Microsoft Unveils Xbox One, an All-In-One Entertainment System with Revamped Kinect and Fully Integrated SmartGlass

[tigress666]

Seems MS are doing some damage control at present and back peddling, E3 is going to be very very very very interesting. But Sony have already stated the PS4 does not need to be on the internet connection, and it's up to the devs if they require online registration but Sony won't need it.

http://kotaku.com/5985874/ps4-will-not-require-an-always+online-connection

UPDATE: More relief... At a roundtable this morning, Sony's game studios chief, Shuhei Yoshida, told reporters that any requirement for users to register a game online in order to play it would be left to game publishers. Sony won't require that.

So if Sony stick to their word, bye bye Xbox. Was nice knowing you.

Awesome, Sony is being smart! They can pick up a whole lot of good will this way and if they get a good hold over the gaming market, the developers will come even if Sony isn't playing to their tune (after all, it is the developers really that are pushing for what MS is doing). After all, they're not going to miss out on money especially if most of their market is on the console.

And maybe this will convince MS (and the developers pushing for this crap) to back off even (good for everyone then). So, yeah, xbox people, you better hope Sony gets dominant and encourages MS that these practices lose them money. And thank those that boycotted MS before they backed off. Or alternatively if it doesn't work, I'll be sarcastically thanking everyone for further showing developers we'll let them exploit us as long as we get to play the games as long as it conveniences them. It's not like it's our money they want and that it should be they are offering conveniences to us...

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

PS4 hardware is significantly faster than Xbox One. There is no debate on this. It has 50% more GPU cores and 250% more memory bandwidth. CPUs are both very similar and based on AMD's Jaguar core and clock speeds are the same (although unconfirmed and potentially subject to change).

It is the software side that will differentiate PS4 and Xbox One. Personally, my experience has been that the younger generation (i.e. under 30) own game consoles and more so than say my parents. And most of the Xbox One features don't appeal to us (yes I'm under 30 lol). We don't have home theatre systems beyond just an HDTV and maybe some speakers. We stream stuff online more than watching it live on TV. And when we do watch stuff, it's usually on our smartphones, tablets, laptops, etc. Not our TV.

As for gaming, unless it's like 7-8 years ago where the content drought for PS3 was significantly longer than Xbox 360 because developers needed more time to learn the Cell architecture, it will be very similar this time around. All games will be 1080P (no more 720P) and high FPS and etc. But developers will have more system resources available on PS4. And indie developers will most likely find the PS4 platform better to their liking given the information we have thus far. "Real gaming" will be on PS4. If we put this in PC gaming terms, you're pitting a high-end GPU against a low to mid-end GPU with everything else pretty much the same. Both will do 1080P, it's just a question of how well.

Another perspective that eludes Microsoft is that 90% of TV in the world does not operate like the US. There are advantages and disadvantages to this. Most (if not all) of the Xbox One features that we were shown applies directly to the US market. Sure, Microsoft is an American company and of course there will always be an inherent bias towards the US market. But don't forget that globalization is not a new concept today. People have bought Xbox 360s and PS3s all over the world. And people will buy Xbox Ones and PS4s all over the world. Gaming alone is no longer a differentiating factor. The appeal worldwide is.

Lastly, Microsoft has proudly shown us in grandeur that they haven't learned a single thing from Google TV's failures. It's the same exact approach except for a few cosmetic changes (Microsoft logo instead of Google and so forth). IR blaster, HDMI in/out, etc. It's the same exact path that Google TV took and failed in spectacular fashion. Don't do the same exact thing and hope for a different result. That's Albert Einstein's definition of insanity.

Will Xbox One succeed in the US market? More so than the rest of the world. Is it a better game console than PS4? Judging by hardware alone, no it is not.

 

[whooleytoo]

- Live sub
- Fee for pre-owned games
- I don't watch TV, only catchup so none of that stuff interests me
- Zero backwards compat.
- Non replaceable HDD
- Huuuuge box
- Voice control novelty
- Daily net connection required

Sony can easily trump this if they play their cards right. All they need is PS+, a proper used games market and a basic free PSN and they will win hands down.

