# PS4 vs XBox 1... I think Sony has won me over



## Argyle King (Jun 11, 2013)

I've been a big fan of XBox ever since the original machine.  I reserved the 360 pre-launch; no questions asked; I knew it was a product I wanted.  However, I feel as though the day is quickly approaching when Microsoft may have lost me as a customer.  I watched the press releases; I watched and then re-watched the E3 presentations of today, and I checked the available facts online.  Thus far, I believe the Playstation 4 will be the first Sony product I've owned since Playstation 1.

First, I'll hand it to XBox; many of the games they revealed looked great.  Many of the features they advertised looked great as well.  They put on a show that was even better than I expected.  However, there are concerns I have about their product which bother me.  The fact that the Kinects (which is now required for the system to work) is always on and always listening is somewhat scary given the recent NSA/Verizon scandal.  Microsoft is currently heralding a used/borrowed game policy which is -imo- overly restrictive as well.  There's also the fact that they seem too concerned with things which don't appeal to me as a gamer.  I completely understand wanting to transform your product into a media center and the center piece of a living room, but don't forget that I'm buying your product to play games.  Lastly, some of Microsoft's new policies when it comes to dealing with independent publishers are overly restrictive as well; there's been something of a mass exodus from XBLA (XBox Live Arcade,) to other systems.  

I wholeheartedly expected to be amped up for the next XBox, but -after coming away from the presentation feeling negative- I tuned in to see what Sony had to offer.  Games were showcased that looked every bit as good as what I saw on the XBox presentation; sometimes slightly better.  Beyond that, I was told that Sony has no plans whatsoever to restrict what I do with a physical disc once I purchase it.  They also confirmed that the system will still work perfectly fine even if I don't sign online once every 24 hours.  Being intrigued by such prospects, I kept watching, and I came away from the presentation feeling very positive toward Sony and the Playstation 4.  The games looked good, and the priority of the company seemed to be to enable my experience as a gamer; not restrict it.  I like that.  When it comes to a new console purchase, I believe it likely that I purchase a Playstation 4.

Did anyone else watch E3 today?  Thoughts?


----------



## Janx (Jun 11, 2013)

I haven't seen any briefings on the PS4.  So here's my take on the situation.

Sony pooched the PS3.  They are a hardware company, so it had good hardware.  But they a NOT a software company.  Their OS lacked the common APIs and features that Microsoft knows how to do well.  As such, their UI sucks.  Their player connectivity sucks.  Xbox Live Party is light years beyond Sony.  And that's just a basic feature.

Here's why games don't matter in this discussion: Because games are inherently a "duh" feature.  Everybody knows how to make a good game and make it look good on a console.  That ain't the problem anymore.  A customer can take it for granted that his New, Non-Nintendo will play games and do it well.

The real choice differentiator is does it make setting up that game easier (Xbox Live Party) or handle other useful tasks.

It is possible Sony hired some Microsoft or Apple guys to learn how software is done.  But I doubt it.

I own an original 60GB PS3 and several Xbox 360s.  The 360s get way more usage.  The problem was never the games.  Everything else about the PS3 was just clunky.


----------



## Janx (Jun 11, 2013)

An addendum:

I've now seen some official blurbage on the PS4.  They did get the pricing right.  MS may have reached too far with a $500 price tag, and Sony may have gotten the memo on pricing with a $400 price tag for the PS4.

That's going to be a big decider for people.

We'll have to see how the used game thing plays out.  There's a lot of FUD surrounding that.  given that in actual practice, there's no used game market for the PC or mobile OSes, consumers can and will accept a no-resale model.

That said, those same platforms don't tend to see new titles for $60, some of which could be offset by reselling the game for $20-30 after you beat it quickly enough.

I think marketing will massage that problem out of the system.

I'm not worried about the stupid Kinect camera spying on me.  That's just not a probability to be an actual problem.  More annoying is the Kinect itself.  While it's a great premise that every TV will have a camera so we can all have Video Phones that AT&T promised us in the 70's, the Kinect flail-control and retarded voice control leave much to be desired.  Unless it's a huge improvement over the current model, I would probably just leave mine disconnected.  The current model Kinect mistakenly hears things and takes off doing stuff my my movies when I have most certainly not addressed it.

I'm still not inclined to give Sony more of my money, as there are more synergy bonuses for staying with MS than switching back to Sony.

However, I'm also not pleased with the $100 increase on price to get in the game.

I will probably just wait a year, to see if the price drops on the Xbone.  that will also reveal if it suffers from any hardware defects.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 11, 2013)

My take:

Both consoles are virtually identical in terms of the hardware. In theory the new Playstation has the edge graphics-wise, but we'll see how than plays out in real world situations. I doubt many titles will show a marked difference in visuals. 

Microsoft's PR campaign, so far, has been disastrous. I think their design decisions re: requiring an Internet connection and the used-game policy are bad, but everything they've released publicly _explaining_ and _defending_ those decisions have been _much, much worse_. 

Sure, we live in an age of "always connected" devices. But single players games on my phone and tablet work just fine without an Internet connection. To expect less from a box that sits in my living room and plays $60 games-on-disk is ridiculous. 

We also live in age with a robust secondary/tertiary/and so on market for console games. To restrict that at all is also ridiculous. To restrict that partially, in a complicated way, when said restrictions are entirely arbitrary, makes Microsoft look like it doesn't understand the way it's core audience uses their products. 

(and Sony just went for the throat with their pricing. $100 _less_, plus you own the games you buy)

I'm not in the market for a new console at launch. I'm going to wait for the next Dragon Age or Mass Effect. But right now I can't see going with Microsoft. Not unless their used-game policy changes and/or there are some significant _user_ benefits to their always-connected strategy.


----------



## Janx (Jun 11, 2013)

Mallus said:


> I'm not in the market for a new console at launch. I'm going to wait for the next Dragon Age or Mass Effect. But right now I can't see going with Microsoft. Not unless their used-game policy changes and/or there are some significant _user_ benefits to their always-connected strategy.




And that'll probably give this new generation's victory to Sony.  No resale isn't entirely shocking (sony was considering the  technology just a few months ago), but given the choice, why pay more AND lose a percieved feature.  that's 2 strikes against the Xbone.

My wife is still against sony (she hasn't seen any PS4 press, and didn't like the PS3).  but her big game title (Dragon Age 3) ain't going to be here for a year, so there's time.  She might have warmer feelings for the PS3 if the CD laser hadn't died right before the final battle on DA:Origins...


----------



## jonesy (Jun 11, 2013)

PS4 vs Xbox1 = Nintendo won.

If I want a powerful system I'll get a PC. If I want a console I'll go Nintendo from now on.


----------



## Derren (Jun 11, 2013)

Imo the hardware isn't all that important any more. Games are so expensive to make, everyone is going for multi platform releases, so it doesn't matter if your hardware is much more powerful than the competition.
And because of this reason I will likely also skip this generation of consoles like the last one. There are hardly any games on consoles which interest me I can't also get on the PC, yet a lot of PC games never make it on the console because of the mouse requirement.

