I look forward to the Xbox one.
Sony looked amazing in their reveal but now that more details have come out, the two are really close.
If anything it's 100 extra for a camera vs no camera.
Geoff Keighley had an interview with Don Mattrick (recorded pre conference) - here are some excerpts:
Keighley:"Did you know or did you anticipate the way the people would push back?"
Mattrick:"Absolutely - it's a super passionate community of people... till you use it [Xbox One] it's really hard to understand what all the advantages are."
________________________________________________________
Mattrick: "Xbox has been created by gamers for gamers."
________________________________________________________
Mattrick: "Fortunately we have a product for people who aren't able to get some form of connectivity, it's called xbox 360"
________________________________________________________
Mattrick: "The avarage internet connection is working the majority of the day - people are imagining that it isn't... It's change. There was a point in time when people would say all i want my phone to do is make a phonecall."
Sony will have the same used game restrictions as Microsoft since they're leaving it up to the publishers to decide. While it's fashionable to hate on Microsoft, it's the publisher's who have pushed for this because they always whined about not making money on used games. I guess they think they deserved to be paid twice for a single product.
Sony will have the same used game restrictions as Microsoft since they're leaving it up to the publishers to decide. While it's fashionable to hate on Microsoft, it's the publisher's who have pushed for this because they always whined about not making money on used games. I guess they think they deserved to be paid twice for a single product.
Update: Sony has outright confirmed my initial interpretation. As reported by GameFront, Sony has stated that Tretton's use of the term "DRM" referred only to playing used games online. Essentially, they're talking about letting publishers use online passes, and no other kind of restrictions.
I think I read a paper that listed the XBox One as selling 1 billion consoles by end of life. If they hit those kinds of numbers, they will undoubtedly be the winner. If that notice holds true, then the real question is how they are going to attain that.
If memory serves, I believe they were planning on partnering up with the cable companies who allegedly have approximately 800 million cables boxes in the wild. If they attain even a large portion of that number, they will have a massive hit on their hands. Let's not forget that Microsoft has wanted market penetration in consumer homes even back with the WebTV days. Anyone remember that device?
I don't even....
Especially the bolded part
Dat arrogance.....reminds me of Sony 2005/2006
HAHAHAMattrick: "Fortunately we have a product for people who aren't able to get some form of connectivity, it's called xbox 360"
1. A DDoS attack on the scale it would require to shut down Azure (which is what MS is using for Live as well) is unthinkable. Azure does not go down. That is MS's business model. A DDoS can't take down Google either. You're better off worrying about the NSA tracking your game play.
I feel most of your arguments are weak. The only thing that might prevent Microsoft from penetrating the mainstream market is the price tag. If the XboX One is sold out this Christmas season, I see the One as surpassing the PS4 two years from now simply because it's advertised as a machine that can do more than the PS4. When Best Buy and other stores put up the One and PS4 up for display, the One will have a bigger crowd around the machine simply because people will be dancing and using voice commands to play while the PS4 will have people holding controllers. The Xbox One will practically sell itself to the mainstream market just by displaying what it can do.
This argument is weak because the XboX One is not advertising itself as a replacement for a tablet or smartphone. It's being advertised as a hub to use in conjunction with your smart devices, by the way of Smartglass.
This argument is weak because "Pretty Neat" functionality is what sells iphones, ipads, Samsung phones, the Wii, and other devices to the mainstream market. Being unique and innovative sells products. We know this already.
I own an iPad, and a Wii and I can tell you I didn't buy either of them for the "pretty neat functionality." I bought an iPad because I wanted a machine I could browse the web, show off high res photos, and watch video's on the go. Not because of some gimmicky reasons like gestures. I bought a Wii because there are a good amount of party games my friends and I can play, and a decent amount of core games as well. There's no one gimmick that convinced me to drop $300-$500 on these devices. Most people buy things for practical reasons, and not just gimmicks unless they have more money than sense.
Pinch to Zoom on phones is the same thing as Grab and Zoom on the One, which is why it seems to me that the mainstream market is exactly what they are targeting. Your argument that the ipad and tablet has taken a lot away from the consoles would also hurt PS4 sales so it really doesn't fit in the PS4 vs XboX one debate. XboX one is trying to position itself as a machine to work along side those devices, creating it's own unique market.
