Save the Xbox!

[SonOfVoorhees]

XB1 will sell. Lots. All the moaning annoyed me, but then i thought, its the true fans that moaned and bitched. They moaned because they wanted that console but MS gave them to many reasons to not buy it. Now? People will *****. If MS gave everyone a £100 voucher with every console, people would ***** that its not £101. 6 months from now, we will get more info how it works. All MS did was suck at promotion and telling people exactly what it can do. I love 360, and even i am not sure what it does and how it does it. I think the mandatory Kinect is just so you can say "xbox on" when i want it on. But i dont know if its doing other stuff? Because ive not been told?

 

[WarpZone]

They're gonna fuck it up.

They don't care.

 

[BillyIII]

2) Anything before PS3/XB360 can be emulated on modern hardware. The software is here too. But I doubt that console manufacturers will allow GPL in their ecosystem.

 

[theApoc]

This is only partly true though. The reason being although that those who are ingrained in technology represent a small subset of people they are also the one's that create the largest buzz about a product shaping future buying habits through reviews and word of mouth. When the mother asks which console she should get her son for Christmas its probably going to be a tech geek she's asking. This certainly won't block all sales but it gives the PlayStation 4 a distinct advantage bringing things to my second point.

Producers are showing less and less console loyalty. Even a modest difference between initial sales can be exacerbated when producers start backing the winning horse. Launch titles are usually crap that is the mistake Microsoft has made with their strategy. The long term winner isn't who starts with the most exclusives but who can secure the most long term and if the WiiU shows us anything its that producers will only go to the biggest source of revenue. With more publisher support going to the PlayStation 4 with successful launch not to mention PlayStation having not half the barriers Microsoft does to produce games, it will be hard for Microsoft to regain traction if it fumble out of the gate. Not impossible but difficult and they may never fully recover.

You bring up another issue though: "With more publisher support going to the PlayStation 4 with successful launch not to mention PlayStation having not half the barriers Microsoft does to produce games, it will be hard for Microsoft to regain traction if it fumble out of the gate."

All of that is tech blogger speculation. Nothing tangible has been shown to prove that developers prefer one console over the other. Some people are working with MS and some are working with Sony. Sony is not the underdog here, they are no different than MS, the idea that they are somehow "for the people" and MS isn't, yeah no.

The WiiU failed because it was/is a stupid idea and they made the biggest mistake you can when developing, they built something that would REQUIRE exclusivity or at the very least add development cost by creating multiple control schemes. Kinect was not perfect, but it was a glimpse of the future, hands free gaming/control.

This is not a race, IMO. There is no way for MS to fail with the Xbox One, any more than Sony will with the PS4. People WILL replace their systems, and MS has the benefit of a robust and consumer oriented online media network. NO average family, none, not a single one, is going to buy a PS4 after having had an XBOX for years. There is nothing about a PS4 that would make up for the hassle of starting their digital entertainment lives over again.

What we say here and the "buzz" generated by sites/blogs that appeal to a couple of million people will have NO bearing on sales of either. Bottom line, hard core gamers and tech geeks are not really that important.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

The backwards compatibility thing really bothers me. Is there anyone here who is intimately familiar with WHY neither system feels it can be backward compatible that isn't some dust over excuse for them to really just resell "HD" remakes of all the games we already own for $20 a pop in a digital format that can explain it to me thoroughly? I would appreciate it very much.

Because for all this talk about what they "can't" do, I'd bet my entire gaming library and my virgin rump that within 6 months of release, hackers will be playing emulated games on both of these systems...

 

[Andrew_C]

The backwards compatibility thing really bothers me. Is there anyone here who is intimately familiar with WHY neither system feels it can be backward compatible that isn't some dust over excuse for them to really just resell "HD" remakes of all the games we already own for $20 a pop in a digital format that can explain it to me thoroughly? I would appreciate it very much.

Because for all this talk about what they "can't" do, I'd bet my entire gaming library and my virgin rump that within 6 months of release, hackers will be playing emulated games on both of these systems...