I've read a lot of contradictory information on various forums
- Is Xbox Live Gold required for One? Can't find an answer to this on any FAQ.
- Several sites says the fee for pre-owned games is being considered, not a certainty.
- Does the internet connection required daily? The info on this is vague too.

TBH, I'll probably end up buying this even if it has a handful of nice exclusives. But with a mandatory subscription I'd give it a miss. The lack of backwards compatitiblity is a shame, but was always unlikely with an older PowerPC machine. The required Kinnect connection seems weird too.

 

[LethalWolfe]

It is the software side that will differentiate PS4 and Xbox One. Personally, my experience has been that the younger generation (i.e. under 30) own game consoles and more so than say my parents. And most of the Xbox One features don't appeal to us (yes I'm under 30 lol). We don't have home theatre systems beyond just an HDTV and maybe some speakers. We stream stuff online more than watching it live on TV. And when we do watch stuff, it's usually on our smartphones, tablets, laptops, etc. Not our TV.

I think your numbers skew young. A study done a couple of years ago had average gamers in their late 30's and half the homes in the US had at least one video game console. That age seems about right as these would be people that grew up with SEGA Master Systems and NES consoles. The average gamer age has dropped to 30 or so recently and that's been attributed to the rise in mobile gaming among teens.

Lastly, Microsoft has proudly shown us in grandeur that they haven't learned a single thing from Google TV's failures. It's the same exact approach except for a few cosmetic changes (Microsoft logo instead of Google and so forth). IR blaster, HDMI in/out, etc. It's the same exact path that Google TV took and failed in spectacular fashion. Don't do the same exact thing and hope for a different result. That's Albert Einstein's definition of insanity.

MS has market penetration, brand awareness, friendly relations with content creators and distributors and the Xbox isn't just another one-trick-pony box hanging off your TV. Google had none of these things and thought they could just make Google TV and the masses would flock to them and that's just not the case. MS has been pushing for a dominant place in the living room since the WebTV days of the late 90's and the Xbox One is just the latest incarnation of that. The Xbox is a vehicle to get MS into the living room and it's been a very, very successful vehicle in that regard.

EDIT: When I mentioned brand awareness I meant in the home entertainment arena. Obviously Google has loads of brand awareness in general but Google TV was certainly them treading into unknown waters.

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

I think your numbers skew young. A study done a couple of years ago had average gamers in their late 30's and half the homes in the US had at least one video game console. That age seems about right as these would be people that grew up with SEGA Master Systems and NES consoles. The average gamer age has dropped to 30 or so recently and that's been attributed to the rise in mobile gaming among teens.

Well, I was basing on my experiences. And obviously there is no hard data to back that up and is inherently skewed. Could you provide a source for your numbers? I also mentioned that games are not a major part of the equation anymore. The half of homes in the US statistic refers to game consoles, not actual gamers. How many of those homes use their game consoles for non-gaming purposes? In many ways, Xbox One is not comparable to a NES or SEGA Master System. Those latter two were strictly game consoles. They didn't play VHS (or whatever format was dominant in its time), stream content online, have TV-related features. Another thing I talked about in my post was the non-US market. Is there a study about game consoles per home and average gamer age across the world?

MS has market penetration, brand awareness, friendly relations with content creators and distributors and the Xbox isn't just another one-trick-pony box hanging off your TV. Google had none of these things and thought they could just make Google TV and the masses would flock to them and that's just not the case. MS has been pushing for a dominant place in the living room since the WebTV days of the late 90's and the Xbox One is just the latest incarnation of that. The Xbox is a vehicle to get MS into the living room and it's been a very, very successful vehicle in that regard.

Google doesn't have market penetration, brand awareness and friendly relations with content creators? Is that in general or the living room/TV market only? I agree that in the living room/TV market, Google is not in the same position as Microsoft. But I argue that it's not always the dominant player who succeeds. Apple had zero/little experience with MP3 players, yet their iPod is the dominant device in that market. Same goes with phones and tablets. Also, those factors don't do squat either way since the execution is still the same. It's still HDMI passthrough. It's still IR blaster. It's still piggybacking off a cable box signal. It's still a band-aid to an infected wound instead of an antibiotic. So maybe it's a better/higher quality band-aids versus some generic cheap ones, it still won't significantly change the outcome.

