Jump to content

Xbox One


Garrett Williamson
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 716
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3DS doesn't do movies or music very well, and is meant as a game device. You can cite all the games phones have, but they're still vastly different machines.

Is this true? My smartphone plays music and movies, even Netflix... can't you do that with a 3DS? If you can't what is the point? I will admit though, my phone doesn't play games in 3D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this true? My smartphone plays music and movies, even Netflix... can't you do that with a 3DS? If you can't what is the point? I will admit though, my phone doesn't play games in 3D.

To play games? I do believe it has some multimedia features, they just aren't fantastic. Also keep in mind, smart phones cost way more than handhelds (without subsidy discounts) usually have a monthly fee, etc. So you better get everything you need out of it. While there are some fun mobile games, the dedicated handhelds generally always get the more in depth and engrossing games. Also, if you perfer games with physical buttons, even if you buy a MOGA for a phone most games are pretty touch oriented.

Either way, I wouldn't include handhelds and smartphones in the SAME market, they are definitely two different markets, just one is growing and one is not.

3DS is still doing good DESPITE the growing smartphone market.

Now, the set top box market hasn't really taken off per se, most set top boxes are usually cheap and junky. However, set top boxes and smart tv in GENERAL is a (slowly) growing market, and I think MS doesn't want to be left out by competitors (Apple TV, Roku, Google TV) as they do not have a device of their own (Yet) so this is kinda like a trojan horse.

MS seems to be taking weird gambles as of late, with Windows 8 focusing on not being like Windows and Xbox One focusing on not being a game console.

Edited by Crowbar Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

cars are more popular than unicycles but that doesn't mean that comparing them is meaningful

In this case it is meaningful. In the analogy, the Xbox One is the smartphone; the device that, in addition to its main function, also provides lots of other features as a media box.

It's more convenient to have a device that does a lot of things than to have a lot of devices that all do specific things. Xbox One aims to continue in that regard; 360's media features are very convenient, and the new system is just trying to refine that and keep that going. A lot of people use their 360s for more than just gaming. For a lot of households it's the main media box (DVDs, streaming movies, etc). These features are useful for a lot of people.

People are complaining about some supposed move away from gaming as a focus, but the new system isn't really doing anything that the 360 isn't doing already in regards to media; it's just improving things like interface and unifying a lot of the features to make things more cohesive. That's not a bad thing.

The system is still going to play games. It's an Xbox; that's the whole point. Sure, Microsoft didn't show a lot of games at the reveal, but that's what E3 is for. The whole idea behind revealing the system before E3 is so that they can use the expo's press conference to focus on gaming software. I don't think anyone likes tuning in during E3—which is ostensibly a gaming event—and seeing a load of stuff about ESPN and live TV services. Now they don't have to, because Microsoft has already gotten it out of the way. They'll mention it of course, but they'll probably spend the bulk of their time talking about new games.

Obviously there are some silly things about the new system: game activations, phoning home to verify licenses, second-hand software fees, backwards incompatibility, etc. Those are real issues. The fact that the Xbox One is just refining the media features of the 360 is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xbox One aims to continue in that regard; 360's media features are very convenient, and the new system is just trying to refine that and keep that going.

yeah but see the thing is is that everybody who uses their 360 for music and netflix and movies and whatnot has, and this should go without saying, a 360 with which to do those things

if you eliminate all of the things that the xbone does that the 360 already does, you're left with

a) the ability to use it to watch tv, which is arguably irrelevant since everybody who watches tv already has the means with which to do so and probably won't want to spend several hundred dollars just to make it slightly more convenient in some capacity

B) plays blu-ray movies (I assume?), and

c) plays video games

so while I understand where you and others (notably zircon) are coming from regarding the average consumer preferring all-in-one devices, what I don't understand is why this justifies not showing off it's capability for video games, since in the current market that's arguably the only thing that matters about the device

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a) the ability to use it to watch tv, which is arguably irrelevant since everybody who watches tv already has the means with which to do so and probably won't want to spend several hundred dollars just to make it slightly more convenient in some capacity

Live TV integration is something that the 360 has (in a limited regard; only a few channels), but unless I'm mistaken, the One is going to function as a fully featured set-top box (all channels, integrated guide with search, voice commands, etc.). The software features seem like they'll be more robust than what the cable or fiber company can provide on their proprietary set-top boxes. I know that I personally find Verizon's set-top box software to be clunky.