Basically, the XBone uses a x86_64 architecture CPU and the XBox360 uses a PowerPC architecture CPU, two totally different architectures. Even though the recent AMD CPU's are significantly slower than recent Intel CPUs, the AMD chip in the XBone probably is powerful enough to emulate the PowerPC achitecture well enough to run a lot of, if not most, XBox360 games.

However that would require Microsoft to devote time, money and manpower into writing a decent emulator, which can be a very difficult task, especially considering the peculiarities of console hardware. It's much easier to let the developers sell you the game again and take a nice cut. The same situation applies to the PS4.

Basically, emulating stuff is a lot more complicated than it appears at first glance. Even PCSX2 has difficulty emulating the PS2 well enough to play many games, and that's been in development for ages.

 

[oldtaku]

I doubt they would let it happen again, since it was just too humiliating and costly, but what really saved them from the RRoD thing was the (eventual) decision to make good on it. My original X360 RRoDed, they replaced it for free, so I didn't hold it against them. That cost them a BILLION (mouth pinkie) dollars.

The dashboard slowly and inevitably getting shittier and shittier... that I hold against them.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

In the very unlikely scenario where I actually buy a next-gen console, in particular an Xbone I think I'll just wrap the Kinect in tin-foil. Even if they had a light that was supposed to blink on when it was on and off when it was I still wouldn't trust it. I'm not having a camera I can't control in my living room. I mean I put electrical tape over my webcams because I've seen instances where people have managed to hack and turn on webcams over the internet, and nothing will convince me that people won't be able to do it with the Kinect.

 

[TomWiley]

You're not as much giving real advice as repeating old talking-points. Yes, we all want a digital distribution that's intuitive - but what exactly makes it intuitive? What exactly should they have done differently?

How do you make something as attractive as Steam, because obviously making a system that is less restrictive than Steam wasn't enough for gamers.

And do you say that Microsoft should have had two separate systems for games, one based around discs and one based on a Steam-like online library, on the same console? Now that's a good way of confusing consumer. Does it mean that games purchased disc-wise are not on your online library, and your online-library allows no sharing, or family sharing while you can share all you want with physical discs? That would be needlessly complicated and everything but intuitive.

Also, changing the name would be corporate suicide - it would create an impossible marking scenario for Microsoft. Most consumers would just think they were two different consoles!

Oh and making the Kinect less scary? Giving the users complete control of what the Kinect sees and hears obviously wasn't enough? Basically everything on the Kinect can already be deactivated on an OS level and the fact that you didn't know that makes it hard to take the advice to "make the Kinect less scary" seriously. Oh PS; it took me two seconds of Googling to find that out by finding an entry on Microsoft's bloody official website. The only way they could be more clear about it is if they'd hang banners from their offices with the quote above in big letters.

And my guess is that not even that would have been enough to make sure you'd know the truth before writing this article.

It's self-evident: The problem here isn't the Xbox as much as all the misinformation that floats around it.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

You're not as much giving real advice as repeating old talking-points. Yes, we all want a digital distribution that's intuitive - but what exactly makes it intuitive? What exactly should they have done differently?

How do you make something as attractive as Steam, because obviously making a system that is less restrictive than Steam wasn't enough for gamers.

And do you say that Microsoft should have had two separate systems for games, one based around discs and one based on a Steam-like online library, on the same console? Now that's a good way of confusing consumer. Does it mean that games purchased disc-wise are not on your online library, and your online-library allows no sharing, or family sharing while you can share all you want with physical discs? That would be needlessly complicated and everything but intuitive.

Also, changing the name would be corporate suicide - it would create an impossible marking scenario for Microsoft. Most consumers would just think they were two different consoles!

Oh and making the Kinect less scary? Giving the users complete control of what the Kinect sees and hears obviously wasn't enough? Basically everything on the Kinect can already be deactivated on an OS level and the fact that you didn't know that makes it hard to take the advice to "make the Kinect less scary" seriously. Oh PS; it took me two seconds of Googling to find that out by finding an entry on Microsoft's bloody official website. The only way they could be more clear about it is if they'd hang banners from their offices with the quote above in big letters.

