availability are the two features that do not exist even on Steam. Kinect, even though I do not care for it, looks like a good feature, they sold ~25 million of the things so far, I guess some people liked it. Throw in voice control and cloud-computing or whatever and you get yourself a decent set of new features.
As far as privacy goes, I find it ironic that "tinfoilers" don't seem to understand that a camera in a plastic case can be turned to the wall or put into a drawer. Those are the same people whose cookies are being monitored by google, personal social networking data sold by Facebook and so on so forth on every single step of the way.
X1 restrictions to me also look like a barrier that could somewhat split "kids" from people who consider gaming a hobby, much like a mandatory MMORPG subscription versus F2P. Paid multiplayer adds to that as well.I don't mind a reasonable paywall.
Your problem is that you are looking at "innovation" like those random sheep that want innovation for innovation's sake. Innovation by itself isn't good; it's only good if there is something that is worth it to innovate for. At this point, there really isn't; any advanced technology is too far off (for a number of reasons). The PS4 does what it could realistically do best; it improves on what's available and doesn't push forward too fast like the XB1 is trying. It's significantly improving hardware (even better than the XB1) and it's fixing a lot of mistakes that it made with the PS3. That is perfectly fine for one console generation to the next. You don't need crazy-awesome new technology every generation, or you end up with stupid stuff like the XB1.
Oh, and XB1 market was pathetic. 30% of Americans and the vast majority of the rest of the world locked out from using the XB1? Great market.
And you're looking at innovation like the random sheep that doesn't know what's actually innovative until years after the fact... way to be an asshole? And I don't know if you've read up on how innovation works, but company's are supposed to make products that people don't know they want until it's out there, and then they beat out the competition that tries to do the same. And the problem is that people like you jump on the "fuck microsoft wtf is this xbox shit kinect spying on me" train immediately and now we don't even get to see the possibly interesting and different features they had in the system and how those would've worked out.
There's no "crazy-awesome new technology" in the XB1. All I see is focused Kinect integration more DRM restrictions, and Microsoft pushing into the television market, hardly "crazy new".
And a lot of people were definitely interested in the family sharing idea, and it's pathetic that you dismiss them all as "random sheep".
There's a difference between innovation to try to come out with a product that people didn't know they wanted, like the first iPod, and innovation to try to come out with a product that people don't want. I do not doubt that many people were interested in the family sharing features that Xbox One was initially announced with, but obviously they weren't as loud as the people who didn't like the limitations and restrictions that come with the console. Unfortunately Microsoft decided you can have one or the other, but not both.
There are many objective reasons for people's complaints, and you labeling them as bandwagoners is similarly disrespectful. Even after the changes, the Xbox One is still going to launch at $100 more expensive than the PS4 with a required peripheral that has privacy concerns associated with it and is seen as a quirky gimmick at best by most core gamers. The hardware itself is weaker than the PS4, and the online subscription associated with the console doesn't come with nearly the same benefits or perks that the equivalent one does for the PS4.
There will be a point in the future when always-on systems won't be a problem because of how widespread good internet connections are, and we'll be able to play games in virtual reality in our living rooms using a system very similar to the Kinect, but consumers need to believe in those technologies before they dump $500 on a console with Kinect that might not end up being very next-generation. All indications, past and current, have shown that voice and movement recognition software have very serious limitations that make them almost impossible to implement in core gaming experiences. Until we are shown otherwise, why should we think this new Kinect is any different? Or will it sit on my Xbox collecting dust while I play games I could have been playing on PS4 or PC in better quality for less money?
It's great Microsoft is willing to listen to their consumers when they organize themselves en masse, but the PR damage has been done, and the fact that they are able to change these features so late in the game means they weren't as necessary and integral to the system as Microsoft first let on. Seems to me like they were playing a rather risky game of chicken with their consumer base and we called their bluff on always-on DRM, game sharing/selling, and region restrictions.
You are absolutely, positively correct, especially with regards to the Kinect. M$ had an opportunity to demonstrate the "advanced technology" of the Kinect and assure people of its quality during the Xbone's unveiling, but what did good 'ol M$ do? They gave us a demonstration on voice recognition, sure, but it wasn't done in real-time. It was staged. Why should we trust M$ when they say "Voice recognition and other stuff on our product is super duper advanced!" if they weren't even confident enough to do a live test? They sold us a lie with the "See how fast and simple that was?" comment during the event.
So they're forcing people to pay an extra $100 for a product many people don't want and whose quality is unverified? Thanks, but no thanks. They should make the Kinect optional and have a standard $399 Xbone package if they hope to compete with the PS4.
