Gaming One Step Closer (and I'm about to RROD): The Xbox One Discussion

So you dislike the Kinect based on the sole idea that some jerk in your house would mess with the voice commands? Sounds like you have bigger problems (ie. inviting jerks into your house).

 

Even if you have Kinect connected and you use it you can always turn off the voice commands. It'd mean having to press a button to turn it on and off (the horror!) but no idiot could mess with it. And what's to stop said idiot from pressing the power button anyway?

 

I honestly don't understand the whole Kinect hubbub. "You mean I never have to scramble for the TV remote and can control my TV from the kitchen or while performing chores around the house?! Oh the HORRIBLE HORRORS!!!11!!"

The X1 was designed to be a multimedia hub, not just a suped up 360 as the PS4 is a suped up PS3. For it's intended purpose, it succeeds imo. I've also had friends over who were on the fence about which next gen console to buy, and they were all pretty impressed with the multimedia strengths and revolutionary convenience of the X1. One of them went out at bought himself an X1 a couple days ago.

Is it the better gaming machine? I don't know. But for what I use it for, it's pretty superb.

 

Or perhaps people also have a problem with artificially inflating the price of the console by including the thing in every single box. Let's keep in mind that the Xbox One is significantly more expensive than its rivals at the moment, despite being the less powerful machine when compared to its direct competitor. And in response to this...

It may not be required, but it's still mandatory in the sense that you have no choice but to purchase the bloody thing. If you feel that pushing a button is too much hassle and voice controls take it away, then fine a £100 bit of hardware may suit you just fine (Though most people with that itch will have probably purchased a smart TV with the same technology by now, so it's kind of a worthless gimmick). There are those of us, though, who are fine with buttons and do not want to pay extra money for something that adds nothing to the gameplay experience and would get no use out of when navigating menu systems. For us it just makes the overall package bad value for money. The Kinect should be an optional gadget, especially now that it's not necessary for the main box to work. There's no excuse to force the consumer to buy that thing.

Do not get me wrong, I think the Xbox One is an infinitely less painful prospect than it was when first revealed. It's not riddled with garbage DRM anymore, which means that it's a console no longer tainted by original sin. And, yes, at launch it has had more exclusives than the PS4. But it's still got its share of issues, especially in how it is marketed.

 

Which you got as a gift, so you have no case of buyer's regret.

 

Ok so I played it at my buddies. We played COD Ghosts. I like the controller. Same as before except with a few tweaks like the nubs on the analog. Like that.

The game looked the same as the 360 though, even had frame rate issues...like wut...if it can't handle this?!

 

The fact that Microsoft tried their hardest to get that horrendous DRM onto the Xbox One in the first place, even if they backpedaled, has left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I don't really want to support a company that thinks that's what everybody wants.

You can't judge the PS4 or the One based on Call of Duty: Ghosts. Treyarch made a terrible looking game (textures especially), no matter if you buy it on current gen, next gen or PC.

 

All "next-gen" games are going to look rough at this juncture, the hardware is too young for anyone to do anything revolutionary with it. Just like when the 360 and PS3 launched, the games library is going to amount to a few original games and a bunch of stuff developed for multiple consoles. This is nothing new and nothing really worth getting hot and bothered over.

The Kinect being a mandatory buy-in is frustrating, but come on, folks, using it to turn off the system takes a confirmation beyond the original command.

As far as a media hub goes - the Xbox One has been built to work alongside technology that's changing rapidly. As a TV hub, they've put in architecture to ensure it can change channels for you, except more and more people are going to Netflix, Hulu Plus, and Amazon Prime streaming because cable companies are the worst. The Xbox One has an entire feature (and a big feature, given the advertising and focus they've placed on it) designed around a medium that's becoming obsolete. Given that Microsoft seem to want the thing to last about ten years, and the fact that TV is going to change drastically in the next eight or so, they've shackled themselves to something that isn't really high on the list of priorities.

Granted, there's plenty that can be done there, and you can still use Netflix, etc, on the Xbox One. Still, without the games, there's not a huge amount you can do on the Xbox One that isn't already feasible on other platforms.