And my guess is that not even that would have been enough to make sure you'd know the truth before writing this article.

It's self-evident: The problem here isn't the Xbox as much as all the misinformation that floats around it.

Disabling the camera doesn't solve all the problems associated. It has to be able to be removed completely in order to comply with company policies so it can replace the 360's in break rooms. Otherwise, it isn't allowed to enter the premises at all.

The same polices already apply to many companies and cellphones with cameras, my friend has to leave the personal smartphone in the car and only use the company phone w/o a camera while at work.

The same applies:
http://www.brighthand.com/article/Smartphones_Not_Cameraphones/

 

[Holythirteen]

4.) See #1. The only people worried about this are tech bloggers. The average person releases more information to facebook on a daily basis than Kinect will ever get from being in their living room. A non issue for the average consumer.

Oh good, I guess microsoft registered this patent as some sort of joke? Gosh those guys crack me up.

I'm sorry, but I'm an average human who sometimes plays games in my underwear and even if I didn't I'd still find it creepy.

 

[theApoc]

4.) See #1. The only people worried about this are tech bloggers. The average person releases more information to facebook on a daily basis than Kinect will ever get from being in their living room. A non issue for the average consumer.

Oh good, I guess microsoft registered this patent as some sort of joke? Gosh those guys crack me up.

I'm sorry, but I'm an average human who sometimes plays games in my underwear and even if I didn't I'd still find it creepy.

"Microsoft?s misstep here is in filing for a patent on devices that can only provide a personal viewing experience. Getting 50 people together to watch a movie on someone?s 84-inch television may indeed count as a public performance, as far as copyright law is concerned. Two people watching a movie on a 10-inch iPad, on the other hand, isn?t quite the same thing. MS?s new patent covers both scenarios."

The assumption that it is or ever will be legal to use this to "spy" on the average consumer aside, the article ignores the fact that "personal viewing experience" becomes moot when a device can connect via HDMI and display full HD content to as many people as desired.

This all goes back to the idea of licensing content verses selling it. You have never owned the content you buy. You own the medium by which it can be viewed, but in terms of content, that is and always will be owned by the license holder.

Yes, there is a fine line between privacy and convenience these days, but I am less concerned with things like the XBOX One, that are pretty up front about what the hardware can and can not do and things like social media, or smart TVs or smart phones for that matter. Things people take for granted, that fall into the background of our consciousness, things that are constantly collecting mountains of data for their makers, with very little oversight.

 

[TomWiley]

You're not as much giving real advice as repeating old talking-points. Yes, we all want a digital distribution that's intuitive - but what exactly makes it intuitive? What exactly should they have done differently?

How do you make something as attractive as Steam, because obviously making a system that is less restrictive than Steam wasn't enough for gamers.

And do you say that Microsoft should have had two separate systems for games, one based around discs and one based on a Steam-like online library, on the same console? Now that's a good way of confusing consumer. Does it mean that games purchased disc-wise are not on your online library, and your online-library allows no sharing, or family sharing while you can share all you want with physical discs? That would be needlessly complicated and everything but intuitive.

Also, changing the name would be corporate suicide - it would create an impossible marking scenario for Microsoft. Most consumers would just think they were two different consoles!

Oh and making the Kinect less scary? Giving the users complete control of what the Kinect sees and hears obviously wasn't enough? Basically everything on the Kinect can already be deactivated on an OS level and the fact that you didn't know that makes it hard to take the advice to "make the Kinect less scary" seriously. Oh PS; it took me two seconds of Googling to find that out by finding an entry on Microsoft's bloody official website. The only way they could be more clear about it is if they'd hang banners from their offices with the quote above in big letters.

And my guess is that not even that would have been enough to make sure you'd know the truth before writing this article.

It's self-evident: The problem here isn't the Xbox as much as all the misinformation that floats around it.

Disabling the camera doesn't solve all the problems associated. It has to be able to be removed completely in order to comply with company policies so it can replace the 360's in break rooms. Otherwise, it isn't allowed to enter the premises at all.

The same polices already apply to many companies and cellphones with cameras, my friend has to leave the personal smartphone in the car and only use the company phone w/o a camera while at work.