I haven't even gotten to the part where Microsoft decided to run 3 OSes. That is not going to impress anyone. Imagine if Apple decided to run 3 OSes on the original iPhone. One for music (iPod OS). One for computing (Mac OS). And one more for phone functions. Or if Google did that with Android. While the technology fabric that makes 3 OSes running simultaneously is impressive, the idea of it is ridiculous. It's a fricking entertainment system. Even PCs don't run 3 OSes simultaneously and let's face it, PCs do more than entertainment systems. It can play games, Blu-Rays, stream stuff online, watch TV through tuners, do motion sensing stuff with the right hardware/software, etc. You can argue oh but the Xbox is meant to run 24/7 and if it crashes, it's a different scenario than when a PC crashes. I hope that the future of consumer/personal computing devices (including game consoles and entertainment systems) is not running multiple OSes at once. It's overly complicated and unnecessary. And please don't argue that data centers and enterprise servers run many VMs, I'm talking about consumer devices not business. Different stuff.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Well, I was basing on my experiences. And obviously there is no hard data to back that up and is inherently skewed. Could you provide a source for your numbers?

Polygon.com, The State of Gamers The study isn't from them, but they have an article that is in part based on the study. I do not know about any global studies, but I have also not look for global studies.

I also mentioned that games are not a major part of the equation anymore. The half of homes in the US statistic refers to game consoles, not actual gamers. How many of those homes use their game consoles for non-gaming purposes? In many ways, Xbox One is not comparable to a NES or SEGA Master System. Those latter two were strictly game consoles. They didn't play VHS (or whatever format was dominant in its time), stream content online, have TV-related features. Another thing I talked about in my post was the non-US market. Is there a study about game consoles per home and average gamer age across the world?

I think gaming on gaming consoles is still a major part of the equation. I don't think very many people would buy a PS3 or an Xbox 360 and not play games on it. A blu-ray player, TV, roku, etc., would be much cheaper and accomplish the same tasks. I'm sure that there are people that use their consoles as a media center more often than a gaming rig but they still play games on it.

Google doesn't have market penetration, brand awareness and friendly relations with content creators? Is that in general or the living room/TV market only? I agree that in the living room/TV market, Google is not in the same position as Microsoft.

Correct, I was just speaking w/regards to living room/TV and amended my previous post to clarify that point.

But I argue that it's not always the dominant player who succeeds. Apple had zero/little experience with MP3 players, yet their iPod is the dominant device in that market. Same goes with phones and tablets. Also, those factors don't do squat either way since the execution is still the same. It's still HDMI passthrough. It's still IR blaster. It's still piggybacking off a cable box signal. It's still a band-aid to an infected wound instead of an antibiotic. So maybe it's a better/higher quality band-aids versus some generic cheap ones, it still won't significantly change the outcome.

Apple partnering w/the music labels got the iTMS off the ground (and iPod growth soon exploded after that) and Apple knew it needed a partner for the iPhone and they found AT&T. I'm not saying dominant players can't be supplanted (heck, MS venturing into console gaming), I'm saying Google did it wrong w/regards to Google TV. MS has been spending years building relationships in the entertainment industry and Google has not. If you are building a content delivery device you need to partner with the people that make the content you want to deliver. Google did not and that's a big reason Google TV was such a flop.

I haven't even gotten to the part where Microsoft decided to run 3 OSes. That is not going to impress anyone.

3 OSes certainly seems like a brute force approach to a problem but if it works, it works (I'd rarely use the term "elegant" to describe MS). I guess we'll see later this year when Xbox One hits stores.