Things like interface and usability for media features matter to a lot of people. When I still lived with my parents, they would use my 360 as their DVD and Netflix player, and my father often made comments about how he preferred the 360's interface to the PS3's interface. It made a difference to him, and to my mom, who's not really a technical person.

That doesn't mean that the 360 is completely perfect; you can always make improvements to user interface by getting feedback from users and streamlining things. That's what Microsoft is trying to do with Xbox One, and from what I saw from their presentation, the upgraded hardware improves the user experience. That matters.

so while I understand where you and others (notably zircon) are coming from regarding the average consumer preferring all-in-one devices, what I don't understand is why this justifies not showing off it's capability for video games, since in the current market that's arguably the only thing that matters about the device

You're conflating two arguments incorrectly. The all-in-one device analogy was brought up in response to people taking issue with games consoles in general doing more than just playing games, not in response to what Microsoft specifically did at their press conference.

The preference of consumers towards all-in-one devices is a justification/explanation of Microsoft's overall strategy with the Xbox One, not of their press conference presentation content. Like I said before, Microsoft is planning on focusing on games during E3, which is a few weeks away, and arguably a better place to talk about games content anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're conflating two arguments incorrectly. The all-in-one device analogy was brought up in response to people taking issue with games consoles in general doing more than just playing games, not in response to what Microsoft specifically did at their press conference.

maybe i missed something in the thread but who was doing that? people were like 'i don't care that it does other things' but most everyone who's complaining about 'all-in-one' is complaining either about how everything new and different about the system has to do with things that are not games OR that it's now a hassle to play them in the first place because internet/nailed to your account/other nonsense

i don't think anyone is upset that there are other features than videogames.

also to your earlier point regarding the smartphone comparison, you're not exactly right. it *is* convenient to have a phone that does everything at basic capacity. but why is that convenient? it's because you can do it from anywhere. that's what makes it good.

when you take that away, and you have your xbox which is for better or worse nailed to your tv, having an "all-in-one" place to do things isn't really all that special. why? because you already have specific places and ways you do things in your daily schedule. watching tv? turn on the tv. checking email? go to your computer/phone. social media? phone. it doesn't save steps to do these things on your xbox. turn on your xbox -> watch tv is not more convenient. turn on your xbox -> twitter is not more convenient. hell, even turn on your xbox -> watch tv while using cool immersion thingys is not significantly more convenient. because you can watch tv and do the same thing on your phone.

convenience only exists when it actively makes something you're doing easier and less complicated. in this case they have created something that is *possibly* as convenient as what people already do. somewhat relevant, they've made games less convenient to play. so all in all i'm not seeing this as a hugely positive move forwards. similar to the same way that the idea of 'smart watches' rubs a lot of people the wrong way. "why do i need to check my email on my watch? is this supposed to be better?"

Edited by The Derrit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

also to your earlier point regarding the smartphone comparison, you're not exactly right. it *is* convenient to have a phone that does everything at basic capacity. but why is that convenient? it's because you can do it from anywhere. that's what makes it good.

As someone who has an XBOX, a cable box, and a PS3, let me tell you:

I have my XBOX, PS3, Cable box all hooked up to the TV and then set up to the soundbar. Right away this is like...3 separate remotes which is sucks in itself. That's not including the XBOX/PS3 controllers to control on-screen interface.

We ended up buying a fancy logitech universal remote to switch the input, power up and control the XBOX, and cable box, while still being able to use the other TV features. Luckily the TV has optical out so I don't have to mess with the sound bar or change, god forbid, switch plugs every time I want to switch what I'm doing. And that's without even talking about how many cords and inputs we have going on.

Anyway, I'm not saying XBOX will fix all these things, but shit if my XBOX was my blu-ray player and my cable box and my netflix box and my gaming box. It'd sure as hell make my life a lot easier without ever leaving my living room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My earlier stuff wasn't really implying that the very existence of additional features was a bad thing in and of itself, more that people using said features when better alternatives already exist didn't make sense to me. More to the point, the fact that Microsoft just spent so much effort pushing unnecessary features that already have plenty of people raising their eyebrows (and that's even assuming said features manage to work properly) suggests that they don't really know what their doing in terms of this hardware's actual purpose. This column has a great take on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is FULL of people saying exactly that.