The same applies:
http://www.brighthand.com/article/Smartphones_Not_Cameraphones/

Yeah, but those company breakrooms isn't even a percent of the Kinect's consumer market. I don't see how it matters.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

You're not as much giving real advice as repeating old talking-points. Yes, we all want a digital distribution that's intuitive - but what exactly makes it intuitive? What exactly should they have done differently?

How do you make something as attractive as Steam, because obviously making a system that is less restrictive than Steam wasn't enough for gamers.

And do you say that Microsoft should have had two separate systems for games, one based around discs and one based on a Steam-like online library, on the same console? Now that's a good way of confusing consumer. Does it mean that games purchased disc-wise are not on your online library, and your online-library allows no sharing, or family sharing while you can share all you want with physical discs? That would be needlessly complicated and everything but intuitive.

Also, changing the name would be corporate suicide - it would create an impossible marking scenario for Microsoft. Most consumers would just think they were two different consoles!

Oh and making the Kinect less scary? Giving the users complete control of what the Kinect sees and hears obviously wasn't enough? Basically everything on the Kinect can already be deactivated on an OS level and the fact that you didn't know that makes it hard to take the advice to "make the Kinect less scary" seriously. Oh PS; it took me two seconds of Googling to find that out by finding an entry on Microsoft's bloody official website. The only way they could be more clear about it is if they'd hang banners from their offices with the quote above in big letters.

And my guess is that not even that would have been enough to make sure you'd know the truth before writing this article.

It's self-evident: The problem here isn't the Xbox as much as all the misinformation that floats around it.

Disabling the camera doesn't solve all the problems associated. It has to be able to be removed completely in order to comply with company policies so it can replace the 360's in break rooms. Otherwise, it isn't allowed to enter the premises at all.

The same polices already apply to many companies and cellphones with cameras, my friend has to leave the personal smartphone in the car and only use the company phone w/o a camera while at work.

The same applies:
http://www.brighthand.com/article/Smartphones_Not_Cameraphones/

Yeah, but those company breakrooms isn't even a percent of the Kinect's consumer market. I don't see how it matters.

It actually does matter considering those employees will be playing the PS4 instead at work and more likely to purchase one instead of an Xbox at home as well. With the camera also being an issue for the military, and you have friends/ family of those affected who use their gaming console to play with those friends and family, this adds up to many more people affected by their decision. I enjoy playing games with friends and family, and if they are not going to be there when I do, there is no point in buying the console in the first place. Isn't that why we play consoles in the first place? Consoles are for "group activity". If all the group isn't allowed to be there due to Microsoft's decision to not make it detachable, people are going to shift to what everyone can play on.

It really does not make sense why they would willingly shrink their market to smaller than it was for the 360. You would think they would be trying to expand it instead.

 

[TomWiley]

You're not as much giving real advice as repeating old talking-points. Yes, we all want a digital distribution that's intuitive - but what exactly makes it intuitive? What exactly should they have done differently?

How do you make something as attractive as Steam, because obviously making a system that is less restrictive than Steam wasn't enough for gamers.

And do you say that Microsoft should have had two separate systems for games, one based around discs and one based on a Steam-like online library, on the same console? Now that's a good way of confusing consumer. Does it mean that games purchased disc-wise are not on your online library, and your online-library allows no sharing, or family sharing while you can share all you want with physical discs? That would be needlessly complicated and everything but intuitive.

Also, changing the name would be corporate suicide - it would create an impossible marking scenario for Microsoft. Most consumers would just think they were two different consoles!

Oh and making the Kinect less scary? Giving the users complete control of what the Kinect sees and hears obviously wasn't enough? Basically everything on the Kinect can already be deactivated on an OS level and the fact that you didn't know that makes it hard to take the advice to "make the Kinect less scary" seriously. Oh PS; it took me two seconds of Googling to find that out by finding an entry on Microsoft's bloody official website. The only way they could be more clear about it is if they'd hang banners from their offices with the quote above in big letters.

And my guess is that not even that would have been enough to make sure you'd know the truth before writing this article.