Bad example with the iPod - it's the mp3 player which would've been a more analogous situation. The iPod was just the best of the mp3 players that was promoted. This situation would be more like cd players to mp3 players, where everyone honestly did not care about mp3 players to begin with, because the saturation of mp3 players was too low and the mp3 distribution platforms did not exist. So yes, you want a successful product (the iPod) eventually, but a company has to attempt to take a step in providing that new thing in the first place (the first mp3 player). And as with before, the majority of the population knows they don't want it, but a good amount of people honestly do want to see/try something new. The problem in this case is that Microsoft has to bend down to the consumer's demands because they're not ready to completely destroy the Xbox brand, and give complete market share to Sony.
I label the people as bandwagoners whose arguments are completely pathetic with no or misguided reasoning behind them - I argue and defend my points with those who actually make valid claims and actually talk about things with a solid basis behind them, versus those who go like "microsoft's going to spy on us!!!". I've never dismissed anyone's claims about the PS4 having better hardware or a pricing scheme, or that they don't believe in Kinect.
My arguments have been the same throughout - the Kinect is a quirky gimmick to gamers, but not to the audience that the console is supposed to appeal to as a media center point. It's just that the gamers is a huge population MS cannot afford to lose, and the thinking that the Kinect is a gimmick is analogous to the Wii's remotes as a gimmick - the Kinect is and should be an integral part to development and XB1 games. In the case there, if you don't like the Wii's "gimmick", then don't buy the Wii instead of bashing Nintendo for their console.
All indications, past and current, have shown that voice and movement recognition software have very serious limitations that make them almost impossible to implement in core gaming experiences.
I don't agree with this via the same reasoning as the Wii, and that they have shown demos of the XB1 using the stuff.
This is the stuff I like, for example. Start at 2 minutes in. Not sure how it's relevant to games, but I don't agree with you considering it "weak" at all. Could use refinement though (it was picking up some guy's armpit at a point).
Also here the developer talks a bit about the stuff he's doing with the new features. Nothing genre defining but it's a nice start. (I really enjoyed Tom Clancy's EndWar btw which is similar).
And we're at a disagreement with your last point. I actually think it was a bigger decision by Microsoft to remove the DRM restrictions than you guys keep seeming to imply - it's actually pretty obvious how easy it is to disable a single internet check every 24 hours, and it's obvious they never expected a 24/7 internet connection because of how they minimized it to a single check per 24 hours, so at least in my eyes, I don't see how it was integral to their system (but I never had gotten the impression from any videos since I usually filter out marketing jargon automatically). Getting rid of the family sharing decision actually seems like a big decision from the big heads, but again all we're doing is speculating about this.
On June 21 2013 03:40 jinorazi wrote: why can't they just allow everything? either i'm ignorant or ms is playing a very difficult balancing game of consumer happiness vs profit.
-digital game sharing possible only if logged into the live account (internet required). or have something similar to ps3, where the game can be shared up to 3 other players. if a 4th person wants to play, one of the first 3 must deactivate the game via psn. internet connection is not required except for initial set up, which is completely understandable for a digital game share.
-allow used games (make older digital games cheaper, like steam, to take away used game profit)
-kinect as an option (you can at least turn off camera/mic)
They won't back down on the Kinect like they did the used game and online checkin policy. Calling it.
They shouldn't back down on the Kinect. It is one of the defining features of the XB1, regardless of whether everyone likes it (I strongly suspect that most do).
You like having all the footage/audio it gathers uploaded to their cloud servers?
On June 21 2013 11:27 Shikyo wrote: By the way, is there some sort of a law that prevents Microsoft from putting DRM and all those "features" back after people buy this console?
Nothing which is why you should expect some of these features making their way back. It's not going to be another 180 but you'll see them slowly come back. I expect in 4-5 years for MS to say that discs are now "useless" since the majority of sales are digital. Stop discs from being produced and you practically have the system MS wanted to implement anyways. Though I do think that the 24 hour check in is dead this generation unless it's an opt in thing for some features you want enabled.
I'm just going to stay completely away from the Xbone until I can see MS is doing right by their customers.
On June 21 2013 11:27 Shikyo wrote: By the way, is there some sort of a law that prevents Microsoft from putting DRM and all those "features" back after people buy this console?
Nothing which is why you should expect some of these features making their way back. It's not going to be another 180 but you'll see them slowly come back. I expect in 4-5 years for MS to say that discs are now "useless" since the majority of sales are digital. Stop discs from being produced and you practically have the system MS wanted to implement anyways. Though I do think that the 24 hour check in is dead this generation unless it's an opt in thing for some features you want enabled.