The media-centric features of the Xbox One certainly are less impressive if you live outside the US but that's true for any media device whether it's from Apple, MS, Sony, Nintendo, etc.. For people worried about gaming I think their fears will be calmed at E3. I think this recent press was primarily for non-gaming aspects of the console and E3 will be for gaming. If MS revealed the Xbox One at E3 and spent any significant amount of time talking about DVR functionality or other TV stuff I would start throwing tomatoes. Of course if they can't right the ship w/regards to lending games to friends or needing to be always on (every 24hrs is always on, IMO) then tomatoes will still get tossed.

 

[Builddesign]

looks like a 3do


http://gamersaddiction.weebly.com/uploads/6/4/9/0/649063/8158721_orig.jpg?99

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

I think gaming on gaming consoles is still a major part of the equation. I don't think very many people would buy a PS3 or an Xbox 360 and not play games on it. A blu-ray player, TV, roku, etc., would be much cheaper and accomplish the same tasks. I'm sure that there are people that use their consoles as a media center more often than a gaming rig but they still play games on it.

That's what I was getting at. People who own "game consoles" of today no longer just use it for playing games. There is no debate regarding this. And since current customers use their Xboxes and PS3s for purposes beyond gaming, the next generation device to replace them will also have to do more than just play games.

Correct, I was just speaking w/regards to living room/TV and amended my previous post to clarify that point.

Gotcha.

Apple partnering w/the music labels got the iTMS off the ground (and iPod growth soon exploded after that) and Apple knew it needed a partner for the iPhone and they found AT&T. I'm not saying dominant players can't be supplanted (heck, MS venturing into console gaming), I'm saying Google did it wrong w/regards to Google TV. MS has been spending years building relationships in the entertainment industry and Google has not. If you are building a content delivery device you need to partner with the people that make the content you want to deliver. Google did not and that's a big reason Google TV was such a flop.

Agreed. Google basically flipped their middle fingers at the TV industry with Google TV. The built-in Flash-enabled browser did not help. But Microsoft's approach still requires the same hardware pieces as Google TV. You still need a cable box. It still uses a secondary signal, not direct from the source.

3 OSes certainly seems like a brute force approach to a problem but if it works, it works (I'd rarely use the term "elegant" to describe MS). I guess we'll see later this year when Xbox One hits stores.

That is exactly my point. Of course it will work (if it doesn't, then there's not much to say), my issue is rather with how crude and backwards the solution is.

The media-centric features of the Xbox One certainly are less impressive if you live outside the US but that's true for any media device whether it's from Apple, MS, Sony, Nintendo, etc.. For people worried about gaming I think their fears will be calmed at E3. I think this recent press was primarily for non-gaming aspects of the console and E3 will be for gaming. If MS revealed the Xbox One at E3 and spent any significant amount of time talking about DVR functionality or other TV stuff I would start throwing tomatoes. Of course if they can't right the ship w/regards to lending games to friends or needing to be always on (every 24hrs is always on, IMO) then tomatoes will still get tossed.

I agree. I'm not worried about gaming. I was thinking the same thing regarding E3 and Microsoft's timing with the press conference. They've split the announcement into two distinct, separate pieces. E3 (despite the name) is traditionally all gaming related. So it makes sense to announce the non-gaming stuff in a separate event.

 

[LethalWolfe]

That's what I was getting at. People who own "game consoles" of today no longer just use it for playing games. There is no debate regarding this. And since current customers use their Xboxes and PS3s for purposes beyond gaming, the next generation device to replace them will also have to do more than just play games.

Ah, okay. Seems like we are the the same page but managed to talk past each other for a moment.

Agreed. Google basically flipped their middle fingers at the TV industry with Google TV. The built-in Flash-enabled browser did not help. But Microsoft's approach still requires the same hardware pieces as Google TV. You still need a cable box. It still uses a secondary signal, not direct from the source.

For now you'll need the same amount of hardware but I wouldn't be surprised to see the Xbox One become a cable box replacement. For a while the 360 could replace the set top box for AT&T U-verse customers (that program ended and I'm not sure why) and for Verizon and Comcast customers there are some channels you can stream via the 360. The industry moves in baby steps and MS is right there holding their hand just waiting for the moment when the training wheels can come off (sorry for the mixed metaphors).