It's self-evident: The problem here isn't the Xbox as much as all the misinformation that floats around it.

Disabling the camera doesn't solve all the problems associated. It has to be able to be removed completely in order to comply with company policies so it can replace the 360's in break rooms. Otherwise, it isn't allowed to enter the premises at all.

The same polices already apply to many companies and cellphones with cameras, my friend has to leave the personal smartphone in the car and only use the company phone w/o a camera while at work.

The same applies:
http://www.brighthand.com/article/Smartphones_Not_Cameraphones/

Yeah, but those company breakrooms isn't even a percent of the Kinect's consumer market. I don't see how it matters.

It actually does matter considering those employees will be playing the PS4 instead at work and more likely to purchase one instead of an Xbox at home as well. With the camera also being an issue for the military, and you have friends/ family of those affected who use their gaming console to play with those friends and family, this adds up to many more people affected by their decision. I enjoy playing games with friends and family, and if they are not going to be there when I do, there is no point in buying the console in the first place. Isn't that why we play consoles in the first place? Consoles are for "group activity". If all the group isn't allowed to be there due to Microsoft's decision to not make it detachable, people are going to shift to what everyone can play on.

No, you're still not getting it. Firstly, I can't imagine that too many companies doesn't allow their employees to use smartphones. I've never heard of one. And if they allow smartphones with an integrated camera and microphone that can easily be turned off, they should have no problems allowing an Xbox with an integrated camera and microphone that can easily be turned off.

It's that simple.

As to the military, let's say whoever is in charge there is mentally retarded and can't figure out how to go into a menu on the Xbox and press "turn off camera and microphone"; and let's assume the military also doesn't allow smartphones, digital cameras - anything that can film and record, that's still not even 1 single percent of the market segment. It would have no perceivable affect on the sales. None.

Microsoft would do better in focusing on the other 99 percent that aren't affected by strange military restrictions.

In the end, the reason to bundle the Xbox One with the Kinect would have pretty much no affect on the end user. The issue here is that people are dumb - they perceive the Kinect as spying on them simply because it has to be plugged in and therefore will instinctively condemn it, despite the fact that they'd be "in complete control of what the Kinect sees and hears".

See, that's like one of the biggest anti-Xbox talking points that is completely and fully based on misinformation. Isn't that sort of interesting?

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

You're not as much giving real advice as repeating old talking-points. Yes, we all want a digital distribution that's intuitive - but what exactly makes it intuitive? What exactly should they have done differently?

How do you make something as attractive as Steam, because obviously making a system that is less restrictive than Steam wasn't enough for gamers.

And do you say that Microsoft should have had two separate systems for games, one based around discs and one based on a Steam-like online library, on the same console? Now that's a good way of confusing consumer. Does it mean that games purchased disc-wise are not on your online library, and your online-library allows no sharing, or family sharing while you can share all you want with physical discs? That would be needlessly complicated and everything but intuitive.

Also, changing the name would be corporate suicide - it would create an impossible marking scenario for Microsoft. Most consumers would just think they were two different consoles!

Oh and making the Kinect less scary? Giving the users complete control of what the Kinect sees and hears obviously wasn't enough? Basically everything on the Kinect can already be deactivated on an OS level and the fact that you didn't know that makes it hard to take the advice to "make the Kinect less scary" seriously. Oh PS; it took me two seconds of Googling to find that out by finding an entry on Microsoft's bloody official website. The only way they could be more clear about it is if they'd hang banners from their offices with the quote above in big letters.

And my guess is that not even that would have been enough to make sure you'd know the truth before writing this article.

It's self-evident: The problem here isn't the Xbox as much as all the misinformation that floats around it.

Disabling the camera doesn't solve all the problems associated. It has to be able to be removed completely in order to comply with company policies so it can replace the 360's in break rooms. Otherwise, it isn't allowed to enter the premises at all.

The same polices already apply to many companies and cellphones with cameras, my friend has to leave the personal smartphone in the car and only use the company phone w/o a camera while at work.

The same applies:
http://www.brighthand.com/article/Smartphones_Not_Cameraphones/

Yeah, but those company breakrooms isn't even a percent of the Kinect's consumer market. I don't see how it matters.

