StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Vendetta wrote:The living room audience might like to have something for the kids to do that can also play netflix, but theyre also the least likely to spend that amount of money on a games console, they're the people who bought Wiis. They bought Wiis because the Wii was cheap as well as being a suddenly desirable brand item.

It's hard to argue with the Wii's success as a gaming device, but it's not competing in the same category of "living room monolith". People bought the Wii, and a blu-ray player, and probably a cable box or satellite box. Microsoft is clearly saying that their device is the one and only thing you need attached to your television, amalgamating all the other devices you would normally buy. Sony, meanwhile, talked up on delivering a pure-bred gaming machine that is absolutely and inarguably the machine of choice for gamers, this generation. Microsoft is shooting higher, billing itself for whole-household appeal and trying to take on several markets simultaneously with one package, telling "gamers" in essence that they're only a fraction of the pie.

And to me, all of this looks less and less stupid when I think about Microsoft's bread and butter - the Windows PC. I've already heard tell that we're out of the PC age, where people sat at desks to do everything you'd do on your computer, and moved into the living room with tablets and other devices that deliver net content to your television. I can see why Microsoft would push to challenge the smart TVs and cable boxes as well, at a time when consumers seem willing to spend money to get their whole casual computing experience out of dens and offices.

The people who are most likely to spend money on the most expensive piece of gaming kit are exactly the people who follow E3 and react negatively to, well, all the things they have reacted negatively to. And then you're not buying an xbox to play with all your mates who have xboxes, you're buying a PS4 because that's what the one guy you know who's an early adopter has bought and won't stop telling you about.

That's a whole other issue; I believe, personally, that the vocal hardcore (read: urban male nerds) simply don't have the power they used to within the gaming culture. I see consumer power as having been taken out of the hands of the vocal hardcore and handed to Mr. and Mrs. Dick and Jane Homeowner. It certainly used to be that the hardcore would lead the charge, and everyone else would follow suit, but I think we've come to a point where brands are so well established and crowds so comfortable with technology, that the nerds are still charging only to find the crowds have comfortably moseyed to where they want to go.

Lagmonster wrote:

Vendetta wrote:The living room audience might like to have something for the kids to do that can also play netflix, but theyre also the least likely to spend that amount of money on a games console, they're the people who bought Wiis. They bought Wiis because the Wii was cheap as well as being a suddenly desirable brand item.

It's hard to argue with the Wii's success as a gaming device, but it's not competing in the same category of "living room monolith". People bought the Wii, and a blu-ray player, and probably a cable box or satellite box. Microsoft is clearly saying that their device is the one and only thing you need attached to your television, amalgamating all the other devices you would normally buy. Sony, meanwhile, talked up on delivering a pure-bred gaming machine that is absolutely and inarguably the machine of choice for gamers, this generation. Microsoft is shooting higher, billing itself for whole-household appeal and trying to take on several markets simultaneously with one package, telling "gamers" in essence that they're only a fraction of the pie.

And to me, all of this looks less and less stupid when I think about Microsoft's bread and butter - the Windows PC. I've already heard tell that we're out of the PC age, where people sat at desks to do everything you'd do on your computer, and moved into the living room with tablets and other devices that deliver net content to your television. I can see why Microsoft would push to challenge the smart TVs and cable boxes as well, at a time when consumers seem willing to spend money to get their whole casual computing experience out of dens and offices.

Then they are doing a bad job at marketing the new Xbox as such a device. Most people are still thinking of the new XBOX as a video game machine, and most casual gamers would prefer to go for a much cheaper alternative.

ray245 wrote:Then they are doing a bad job at marketing the new Xbox as such a device. Most people are still thinking of the new XBOX as a video game machine, and most casual gamers would prefer to go for a much cheaper alternative.

When you say, "most people", I think you mean "people who know what E3 even is", since that's the group whose largely been exposed to it at the moment. That group is the highly vocal minority, not the silent, contented majority, whose opinion won't be heard until the Christmas sales figures start rolling in.

It's also worth pointing out that my opinion of their strategy doesn't actually mean that I know their strategy - it's my opinion based on how I interpreted their showing and what I understand the consumer market to be like just now.

Boiled down, the PS/4 is at first blush the better choice for gamers whose income is dedicated for gaming, provided that you aren't swayed by brand-exclusive titles in the library (and I'll bet many people who hate the XBone will defend it because they've invested themselves in brands like Gears of War and Halo). I'm simply trying to argue that it's still Microsoft's game to lose at this point because they're trying for something much bigger than their competitors are.

http://www.ibtimes.com/xbox-one-users-m ... gh-1306797

Buy an xbox one, and you cannot participate in a class-action suit. They wouldn't do this if they weren't expecting class-action suits to happen, which says quite a bit.

Lagmonster wrote: It's hard to argue with the Wii's success as a gaming device, but it's not competing in the same category of "living room monolith". People bought the Wii, and a blu-ray player, and probably a cable box or satellite box. Microsoft is clearly saying that their device is the one and only thing you need attached to your television, amalgamating all the other devices you would normally buy.