Now if they bring back all the PS2 asia RPGs I might reconsider it.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 11, 2013)

Janx said:


> An addendum:
> 
> I've now seen some official blurbage on the PS4.  They did get the pricing right.  MS may have reached too far with a $500 price tag, and Sony may have gotten the memo on pricing with a $400 price tag for the PS4.
> 
> ...




The problem there is that the Kinects is now required.  If it's not plugged into the system, the system doesn't work.  ...at least that is what Microsoft currently claims.

To be fair, I do believe Microsoft has the better network.  It's one of the main reasons why I've felt comfortable paying for XBox Live all of these years even while my friends have had Playstation Network for free.  




jonesy said:


> PS4 vs Xbox1 = Nintendo won.
> 
> If I want a powerful system I'll get a PC. If I want a console I'll go Nintendo from now on.




For me, all of the things Microsoft is now doing are the reasons why I left PC gaming.  When I look at the business model for the XBox One, I see all of the restrictions I have with PC gaming, but none of the benefits.

As for Nintendo... I cannot currently take their console seriously; at least not until they start making games I want to play.  I had considered getting a Wii U for my kids, but I've been told there are some glitches which crop up when trying to use two of the special tablet-controllers at the same time.  That may or may not be true, but it's something I've seen reported enough times to believe that it is at least partially true.  For me, it wouldn't be a huge issue, but trying to tell two small children that only one of them gets to use the 'cool' controller leads to problems I'd prefer to not deal with as a parent.  I've also been told that the Wii U still struggles with quite a few problems when it comes to interacting with Nintendo's online service.  With a price drop, I may consider a Wii U as a secondary purchase; I'm just not convinced my family would actually use it.
-------------------------------------


At the end of the day, I want to support Microsoft.  They are the company I've been happy with.  However, their performance has been rather lackluster during the reveal of their new product, and their attitude toward their customer base has been slightly antagonistic.  I wouldn't have even bothered to watch the PS4 presentation if I hadn't come away from Microsoft's presentation feeling so negative.  Thus far, the only benefit Microsoft has shown me is that I can watch tv and change the channel using my voice... not exactly compelling.


----------



## jonesy (Jun 12, 2013)

Johnny3D3D said:


> For me, all of the things Microsoft is now doing are the reasons why I left PC gaming.  When I look at the business model for the XBox One, I see all of the restrictions I have with PC gaming, but none of the benefits.



What all restrictions do you have with PC gaming that are the same as the Xbox One business model? How are you equating Microsoft with PC gaming?


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jun 12, 2013)

I'm with you.  I'm a 360 fan but based on the comparison between the two I'd buy a PS4 were i in the market.  The new Xbox1 seems to be not about the games but about the other media, and has a bunch of features I neither need nor want.  I don't do multiplayer, and don't want a device that needs to go online.

I don't want to get back on the PC hardware treadmill for gaming, and I much prefer the Xbox controller to a keyboard and mouse, but this might just push me back that way for new games.  Sad, because I'll miss the new HALO releases, but then Call of Duty has turned to crap and I have enough Forza to last a lifetime; Elder Scrolls and Dragon Age are multi-platform so I'm OK there.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 12, 2013)

jonesy said:


> What all restrictions do you have with PC gaming that are the same as the Xbox One business model? How are you equating Microsoft with PC gaming?




It's difficult -if not impossible in many cases- for me to lend a modern game to a friend due to needing to register many games online.  It has also been a growing trend for computer games (Diablo 3 comes to mind) to cite DRM as a reason to require "always-on" connectivity.  (In the case of Diablo 3, it's pretty funny considering they will now port Diablo 3 to Playstation -which doesn't need to be online to work.)  A lot of newer games also require me to sign up for services (i.e. Steam) that I don't want.  The whole reason I started buying consoles was for the convenience of being able to just sit down and play a game without any of the added hassle involved.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jun 12, 2013)

Yeah, I just heard about the X-Box 1 or X-Bone, and the insanely restrictive policies that were being put into place. No way I'd put up with that. A friend at EA was telling me about some of the information that has leaked, and some that is still rumor that hasn't been "Officially confirmed." X-box 1 has about as many stupid decisions being inflicted on it as the PS3.
And PS3 was seriously screwed over by a lot of bad decisions. (First and foremost being that they didn't make it backwards compatible with PS2 games).

I'm not a big video game fan--mostly just the lego games, but what I've been hearing has made me wonder if the committee making the decisions isn't totally divorced from reality.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 12, 2013)

I'm sure there are some advantages to being online.  I have no doubt that cloud computing is a great thing.  However, Microsoft hasn't hit upon that.  Thus far, their PR regarding their policies has been terrible; at one point a former employee told customers they "should just deal with it" when concerns were raised about always-on.  IMO, they've painted themselves in a way which portrays them as wanting to make a system which benefits them; not the customer.  The only thing they've repeated advertised is that I can watch tv... which I can already do without an XBox.  The games they showed looked awesome, but they haven't given me a compelling reason why I should play those games on their system.  

I have no illusions about the fact that both Sony and Microsoft are huge corporations; as such, I also have no illusions about the fact that their plan is to make money.  That being said, it's nice to know that some decisions are made (or at least seemingly made) with the customer base in mind.  Imagine if the designers of D&D Next had gotten negative feedback from the playtest, and then Mike Mearls responded by saying "well, you guys are just going to have to deal with what we want to do because that's what we feel is best for you."

I mentioned earlier that a lot of independent publishers are leaving Microsoft as well.  It's because their new policies in regards to developers have become increasingly restrictive as well.  Some of (imo) the best indie developers have moved en mass to Sony.  From a customer standpoint, some of the most innovative and fun games I've played have been indie games.  Don't get me wrong; I love big blockbuster games with fantastic graphics and out of this world production values, but I'm also someone who highly enjoys trying something different from the status quo formula; I'm likewise someone who can enjoy a great game even if it doesn't have top of the line graphics.  Microsoft -in the lead up to the XBox One- has been antagonistic toward both their customer base and some of the same small developers who had a hand in making XBox Live Arcade such a great experience.  

To be fair, the 'used' part of the used game issue isn't necessarily what irks me.  It's the fact that they're making it increasingly difficult for me to lend a game to a friend or borrow one.  A lot of the games I own are games that I purchased after borrowing from a friend.  In particular, Mass Effect was one of those games for me.  It never interested me until the third game had already been released.  A friend lent the second game to me, and I enjoyed the experience enough that I felt compelled to get the game for myself.  As far as the used game market goes... I have no love at all for Gamestop.  I've had enough problems with their company that I actively try to avoid buying anything from them.  

The main issue for me is the Kinects always being aware.  Microsoft needs to show me how that benefits me beyond allowing me to talk to the XBox to turn it on.  Up to this point, they have not -imo- done a good job of expressing to me what the benefit is, and they -again, imo- need to do that; especially in a world where privacy is a concern.  

There also isn't a solid answer concerning what happens if I miss one of the 24 hour validations.  As it stands, all I know is that I'm required to sign my XBox 1 online once every 24 hours.  Later this year, I'll be building a new house.  During that process, there will be times when I do not have my internet connection set up.  So, let's say I have an XBox One and need to disconnect it for a few days until I get everything moved into the new building and set up the wiring.  Do I turn on my XB1 to discover that it no longer works?  Is there some method I need to go through to make up for the fact that I missed a check in?  If so, what is that method, and how complicated is it?  Currently, there are no answers to that question; all that I'm being told is that -in order for the system to function- I need to check in once every 24 hours.  