I'm just going to stay completely away from the Xbone until I can see MS is doing right by their customers.
They probably wont be changing their policies back until much later down the road. The fact of the matter is that this change was financially driven and their sales have increased across the board. So if they changed them back, they would essentially be saying, all those pre-orders that recently increased since the policy, well we do not need them.
And in all honesty, I do not foresee them turning away those pre-orders for the sake of going back. Unless it is financially beneficial to them as a whole (which I do not see as being the case), do not expect changes.
On June 21 2013 03:40 jinorazi wrote: why can't they just allow everything? either i'm ignorant or ms is playing a very difficult balancing game of consumer happiness vs profit.
-digital game sharing possible only if logged into the live account (internet required). or have something similar to ps3, where the game can be shared up to 3 other players. if a 4th person wants to play, one of the first 3 must deactivate the game via psn. internet connection is not required except for initial set up, which is completely understandable for a digital game share.
-allow used games (make older digital games cheaper, like steam, to take away used game profit)
-kinect as an option (you can at least turn off camera/mic)
They won't back down on the Kinect like they did the used game and online checkin policy. Calling it.
They shouldn't back down on the Kinect. It is one of the defining features of the XB1, regardless of whether everyone likes it (I strongly suspect that most do).
You like having all the footage/audio it gathers uploaded to their cloud servers?
You like having maliciously misinformed utterances gathered and uploaded to this site's servers?
As stand-alone ideas, the things that MS was trying to do could be pretty cool, but forcing consumers to swallow these ideas and saying "fuck off" to anyone who didn't like them is a terrible way to go about it.
The PS4 has the same appeal that every console ever has had when compared to a PC; lower price, more accessible and user-friendly, and a better social experience. The PS has also consistently had better exclusive titles than the XBox, so I don't know what you're talkin' about...
Forcing new ideas and resulting limitations isn't always a bad way, Apple did it and they're on top of the world. People are incredibly quick to dismiss without even trying.
IMO, over the years gaming PCs have gotten a lot cheaper, easier to build and use, without losing any of the core funcionality and even more importantly, "freedom". Consoles on the other hand, juding from my personal PS1 vs PS2 vs PS3 experience, have become more and more of a hassle. As for exclusives, I am talking about the PS4 exclusives lineup vs. X1 (from E3).
Based on E3, both lineups were best described as mediocre, just like every other release lineup of a console ever. Making comments about their exclusives in complete isolation like that is useless.
On June 21 2013 09:58 Blisse wrote: My arguments have been the same throughout - the Kinect is a quirky gimmick to gamers, but not to the audience that the console is supposed to appeal to as a media center point. It's just that the gamers is a huge population MS cannot afford to lose, and the thinking that the Kinect is a gimmick is analogous to the Wii's remotes as a gimmick - the Kinect is and should be an integral part to development and XB1 games. In the case there, if you don't like the Wii's "gimmick", then don't buy the Wii instead of bashing Nintendo for their console.
Here's the question though...would anyone buy the XB1 solely as a media centre? Even if it's 100% capable of doing that, it's still a $500 box, which is far too expensive unless you're playing games. Plus there's the stigma of it being a gaming console at all, which means no one will ever view it as anything except a gaming console.
Compare the PS3's launch, which was also extremely expensive. However, when compared to the prices of BluRay players at the time, it was close enough that some people could justify adding a couple hundred to also get a gaming console.
On June 21 2013 09:58 Blisse wrote: My arguments have been the same throughout - the Kinect is a quirky gimmick to gamers, but not to the audience that the console is supposed to appeal to as a media center point. It's just that the gamers is a huge population MS cannot afford to lose, and the thinking that the Kinect is a gimmick is analogous to the Wii's remotes as a gimmick - the Kinect is and should be an integral part to development and XB1 games. In the case there, if you don't like the Wii's "gimmick", then don't buy the Wii instead of bashing Nintendo for their console.
Here's the question though...would anyone buy the XB1 solely as a media centre? Even if it's 100% capable of doing that, it's still a $500 box, which is far too expensive unless you're playing games. Plus there's the stigma of it being a gaming console at all, which means no one will ever view it as anything except a gaming console.
Compare the PS3's launch, which was also extremely expensive. However, when compared to the prices of BluRay players at the time, it was close enough that some people could justify adding a couple hundred to also get a gaming console.
