Xbox One Catch-all

Warriorpoet897 wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:
Warriorpoet897 wrote:

I'm a filthy skimmer, but in case no one has made the point: I think the higher price point would have gone down a lot smoother if they had showcased ANYTHING that put the added value of Kinect 2.0 on display. Instead it was just a matter of "You have to have it and it costs $100 more." At least show me some tech demos.

They did in the first conference, and they had plenty of journalists at that event showing tech demos on vids to the public, as well as at E3.

*shrug*

Interesting. I thought I was following everything pretty closely and I haven't seen anything. I don't recall anything being shown at the first conference so maybe it just didn't make an impression on me.

They showed all that interface stuff, then after the stage show they had all the big media outlets in sessions where they let them film the new interface, heart rate measurement, dark room view, up close wide angle camera functionality, etc.

For instance:

Warriorpoet897 wrote:

I'm a filthy skimmer, but in case no one has made the point: I think the higher price point would have gone down a lot smoother if they had showcased ANYTHING that put the added value of Kinect 2.0 on display. Instead it was just a matter of "You have to have it and it costs $100 more." At least show me some tech demos.

I agree wholeheartedly! Mannish is right that they showed it in the first conference, but did they show any games then? I don't remember anything they showed.

At this point, it is honestly a mystery as to why they're making it mandatory and driving up their own price. It's not like they've showed us the games of the future using this - all I can think of are Dance Central and maybe Fantasia.

Microsoft considers it as essential as a webcam and mic in every laptop and mobile device. It will help drive Twitch, Skype, and Bing use. It already is useful during Netflix and other streaming playback, and it will be better now.

I get why people are discarding its necessity, but it is driving a lot of the innovations Microsoft is implementing. Microsoft has to believe that when it starts demoing this in stores, people will love it.

I think Kinect 1.0 was a proof of concept that we use all of the time. It wasn't hard to pinpoint what they needed to do to make it better. In my mind, they did exactly that. The camera has a resolution that allows it to work in tight spaces. It has a much faster connection to the console than the old USB version allowed, and it is being used to track much finer movements, as well as much more accurate voice detection.

They are going to continue pumping out Kinect games that will still tend to be dance, exercise, and casual kid friendly games. But it will also get smarter inclusion in other games where they have let go of the idea that it would be the controller. Now it will augment your play. Again, we'll have to see how well they pull it off.

But seriously, we are already wishing we had voice control for Tivo. I think it could end up being a strong feature that will continually get new uses over the lifetime of the console. A packed in Kinect is essential for this development.

Fedaykin98 wrote:
Warriorpoet897 wrote:

I'm a filthy skimmer, but in case no one has made the point: I think the higher price point would have gone down a lot smoother if they had showcased ANYTHING that put the added value of Kinect 2.0 on display. Instead it was just a matter of "You have to have it and it costs $100 more." At least show me some tech demos.

I agree wholeheartedly! Mannish is right that they showed it in the first conference, but did they show any games then? I don't remember anything they showed.

At this point, it is honestly a mystery as to why they're making it mandatory and driving up their own price. It's not like they've showed us the games of the future using this - all I can think of are Dance Central and maybe Fantasia.

If you can't figure out why Microsoft has made Kinect a part of the system, you're not very imaginative. Asking "why does Microsoft require Kinect?" is a bit like asking "why must the iPad have a touchscreen?" Kinect's functionality is absolutely key to the Xbox One's interface.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/5OP7Pzt.png)

Faceless Clock wrote:
Fedaykin98 wrote:
Warriorpoet897 wrote:

I'm a filthy skimmer, but in case no one has made the point: I think the higher price point would have gone down a lot smoother if they had showcased ANYTHING that put the added value of Kinect 2.0 on display. Instead it was just a matter of "You have to have it and it costs $100 more." At least show me some tech demos.

I agree wholeheartedly! Mannish is right that they showed it in the first conference, but did they show any games then? I don't remember anything they showed.

At this point, it is honestly a mystery as to why they're making it mandatory and driving up their own price. It's not like they've showed us the games of the future using this - all I can think of are Dance Central and maybe Fantasia.

If you can't figure out why Microsoft has made Kinect a part of the system, you're not very imaginative. Asking "why does Microsoft require Kinect?" is a bit like asking "why must the iPad have a touchscreen?" Kinect's functionality is absolutely key to the Xbox One's interface.