Of course it will work...

You are more optimistic than I am. I'll believe it works when I see/read about it working in an non-demo, non-controlled environment.

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

Ah, okay. Seems like we are the the same page but managed to talk past each other for a moment.

Yea, that was what I felt was going on haha.

For now you'll need the same amount of hardware but I wouldn't be surprised to see the Xbox One become a cable box replacement. For a while the 360 could replace the set top box for AT&T U-verse customers (that program ended and I'm not sure why) and for Verizon and Comcast customers there are some channels you can stream via the 360. The industry moves in baby steps and MS is right there holding their hand just waiting for the moment when the training wheels can come off (sorry for the mixed metaphors).

Agreed, couldn't have put it better myself (which I tried to do but gave up mid sentence).

You are more optimistic than I am. I'll believe it works when I see/read about it working in an non-demo, non-controlled environment.

I simply meant that it won't be a total and complete dud on launch day. Microsoft has had some disastrous product launches (Vista comes to mind) but it at least worked partially or somewhat. Nintendo has managed to do much worse with the Wii U launch. I read that upon opening the box, you have to install like 4GBs (something like that) of updates before you could even turn it on pass the boot screen. For many users, that literally meant hours and hours of waiting for the updates to download + install since the average internet speed (in the US) is pretty slow compared to say parts of Asia. I don't think Microsoft has done anything like that (although I could be wrong).

 

[LethalWolfe]

Agreed, couldn't have put it better myself (which I tried to do but gave up mid sentence).

Lol, yeah we've all been there.

I don't think Microsoft has done anything like that (although I could be wrong).

Probably not that bad, but I just remember how cool the Natal demo looked in '09 and how, uh, pedestrian Kinect looked a year later. MS certainly isn't the only company to oversell products in demos but I'll temper my excitement until it gets out into the hands of users.

 

[Cloudane]

Ugly and useless. Just like Steve Ballmer, then

 

[b166er]

I'm not a huge gamer anymore these days, but I love the idea of using this as a media hub/skype/etc platform. I'm hoping to go full man cave in the basement in the coming months, so this is definitely on my want list now.

 

[Switchback666]

The xbox 360 served me well so im going to continue my loyalty, my ps3 was rarely used and i actually forced myself to buy games on it (didnt even download the free games they offered after network problems) not to mention i never felt comfortable with the tiny control.

Exclusive tittles its what drives console numbers in most cases imo so whe still wont know for a while but whe know some PS exclusives tittles are now on xbox.

Windows easy integration will be a point for a lot of people also skype and xbox live have proved to be a much superior online community with little to no problems.

People complaint about internal storage ? What gives ! You get 320gb and if you manage fill that up just plug a usb or external drive wich are small and low profile current day, the ps3 is the same way and i never saw people complaint including me, heck this is a good thing looking at prices of xbox propietary hd housing.

The kinect thing its the only "problem" i see so far if you really have to it connected all times because it can ruin the look and "vibe" of the living room but to think someone will be watching you its a joke might aswell smash the camera on your laptop/desktop and smartphone.

The used games and fee etc well you better get used it cause its almost certain by 202X the next consoles will be download only and hopefully games will remain the same price or cheaper; steam have allready proved people dont give much of a damm about it and even Sony say something about trying to have games available for download the day they launch just imagine pre-order and download and when games its released you can start playing F! awesome.

 

[diamond.g]

3 OSes certainly seems like a brute force approach to a problem but if it works, it works (I'd rarely use the term "elegant" to describe MS). I guess we'll see later this year when Xbox One hits stores.

I think. The solution is quite interesting. Complex, but interesting. MS had to figure out how to dedicate resources to gaming while also have resources to do all the other background tasks. While they are reportedly committing a large amount of resources to the non game os, I suppose that could be reserved for future use.

 

[ThatsMeRight]

You're joking, right?

The Xbox has Live, the great tv integration, and updated kinect. I guess it ultimately comes down to the types of games you play, but to me its no contest based on both unveilings so far.