Well why would anyone buy the PS3 solely as a Blu-ray player? It's the same. A huge part of its price is still gaming. It's leveraging a lot of the features required for gaming (along with some other Windows stuff I don't know enough about) in order to bring you a better media experience. But with the huge emphasis MS placed on showing off the Kinect and TV features during their reveal, it's pretty clear that this doesn't have to be just a gaming console. I would try to put it like the PS3 where you weren't sure of whether Blu-Ray would actually become this much more meaningful, because it really was seen as a gimmick and unsure whether DVDs would win out (even though BR v. DVD seems silly now I do remember people have discussions about it (price/benefit ratio etc.).
I'm not actually sure if this is in-line with my earlier thoughts but this seems to make sense in response to your question. The Kinect and SmartGlass can be seen as a gimmick just like BR would've initially - maybe that makes more sense to talk about? I just don't know right now how it would improve your life that much, just like I can't really justify Blu-Rays now anyways because the price/benefit/convenience ratios aren't there yet. Maybe it'll look like BRs now, or maybe it'll look like something completely necessary - like mp3 players versus CD players. I'm more inclined to think the latter because of the emphasis other companies have placed on visual systems, and I'll use Samsung's Galaxy S4 with the recognizing hand gestures and other companies attempting face recognition as examples.
On June 21 2013 09:58 Blisse wrote: My arguments have been the same throughout - the Kinect is a quirky gimmick to gamers, but not to the audience that the console is supposed to appeal to as a media center point. It's just that the gamers is a huge population MS cannot afford to lose, and the thinking that the Kinect is a gimmick is analogous to the Wii's remotes as a gimmick - the Kinect is and should be an integral part to development and XB1 games. In the case there, if you don't like the Wii's "gimmick", then don't buy the Wii instead of bashing Nintendo for their console.
Here's the question though...would anyone buy the XB1 solely as a media centre? Even if it's 100% capable of doing that, it's still a $500 box, which is far too expensive unless you're playing games. Plus there's the stigma of it being a gaming console at all, which means no one will ever view it as anything except a gaming console.
Compare the PS3's launch, which was also extremely expensive. However, when compared to the prices of BluRay players at the time, it was close enough that some people could justify adding a couple hundred to also get a gaming console.
Well why would anyone buy the PS3 solely as a Blu-ray player? It's the same. A huge part of its price is still gaming. It's leveraging a lot of the features required for gaming (along with some other Windows stuff I don't know enough about) in order to bring you a better media experience. But with the huge emphasis MS placed on showing off the Kinect and TV features during their reveal, it's pretty clear that this doesn't have to be just a gaming console. I would try to put it like the PS3 where you weren't sure of whether Blu-Ray would actually become this much more meaningful, because it really was seen as a gimmick and unsure whether DVDs would win out (even though BR v. DVD seems silly now I do remember people have discussions about it (price/benefit ratio etc.).
I'm not actually sure if this is in-line with my earlier thoughts but this seems to make sense in response to your question. The Kinect and SmartGlass can be seen as a gimmick just like BR would've initially - maybe that makes more sense to talk about? I just don't know right now how it would improve your life that much, just like I can't really justify Blu-Rays now anyways because the price/benefit/convenience ratios aren't there yet. Maybe it'll look like BRs now, or maybe it'll look like something completely necessary - like mp3 players versus CD players. I'm more inclined to think the latter because of the emphasis other companies have placed on visual systems, and I'll use Samsung's Galaxy S4 with the recognizing hand gestures and other companies attempting face recognition as examples.
Did you not read what I said? The price of the PS3 was comparable to the price of a BluRay player at the time. In fact, I think on release it was actually the cheapest on the market. I can't say the exact date when BR players got a lot more affordable, but I think it was at least a year before the difference was more than $50.
The XB1 is not comparable to any other media centre setups. If you have a computer and an internet connection you can already stream to your TV (which you'd still need for the XB1 to do the same). A DVD/BR player is dirt cheap, definitely sub $100. Music, once again computer, if not iPod/Smart Phone.
On June 21 2013 09:58 Blisse wrote: My arguments have been the same throughout - the Kinect is a quirky gimmick to gamers, but not to the audience that the console is supposed to appeal to as a media center point. It's just that the gamers is a huge population MS cannot afford to lose, and the thinking that the Kinect is a gimmick is analogous to the Wii's remotes as a gimmick - the Kinect is and should be an integral part to development and XB1 games. In the case there, if you don't like the Wii's "gimmick", then don't buy the Wii instead of bashing Nintendo for their console.
Here's the question though...would anyone buy the XB1 solely as a media centre? Even if it's 100% capable of doing that, it's still a $500 box, which is far too expensive unless you're playing games. Plus there's the stigma of it being a gaming console at all, which means no one will ever view it as anything except a gaming console.