Well if that were true they wouldn't let you turn it off or disconnect it. I can't take the touchscreen off an iPad, can I? The reason is more or less to create uniformity across all Microsoft devices, because this will allow them to provide better quality services across those devices. Microsoft has said itself that it is moving from being a software company to being a company that does services and devices. The only real difference, eventually, between one MS device and another will be the screen size.

Gravey wrote:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/5OP7Pzt.png)

This man has to be stopped

Faceless Clock wrote:
Fedaykin98 wrote:
Warriorpoet897 wrote:

I'm a filthy skimmer, but in case no one has made the point: I think the higher price point would have gone down a lot smoother if they had showcased ANYTHING that put the added value of Kinect 2.0 on display. Instead it was just a matter of "You have to have it and it costs $100 more." At least show me some tech demos.

I agree wholeheartedly! Mannish is right that they showed it in the first conference, but did they show any games then? I don't remember anything they showed.

At this point, it is honestly a mystery as to why they're making it mandatory and driving up their own price. It's not like they've showed us the games of the future using this - all I can think of are Dance Central and maybe Fantasia.

If you can't figure out why Microsoft has made Kinect a part of the system, you're not very imaginative. Asking "why does Microsoft require Kinect?" is a bit like asking "why must the iPad have a touchscreen?" Kinect's functionality is absolutely key to the Xbox One's interface.

Half of the games shown at E3 will likely be playable on the PS3 and XBox 360. And yet none of them will "require" the Kinect. I think thou dost protest too much. The Kinect is nothing like a touchscreen. Maybe someday we'll see it that way, but the iPad was an entirely new device. That's why it needed a touchscreen. The Kinect plugs into a video game console, something that previously did not need a Kinect.

Mex wrote:
Gravey wrote:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/5OP7Pzt.png)

This man has to be stopped

You know thats a spoof account, right?

Faceless Clock wrote:
Fedaykin98 wrote:
Warriorpoet897 wrote:

I'm a filthy skimmer, but in case no one has made the point: I think the higher price point would have gone down a lot smoother if they had showcased ANYTHING that put the added value of Kinect 2.0 on display. Instead it was just a matter of "You have to have it and it costs $100 more." At least show me some tech demos.

I agree wholeheartedly! Mannish is right that they showed it in the first conference, but did they show any games then? I don't remember anything they showed.

At this point, it is honestly a mystery as to why they're making it mandatory and driving up their own price. It's not like they've showed us the games of the future using this - all I can think of are Dance Central and maybe Fantasia.

If you can't figure out why Microsoft has made Kinect a part of the system, you're not very imaginative. Asking "why does Microsoft require Kinect?" is a bit like asking "why must the iPad have a touchscreen?" Kinect's functionality is absolutely key to the Xbox One's interface.

Wow, thanks for simultaneously insulting me and not even attempting to address why the Kinect is necessary. Great post.

Well I did order the day one edition of Xbox One on Amazon. 3 days ago. That can't be a good sign at all. I know it was probably someone canceling their pre-order but I can't help but feel like this is the beginning of the end for Microsoft. I was also once the proud owner of a Zune (which I still think was great), a Sega Saturn (ditto) and current owner of a Surface Pro (which may be the single most useful piece of tech I've ever owned). So my track record for picking losers is pretty good.

It looks like a foregone conclusion that PS4 will be the dominant console this generation (sounds like about 10:1 preference ratio in polls and over 2:1 in pre-orders). Given the investment being made, how badly do you think this will hurt Microsoft? Will it drive them from the console market (ala Sega) the way they got drubbed out of the portable music market (and soon I'm sure to exit the tablet market at least as a manufacturer) or do you think it could potentially bring the whole company down on the heels of the fiascos that are Windows 8 and Windows phone? It's a big company but this seems like the only area that they were doing well in and that looks to be coming to a screeching halt.

Docjoe wrote:

It looks like a foregone conclusion that PS4 will be the dominant console this generation (sounds like about 10:1 preference ratio in polls and over 2:1 in pre-orders). Given the investment being made, how badly do you think this will hurt Microsoft? Will it drive them from the console market (ala Sega) the way they got drubbed out of the portable music market (and soon I'm sure to exit the tablet market at least as a manufacturer) or do you think it could potentially bring the whole company down on the heels of the fiascos that are Windows 8 and Windows phone? It's a big company but this seems like the only area that they were doing well in and that looks to be coming to a screeching halt.