The PlayStation 4 seems to surpass Xbox Live with the new Gaikai service.

Furthermore, I live in Europe so that entire TV integration shizzle is useless for me, as the entire device is centered on the United States. Also, I find it 'old' and 'conservative'. I think they would be better off to introduce a new type of watching TV, like on-demand TV series and some live channels for "live television" (think family shows, or breaking news).

I was impressed with the updated Kinect, but I'm not really happy that all your conversations are recorded - even when it is off - and saved at Microsoft's servers.

----------

Genuine query - what did the PS4 have that was significantly better? (I've not really been following the PS4 launch)

Their new online service, Gaikai, seems to outperformance Xbox Live. Also, the hardware is at least 50% more powerful so games will probably run better on the PlayStation 4.

Furthermore, the PlayStation 4 does multimedia too, but it is more focused on delivering the best game experience. The PlayStation 4 event was full of game announcements and lots of gameplay. Also, we saw a lot of exclusive first-party games.

The Xbox event had two multiplatform game announcements (Call of Duty, and FIFA 14 of which we didn't get to see anything) and two exclusives (Forza, Remedy's new game).

I suppose that is very disappointing that Microsoft announces their new Xbox a full three months after Sony's announcements, and yet the new Xbox is less powerful (the PS4 is 50% more powerful) and they had barely any games compared to PS4.

----------

Actually this cemented my thoughts to dump consoles all together and just throw a PC with Steam Big Picture under my TV. I just don't see anything really compelling about this or the PS4 for me, someone who just wants to play games. I've been eying up one of those Digital Storm Bolts.

Yeah, but the advantage of consoles are obviously the easy of use and "it just works"-idea. Also, I just love playing on the big screen (TV) which you can obviously do with a PC, but it is just not the same.

That said, while PC can be great, I prefer the ease of use of consoles (and the exclusive games ).

----------

What were you expecting exactly??? Xbox live is 100x better then the PSN network and at the end of the day that is the most important feature for online gamers like myself. The One has great hardware specs and a great online service, what more could you want?

It is just that Sony's been making huge improvements with their online services and their "PlayStation Plus" service is miles ahead of what Xbox Live offers (here in Europe).

With Gaikai, they seem to drastically improve their online service which goes beyond what Xbox Live currently does (and beyond what Microsoft has announced).

Xbox Live was a real advantage back in 2005 and 2006, but anno 2013 the free version of PSN is about as good as the paid version of Xbox Live - and currently, Sony is showing more advancements with the PS4 in their online network, than Microsoft with the Xbox One.

About the 'great hardware specs'. The Xbox One doesn't have crappy hardware, but you've got to admit that it is kinda disappointing that three months after Sony announced the PS4 they still come up with way less impressive specifications. On the PS4, the GPU alone is already 50% more powerful.

I'm not saying the Xbox One is a bad machine, but it just isn't that focused on games.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I think they would be better off to introduce a new type of watching TV, like on-demand TV series and some live channels for "live television" (think family shows, or breaking news).

How? They don't control the content. They have to partner with the networks, studios, cable companies etc., that do which means those companies control the pace. This is US only but on the 360 people that get their cable TV via Comcast or Verizon have access to some cable channels directly through via Xbox Live (which sounds like what you are talking about). It's limited though because the companies that control the content are only taking baby steps right now.

If it was up to MS they would offer everything to everyone in every region but it's not so they can't.

I suppose that is very disappointing that Microsoft announces their new Xbox a full three months after Sony's announcements, and yet the new Xbox is less powerful (the PS4 is 50% more powerful) and they had barely any games compared to PS4.

3 months is nothing in development time. There's no way MS could, after Sony's announcement, change the specs of the new Xbox, have demo boxes made in time for this press event and mass produce Xbox Ones in time for this holiday season. Also, MS teased 15 exclusives (including 8 new IPs) and E3 is only a few weeks away. Dollars to donuts E3 is nearly wall to wall gaming as they already covered the non-gaming features of the system.