The PS4. on the other hand, seems to be riding the train of "We're not the Xbox One!" And that's all well and good, except, like the Xbox One, they're experiencing hardware failure with no immediate solution (not to mention that the box itself seems to eat HDMI cables alive), they've limited capture capabilities (because of the "share" button, certainly), and they're not really knocking it out of the park either.

Still, early days. With Valve and the Steam Machines on the horizon, though...I dunno. For $600 I can get an entry-level Steam Machine (or just upgrade my existing desktop) and get a much more powerful machine that's going to play far more games, and still work as a media hub, office tool, etc etc.

Just make fun games, that's all I can ask of any developer or publisher at this point. It won't matter which system is better if all the games suck.

 

Its true, but even Titanfall doesn't look that great either. Ill stick with my 360 for the foreseeable future unless a must have game comes out. And even then Destiny and other games are also coming out for the 360.

I used to be a big gamer, online a lot with COD but now I just play story games, I don't like the online culture anymore. I had my fill of Gears of War and all that. And there's still plenty games I haven't played yet like The Last of Us on ps3. I still haven't decided if I want to get a PS4 or Xbox One yet but it's very early days.

 

That's a fair point

In all honesty, if I hadn't received it as a gift I wouldn't be investing in a next gen console right now. As already discussed in this thread, the 360 and PS3 are essentially on par with current video game titles on the new consoles, and the new consoles haven't yet assembled a large enough video game library to make such a purchase worthwhile to the cost-minded buyer. And of course, there are the bugs that MS and Sony both have to polish up (such as, in my case, the X1's Instant On feature causing the TV app to crash).

Based on the articles I've read, I don't think that Netflix and Hulu are quite as serious a threat to cable providers as you're suggesting they are. Yes, people think about switching over to Internet streaming services and replacing their cable provider, but IIRC, not too many people (in regards to a percentage of the entire cable TV consumer base) are in fact making the switch.

Here's one such article.

From what I've read on the subject, people making this jump from cable to Netflix/Hulu tend to be young adults, and their departure from cable service hasn't hindered the cable market too much. When Netflix/Hulu/etc can provide live TV feeds (as Xbox Live provided over the 360 during the last Spike TV VGAs), then the cable TV marketplace will have something to worry about, imo. But I think there's still a ways to go until then, and the X1's TV integration may yet be relevant for years to come.

That said, my main criticism of the Xbox One is that it is intended to be used as a multimedia hub, yet Microsoft still insists on requiring a paid Xbox Live Gold membership to stream content! In this day and age, this requirement is beyond ludicrous. My SmartTV, blu-ray player, PC, smartphone, and even my goddamn Wii can stream Netflix for free so long as I have a Netflix account. So why must I fork over $5 a month to Microsoft just so that I can access an account I already have with Netflix?

Even worse, you also need Xbox Live Gold for simple streaming of YouTube content.

IMO, this requirement more so than always-on Kinect would and perhaps should be a solid deal breaker. There is no rhyme or reason to this other than the fact that MS wants to fill their pockets just a little bit more. If my wife hadn't also given me a couple years' worth of prepaid Xbox Live Gold cards (which she'd bought on sale for a nice discounted price of only $40/year--as opposed to the standard $60/year), I definitely wouldn't have moved my Blu-ray player out of the living room.

Come to think of it, with all the fuss about Kinect and DRM, the subject of Xbox Live Gold has kind of fallen beneath everyone's radar, and it's a subject that, imo, certainly deserves more criticism/scrutiny.

 

The point isn't that it'll kill cable and satellite providers, it'll hurt them. We're seeing the effects now - people are beginning to question, more and more, why they hell they pay X number of dollars for all this when all they want is that. The point is TV is changing massively, and it will continue to do so, so making something bound to TV is a bit of an odd thing to do right now.

 

Perhaps by the end of the X1's cycle that may indeed become a concern. But I really just don't see it being a problem in the near future. And your theory runs on the assumption that cable/satellite providers will maintain their current business model and refuse to change in a changing market. If the market forces them to change to stay afloat, I'm willing to bet that they're going to change and evolve as the market evolves. We may even see these same providers offering more personalized packages as opposed to their "one size fits all" model that currently annoys everyone.