As long as Microsoft isn't contractually locked into some of there policies there is time to change them. It might take just a few intelligently chosen concessions and some clear marketing to change the mood. It has surprised me how many pundits and podcasters have said, "I've already pre-ordered a PS4." I was expecting many more people to be sticking with the Xbox just because it's been such a great platform.

Although as soon as the stock markets get wind that you've pre-ordered an Xbox one all bets will be off

I think it is fair to make predictions and assumptions but always remember that they are just predictions and assumptions. Things can change drastically even after release. If you look at the Xbox 360 on its launch and where it is now, it's almost an entirely different console. I think calling the death of the Xbox would be a bit premature.

DSGamer wrote:

Half of the games shown at E3 will likely be playable on the PS3 and XBox 360. And yet none of them will "require" the Kinect. I think thou dost protest too much. The Kinect is nothing like a touchscreen. Maybe someday we'll see it that way, but the iPad was an entirely new device. That's why it needed a touchscreen. The Kinect plugs into a video game console, something that previously did not need a Kinect.

It's really not about the games anymore. There will aways be some game development for Kinect going on, but it will still primarily be exercise, dance, and mini games. But what it is really about is creating a plug and play HTPC with modern features.

Nearly all PC's have webcams and microphones now. But you sit directly in front of those devices and there is o need for motion, or even voice control. But for TV, we are often away from the remote, and a handsfree way to control your TV media experience has some benefit. Being able to switch from games to TV, between games, or control the TV directly without a controller or remote is a feature worth developing.

I don't think it will be fully baked out of the box, but I absolutely believe that that cable and satellite providers will either give Microsoft access, or create apps themselves, that will make the experience as unified as possible. It really is all about controlling Inout One. And they want to control it with an array of apps and features that go farther than any HTPC's do now, and make it plug and play.

Combined with Smartglass, Kinect really makes for a whole new way to interact with your TV. It could absolutely be as transformative as the iPad. And like the iPad, it's going to take some time using it before folks realize the benefits.

I think there are several issues this time around that are going to make this a tough row to hoe for Microsoft. Last generation they had a full year head start to get some base install in place. Without that, I don't know if they would have been nearly as successful. They also won the price war at launch since PS3 came out as a more expensive device. This time around, they lose both advantages. If they fall rapidly behind in the initial adoption rate, they run the risk of entering Wii U territory where 3rd parties will be reluctant to develop for them. Unlike Nintendo, though, they don't have a core of beloved games that will support a system independently. I think we are seeing the luster of Gears of War and to a lesser extent Halo disappear so they don't have a system selling franchise this time around.

The advantages they have now are a better exclusive list at launch. But I don't see a system seller in the bunch, especially since Ryse is being widely panned after E3. They are obviously banking on Kinect but that population is the casual crowd and they are the most price sensitive. The family looking for Kinect games for the kids is going to be just fine sticking with the 360 version. The early adopters, the core gamers, in general have viewed Kinect with derision.

So to me, they may need Titanfall to be the next Halo. But it won't be out at launch and it isn't even a console exclusive.

So I agree, it is early to call the race won. But given the early perception (which I think is far more important this generation) and the above issues, if PS4 gets a major early lead in sales, I could see things snowballing in a hurry for Xbox and it going the way of the Zune before this generation is done.

Having said that, I am extremely excited for it and am casting my dollars for it rather than PS4. Which as tea leaves go is probably the kiss of death.

I'll take that with a pinch of salt. While I think there will be some kinect games, and some of those that do it well, the vast majority of games are going to be bog standard stuff, using the bog standard gamepad.

Also interesting you're point "it's really not about the games anymore". I was going to post up a question about what is drawing people to each platform, and whether the games were the biggest part of it. A platform is nothing without anything to use it for. That goes for the accessories too, a guitar hero controller is almost useless for anything besides guitar hero.

Jayhawker wrote:

But for TV, we are often away from the remote, and a handsfree way to control your TV media experience has some benefit. Being able to switch from games to TV, between games, or control the TV directly without a controller or remote is a feature worth developing.

I keep seeing you cite this as an innovation, but I can't help but think Microsoft is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. I mean, how many people are out there saying, "this remote control is SO HARD to use. If only there were an easier way to watch TV without having to move my thumbs." I'm trying to think of when I've been watching TV away from the remote, aside from when it's fallen between the couch cushions.