I would say it's shaping up to be Sony and MS leaving the ailing WiiU in the dust but MS might have shot itself in the foot w/the used game stance and perpetual phoning home of the Xbox One.

 

[brinary001]

I always love the little fanboys that get on here when MR does like a Google or Microsoft story and then say "Uhhh this is "Mac" Rumors, right?" Yes, but technology is technology. You don't have to hate it because there isn't a half eaten fruit on the box. Believe it or not, there is other stuff out there, Kool-aid drinkers!

 

[Aussieiphone]

4k

Apperently 4k & 3D compatible http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthic...an-do-4k-gaming-more-original-content-coming/

So that is a big plus!

I just hope environments are going to look so real that when I look up from a game at the person sitting next to me, I can't tell the difference. It's freaking about time isn't it?

Kinect interaction is pretty cool in my book!

 

[diamond.g]

Apperently 4k & 3D compatible http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthic...an-do-4k-gaming-more-original-content-coming/

So that is a big plus!

I just hope environments are going to look so real that when I look up from a game at the person sitting next to me, I can't tell the difference. It's freaking about time isn't it?

Kinect interaction is pretty cool in my book!

Too bad the 4k probably isn't native.

 

[tigress666]

MS has market penetration, brand awareness, friendly relations with content creators and distributors and the Xbox isn't just another one-trick-pony box hanging off your TV. Google had none of these things and thought they could just make Google TV and the masses would flock to them and that's just not the case. MS has been pushing for a dominant place in the living room since the WebTV days of the late 90's and the Xbox One is just the latest incarnation of that. The Xbox is a vehicle to get MS into the living room and it's been a very, very successful vehicle in that regard.
.

I dunno, I think MS messed up on the penetrating that market. Why? because you can't replace your cable box with it. It's not one device to "rule them all" (and why has no one made that joke damnit?), it's two, your cable box and the xBox. It can't be your cable box or the DVR and it relies on it. Which, if I'm looking for something like that,I am looking for something to replace the cable box (especially since they tend to provide POS's). And I can find that for cheaper than the xbox. So why would I pay extra for the xBox except if I wanted its gaming capabilities? Except as a gamer they pissed me off with anti-consumer measures, basically gimping my machine for no benefit to me but to make sure I'm not stealing.

Honestly, MS could have a hit on their hands if they did a few things differently. If it could replace the cable box and they hadn't done so many measures that pissed gamers off, I think they would have had a good idea that would have marketed well. There's nothing too bad about the device itself, it's slightly worse than the PS but honestly, with the specs that close I doubt it will mean the PS4 is going to get any different games (they'll just develop for the xbox and port over cause that way they won't have to make allowances for the fact the other console can't do quite as well). I think the only physical problem with the device is the fact it can't replace the cable box (no cable card slot nor a Co-ax cable input). Most of its problems derive from how MS is making the software behave, basically most of its problems is the policies MS is going to make it follow. Which they still can change I am betting. If they are smart. And not already locked into agreements with developers (who are really the ones behind the crappy policies).

Oh, and for the people saying that people no longer just use their console for gaming, it's cause we can. I didn't buy the PS 3 for Netflix. But I do use it for it despite the fact my TV has netflix. If I didn't want to game on it, would I buy it? No, I can find a blue ray player for cheaper and while my tv's netflix app sux I'm not going to spend 200 or more dollars just for that. Those are nice extras for the Playstation but they wouldn't sell me the playstation. The gaming did.

 

[ThatsMeRight]

How? They don't control the content. They have to partner with the networks, studios, cable companies etc., that do which means those companies control the pace. This is US only but on the 360 people that get their cable TV via Comcast or Verizon have access to some cable channels directly through via Xbox Live (which sounds like what you are talking about). It's limited though because the companies that control the content are only taking baby steps right now.

If it was up to MS they would offer everything to everyone in every region but it's not so they can't.

The deals they have to make for the Xbox One are very similar to what I am proposing. It's just the implementation that I find out-of-date.