On that same topic, what happens if the XBox Live network gets hacked like the Playstation Network did, and it's down for a week?  Does everyone who owns a XB1 now own an expensive paperweight?  What exactly are the consequences for not being online?  

How about members of the armed forces?  During at least one of my tours, I took an XBox with me.  When I had down time, I used it to play movies and games.  Is this no longer possible with the XB1?  

Microsoft has eased up some on the used game deal, but when it comes to requiring connectivity, the official response is only that "The Xbox One mandates users connect to the Internet once every 24 hours to authenticate games."  What does that mean?  The official stance is that "we need to wait and see once all of the details are available."  Maybe it's just me, but E3 seems like a really good time to give out some details; especially when some of the fanbase is feeling negative about your product.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 12, 2013)

Ok.. doing some more research...


Microsoft is supposedly working on a "family" structure in which you can share some of your games with a group of people that you mark as "family."  That certainly helps alleviate the concerns about lending and borrowing games.

That being said, the only information which keeps popping up when I try to do a search concerning what happens if I don't authenticate once every 24 hours seems to indicate that the XB1 stops being able to play games.  That's not exactly promising.  That sounds like something which cannot possibly be right, but I haven't found any information yet which seems to say otherwise.


----------



## darjr (Jun 12, 2013)

If I've read correctly the PS3 is THE console for netflix, hulu and youtube. I think Microsoft is fighting last consoles war with the new xbox. I think they must have assumed they had the games locked up, and so now want to go after the viewing aspect.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Jun 12, 2013)

Johnny3D3D said:


> That being said, the only information which keeps popping up when I try to do a search concerning what happens if I don't authenticate once every 24 hours seems to indicate that the XB1 stops being able to play games.  That's not exactly promising.  That sounds like something which cannot possibly be right, but I haven't found any information yet which seems to say otherwise.




I remember reading something from one of the MS guys that is the case - if the XB1 cannot phone home every day, all the games will not work.


----------



## Janx (Jun 12, 2013)

darjr said:


> If I've read correctly the PS3 is THE console for netflix, hulu and youtube. I think Microsoft is fighting last consoles war with the new xbox. I think they must have assumed they had the games locked up, and so now want to go after the viewing aspect.




That would be incorrect.

The PS3 Netflix app sucked donkey balls so hard it had donkey legs sticking out of its mouth.

The 360's netflix app was better (until the Kinect update made it suck in different ways).

Both consoles support Netflix, Hulu and YouTube.


----------



## darjr (Jun 12, 2013)

Janx said:


> That would be incorrect.
> 
> The PS3 Netflix app sucked donkey balls so hard it had donkey legs sticking out of its mouth.
> 
> ...




It wasn't about who was best, or IF the console supported it but which console ruled as the most used platform.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/382006/ps3-is-the-most-popular-netflix-streaming-platform/

http://www.neowin.net/news/despite-debuting-on-xbox-360-ps3-is-now-netflixs-lead-platform

http://www.gamespot.com/news/ps3-top-netflix-device-worldwide-6401015

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2412856,00.asp

Though that looks like it was back in December. Does Microsoft still charge for xbox Gold to use Netflix?


----------



## Janx (Jun 12, 2013)

darjr said:


> It wasn't about who was best, or IF the console supported it but which console ruled as the most used platform.
> 
> http://www.computerandvideogames.com/382006/ps3-is-the-most-popular-netflix-streaming-platform/
> 
> ...




Of course MS still requires Gold and of course they still charge.

It is surprising that PS3 is leading on actual hits to Netflix.  pretty much everybody with either console uses netflix on their console nowadays.


----------



## Super Pony (Jun 12, 2013)

The real money for Microsoft and Sony is in the subscription model.  The consoles are a drop in the bucket compared to the potential cashflow of monthly/yearly XBox Live and PS Plus subscriptions.  Sony is trying to provide a model that will entice people to sign up.  Microsoft is bootstrapping their subscription numbers and bypassing consumer choice entirely.  At this point, even if Sony's end product performs under Microsoft, I'm going to go with them because they at least trust me to decide whether or not I want their product.  The irony is that Microsoft will probably crush it financially even if they are behind on console sales...and Sony may fall behind or off the map entirely by doing things in a better way.

I want to decide when to buy a new video game system, not because the company that made my system decided to drop support for my "outdated" console so that I have to upgrade to the latest model.  Planned Obsolescence is b.s.  So I will go with Sony if/when I'm in the market again.  And until then, whenever that may be, my current Sony gear still works as intended.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 12, 2013)

Janx said:


> It is surprising that PS3 is leading on actual hits to Netflix.



It's not so surprising. Netflix doesn't require an additional subscription charge on the PS3.

(plus, the PS3 app's not so bad -- translation: I like it)


----------



## Janx (Jun 12, 2013)

Mallus said:


> It's not so surprising. Netflix doesn't require an additional subscription charge on the PS3.
> 
> (plus, the PS3 app's not so bad -- translation: I like it)




As an exageration, everybody with an internet connection and an xbox has a Gold subscription.

That exageration is really the crux of the whole matter.  Everybody with a Gold sub (probably a majority of 360 owners) is inherently on the internet and is using it for all this good non-gaming stuff.  The ability to play good games is expected and implied.  Therefore, it is a non-interesting feature.  What else can it do for me is the real question.

This is where the PS3 failed.  Its interfaces were clunkier and behind the times for the non-gaming part of the show.

MS thinks the online-crowd drives the market and so they have catered to that.  I would hope that they used their actual sales figures and actual stats for 360's online (every xbox has a unique id, and every online xbox signs in, so they get that info for free).  If the majority of 360's sold are used online, then it's a no brainer that this is where to focus on.

As usual, we'll see.  Given that the PS3's setbacks for sales in the first half of its life had been overcome such that now they apparently beat 360 for Netflix hits, it will all probably be a wash.

Xbone will stumble for a bit, PS4 will get more early sales, and then Xbone will catch up.  Technically, one will be ahead of the other, but both will make butt loads of cash.

What I doubt will ever happen is for the Nintendo to regain its place as a serious gaming machine.  Their line of titles has long been polluted with crap, and their boxes have failed to keep up technologically with everybody else.  Something dramatic will have to happen, and the Wii U was their most recent shot that missed.


----------



## jonesy (Jun 12, 2013)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...c-spying-program-makes-xbox-one-even-scarier/




> ...NSA has apparently unlimited access to Microsoft servers...


----------



## Orius (Jun 13, 2013)

Microsoft certainly seems to be stumbling around with this console.  Will gamers like a system that needs frequent internet access to use?  What about the privacy concerns with the Kinect?  And that $500 price tag doesn't help either, especially when Sony announced a $400 price for the PS4.  Still, I have to say, if this end up being better for Sony, it'll be because Microsoft goofed, not because Sony did anything well.  From what I've been reading here and there, Sony's got a lot of serious underlying financial problems, this could help them, but they're on very shaky ground from what I understand.