I tried the current Kinect's voice commands, but the trouble for me was that I had to learn them all and they responded very spotty to my voice and didn't always understand what I was asking. The remote control is already the ultimate convenience and I'm not sure people are anxious to start talking to their televisions.

Scratched wrote:

Also interesting you're point "it's really not about the games anymore". I was going to post up a question about what is drawing people to each platform, and whether the games were the biggest part of it. A platform is nothing without anything to use it for. That goes for the accessories too, a guitar hero controller is almost useless for anything besides guitar hero.

Right now I have both of them pre-ordered. I do think the interface plays a major role in how you feel about using a system so I really want to see more from both sides. From what I have read about the XBO you can queue to join a friends multiplayer game, switch over to a single player game, then have it pause and switch back over when your joining. If that works as advertised, it could be a killer feature.

Docjoe wrote:

If they fall rapidly behind in the initial adoption rate, they run the risk of entering Wii U territory where 3rd parties will be reluctant to develop for them.

Most of your theories are well reasoned, but this point feels a bit off to me. If Xbox One, PC and PS4 all share the same x86 architecture, then porting between the three platforms will be almost as easy as flipping a switch. Even if XBO dramatically falls behind the others in sales, as a publisher it would make little sense to cut off a potential revenue stream just because it has a smaller install base. Sales from a small slice of the pie are still sales in the end, provided that future porting is as easy as some claim.

To me it seems *way* too early to say MS has lost this generation.

While there may be some sentiment on here and even across the interwebs that the PS4 is the way to go, I don't think that we're the majority of gamers anymore. The Madden and CoD crowd will have their say, and I'm not sure what it will be yet. The $100 price difference is an issue, but if MS sells that $100 as the extra cost of the Kinect and quality online services, I think they'll be okay.

Besides, how many of us have both a PS3 and a 360 at this point? I suspect that once games roll in, many of us will think beyond which console they'll get on launch day and end up with both.

Aaron D. wrote:

If Xbox One, PC and PS4 all share the same x86 architecture, then porting between the three platforms will be almost as easy as flipping a switch.

This always comes up and it's rarely the case unless a developer designs in porting their game from the start. Just look at linux gaming, or x86 based Macs. If a developer only wants to put a game out on one platform and designs around that one platform, they have a load of work to do if they later decide on switching.

I'm sure any developer can find an excuse for not porting, or for bad port jobs if they want to. I'm sure that some game will suffer the same fate as Bethesda's PS3 ports (for example).

Evo wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

But for TV, we are often away from the remote, and a handsfree way to control your TV media experience has some benefit. Being able to switch from games to TV, between games, or control the TV directly without a controller or remote is a feature worth developing.

I keep seeing you cite this as an innovation, but I can't help but think Microsoft is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. I mean, how many people are out there saying, "this remote control is SO HARD to use. If only there were an easier way to watch TV without having to move my thumbs." I'm trying to think of when I've been watching TV away from the remote, aside from when it's fallen between the couch cushions.

I tried the current Kinect's voice commands, but the trouble for me was that I had to learn them all and they responded very spotty to my voice and didn't always understand what I was asking. The remote control is already the ultimate convenience and I'm not sure people are anxious to start talking to their televisions.

It's not a replacement for a remote for me, it's a convenience addition. It's not absolutely necessary, but at times when the phone rings and I happen to be at the desk and the remote's on the couch, it's handy. And "Xbox pause" is pretty easy to learn.

The goal is to get to more natural language recognition, and I suspect that this gen will see that move a long way. My Kinect is already pretty good with the basics. "Xbox pause" and "Xbox play" pretty much always work. The problem currently we have is that it doesn't exclude stuff it shouldn't hear as well as it should.

As for what MS is thinking about taking the money hit to put the Kinect in the box? It seems to me that they might be trying to apply the lesson that they semi-learned on the 360 with hard drives. If you don't have it as a standard part of the platform, devs have to work around it not being there, so at least for a period of time, everybody's afraid that dev time spent into working on it is wasted.

Not sure it's a 1:1 analog. And eventually, it got to the point where drive space was acceptably assumed.

I can see why they're making the gamble. Not sure it's the right one, but I can see their logic. Hopefully it pays off in the long run.