They're not though.

They're selling it as a device to add on to your TV and cable box that can do all these extra things. All of the New Shiny that the One does requires it to be used as a pass through device for an existing cable box.

And people are not, necessarily, going to buy in to those extra things as uses for their main living room screen. Know why? Their phone does it. Their phone does it without interrupting the rest of the family watching the TV, and because they carry their phone all the time they're so used to using their phone for those social tasks that they won't even necessarily conceptualise doing them with their TV, let alone pay $500 for the privilege.

Apart from streaming movies (which basically any TV bought in the last 18 months and every current console even the Wii can do anyway), all of the non-gaming features of the Xbox people are far more likely to use their phone or tablet for. And some people will use their phone/tablet for the movies as well.

Microsoft are trying for something bigger than their competitors, but what they're trying for is a phantom, a market that existed back when they started their living room adventure, but which has been completely blindsided by the tablet and smartphone market.

I'd not buy in principle based on how MS is handling this, hardware aside. The tweet about waiting to play games till you get home was the dingleberry on top of an otherwise horrible shit cake. What on earth are their execs doing emulating EA managerial decisions and marketing?

I also don't see why anyone with, say, a Sky box and smart TV would even need this. A aeparate, cheaper and more powerful games console complements that setup better than a "buy into the MS only experience" box. People may have learnt from Windows that getting stuck with MS only again, only for leisure this time, is choice to be thought about hard.

Shinova wrote:http://www.ibtimes.com/xbox-one-users-m ... gh-1306797

Buy an xbox one, and you cannot participate in a class-action suit. They wouldn't do this if they weren't expecting class-action suits to happen, which says quite a bit.

I'm pretty sure everyone does this now. I'm almost positive when it comes to valve and EA. The difference is that you have to agree to it manually. This wording is weird. Is MS claiming that just purchasing the box is an agreement?

But these are hard to enforce anyways and are usually thrown out by the court, more so I would assume if you get roped in just by buying the damn thing. Also, "Justice is Blind" aaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha!

atg wrote:

General Schatten wrote:Oh I hope that's a fake twitter account. Cuz that's just terrible.

I'm pretty sure that's a legit account. They have 3 accounts for this stuff IIRC.

The same account has also said that there is no physical on/off switch on the XBox One... which probably explains why Microsoft is still being bullish on having the Kinect as a requirement, they literally have no other way for the box to be turned on.

Microsoft representatives have openly and directly confirmed that the Kinect can be turned off when the system's not in use, so you don't have to worry about the room being secretly monitored or whatever unless you choose to leave it on (or, well, have the system on :L).

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote: Microsoft representatives have openly and directly confirmed that the Kinect can be turned off

...with a purely software mechanism. Let's consider the track record, here.

Is there a hard wired LED to Kinect at least?

It's like how if I turn my cell phone off, I can't be tracked via the GPS? Right... RIGHT? Seriously though, just yank the power cable. Being able to turn it on or off while the console is powered down doesn't mean anything. It will still be on 99% of the time considering they want it to be the focal point of your home entertainment. And if it's on, the Kinect is on.

But all this and the 1.5mbps requirement makes sense.... if you're extremely paranoid.

Grumman wrote:I would assume that turning it on at the wall would turn on the console, rather than going straight into sleep mode.

Why would you assume that? The Xbox360 doesn't power on just because the PSU has been plugged in, you have to explicitly turn it on.

http://www.neowin.net/news/anonymous-xb ... intentions

So I had this linked to me by a friend. It's a fair read but it does address a couple issues. Though I still think therewas no need for most of what they have done.

atg wrote:The same account has also said that there is no physical on/off switch on the XBox One... which probably explains why Microsoft is still being bullish on having the Kinect as a requirement, they literally have no other way for the box to be turned on.

In addition to the other potential problems already raised previously in this thread, this also assumes the Kinect switch will function regardless of any other system issues. As an XBox 360 user who still has to use the physical switch from time to time because the system completely locks up and won't even accept the shutdown command from the controller, that seems a little optimistic.

Stark and I had been discussing the One and the PS4, and concluded that the One had the most functionality and was the most forward thinking. Basically the kind of stuff the 'anonymous engineer' was talking about. The PS4 is just a souped up version of current gen consoles, and we didn't think that was viable long term. But I've thought about it some more, and I've changed my mind, especially when I remember that Microsoft's goal is to shift even more units this time than last time. When it comes down to it, TVs are already offering a bunch of this functionality and will be offering more and more of it as time goes on, and cheaper too. Why would you buy an Xbox One to enhance your TV experience if your TV already gives you that? Are people really going to pay hundreds of bucks just to control Netflix by voice? As I recall you need to have Live Gold to get a Netflix subscription, too.