It might not be a failure.  Some people think Microsoft's trying to beat Apple to the smart TV with this machine, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's part of their strategy.  Microsoft's track record vs. Apple is decidedly mixed though.  It also depends on how many consumers are interested in this approach.

Still, this brings me to yet another of my sarcastic observations:

Does every company in the industry have to stumble like an idiot when they hit their third console?

Sega: Let's release this machine early so none of the games will be ready for it! We'll beat Sony that way! 
Nintendo: Screw discs! Carts are a much better storage medium!
Sony: Let's jack up the price on this baby so we can win the latest format war! Our fans will buy anything!
Microsoft: Everyone loves restrictive DRM measures! And I'm sure they won't mind a camera that's on all the time recording everything they're doing!

...

Atari: THIRD console?! Let's not wait that long to  up royally! And let's drag down the whole industry with us!

(Yes, there's some oversimplifications and exagerations for effect there.)


----------



## Mallus (Jun 13, 2013)

Janx said:


> Xbone will stumble for a bit, PS4 will get more early sales, and then Xbone will catch up.  Technically, one will be ahead of the other, but both will make butt loads of cash.



I agree -- but I have to wonder how big the market really is now for premium living room game consoles and $60+ games (at launch). Combine the recession, the rise of mobile/tablet, mobile acclimating consumers to games at a much lower price point (albeit for simpler games), the rise of indie, indie doing the same thing to prices, and the staggering development costs of AAA games on full-fledged consoles and you get... interesting times for the video game industry.

There's areal sustainability issue here. And both MS and Sony are sailing into the middle of it. 



> What I doubt will ever happen is for the Nintendo to regain its place as a serious gaming machine.



Me too, though I read an article touting Nintendo's opportunity to gain back ground after the awful Wii U debut. The gist of it was a $200-250 Wii U vs. a $399 Playstation and $499 Xbone (that's its official name now, isn't it?) will be a very attractive to more budget conscious shoppers in Christmas 2013.


----------



## Janx (Jun 13, 2013)

Mallus said:


> Me too, though I read an article touting Nintendo's opportunity to gain back ground after the awful Wii U debut. The gist of it was a $200-250 Wii U vs. a $399 Playstation and $499 Xbone (that's its official name now, isn't it?) will be a very attractive to more budget conscious shoppers in Christmas 2013.




I think this touches on a part of the perception problem. For a serious gamer (non-PC), they own a PS3 or 360.  They have internet that is always on.  They can afford $60 games.

tablets, mobile phones, Wii's just aren't in the picture of consideration.  they may own these devices, but that's not what they turn to for a marathon session of talking smack and killing their friends on COD.

By all means, the market for Ps4/Xbone will be shrinking a bit by the loss of the "less dedicated" to these lesser alternatives.

In any case, the Xbone/PS4 (or even PS3/360) wasn't built for the less dedicated anyway.

Folks who have to penny-pinch to get a Xbone/Ps4 should be buying an Ouya or Wii or prior-gen console.  Same for folks who fret about a $7/month cost for a Live Gold subscription.  Or if they have to cancel their internet connection sometimes to pay other bills.

Now that attitude that the top-end consoles are for well to do people only goes so far, but there is some merit to it.  If you're going to get into top-end gaming, you gotta be able to pay the price of admission.

I think the PS4 did a better job of maintaining the expected price of $400.  The PS3 made the mistake of pricing itself beyond what folks would accept paying for a top-end machine, which its competitor was in the "right" range.

At this point, my wife is still sold on the Xbone.  I haven't seen any significant materials on the PS4 (I don't care to look at game demos, as that's like one of my old people saying "I need a new computer that can surf the web."  No duh!


----------



## Mallus (Jun 13, 2013)

Janx said:


> For a serious gamer (non-PC), they own a PS3 or 360.  They have internet that is always on.  They can afford $60 games.



I kinda disagree with the last part. I'm guessing there are plenty of serious gamers who can't really afford what they spend on the hobby. The un-and-under employed, for starters. And the gaming industry relies on these people. 



> By all means, the market for Ps4/Xbone will be shrinking a bit by the loss of the "less dedicated" to these lesser alternatives.



My point was there are more expensive devices chasing a stagnant/decreasing pot of discretionary spending dollars. 



> In any case, the Xbone/PS4 (or even PS3/360) wasn't built for the less dedicated anyway.



I'd argue they _both_ were. Microsoft clearly wants the new XBox to be a living room appliance; a companion to your TV. Hence they initial media push which emphasized all the non-gaming features. Financially speaking, both companies need wide-scale adoption of their new consoles, or there won't be enough games in their respective ecosystems.



> Folks who have to penny-pinch to get a Xbone/Ps4 should be buying an Ouya or Wii or prior-gen console.



Nobody should buy a Ouya. They don't make any sense . 



> Now that attitude that the top-end consoles are for well to do people only goes so far, but there is some merit to it.  If you're going to get into top-end gaming, you gotta be able to pay the price of admission.



This gets back to my point about sustainability. Can MS really afford to target the segment of the market willing to play top-end prices for their top-end gaming? Both MS and Sony need broad user-bases for their new hardware, or else false a dwindling number of developers willing to create the AAA titles that justify the said new hardwares cost. There aren't enough affluent, dedicated gamers to support the industry at its current size (without help from the downmarket folks). 

Console gaming is expensive, but it's not just for the rich -- which is why restrictions on used games is particularly ridiculous.


----------



## Janx (Jun 13, 2013)

Mallus said:


> My point was there are more expensive devices chasing a stagnant/decreasing pot of discretionary spending dollars.




One of the assumptions we may really be disagreeing on is the economy.  I live in Houston.  It's pretty easy for most of us Houstonians who had good jobs before the recession to say that we still have good jobs.  Basically, what recession?

Xbox and PS3 sales have done pretty darn good along the whole lifespan.

I would say, that while plenty of folks are hurting, there are plenty of folks who are not.  It seems you either got screwed in the recession, or you're basically doing the same status quo.

As a result, there will be plenty of people to buy these top end gaming systems.

And these alternative "lesser" platforms don't even really detract from the sales pool.  Heck, most serious gamers own multiple modern systems.

Basically, there's plenty of people with plenty of money to spend on this top end stuff, and they will.  the people cutting corners on cost to buy these alternative boxes were less likely to buy the new top end stuff anyway.

In any event, anybody who drinks the MS koolaid will be plenty happy with their Xbone.  it will provide a pretty smooth experience whether they play games seriously, watch movies, or other stuff.  Amazon has already sold out on pre-orders for it, so we know that's a lot of koolaid drunken despite all the FUD going about the Xbone.

What I'd like to see is more of how the UI, messaging, voice and group-game setup experience is on the PS4.  The PS3 was terrible, because Sony didn't really handle most of that stuff with a solid API and service model.  The 360 nailed that and continously improved it throughout the life cycle.  I haven't powered up my PS3 lately, but I doubt much has changed.  Since it's a total rewrite for the PS4, it's likely they will still be behind the curve on UI/features compared to MS, which can simply recompile and adjust for the Xbone target.