Compare the PS3's launch, which was also extremely expensive. However, when compared to the prices of BluRay players at the time, it was close enough that some people could justify adding a couple hundred to also get a gaming console.
Well why would anyone buy the PS3 solely as a Blu-ray player? It's the same. A huge part of its price is still gaming. It's leveraging a lot of the features required for gaming (along with some other Windows stuff I don't know enough about) in order to bring you a better media experience. But with the huge emphasis MS placed on showing off the Kinect and TV features during their reveal, it's pretty clear that this doesn't have to be just a gaming console. I would try to put it like the PS3 where you weren't sure of whether Blu-Ray would actually become this much more meaningful, because it really was seen as a gimmick and unsure whether DVDs would win out (even though BR v. DVD seems silly now I do remember people have discussions about it (price/benefit ratio etc.).
I'm not actually sure if this is in-line with my earlier thoughts but this seems to make sense in response to your question. The Kinect and SmartGlass can be seen as a gimmick just like BR would've initially - maybe that makes more sense to talk about? I just don't know right now how it would improve your life that much, just like I can't really justify Blu-Rays now anyways because the price/benefit/convenience ratios aren't there yet. Maybe it'll look like BRs now, or maybe it'll look like something completely necessary - like mp3 players versus CD players. I'm more inclined to think the latter because of the emphasis other companies have placed on visual systems, and I'll use Samsung's Galaxy S4 with the recognizing hand gestures and other companies attempting face recognition as examples.
Did you not read what I said? The price of the PS3 was comparable to the price of a BluRay player at the time. In fact, I think on release it was actually the cheapest on the market. I can't say the exact date when BR players got a lot more affordable, but I think it was at least a year before the difference was more than $50.
The XB1 is not comparable to any other media centre setups. If you have a computer and an internet connection you can already stream to your TV (which you'd still need for the XB1 to do the same). A DVD/BR player is dirt cheap, definitely sub $100. Music, once again computer, if not iPod/Smart Phone.
? I would say the cost of the BluRay player was like $100 (since how would they get $500 BluRay technology in their console without accounting for all that other shit unless they took huge losses on the console), alongside the gaming console at let's say $400. Just like the cost of Kinect + all that media stuff is $100 alongside the gaming console at $400? There's a Kinect sensor, of course it's not comparable to other media center setups.
When you justify the $500 cost of the PS3 versus the Xbox 360, you can look at
which kinda shows a $100 price difference in the optical drive (I'm guessing BluRay?). This seems to confirm my theory (and BR prices were driven up because of market demand/new technology/greed. I would assume the same price breakdown happens this generation except the difference will be the Kinect sensor.
I'm actually not sure what you're talking about if this isn't it.
It's also cool to note how close the consoles performed all this time (PS3 did better in GQ though I think) even though the price difference on the motherboard/cpu/gpu was like 2x that of the Xbox.
On June 21 2013 09:58 Blisse wrote: My arguments have been the same throughout - the Kinect is a quirky gimmick to gamers, but not to the audience that the console is supposed to appeal to as a media center point. It's just that the gamers is a huge population MS cannot afford to lose, and the thinking that the Kinect is a gimmick is analogous to the Wii's remotes as a gimmick - the Kinect is and should be an integral part to development and XB1 games. In the case there, if you don't like the Wii's "gimmick", then don't buy the Wii instead of bashing Nintendo for their console.
Here's the question though...would anyone buy the XB1 solely as a media centre? Even if it's 100% capable of doing that, it's still a $500 box, which is far too expensive unless you're playing games. Plus there's the stigma of it being a gaming console at all, which means no one will ever view it as anything except a gaming console.
Compare the PS3's launch, which was also extremely expensive. However, when compared to the prices of BluRay players at the time, it was close enough that some people could justify adding a couple hundred to also get a gaming console.
Well why would anyone buy the PS3 solely as a Blu-ray player? It's the same. A huge part of its price is still gaming. It's leveraging a lot of the features required for gaming (along with some other Windows stuff I don't know enough about) in order to bring you a better media experience. But with the huge emphasis MS placed on showing off the Kinect and TV features during their reveal, it's pretty clear that this doesn't have to be just a gaming console. I would try to put it like the PS3 where you weren't sure of whether Blu-Ray would actually become this much more meaningful, because it really was seen as a gimmick and unsure whether DVDs would win out (even though BR v. DVD seems silly now I do remember people have discussions about it (price/benefit ratio etc.).