I'll put it this way. I really do indeed like all the features. And when the announcement was over, I felt really happy. After seeing quite a few large cons, I'm not as happy anymore, honestly, but the console still looks interesting.

I'm just annoyed because it seemed like with both this and the PS4 it was like "hey here's all this cool stuff and oh by the way here's the video game part of it" rather than "here's all the video game stuff and oh by the way here's all the other cool features with it". I think that the consoles really aren't focusing on the games as much, which is the most important part...?

I could be wrong. But that's what it feels like to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just annoyed because it seemed like with both this and the PS4 it was like "hey here's all this cool stuff and oh by the way here's the video game part of it" rather than "here's all the video game stuff and oh by the way here's all the other cool features with it". I think that the consoles really aren't focusing on the games as much, which is the most important part...

This sums up how I feel about the matter, personally. I don't have a problem with the box having new "all-in-one" features or whatever. What I take umbrage with is that they're making this the primary selling point for the console instead of the *games*, which is what the X-Box One can do over all the other slew of devices I have that can do the same damn thing as most of the other features of the One.

...Then there's the draconian methods of digital rights management, requirements for internet connection (even if it's not always on), the requirement of the Kinect 2, continuing the ornerous policies of XBL for indie companies, the list goes on, but those are other ogres in the room.

...Side note, that room's getting pretty crowded and smelly with all the ogres in it. I wouldn't recommend going in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the consoles really aren't focusing on the games as much, which is the most important part...?

It's not any more. The previous generation has been established for nearly a decade now, and a lot has changed in consumer technology during those years. Even back then you could see where things were heading. Approaching the console market with the same mindset and expectations you had over a decade ago is just going to lead to a barrage of disappointments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/XboxSupport3/status/336924786410278912

Dunno if this has been posted yet but this changes things, doesn't it?

http://www.amazon.de/dp/B00CYH2PKA

This DEFINITELY changes things

I highly doubt if mirrors edge 2 is real, that it is going to be that good, especially if EA dictates it to have more shooting and less parkour , you know that will probably happen.

in all seriousness, as soon as fanboys see halo 5 our whatever shooters are plopped out at E3, they'll run right back to Microsoft's tit. Few gamers have any conviction when a company is screwing them over.

I made my mind up before I watched the xbox one premier, I'm not going to buy it. I bought the 360 because my friends had one, and I thought of playing games online with them. The games my friends play are completely different from what I usually play or are interested in. Not to mention they're on a completely different time table than me on their gaming. Right now, a Wii U is looking far better for me, and even though Sony is being coy about what they're doing with their systems used games, at least Sony is showing more focus on an area I care about with consoles: games.

the xbox one isn't competing with Sony, it's competing with smart TVs and whatever Apple finally does for a media hub in the living room, and I can't blame them for throwing gamers under the bus to do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/XboxSupport3/status/336924786410278912

Dunno if this has been posted yet but this changes things, doesn't it?

http://www.amazon.de/dp/B00CYH2PKA

This DEFINITELY changes things

That Paul Mitchell guy was determined to prove Microsoft wrong and tell them PlayStation is better. ^_^

It's not any more. The previous generation has been established for nearly a decade now, and a lot has changed in consumer technology during those years. Even back then you could see where things were heading. Approaching the console market with the same mindset and expectations you had over a decade ago is just going to lead to a barrage of disappointments.

This is true. It hasn't been nearly a decade, but I mean it's been a good 7 years since the first of the three were released (the first was Wii, right?). It surprised me how long they had gone on doing the 7th generation. I mean, the 6th technically lasted a good 7 to 8 years as well, but it didn't really come into the light til about 2001 (I'm counting Dreamcast, which was first released in '98 ).

Now that I come to think of it, I guess every generation has had a good 6-8 years before the next big thing.

Honestly, though, with these new consoles, I feel that they are probably sticking in more features because of the whole all-in-one thing happening now. That's like the thing. But ADDITIONALLY, this is what I think, technology with video games has slowed down. Like, what I mean is that it was moving really fast between like the SNES then the N64 then the GameCube then the Wii. Each one was totally different and had something completely new and crazy. SNES to N64 was 16-bit to 64-bit, which allowed 3D-perspective and was the beginning of 3D gaming. Then it went from N64 to GameCube, which also was a big jump. That was when... I guess technically speaking... the first full on 3D came into play (same with PS1 to PS2).