----------



## Janx (Jun 13, 2013)

I just picked up some interesting data points from a PS4 article:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/ps4s-used-game-policy-isnt-because-some-other-company-is-doing-something/



> Why target a price of $399, specifically? Yoshida's answer was simple. "We still remember the PS3 launch."




I kinda figured that Sony picked $399 for a reason.  They appear to have learned their lesson on overpricing.

However, it was a shock to learn that multiplayer now costs $50/year for Playstation Plus.  I hadn't used my PS3 in a while since the CD laser died in it.  online gaming used to be free.  Now, apparently it's not, and most definitely not free on the PS4.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/ps4-owners-will-need-playstation-plus-subscription-for-online-multiplayer/

At this point, what Sony really has as advantages over MS is:
$100 price advantage
used games

Those are still very important, and I think they will slow down MS sales, comparitively.  But a lot of the hold arguing points like "free online" are pretty much negated.  to get full advantage of either machine, you're going to buy a subscription.


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 14, 2013)

Janx said:


> One of the assumptions we may really be disagreeing on is the economy.  I live in Houston.  It's pretty easy for most of us Houstonians who had good jobs before the recession to say that we still have good jobs.  Basically, what recession?
> 
> Xbox and PS3 sales have done pretty darn good along the whole lifespan.
> 
> ...




I would completely agree that Xbox had the better online interface.  Heck, I am actually using my 360 to respond to this now.  I never minded paying for Live while my friends had free access to PS Network because I felt my monney was going toward a better product.

I have no doubt that XB1 will stiill be a great machine.  However, MS hasnt done a very good job of showing me why their new policies are good for me.  I have some idea of why I think they may be, but their stance and rather poor pr has painted them (in my mind) and their model as only being concerned about how they benefit on their end.  How does a 24 hour check-in mandate benefit me as the customer?


----------



## Argyle King (Jun 14, 2013)

Interesting news...  apparently there have been so many Playstation 4 pre-buys on Amazon that they had to create a second product page.  The following is quoted from an article I was reading concerning that topic:
_
Amazon was forced to split the PS4 preorder product listing into two due  to high demand. Amazon also listed the following “Product Alert” on the  PS4 preorder page: “*The standard version of the PlayStation 4 is identical to the Launch Edition. *Due  to high demand, we cannot guarantee Release-Date Delivery on the  standard version of the PlayStation 4. We will deliver the standard  version of PlayStation 4 as close to its release date as possible.”_


Currently, XBox 1 Amazon preorders are in second place; Playstation 4 occupies both first and third place.  Also, I learned some interesting math after recently visiting the Gamestop in the local mall here.  All of their XBox 1 units are sold out.  They still have Playstation 4 units available for preorder.  At first, that sounds as though XBox is doing exceptionally well; beating Sony's product.  However, after having a conversation with an employee there, I also learned that the store was only given eight pre-order slots for XBox 1; they were allotted 22 Playstation 4 units for pre-order, and 11 remain.  While that means -at the time I stopped- Sony had only managed to sell half of the stock available at that particular store as opposed to Microsoft selling all of their product, the actual math tells a different story.


----------



## Janx (Jun 14, 2013)

So it looks like sony probably has a 2:1 lead on pre-orders (I just made that up, using guesstimation from the prior post).

I'd be curious if we could isolate for "die hard" fans who are going to buy their favorite vendor, no matter what, versus folks who will switch platforms as the wind blows.

From the PS1-PS3 era, I was inclined to stick with Sony because of the BC.  It was a non-issue to simply trade in the old console towards payment on the new console, and be able to keep playing.  the steeper $600 price on the PS3 made me wait a year until I could get the original 60GB model for $500.  Of which I traded in my older stuff I didn't need and paid maybe a couple hundred for it.

But by the time I got my PS3, I'd already gotten a 360, because everybody else jumped ship from PS2 to 360 because the PS3 was a year late to the game and way too expensive.

Given the complete lack of BC on either box, there's no synergy bonus for staying with Sony or MS on the new generation.

At best, your online subscription will carry over to cover the old box and the new box.

I was surprised to see that PS3 sales seem to have caught up to 360 sales (everybody I know has a 360, very few have PS3).  I would bet the number of die hards is equal, and the PS4 extra sales are converts (folks who own 360, but are rebelling against the MS pricing/use game situation).


----------



## Derren (Jun 16, 2013)

Apparently a lot of XBox games at the E3 were run not on the box but on a PC which had very different hardware than what the Box is supposed to have (for example NVidia instead of ATI).
That builds trust, doesn't it?

http://pixelenemy.com/xbox-one-game...h-nvidia-gtx-gpus-ps4-running-on-ps4-devkits/
Oh, and better not get banned from Live.
http://pixelenemy.com/xbox-one-users-may-forfeit-games-if-banned-from-xbox-live/


----------



## Janx (Jun 16, 2013)

Derren said:


> Apparently a lot of XBox games at the E3 were run not on the box but on a PC which had very different hardware than what the Box is supposed to have (for example NVidia instead of ATI).
> That builds trust, doesn't it?
> 
> http://pixelenemy.com/xbox-one-game...h-nvidia-gtx-gpus-ps4-running-on-ps4-devkits/
> ...




Having worked with Microsoft before, MS enforces an "Eat our own dogfood" policy.  If somebody says an MS machine dropped to Windows 7, I doubt the veracity of that because everybody would have been ordered to run Windows 8 since they started doing to the beta releases to the public.  Only regression labs would have been left with old Windows OSes to to rest other software on.

Nor is their screen blow-up of what's really running on a console behind somebody's leg quite conclusive.  Why the heck would a screen background image say the name of the video card in big green letters.  If that was the screen of the "real" machine running the game demo, they would be more likely to run sysinternals's bginfo.exe as that's pretty standard operating procedure.

I couldn't tell you what MS actually did for their demos and live game play.  Given how close we are to the November launch date, it seems improbable they couldn't scrape up enough dev and pilot units for the show to run everything on.


----------



## Derren (Jun 16, 2013)

Janx said:


> I couldn't tell you what MS actually did for their demos and live game play.  Given how close we are to the November launch date, it seems improbable they couldn't scrape up enough dev and pilot units for the show to run everything on.




Thats not why companies show demos on a PC on such event, but either because the games are not ready or work/look better on the PC as optimization is not done. The real (mini) scandal is also not that the games were run on a PC, thats rather usual, but that the hardware of the PC was apparently so different (and much more powerful) than the box. That means you can't trust anything Microsoft has shown at E3, either graphics or performance.


----------



## Janx (Jun 16, 2013)

I think what you're missing is that I do not quite believe there is sufficient evidence to the claim that they cheated.

Now if Geraldo Rivera came in guns blazing with a camera crew to rip off the shroud and have a tech PROVE on camera that the wires from the demo controller were actually leading to a PC and the case was then opened and it was shown to have a super fancy video card in it, you'd have something that we in the tech industry call facts.

Some dude saying he saw a box crash to a Win7 background when we know Microsoft doesn't have anything running Windows 7 is controversial and unverifiable.

Some dude super enlarging a monitor hidden behind somebody's leg that just HAPPENS to say the name of a video card in large print on it as if that's a common thing to have in the background of a screen is also fishy.  What program or utility in the industry just happens to render itself with the name of the video card brazenly displayed like that?