I'm not actually sure if this is in-line with my earlier thoughts but this seems to make sense in response to your question. The Kinect and SmartGlass can be seen as a gimmick just like BR would've initially - maybe that makes more sense to talk about? I just don't know right now how it would improve your life that much, just like I can't really justify Blu-Rays now anyways because the price/benefit/convenience ratios aren't there yet. Maybe it'll look like BRs now, or maybe it'll look like something completely necessary - like mp3 players versus CD players. I'm more inclined to think the latter because of the emphasis other companies have placed on visual systems, and I'll use Samsung's Galaxy S4 with the recognizing hand gestures and other companies attempting face recognition as examples.
Did you not read what I said? The price of the PS3 was comparable to the price of a BluRay player at the time. In fact, I think on release it was actually the cheapest on the market. I can't say the exact date when BR players got a lot more affordable, but I think it was at least a year before the difference was more than $50.
The XB1 is not comparable to any other media centre setups. If you have a computer and an internet connection you can already stream to your TV (which you'd still need for the XB1 to do the same). A DVD/BR player is dirt cheap, definitely sub $100. Music, once again computer, if not iPod/Smart Phone.
? I would say the cost of the BluRay player was like $100 (since how would they get $500 BluRay technology in their console without accounting for all that other shit unless they took huge losses on the console), alongside the gaming console at let's say $400. Just like the cost of Kinect + all that media stuff is $100 alongside the gaming console at $400? There's a Kinect sensor, of course it's not comparable to other media center setups.
When you justify the $500 cost of the PS3 versus the Xbox 360, you can look at
which kinda shows a $100 price difference in the optical drive (I'm guessing BluRay?). This seems to confirm my theory (and BR prices were driven up because of market demand/new technology/greed. I would assume the same price breakdown happens this generation except the difference will be the Kinect sensor.
I'm actually not sure what you're talking about if this isn't it.
No, the PS3 was cheaper than Blu-Ray players at launch. Just Google "Blu-Ray Player prices 2006", every single article is about the PS3 outpricing the market.
On June 21 2013 09:58 Blisse wrote: My arguments have been the same throughout - the Kinect is a quirky gimmick to gamers, but not to the audience that the console is supposed to appeal to as a media center point. It's just that the gamers is a huge population MS cannot afford to lose, and the thinking that the Kinect is a gimmick is analogous to the Wii's remotes as a gimmick - the Kinect is and should be an integral part to development and XB1 games. In the case there, if you don't like the Wii's "gimmick", then don't buy the Wii instead of bashing Nintendo for their console.
Here's the question though...would anyone buy the XB1 solely as a media centre? Even if it's 100% capable of doing that, it's still a $500 box, which is far too expensive unless you're playing games. Plus there's the stigma of it being a gaming console at all, which means no one will ever view it as anything except a gaming console.
Compare the PS3's launch, which was also extremely expensive. However, when compared to the prices of BluRay players at the time, it was close enough that some people could justify adding a couple hundred to also get a gaming console.
Well why would anyone buy the PS3 solely as a Blu-ray player? It's the same. A huge part of its price is still gaming. It's leveraging a lot of the features required for gaming (along with some other Windows stuff I don't know enough about) in order to bring you a better media experience. But with the huge emphasis MS placed on showing off the Kinect and TV features during their reveal, it's pretty clear that this doesn't have to be just a gaming console. I would try to put it like the PS3 where you weren't sure of whether Blu-Ray would actually become this much more meaningful, because it really was seen as a gimmick and unsure whether DVDs would win out (even though BR v. DVD seems silly now I do remember people have discussions about it (price/benefit ratio etc.).
I'm not actually sure if this is in-line with my earlier thoughts but this seems to make sense in response to your question. The Kinect and SmartGlass can be seen as a gimmick just like BR would've initially - maybe that makes more sense to talk about? I just don't know right now how it would improve your life that much, just like I can't really justify Blu-Rays now anyways because the price/benefit/convenience ratios aren't there yet. Maybe it'll look like BRs now, or maybe it'll look like something completely necessary - like mp3 players versus CD players. I'm more inclined to think the latter because of the emphasis other companies have placed on visual systems, and I'll use Samsung's Galaxy S4 with the recognizing hand gestures and other companies attempting face recognition as examples.
Did you not read what I said? The price of the PS3 was comparable to the price of a BluRay player at the time. In fact, I think on release it was actually the cheapest on the market. I can't say the exact date when BR players got a lot more affordable, but I think it was at least a year before the difference was more than $50.
The XB1 is not comparable to any other media centre setups. If you have a computer and an internet connection you can already stream to your TV (which you'd still need for the XB1 to do the same). A DVD/BR player is dirt cheap, definitely sub $100. Music, once again computer, if not iPod/Smart Phone.