It actually does matter considering those employees will be playing the PS4 instead at work and more likely to purchase one instead of an Xbox at home as well. With the camera also being an issue for the military, and you have friends/ family of those affected who use their gaming console to play with those friends and family, this adds up to many more people affected by their decision. I enjoy playing games with friends and family, and if they are not going to be there when I do, there is no point in buying the console in the first place. Isn't that why we play consoles in the first place? Consoles are for "group activity". If all the group isn't allowed to be there due to Microsoft's decision to not make it detachable, people are going to shift to what everyone can play on.

No, you're still not getting it. Firstly, I can't imagine that too many companies doesn't allow their employees to use smartphones. I've never heard of one. And if they allow smartphones with an integrated camera and microphone that can easily be turned off, they should have no problems allowing an Xbox with an integrated camera and microphone that can easily be turned off.

It's that simple.

As to the military, let's say whoever is in charge there is mentally retarded and can't figure out how to go into a menu on the Xbox and press "turn off camera and microphone"; and let's assume the military also doesn't allow smartphones, digital cameras - anything that can film and record, that's still not even 1 single percent of the market segment. It would have no perceivable affect on the sales. None.

Microsoft would do better in focusing on the other 99 percent that aren't affected by strange military restrictions.

In the end, the reason to bundle the Xbox One with the Kinect would have pretty much no affect on the end user. The issue here is that people are dumb - they perceive the Kinect as spying on them simply because it has to be plugged in and therefore will instinctively condemn it, despite the fact that they'd be "in complete control of what the Kinect sees and hears".

See, that's like one of the biggest anti-Xbox talking points that is completely and fully based on misinformation. Isn't that sort of interesting?

Actually there are many companies that have a no camera policy. I thought it was just tech companies until the UPS guy was complaining about it. That is just ONE company of many that have the same policy. Take a look at that one company, they employ around 400,000 people. How many other companies have the same policy as UPS?

I don't think you realize how many companies you hear of every day that have this policy. At GE for example, my Dad had to use his company phone as well. How many people does GE employ? around 300,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Parcel_Service
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric

Now considering these people actually play with their family and friends on their breaks, they are going to need to have their family and friends using the same console they are in order to do so. I believe you are underestimating the percentage of the market affected by this decision. Being able to disable it does not pass security, they will not allow it on the premises.
EDIT: I also do not feel that Microsoft focused on the other 99%. I want larger removable hard drives and solid hardware that isn't going to crap out on me. I want a console I can play with all my friends, and could care less about the Kinect. The Kinect I bought is sitting in the box here because it was crap. LOL I feel more of the 99% want that as well.

It isn't that the competitors have to have any talking points. Microsoft is serving them business on a silver platter with this.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

The backwards compatibility thing really bothers me. Is there anyone here who is intimately familiar with WHY neither system feels it can be backward compatible that isn't some dust over excuse for them to really just resell "HD" remakes of all the games we already own for $20 a pop in a digital format that can explain it to me thoroughly? I would appreciate it very much.

Because for all this talk about what they "can't" do, I'd bet my entire gaming library and my virgin rump that within 6 months of release, hackers will be playing emulated games on both of these systems...

Basically, the XBone uses a x86_64 architecture CPU and the XBox360 uses a PowerPC architecture CPU, two totally different architectures. Even though the recent AMD CPU's are significantly slower than recent Intel CPUs, the AMD chip in the XBone probably is powerful enough to emulate the PowerPC achitecture well enough to run a lot of, if not most, XBox360 games.

However that would require Microsoft to devote time, money and manpower into writing a decent emulator, which can be a very difficult task, especially considering the peculiarities of console hardware. It's much easier to let the developers sell you the game again and take a nice cut. The same situation applies to the PS4.

Basically, emulating stuff is a lot more complicated than it appears at first glance. Even PCSX2 has difficulty emulating the PS2 well enough to play many games, and that's been in development for ages.

It's also something I see some group of bored coders doing in the course of a weekend and distributing around like free candy.