As I said, I can't prove or disprove what really happened.  But I can estimate the likely hood of certain variables even existing, for these claims to be true, and the 2 main facts in the case have strong reasons to NOT exist, thereby casting doubt on the veracity of the claim.


----------



## DnD_Dad (Jun 16, 2013)

Nothing starts a good rant-war like asking someone which is better Xbox or playstation.  The answer is whatever you like.  People that like Xbox tend to play more online games as the community is stronger, or people like the exclusive titles that both have to offer, or it was the blue-ray, or the kinect, or whatever.  Please buy what you want because there really isn't a difference.  You're going to end up dropping a brick of cash on them, accessories, games and monthly subscriptions anyways so get what you want and don't worry about justification as to why.  I really think this is going to be the last run of consoles anyways as technology is getting to the point where we have multicore processors in phones and TVs, so why make a gaming system when you can just buy a tv that will play games that offer anything a console does?  Just saying.


----------



## Janx (Jun 17, 2013)

DnD_Dad said:


> Nothing starts a good rant-war like asking someone which is better Xbox or playstation.  The answer is whatever you like.  People that like Xbox tend to play more online games as the community is stronger, or people like the exclusive titles that both have to offer, or it was the blue-ray, or the kinect, or whatever.  Please buy what you want because there really isn't a difference.  You're going to end up dropping a brick of cash on them, accessories, games and monthly subscriptions anyways so get what you want and don't worry about justification as to why.  I really think this is going to be the last run of consoles anyways as technology is getting to the point where we have multicore processors in phones and TVs, so why make a gaming system when you can just buy a tv that will play games that offer anything a console does?  Just saying.




Oddly enough, I don't think this thread has had much "which is better" debate.  They both will play games better than they did before.


----------



## darjr (Jun 17, 2013)

Janx said:


> Oddly enough, I don't think this thread has had much "which is better" debate.  They both will play games better than they did before.




Well... that's debatable. 

I think we'll have a ps4 at some point, maybe. I did have a chance to talk to my kids and some of their friends and among them the xbox one isn't very popular. Mainly, I think, because of the used game issue. I had no idea that, even my own kids, traded so many games or used the used game treadmill so much.


----------



## DnD_Dad (Jun 17, 2013)

Did anyone read this?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...c-spying-program-makes-xbox-one-even-scarier/
Basically Microsoft will be selling information the the NSA.  The kinect tracks your face, heart rate, and a bunch of other things that a device capable of monitoring those things already can do.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jun 18, 2013)

I have a simple solution: don't buy either one.
Really.
You don't need them. Continue using the system you have until they stop making games for them.
I was greatly annoyed at Tt making Lego:Undercover only playable on the Wii, when it should have been easily adaptable for other platforms. Was I going to by a Wii? Hell no. Until they stop releasing Lego games for the PS3, I'll stick with the machine I have. If I have to buy the earlier Lego games when the new system comes out, you can bet I will. Hopefully, the designers will have the brains to make the platform backwards compatible this time.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 18, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> I have a simple solution: don't buy either one.



Yeah, I've got a backlog of good PS3 games that I should work through first. I still haven't finished the Studio Ghibli RPG, Ni No Kuni -- which I'm dying to get back to after watching _Castle in the Sky_ and _Nausicaa_ on Blu-ray with my wife last week.  

I'll probably hold out until the next Dragon Age game releases (or Mass Effect, if that comes first). 



> Hopefully, the designers will have the brains to make the platform backwards compatible this time.



Sony *says* they're going to provide backwards compatibility through their streaming service. We'll see how that pans out. There won't be true hardware-based backwards compatibility. That ship sailed a long time ago.


----------



## ThatGrumpyScotsman (Jun 18, 2013)

I probably won't be either. Realistically, I'm an X-Box guy. I'll put up with their , because I like the UI, the controller and the games.

Still, Sony has done really well.


----------



## Janx (Jun 18, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> I have a simple solution: don't buy either one.
> Really.
> You don't need them. Continue using the system you have until they stop making games for them.
> I was greatly annoyed at Tt making Lego:Undercover only playable on the Wii, when it should have been easily adaptable for other platforms. Was I going to by a Wii? Hell no. Until they stop releasing Lego games for the PS3, I'll stick with the machine I have. If I have to buy the earlier Lego games when the new system comes out, you can bet I will. Hopefully, the designers will have the brains to make the platform backwards compatible this time.




That's kind of like some folks telling me to cancel my cable and just watch Netflix/Hulu, when they don't account for the fact that I'm already caught up on all the latest shows.  

I want the new console games, because it's "Better".  I watch Cable TV because that's where the new stuff is (else I'd need to wait a year without any TV, just to let the current material eventually reach Netflix/Hulu).

Better is obviously subjective, but the simplest truism is that a FPS on PS3/360s is not going to look as good as on the PS4/XbOne.  For some folks, that's valuable.

I think MS has gotten some stuff wrong on the XbOne.  Some folks have decided that's a deal killer.  I'm not sure where the threshold for me to NOT get an XbOne is, but much of the things folks say are big negatives about the XbOne (compared to the PS4) are non-issues for me.  

The NSA is not likely to be spying on me with the Kinect2 camera, and I could block that at my firewall if I wanted to anyway.

The used game thing is an inconvenience (I seldom buy full price games), so if I have to wait longer for a title to get to be $30, so be it.

The 24hour check-in is a non-issue, if I ain't got internet, I probably ain't got power.

the demo-cheating claim isn't entirely plausible to me, and when I decide to buy a game will be based on the consideration of the actual released game to market anyway.  Whether an E3 demo looks awesome or not, I only care if my friend who OWNS it and played it likes it.  Waiting for the price to drop increases the probability that kind of actual play experience feedback is available anyway.

My consideration factors are:
Sony's better pricing
Sony's poor record on UI and common API/Services for chat/game launch with the PS3 compared to the 360's excellent record.*

*The wife hates the PS3 interface, giving a double penalty on this.  If I buy a PS4 and she hates it, I will be stuck buying a XbOne and letting the join the PS3 in the dust collector pile.  Otherwise, I could get a PS4 and possibly be happy.  Folks need to consider the "whole" family reaction to what platform you choose.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jun 19, 2013)

So you need to learn patience?
There are current shows that I like. I wait. 99% of the time, waiting doesn't make the shows any better, or any worse. If I like them, I still like them. If I don't like them, I stop watching.
I've been living without cable for over 10 years. (there's a longer version of that story, but I don't want to derail too much).
Between Netflix and working on Maya, and the lack of commercials, I don't really have time or the need.


----------



## Janx (Jun 19, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> So you need to learn patience?
> There are current shows that I like. I wait. 99% of the time, waiting doesn't make the shows any better, or any worse. If I like them, I still like them. If I don't like them, I stop watching.
> I've been living without cable for over 10 years. (there's a longer version of that story, but I don't want to derail too much).
> Between Netflix and working on Maya, and the lack of commercials, I don't really have time or the need.