? I would say the cost of the BluRay player was like $100 (since how would they get $500 BluRay technology in their console without accounting for all that other shit unless they took huge losses on the console), alongside the gaming console at let's say $400. Just like the cost of Kinect + all that media stuff is $100 alongside the gaming console at $400? There's a Kinect sensor, of course it's not comparable to other media center setups.
When you justify the $500 cost of the PS3 versus the Xbox 360, you can look at
which kinda shows a $100 price difference in the optical drive (I'm guessing BluRay?). This seems to confirm my theory (and BR prices were driven up because of market demand/new technology/greed. I would assume the same price breakdown happens this generation except the difference will be the Kinect sensor.
I'm actually not sure what you're talking about if this isn't it.
It's also cool to note how close the consoles performed all this time (PS3 did better in GQ though I think) even though the price difference on the motherboard/cpu/gpu was like 2x that of the Xbox.
Blu-rays no way in hell costed $100 8years ago. They are $100 now and the most expensive one you can get is like $180 max. You can get one for as low as like $70 though. In 2006 they were like fucking $200 minimum easy, they LITERALLY came out and we're still brand spanking new technology.
On June 21 2013 09:58 Blisse wrote: My arguments have been the same throughout - the Kinect is a quirky gimmick to gamers, but not to the audience that the console is supposed to appeal to as a media center point. It's just that the gamers is a huge population MS cannot afford to lose, and the thinking that the Kinect is a gimmick is analogous to the Wii's remotes as a gimmick - the Kinect is and should be an integral part to development and XB1 games. In the case there, if you don't like the Wii's "gimmick", then don't buy the Wii instead of bashing Nintendo for their console.
Here's the question though...would anyone buy the XB1 solely as a media centre? Even if it's 100% capable of doing that, it's still a $500 box, which is far too expensive unless you're playing games. Plus there's the stigma of it being a gaming console at all, which means no one will ever view it as anything except a gaming console.
Compare the PS3's launch, which was also extremely expensive. However, when compared to the prices of BluRay players at the time, it was close enough that some people could justify adding a couple hundred to also get a gaming console.
Well why would anyone buy the PS3 solely as a Blu-ray player? It's the same. A huge part of its price is still gaming. It's leveraging a lot of the features required for gaming (along with some other Windows stuff I don't know enough about) in order to bring you a better media experience. But with the huge emphasis MS placed on showing off the Kinect and TV features during their reveal, it's pretty clear that this doesn't have to be just a gaming console. I would try to put it like the PS3 where you weren't sure of whether Blu-Ray would actually become this much more meaningful, because it really was seen as a gimmick and unsure whether DVDs would win out (even though BR v. DVD seems silly now I do remember people have discussions about it (price/benefit ratio etc.).
I'm not actually sure if this is in-line with my earlier thoughts but this seems to make sense in response to your question. The Kinect and SmartGlass can be seen as a gimmick just like BR would've initially - maybe that makes more sense to talk about? I just don't know right now how it would improve your life that much, just like I can't really justify Blu-Rays now anyways because the price/benefit/convenience ratios aren't there yet. Maybe it'll look like BRs now, or maybe it'll look like something completely necessary - like mp3 players versus CD players. I'm more inclined to think the latter because of the emphasis other companies have placed on visual systems, and I'll use Samsung's Galaxy S4 with the recognizing hand gestures and other companies attempting face recognition as examples.
Did you not read what I said? The price of the PS3 was comparable to the price of a BluRay player at the time. In fact, I think on release it was actually the cheapest on the market. I can't say the exact date when BR players got a lot more affordable, but I think it was at least a year before the difference was more than $50.
The XB1 is not comparable to any other media centre setups. If you have a computer and an internet connection you can already stream to your TV (which you'd still need for the XB1 to do the same). A DVD/BR player is dirt cheap, definitely sub $100. Music, once again computer, if not iPod/Smart Phone.
? I would say the cost of the BluRay player was like $100 (since how would they get $500 BluRay technology in their console without accounting for all that other shit unless they took huge losses on the console), alongside the gaming console at let's say $400. Just like the cost of Kinect + all that media stuff is $100 alongside the gaming console at $400? There's a Kinect sensor, of course it's not comparable to other media center setups.
When you justify the $500 cost of the PS3 versus the Xbox 360, you can look at
which kinda shows a $100 price difference in the optical drive (I'm guessing BluRay?). This seems to confirm my theory (and BR prices were driven up because of market demand/new technology/greed. I would assume the same price breakdown happens this generation except the difference will be the Kinect sensor.
I'm actually not sure what you're talking about if this isn't it.