It's trying to create it's own unique market, but there is no evidence yet to convince me that people have a strong desire to have a device like that in their living room. Sure for a small niche of people, but we sure aren't seeing the "OMG I need that now" reaction to the one from the general public like we did with the iPad and the iPhone. MS simply doesn't have the cult following Apple does even if they seem to believe they do.
Steam games are cheap because they sell a lot of old games. New releases are always full price. Is there any reason to believe that Microsoft wouldn't sell cross platform old games for the same price as Steam? Green Man sells old cross platform games just as cheap as steam, why wouldn't Microsoft do the same? There's a lot of bad publicity working against Microsoft's DRM right now but it'll pass and people will realize that they really don't care, just like they don't care that Steam games can't be resold.
My guess is that you either aren't a PC gamer or you're just being willfully ignorant on the topic here. We routinely get new, and relatively new games with deep deep discounts. Lets see here are a few examples:
-Sleeping Dogs - Bought for $32 at launch.
-Tomb Raider - Bought for $33 at launch
-Bioshock Infinite - Payed full price, received Xcom, Sonic All Star Racing, and The Darkness 2 for free.
-Hitman Absolution - $7.50 < 6 months after launch.
-Max Payne 3 - $15 < 6 months after launch.
-Grid 2 - $35 at launch.
Not to mention numerous games less than 2 years old selling for 75-90% off.
Sony Outduels Microsoft in First PS4-Xbox One Skirmish
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...n-first-ps4-xbox-one-skirmish.html?cmpid=yhoo
Nice to see that this information is being made available in mainstream media. My biggest problem is that MS, and specifically Mattrick cannot explain how a 24 hour check in is going to benefit the consumer. He keeps trying to brush it off as basically arguing that in this day in age it makes sense to have your device constantly connected to the internet. Sure that's all good and well, but a 24 hour check is nothing more than a DRM which doesn't benefit the consumer in any way.
that is one of the questions i want answered as well - how does the 24 hour stuff as well as the drm benefit us as the end user? i also want them to tell us why the extra $100 we are paying for kinect is worth it. they showed not 1 kinect game in their conference.
great article and i'm glad it is getting mainstream as well. hopefully this will make ms change their tune. but after that "no internet? GET XBOX 360!" comment i doubt anything will happen.
We're talking about a system that is already going to be spending an enormous amount of resources to constantly verify every XBone in use, as well as all the other cloud services they're offering.
Sure if you took that archtecture and it wasn't in use at the time, and you tried to DDOS it, it would take a huge botnet, but to take it down while it's actually in use by tens of millions of gamers around the world...I think it's do-able to cause major outages.
We saw what happened to Ubisofts online DRM that suffered complete outage at the hands of a botnet, some botnets are pretty big consisting of millions of computers at peak.
It actually would have made more sense if it required an internet connection 100% of the time. At least they could have spun that in a way that benefited the consumer. They could have explained that:
1) They understand that Xbox ONE will not be a product for everyone, but they hope to see the audience expand as broadband internet becomes widely available.
2) Games will be designed specifically around their cloud infrastructure offloading AI and other processing.
3) Your saved games and game library are stored in the cloud and can be accessed from any ONE you're signed into.
4) You can deactivate your game license and sell the physical disk to anyone you want at retail or personally (there could be an online portal where people could verify the status of the license rather than restricting it to "participating retailers.")
5) Day 1 digital downloads will sell for $10 less than retail versions.
Soooo many things they could have done to use the "always on" nature of the system to their advantage instead. But instead they gave us a nanny state DRM, and a used game policy so confusing and convoluted nobody can even figure out how it works. Then then bring out their big executives on stage to blow smoke up our asses and basically say "hey this is great for everyone!"
yup i agree with pretty much everything you said. #4 is a really good idea too.
but now that i think about it, forza DID actually show off some cloud stuff with the favatar or whatever they called it. at least i THINK that was the cloud where the data was stored.