Once again, you fail to factor in other household members.  It's not just me who has to be patient.  In blunt terms, there a things a man does to shut his wife up.  it is cheaper to pay for cable TV than to fight with somebody who ain't on board with the no TV thing.  It's cheaper to pay an extra $100 for an XbOne than it is to deal with someone who's going to gritch about the crappy PS4.

it is also fair to remember than my financial resources may be greater than your own.  While I am not a rich man, I can afford to waste the money on a more expensive game console and on deluxe cable TV packages.  Therefore, my approach to a problem may be different than somebody who's pinching pennies.  I know there's people who only watch what they can get online, so their primary expense is internet connection because that is as cheap as they can go.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jun 20, 2013)

Oh, I factor in all my housemates' demands.
My housemates are not that demanding.
You probably actually like your wife, so I won't suggest you copy my method for "getting her to shut up". Besides, divorce is expensive. (but in my case, worth it!)
And again, given the volume of what is available, there is plenty to keep me going until the new episodes arrive on DVD.

My point is "do you really need the new whiz-bang"? Does the current "old" system perform the tasks you need? If the second answer is yes, then chances are the first answer is really "no".


----------



## Janx (Jun 20, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> Oh, I factor in all my housemates' demands.
> My housemates are not that demanding.
> You probably actually like your wife, so I won't suggest you copy my method for "getting her to shut up". Besides, divorce is expensive. (but in my case, worth it!)
> And again, given the volume of what is available, there is plenty to keep me going until the new episodes arrive on DVD.
> ...




I'm glad you took my blunt phrasing correctly.  I like my wife.  TV ain't a battle worth winning to save a few bucks.

Now, need is a oft mis-understood thing.  I don't NEED a video game system.  I got games on my old apple IIe I could still play.  But I do like me some better graphics and more complex reality modelling.  MC360 ain't gonna light candle next to MC-XbOne.  So it's a matter of want versus means.  I'm gonna think twice about plunking down $400-500, but barring a problematic pay period (as in cars or something else needs money), I can afford to get an upgrade.  Except for the PS3, I usually get quite a few miles of fun out of my new consoles.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 20, 2013)

I just recently acquired one of those all-in-one Atari 2600 consoles...

Oh yeah: Microsoft has been listening to the hubbub:  http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/19/tech/gaming-gadgets/xbox-drm/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


----------



## Deset Gled (Jun 20, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> 99% of the time, waiting doesn't make the shows any better, or any worse.




This is breaking from the original purpose of the thread a bit, but this is a severely misguided statement.  99% of the time, ratings determine the course of a show.  Ratings when the show airs.  By waiting, you are telling the executives in charge of programming that the shows you like don't matter.  Meanwhile, the "impatient" ones who watch TV live are using their time to vote for the shows they like and ensure they stay on the air.

If every person who takes pride in not watching TV live and also bought Firefly on DVD had watched Firefly when it was live TV, we'd have at least a hundred more episodes.  Its an unfortunate fact that waiting can, in fact, make things worse.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jun 20, 2013)

Deset Gled said:


> This is breaking from the original purpose of the thread a bit, but this is a severely misguided statement.  99% of the time, ratings determine the course of a show.  Ratings when the show airs.  By waiting, you are telling the executives in charge of programming that the shows you like don't matter.  Meanwhile, the "impatient" ones who watch TV live are using their time to vote for the shows they like and ensure they stay on the air.
> 
> If every person who takes pride in not watching TV live and also bought Firefly on DVD had watched Firefly when it was live TV, we'd have at least a hundred more episodes.  Its an unfortunate fact that waiting can, in fact, make things worse.




Just as misguided--sorry--by ignoring studio politics. Part of why FF was cancelled was that there were execs who didn't like the show or the way it was going. It also had its timeslot bounced around and was preempted or aired without consistency.
Star Trek TOS also had ratings, but that didn't stop studio execs from cancelling the show anyway.

The need to go out and get the latest shiney toy leads way too many people into unnecessary debt. It is endemic to the culture.
If, on the other hand, you can think of absolutely nothing else to do with the cash (no mortgage payment, student loans, left-over credit card debt, or kids to set up college funds for), then sure, if you feel like getting the toy, go ahead. I'm just tired of the perceived need for status symbols. Until Netflix started instant streaming, I was considering selling my PS3 and going without. Now I'm glad I didn't.
PS4? Not until my PS3 is totally ineffective.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 20, 2013)

Deset Gled said:


> 99% of the time, ratings determine the course of a show.  Ratings when the show airs.  By waiting, you are telling the executives in charge of programming that the shows you like don't matter.



Uh, not really. Well, I don't know how things work in the US, but here in Germany it's like this:
What, when or how your are viewing anything on TV has zero effect on ratings, unless you belong to one of the 'representative' households chosen for the 'panel group' that have been equipped with a box recording what they're viewing. And at least here in Germany, video-on-demand or any other kind of internet-based TV streaming is not represented in in ratings at all.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 20, 2013)

My calculus is going a little like this at the moment:

First, I'd have to pay an extra $100 to have a system that plays the same games, only not when the internet is down, so it's a more limited system. 

Second, each game I buy on the Xbox would give me diminishing returns: the $60 I spend on an Xbone game would give me less for my money than the $60 I would spend on the equivalent PS4 game, because I won't own the game, I'll just be licencing it. 

So just from a pure value proposition, the PS4 wins. 

I don't know of anything that the new Xbox is offering to compensate for their higher cost, and less value per game. Pretty much saying, "Just take it. IT IS THE FUTURE, YOU MUST." 

But it's not the future. We get to decide what the future looks like. And the signs that we as a society might just reject draconian DRM and licensing in favor of convenience and ownership are very positive. 

Screw the Xbone. I'ma get a PS4. And prolly a Steambox, but that's because Valve is the king.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 20, 2013)

XBox have removed the online requirements and DRM in a recent press statement. So the extra money just goes to pay for the included Kinect.

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/update

However, below is a post that points to the good things that have been lost by this move.

http://gizmodo.com/the-xbox-one-just-got-way-worse-and-its-our-fault-514411905

Although game prices coming down is purely conjecture, and has no evidence to back it up.


----------



## Janx (Jun 20, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I just recently acquired one of those all-in-one Atari 2600 consoles...
> 
> Oh yeah: Microsoft has been listening to the hubbub:  http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/19/tech/gaming-gadgets/xbox-drm/index.html?hpt=hp_t2




Well, that kind of kills the whole whining about the XbOne.

At this point, the primary negative point is that it costs $100 more. (Unless they're also worried about the NSA, but don't worry, just put a piece of electrical tape over the camera lens).

I wouldn't call it foresight, but I had a hunch there might be some backtracking from MS on this.  It's the smart thing to do, as the more expensive product, they need to avoid any other negative disparities with the PS4 or they will make the same mistake Sony did with the PS3 (having the hubris to assume folks would pay more just to own an allegedly better product).


----------



## Janx (Jun 20, 2013)

It's always about timing.  Remember, MS has JUST dropped the things you cited, so you can't use them anymore in your math



Kamikaze Midget said:


> My calculus is going a little like this at the moment:
> 
> First, I'd have to pay an extra $100 to have a system that plays the same games, [strike]only not when the internet is down, so it's a more limited system.[/strike]
> 
> ...




You can still reach the same conclusion, but remember, certain prior arguments are now null.