It's also cool to note how close the consoles performed all this time (PS3 did better in GQ though I think) even though the price difference on the motherboard/cpu/gpu was like 2x that of the Xbox.
Blu-rays no way in hell costed $100 8years ago. They are $100 now and the most expensive one you can get is like $180 max. You can get one for as low as like $70 though. In 2006 they were like fucking $200 minimum easy, they LITERALLY came out and we're still brand spanking new technology.
$200 was for a BluRay Drive for your computer. The cost of BluRay media player was like $1000 until 2007, when it went down to $600...
On June 21 2013 09:58 Blisse wrote: My arguments have been the same throughout - the Kinect is a quirky gimmick to gamers, but not to the audience that the console is supposed to appeal to as a media center point. It's just that the gamers is a huge population MS cannot afford to lose, and the thinking that the Kinect is a gimmick is analogous to the Wii's remotes as a gimmick - the Kinect is and should be an integral part to development and XB1 games. In the case there, if you don't like the Wii's "gimmick", then don't buy the Wii instead of bashing Nintendo for their console.
Here's the question though...would anyone buy the XB1 solely as a media centre? Even if it's 100% capable of doing that, it's still a $500 box, which is far too expensive unless you're playing games. Plus there's the stigma of it being a gaming console at all, which means no one will ever view it as anything except a gaming console.
Compare the PS3's launch, which was also extremely expensive. However, when compared to the prices of BluRay players at the time, it was close enough that some people could justify adding a couple hundred to also get a gaming console.
Well why would anyone buy the PS3 solely as a Blu-ray player? It's the same. A huge part of its price is still gaming. It's leveraging a lot of the features required for gaming (along with some other Windows stuff I don't know enough about) in order to bring you a better media experience. But with the huge emphasis MS placed on showing off the Kinect and TV features during their reveal, it's pretty clear that this doesn't have to be just a gaming console. I would try to put it like the PS3 where you weren't sure of whether Blu-Ray would actually become this much more meaningful, because it really was seen as a gimmick and unsure whether DVDs would win out (even though BR v. DVD seems silly now I do remember people have discussions about it (price/benefit ratio etc.).
I'm not actually sure if this is in-line with my earlier thoughts but this seems to make sense in response to your question. The Kinect and SmartGlass can be seen as a gimmick just like BR would've initially - maybe that makes more sense to talk about? I just don't know right now how it would improve your life that much, just like I can't really justify Blu-Rays now anyways because the price/benefit/convenience ratios aren't there yet. Maybe it'll look like BRs now, or maybe it'll look like something completely necessary - like mp3 players versus CD players. I'm more inclined to think the latter because of the emphasis other companies have placed on visual systems, and I'll use Samsung's Galaxy S4 with the recognizing hand gestures and other companies attempting face recognition as examples.
Did you not read what I said? The price of the PS3 was comparable to the price of a BluRay player at the time. In fact, I think on release it was actually the cheapest on the market. I can't say the exact date when BR players got a lot more affordable, but I think it was at least a year before the difference was more than $50.
The XB1 is not comparable to any other media centre setups. If you have a computer and an internet connection you can already stream to your TV (which you'd still need for the XB1 to do the same). A DVD/BR player is dirt cheap, definitely sub $100. Music, once again computer, if not iPod/Smart Phone.
? I would say the cost of the BluRay player was like $100 (since how would they get $500 BluRay technology in their console without accounting for all that other shit unless they took huge losses on the console), alongside the gaming console at let's say $400. Just like the cost of Kinect + all that media stuff is $100 alongside the gaming console at $400? There's a Kinect sensor, of course it's not comparable to other media center setups.
When you justify the $500 cost of the PS3 versus the Xbox 360, you can look at
which kinda shows a $100 price difference in the optical drive (I'm guessing BluRay?). This seems to confirm my theory (and BR prices were driven up because of market demand/new technology/greed. I would assume the same price breakdown happens this generation except the difference will be the Kinect sensor.
I'm actually not sure what you're talking about if this isn't it.
It's also cool to note how close the consoles performed all this time (PS3 did better in GQ though I think) even though the price difference on the motherboard/cpu/gpu was like 2x that of the Xbox.
Blu-rays no way in hell costed $100 8years ago. They are $100 now and the most expensive one you can get is like $180 max. You can get one for as low as like $70 though. In 2006 they were like fucking $200 minimum easy, they LITERALLY came out and we're still brand spanking new technology.
$200 was for a BluRay Drive for your computer. The cost of BluRay media player was like $1000 until 2007, when it went down to $600...
Ya I guess I should've specified. Just proves the point even more.
EPT