3 months is nothing in development time. There's no way MS could, after Sony's announcement, change the specs of the new Xbox, have demo boxes made in time for this press event and mass produce Xbox Ones in time for this holiday season.

Three months is indeed little, but Microsoft could have prepared much better. Their presentation has been widely critized by now and they showed very few games and zero gameplay.

Making deals for games, that's something that you can do in three months time.

Also, MS teased 15 exclusives (including 8 new IPs) and E3 is only a few weeks away. Dollars to donuts E3 is nearly wall to wall gaming as they already covered the non-gaming features of the system.

They indeed said they had 15 exclusives for the first year, but I am 100% certain that we won't see 15 exclusive titles at E3. In fact, if you have been following the industry for a few years, than you know that it is highly likely that we will never see a big part of these exclusive titles.

I would say it's shaping up to be Sony and MS leaving the ailing WiiU in the dust but MS might have shot itself in the foot w/the used game stance and perpetual phoning home of the Xbox One.

Wii U is more like a current-gen console, that fits in the list of PS3 and Xbox 360. But that's just my opinion.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Honestly, MS could have a hit on their hands if they did a few things differently. If it could replace the cable box and they hadn't done so many measures that pissed gamers off, I think they would have had a good idea that would have marketed well.

MS wants to replace the cable box. MS can't do that without cable/sat providers on board. Current if you get cable via Comcast or Verizon you can stream a limited number of channels live via the 360. For a time MS and AT&T had a partnership where U-verse customers could use a 360 instead of cable box. It's still on AT&T's site, but it says it is currently unavailable (and it's been that way for a year or two).

I agree that the phone home and used game policies blow and need to be reworked by MS. I'm sure they'll be asked about this constantly at E3 so hopefully they have a satisfactory solution by then.

Three months is indeed little, but Microsoft could have prepared much better. Their presentation has been widely critized by now and they showed very few games and zero gameplay.

Showing a lot of non-game features at E3 will get you more criticized. If MS goes game heavy at E3 then people will think they are brilliant for focusing on non-gaming features at the reveal and focusing on gaming at E3. If MS doesn't go game heavy at E3 then they'll get blasted (and rightfully so) for being game-lite at two major launch events for the Xbox One.

Making deals for games, that's something that you can do in three months time.

Maybe, maybe not. Smaller devs/publishers? Probably. AAA publishers like Activision and EA? Probably not. I'd wager partnership talks with those guys started sometime last year. Even if the deals were in place maybe they wanted to wait until E3 to dropped their biggest announcements in hopes of stealing the show.

 

[torana355]

[/COLOR]
It is just that Sony's been making huge improvements with their online services and their "PlayStation Plus" service is miles ahead of what Xbox Live offers (here in Europe).

With Gaikai, they seem to drastically improve their online service which goes beyond what Xbox Live currently does (and beyond what Microsoft has announced).

Xbox Live was a real advantage back in 2005 and 2006, but anno 2013 the free version of PSN is about as good as the paid version of Xbox Live - and currently, Sony is showing more advancements with the PS4 in their online network, than Microsoft with the Xbox One.

About the 'great hardware specs'. The Xbox One doesn't have crappy hardware, but you've got to admit that it is kinda disappointing that three months after Sony announced the PS4 they still come up with way less impressive specifications. On the PS4, the GPU alone is already 50% more powerful.

I'm not saying the Xbox One is a bad machine, but it just isn't that focused on games.

I have a PS3 and the 360 and the online service on the PS3 is not even close to Xbox live, not even in the same league. The voice chat quality is terrible and the matchmaking leaves alot to be desired. Yes it is disappointing that the Xbox One has not matched the PS4 in power specs, but we will have to wait and see how the games actually look and perform before making any real comments on this. More power does not always equal a better experience

 

[Solomani]

Microsoft Unveils Xbox One, an All-In-One Entertainment System with Revamped Kinect and Fully Integrated SmartGlass

Apple's re-imagined AppleTV is doomed!

Samsung's smart TVs are doomed!

Google Glass is doomed!

Sony PS4 is doomed!

Microsoft has a single product that will kill four rivals with one stone!