Though I think the SteamBox would open up a 3rd contendor.  Once you are actually playing a PC at your TV that behaves like a game console, that's a big deal.  And it solves the marrriage of PC gaming to console ease of use that just plugging in your gaming PC into the big TV in the house doesn't for most people.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 20, 2013)

Just found out about the reversal after I posted that comment...hahaha....but  now I'm comparing the Xbone to a gaming PC and not finding much of a reason to get the console, either...


----------



## Janx (Jun 20, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Just found out about the reversal after I posted that comment...hahaha....but  now I'm comparing the Xbone to a gaming PC and not finding much of a reason to get the console, either...




In some ways, I think we are all pre-disposed to what choice we will make, and then we rationalize it with statements.  Actually, science proves that.  So folks who have a long reason on why they want an XbOne will not be swayed, because it's not the reasons that make them choose thusly.

Also, I am giddy that the internet has adopted my nickname of "xbone" for the X-Box One.  I doubt I'm the only one who thought of it and started it, but I can assert that I independently came up with it and am seeing folks here and in other places use it.

In a small way, I have manipulated the internet. i win.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 21, 2013)

Janx said:


> In some ways, I think we are all pre-disposed to what choice we will make, and then we rationalize it with statements.  Actually, science proves that.



*groan* Didn't we already have that discussion? Our brain coming to a decision a couple of millisseconds before we become aware of it vs. the absence of free will?

Sorry about posting this, but, honestly, I had no choice!!!


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jun 22, 2013)

MS Reversal on XBone is encouraging but there are still a few more steps needed.  A price drop would be nice, too.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jun 22, 2013)

Makes me wonder if it wasn't all just some marketing/PR stunt (there is no such think as negative publicity), just to get name recognition started, and then to show that "they do care what the consumers want" by dropping the objectionable restrictions.


----------



## jonesy (Jun 22, 2013)

If anyone was against buying the thing before the reversal and are now going to get one because they went and changed some of it back I'm just going to call them unprincipled. You don't let a corporation bounce you around like that.

"Here's a new version of the product you liked; now with annoying, inhibiting and user-unfriendly features. Buy one!"
"Go away."
"Look. We took some of them away. Please, buy one now?"
"You're the best!"

Ugh.


----------



## Janx (Jun 23, 2013)

jonesy said:


> If anyone was against buying the thing before the reversal and are now going to get one because they went and changed some of it back I'm just going to call them unprincipled. You don't let a corporation bounce you around like that.
> 
> "Here's a new version of the product you liked; now with annoying, inhibiting and user-unfriendly features. Buy one!"
> "Go away."
> ...




I'm afraid, with logic like that, it leaves no room for a person/corporation to make a mistake and to work to correct it.  If you're just going to blame them for making a mistake and blame them again for trying to fix it, they can't win.

That's kind of bogus.


----------



## dd.stevenson (Jun 24, 2013)

It's interesting to me that MS chose to chop their DRM plan instead of their plans to bundle the Kinect with the xbone.

I mean, it seems like Joe Consumer isn't really going to change his mind based on a last-minute waffle on their EULA. OTOH, a hundred dollar price drop to match their competitor? That might make a real difference.

Obviously there are good business reasons why one is more flexible than the other--but I don't see MS regaining a ton of market share from this backtrack alone. (Especially since a lot of people are still expecting xbone to reinstate their DRM by other means.)


----------



## Deset Gled (Jun 24, 2013)

dd.stevenson said:


> It's interesting to me that MS chose to chop their DRM plan instead of their plans to bundle the Kinect with the xbone.




Dropping the network requirement can (probably) be handled purely with software.  It'll be a huge pain and a major rush for them to change at this stage in the game, but it's still feasible.

Conversely, the fact that the system requires a Kinect to operate means it's pretty heavily integrate in to the design.  Removing the Kinect would probably require a hardware change.  With a Q4 release, they should be pretty far into the manufacturing process at this point.  They are guaranteed to have all designs completed, have definitely started manufacturing sub-assemblies like circuit boards, and may have even started final production.  Changing any hardware at this point would put them at a major risk for pushing back the release date.

Also, keep in mind that the Kinect hardware should be relatively cheap when mass produced.  The biggest cost is the software integration, and Microsoft has already committed to that.


----------



## jonesy (Jun 24, 2013)

Janx said:


> I'm afraid, with logic like that, it leaves no room for a person/corporation to make a mistake and to work to correct it.  If you're just going to blame them for making a mistake and blame them again for trying to fix it, they can't win.
> 
> That's kind of bogus.



Except that they were on a fishing expedition, making claims to gauge peoples reactions and see what they could get away with. And they went a bit too far with it, and found they had to back down. That's not 'trying to fix it'. That's finding out that your attempt to screw your customer over would hurt them financially.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 24, 2013)

jonesy said:


> Except that they were on a fishing expedition, making claims to gauge peoples reactions and see what they could get away with. And they went a bit too far with it, and found they had to back down. That's not 'trying to fix it'. That's finding out that your attempt to screw your customer over would hurt them financially.



I suppose you'll blame them next for trying to make money?
Of course they're testing how much they can get away with. Seems like fairly typical corp behaviour to me.

And the only thing that ever manages to get a corp to change anything for the better is if their sales would drop otherwise. E.g. with Windows 8.1 they'll take back some of the 'innovations' that cause Windows 8 to be virtually unusable in a company environment. And why are they doing it? Because sales dropped to an all-time low.

We've already seen that a couple of times in the past, e.g. with Windows Me or Vista.

Shunning a company because they made a bad business call or made a mistake once will quickly lead you to have to shun _every_ company.


----------



## jonesy (Jun 24, 2013)

Jhaelen said:


> Shunning a company because they made a bad business call or made a mistake once will quickly lead you to have to shun _every_ company.



Once? With the new xbox they made a whole bundle of blunders, that everyone already knew were bad decisions, just hoping somehow to slip all of it under the radar.

And I'm not talking about 'shunning' anyone. I'm talking about one product. And they still haven't reversed all of the derpness. Now they just get to get away with some of it because they 'made it better'.


----------



## dd.stevenson (Jun 25, 2013)

Deset Gled said:


> Changing any hardware at this point would put them at a major risk for pushing back the release date.
> 
> Also, keep in mind that the Kinect hardware should be relatively cheap when mass produced.  The biggest cost is the software integration, and Microsoft has already committed to that.




Depending on what they have planned, they still should be able to offer the option of buying xb-ones unbundled, albeit maybe with a later delivery date. 

The fact that they haven't makes it look like they really are facing down a scenario similar to what you outlined.  That's why I find their decision interesting--it seems that Microsoft is pretty deeply committed to both their current price point and the inclusion of the kinect in all units.

If so, I think they've shot themselves in the foot, since I believe that only a price change will make a difference to their market share at this point.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jun 25, 2013)

jonesy said:


> And I'm not talking about 'shunning' anyone. I'm talking about one product.



Ah, alright, I missed that, sorry.
I'm not interested in the x-box by principle, since it's just a pc in a different dress. Except for the artificially created bonus of 'exclusive' game titles, it has nothing going for it - if there wasn't the Kinect.
Considering that, I certainly understand why Microstation wants the Kinect to become a standard part of the x-box.


----------