I dont get why people are so convinced that the PS4 is the inferior media device. On release it's going to have support for netflix, amazon and sony music & video services and others (without needing a subscription just for the priviledge of accessing your existing subscriptions to such services). Ok it wont be able to have your current cable box plugged straight in, but the options for extra streaming services beyond those announced are just a software update away.

Starglider wrote:

Grumman wrote:I would assume that turning it on at the wall would turn on the console, rather than going straight into sleep mode.

Why would you assume that? The Xbox360 doesn't power on just because the PSU has been plugged in, you have to explicitly turn it on.

True, but the Xbox 360 has a power switch. If it had been true that you needed to use the Kinect to go from sleep mode to full functionality, you would not want the customer's first interaction with the device to be shouting at it until it recognises you're saying "xbox on".

Ford Prefect wrote:Stark and I had been discussing the One and the PS4, and concluded that the One had the most functionality and was the most forward thinking. Basically the kind of stuff the 'anonymous engineer' was talking about. The PS4 is just a souped up version of current gen consoles, and we didn't think that was viable long term. But I've thought about it some more, and I've changed my mind, especially when I remember that Microsoft's goal is to shift even more units this time than last time. When it comes down to it, TVs are already offering a bunch of this functionality and will be offering more and more of it as time goes on, and cheaper too. Why would you buy an Xbox One to enhance your TV experience if your TV already gives you that? Are people really going to pay hundreds of bucks just to control Netflix by voice? As I recall you need to have Live Gold to get a Netflix subscription, too.

Shit, my family only just upgraded to a modern TV a few months ago and it already has all of the functionality a user will care about minus the voice control (which I'm frankly okay with not having). The Xbox One trying to be a multi-function family device that only matches what the device it's hooked up to can already do is like......well, I can't actually think of a simile that properly explains it. Most of the ones I'm coming up with are actually USEFUL, whereas this doesn't even have a use unless you're a year or two behind the curve. In which case, all of those functions will become worthless when you catch up.

Ford Prefect wrote:Stark and I had been discussing the One and the PS4, and concluded that the One had the most functionality and was the most forward thinking. Basically the kind of stuff the 'anonymous engineer' was talking about.

The Xbox One has more functionality, but I remain unconvinced that it's functionality people want in an all in one set top box. Mobile and tablet are fracturing the concept of the living room away from one main screen that all the family uses for everything into everyone having their own screen and doing their own thing with it. Microsoft have designed the Xbox be the central control for the living room which all other devices talk to (smart glass, cable box integration, etc), but control of the living room is actually decentralising to all these other devices that people carry everywhere all the time. You can already get phone apps that control your smart tv from a device that people carry around 100% of the time.

The One does have more of a forward thinking digital distribution model (lending digital copies etc), but that's come too soon (Most people won't have internet capable of downloading 25GB games anything like conveniently, even if there's some play whilst streaming the rest of the game downloads business due to monthly caps and low speeds, for many UK internet connections you could go and get a disc from the shops more conveniently than downloading 25GB.) at the expense of too much normal functionality (like real offline function), and too many missed markets (half of Europe, all of Southeast Asia, including places like Singapore, Singapore has 104% broadband penetration, there are literally more broadband connections than houses there, and you don't launch your console designed to leverage broadband?).

Having a modem in the Dreamcast was forward thinking, but that didn't exactly help because it was too soon.

So I'm not sure what to make of this:

Does this mean that if you get banned from Live your Xbox One is just a $500 cablebox and those potentially hundreds of dollars worth of games are just gone?

General Schatten wrote:So I'm not sure what to make of this:

Does this mean that if you get banned from Live your Xbox One is just a $500 cablebox and those potentially hundreds of dollars worth of games are just gone?

Why not? If you get banned you're either a pirate or a cheater so fuck you. That's my take on it anyway.

General Schatten wrote:So I'm not sure what to make of this:

Does this mean that if you get banned from Live your Xbox One is just a $500 cablebox and those potentially hundreds of dollars worth of games are just gone?

There will probably be a way to create a new account.

As for the games, that are gone. I would expect Microsoft to be really hesitant about banning someone unless they really deserve it due to the bad press that will happen if there is any way the story could be spun as MS being in the wrong.

I'd hope this means that there's two types of bans - simply being banned from being playing online (i.e. being permanently busted down to XBLive Silver), or outright termination of the account for illegal behaviour. Otherwise there's going to be a lot of people getting their game collection nuked for acting like douchebags in online multiplayer.

DaveJB wrote:I'd hope this means that there's two types of bans - simply being banned from being playing online (i.e. being permanently busted down to XBLive Silver), or outright termination of the account for illegal behaviour. Otherwise there's going to be a lot of people getting their game collection nuked for acting like douchebags in online multiplayer.

I weep for the sixteen year olds who can't call me a faggot anymore.

Vendetta wrote:Having a modem in the Dreamcast was forward thinking, but that didn't exactly help because it was too soon.

I agree with everything you said more or less 100%, that was the sort of thing I was trying to get at.