But now it seems it's getting harder to figure out a whole lot more to change the way we play video games. It seems the best they can do now is continue to increase memory and graphics, and add in new features unrelated to games, because it seems that's the only thing they can do to attract people to their consoles anymore.

I'm not saying gaming is dying out in any way. Clearly not. I just think technology has moved so fast concerning video games that they finally have come to the point where it's much harder to make a big huge change that will change everything. It's just the same as the 7th generation, except with better graphics and more features, pretty much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/XboxSupport3/status/336924786410278912

Dunno if this has been posted yet but this changes things, doesn't it?

it's the same as them saying "we can definitively say that the system is not 'always online' required. just ALMOST all of the time." which they tried but didn't fool anyone.

all this means is that if someone uninstalls their game from a system another person can install it for free. note that they didn't say 'there will be no fee associated with sharing, loaning etc.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but I mean it's been a good 7 years since the first of the three were released (the first was Wii, right?)

Xbox 360 was first, being released Nov 22, 2005 (Wii was actually last, releasing Nov 19 2006 after PS3 was released on Nov 11 2006)

It has been 7 years and 6 months since then. Xbox One probably will be launching this holiday season adding more to that time gap bringing it closer to 8 years. The average time gap between console generations used to be 4 or 5 years so this generation has been pretty much double the normal, and not too far from being a decade.

Edited by Crowbar Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xbox 360 was first, being released Nov 22, 2005 (Wii was actually last, releasing Nov 19 2006 after PS3 was released on Nov 11 2006)

It has been 7 years and 6 months since then. Xbox One probably will be launching this holiday season adding more to that time gap bringing it closer to 8 years. The average time gap between console generations used to be 4 or 5 years so this generation has been pretty much double the normal, and not too far from being a decade.

I guess that's about right. Though SNES was around for a good 6 to 7 years before N64 released and PS1 was around for about 6 to 7 years before PS2 was released.

I didn't know 360 has been around that long. But I guess it was hardly taken notice of for quite a bit of time so it seemed like it had been around since '06 (I mean, for one, it was released at the end of '05, and additionally it didn't do so well for a bit of time so 2005 almost didn't even count :D). The Wii was like the one that made all the huge sales at the beginning. That was the one I learned of first, actually. That was before I stayed updated with the world and gaming. :-P

I thought Wii was magic at first. The whole motion-controls thing blew my mind. Now it's like "yeah that was so 7 years ago who gives a crap anymore". lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given how predictable Microsoft have been, I believe they will spend a good deal of their press conference demonstrating 'Kinect One' at E3, there will be a demonstration of Call of Duty Ghosts and Usher will perform a concert.

Add two minutes for a quick, almost ashamed run-down of the rest of their launch games, and I think you just wrote their press conference for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually PS3 launched on November 17th, not November 11th.

that's irrelevant though

and yeah, these generations are getting longer, likely because the fact that we can't really improve graphics that much more. as such, the hardware being created is more durable in terms of longevity because they're still valid compared to the other technology that's out. look at the PS2, that lasted OVER a decade.

granted this is just all how I see it but still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess that's about right. Though SNES was around for a good 6 to 7 years before N64 released and PS1 was around for about 6 to 7 years before PS2 was released.

In the US, N64 (1996) was released 5 years after the SNES (1991), the PS2 (2000) was 5 after the PS1 (1995). Though, in Japan, the consoles were out a year before they came to the US, so you can technically bump it to 6.

Mirby:

Huh yeah it looks like it was the 10th in Japan and the 17th in the US. For some reason Wiki listed it as 11th. Weird. Still before the Wii though, even if only a few days

I think a major contribution to the length of this generation was the R&D costs of the units and the cost of the hardware itself (they were selling them at a massive loss for years), there was less of a secondary market FOR movies/tv/etc too when these consoles came out to make up the costs. They've been trying to recover the costs and actually profit off the consoles this whole time. (The units are finally being sold at cost or profit now) Sony/MS didn't want to release a new console without making sure it was going to be inexpensive for an upgrade, and that is why they also went with an easier architecture for both them and devs. On top of that theres a giant market of multimedia they've delved into now so they can recoup the cost of hardware, even if its smaller to them now, with something besides games.

Nintendo just liked earning tons of money, as they've been earning profit like mad with the Wii/DS.

Edited by Crowbar Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...