Scratched wrote:
Aaron D. wrote:

If Xbox One, PC and PS4 all share the same x86 architecture, then porting between the three platforms will be almost as easy as flipping a switch.

This always comes up and it's rarely the case unless a developer designs in porting their game from the start. Just look at linux gaming, or x86 based Macs. If a developer only wants to put a game out on one platform and designs around that one platform, they have a load of work to do if they later decide on switching.

I'm sure any developer can find an excuse for not porting, or for bad port jobs if they want to. I'm sure that some game will suffer the same fate as Bethesda's PS3 ports (for example).

The problems with Linux are economic feasibility and hardware compatibility as I understand it. Here, you're going to have three platforms with millions of potential sales and 2 of the 3 being standard hardware.

It's a different equation than porting from x86 to PowerPC and Cell.

Is it going to be easy? Probably not, but if you're using Unreal, Frostbite, or Crytek, it might be more on the feature set differences of the interfaces and testing than it is just getting it running across all three.

firesloth wrote:

To me it seems *way* too early to say MS has lost this generation.

While there may be some sentiment on here and even across the interwebs that the PS4 is the way to go, I don't think that we're the majority of gamers anymore. The Madden and CoD crowd will have their say, and I'm not sure what it will be yet. The $100 price difference is an issue, but if MS sells that $100 as the extra cost of the Kinect and quality online services, I think they'll be okay.

We are not the majority of gamers anymore. I mentioned this on twitter, but there are two things that the majority of gamers will look at:

1 - What games are on it; and
2 - Where their friends are playing.

A distant third will be the cost. And, for the majority of them, as long as they can go to GameStop to sell their used games and pick up new games, they are not really going to care about anything else.

mudbunny wrote:

A distant third will be the cost.

That's kind of interesting because I've read the opposite as well, probably including here.

It's almost as though "gamers" aren't a monoculture.

Gravey wrote:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/5OP7Pzt.png)

Coming Spring 2014: Maury Xbox One Edition!

Thrill to the realtime Kinect Lie Detector results! Find out who the father really is!

Scratched wrote:
Aaron D. wrote:

If Xbox One, PC and PS4 all share the same x86 architecture, then porting between the three platforms will be almost as easy as flipping a switch.

This always comes up and it's rarely the case unless a developer designs in porting their game from the start. Just look at linux gaming, or x86 based Macs. If a developer only wants to put a game out on one platform and designs around that one platform, they have a load of work to do if they later decide on switching.

I'm sure any developer can find an excuse for not porting, or for bad port jobs if they want to. I'm sure that some game will suffer the same fate as Bethesda's PS3 ports (for example).

In this case, however, the Xbox is not just an x86 architecture, but it also relies on a lot of the DirectX 11 infrastructure that most PCs do (or are we on to 12?). I don't know if the PS4 uses DirectX or not, but I suspect it's a lot easier to port a PC game to the Xbox One than it was in the past to port a PC or Xbox game to the PS3.

Evo wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

But for TV, we are often away from the remote, and a handsfree way to control your TV media experience has some benefit. Being able to switch from games to TV, between games, or control the TV directly without a controller or remote is a feature worth developing.

I keep seeing you cite this as an innovation, but I can't help but think Microsoft is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. I mean, how many people are out there saying, "this remote control is SO HARD to use. If only there were an easier way to watch TV without having to move my thumbs." I'm trying to think of when I've been watching TV away from the remote, aside from when it's fallen between the couch cushions.

I tried the current Kinect's voice commands, but the trouble for me was that I had to learn them all and they responded very spotty to my voice and didn't always understand what I was asking. The remote control is already the ultimate convenience and I'm not sure people are anxious to start talking to their televisions.

Actually I find remotes to be a pain in the ass. I got a Harmony remote to simplify things, but it takes a long long time to get it working the way you want it to, partly because Logitech's UI sucks but also because there are just so many things to configure. I'd be much more interested in voice commands if the tech was built directly into my TV, however, because I don't want a discrete device solely for that purpose.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

I'd be much more interested in voice commands if the tech was built directly into my TV, however, because I don't want a discrete device solely for that purpose.

Sounds like a smart TV.

Scratched wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

I'd be much more interested in voice commands if the tech was built directly into my TV, however, because I don't want a discrete device solely for that purpose.

Sounds like a smart TV.

And they're pretty universally crappy, relying on never up to date Java versions of media apps.