 

Except we've heard noises to that effect for years - don't get me wrong, change is likely, but I don't think it'll be any time soon. Ten years for this console generation, and in those ten years a lot can and will change. It certainly won't be sudden, and perhaps my thoughts are a bit extreme. We will see change, though, and lots of it. Certainly not enough for current TV broadcast models to become obsolete, but enough that the writing will be on the wall. It's a bit like how the 360 went with HDDVD and the PS3 went with Blu-Ray - time will tell.

 

Maybe Nintendo will even reinvent the Virtual Boy, partner with the failing cable companies, and provide live TV feeds into everyone's heads, thereby scraping themselves up and away from the failure that is the Wii U.

 

Implying the Virtual Boy is a lesser failure than the Wii U is either hilarious or depressing

 

Am I the only one waiting for news about Halo before I even think about an Xbox One? Of course, I am planning on getting a PS3 at some point before I even think about the next generation in general.

 

News about Halo: it'll be out in 2014.

 

That's not what I had in mind...

 

I lost all interest in Halo after Halo 3, which was kind of a disappointment imo. Didn't even bother with Halo 4. My wife had bought me Halo Reach and I never got around to playing past the first stage lol.

Halo 2 was the best Halo game I played. I absolutely loved the two story lines with the Arbiter and the Chief. And I absolutely loathed how they abandoned that storytelling style in the third game and reverted back to a Chief-only narrative.

Halo Wars was also a pleasant surprise and it actually proved that a RTS could indeed be done and be done well on a console. Playing that with friends over Xbox Live against other people was sheer joy back in the day.

 

Halo 2 is the only main Halo title I haven't gotten to play. Halo 3, Halo 3: ODST, and Halo 4 are my top three Halo games, though feel a little left behind by the lack of replayability in Halo 4 without Live. Halo: Reach is one of my least favorite Halo games, because the gameplay felt a little off with the underpowered MA37 ICWS and having to rely on the M392 DMR. I like Halo Wars, though it didn't quite grab me as much as the shooters, which is surprising considering I am more of an RTS fan than I am a shooter fan.

 

Wonder how long until they release a Halo 2 Anniversary edition. Has it been announced yet? Fable remaster was announced already, I think, and rereleasing classics redone with modern/improved graphics is always popular. Could be used to keep selling 360s or as incentive for the XB1.

I liked Halo Wars a lot, though I'm only a minor RTS fan so I like simple. Too bad Ensemble Studios has shut down already so we'll never see another Halo RTS (or at least one matching Halo Wars' quality).

I think XBox Gold is so entrenched in people's minds as part of multiplayer on Xbox that most people don't notice it much anymore. Requiring Gold just to watch Netflix or even Youtube on an Xbox is really greedy, but its probably multiplayer that makes it required for most people... but since I don't play with anyone (since I would lose all the time), I still don't care. Its sad Microsoft can get away with it, but its nothing new, not after all the years the 360 has dominated. In a way, the DRM and required Kinect also worked to distract people from the "minor" Gold requirement. That and I'm already committed to PS+ (way too many high-profile games on my backlog there already).

Still haven't seen anything on XB1 that looks quite must-buy, I don't really care about shooters and anyway, the exclusives I do care about are usually on Playstation or 3DS. Halo will probably provide a boost, but not quite sure how the series is doing after Halo 4. Though Halo 4 especially emphasized multiplayer with those story episodes or something like that. I know Halo multiplayer was always a big deal, but Halo 4's served as a bridge to the eventual Halo 5 too (I think?).

Think XB1 will ever bother with any sort of backwards compatibility in the next few years? Sony's announced Playstation Now, but the preferred solution for both companies would probably be for people to buy the last-gen consoles rather than provide too much backwards compatibility.

 

Let me put it this way, Halo 4 seems to have done to Halo what Vector Prime and the NJO did to Star Wars, divided the fanbase.

 

Maybe, but I think Reach did a good enough job with dividing the fanbase prior to the subpar Halo 4.

Given that, and considering how diminished Halo's popularity is at this point, if MS is counting on Halo 5 to be a Xbone seller, I think they are in a bit of a tight spot. They need a super killer, ultra exclusive app, and I'm afraid Halo is no longer it.

 

Halo 4 was and is totally fun and great, it's just not really noteworthy at the same time.

I could launch into a whole diatribe about how I hate the notion that "Microsoft gets away with it" because of course they do, we let them get away with it all the time. But no, no, biting my tongue.

Sony's system would have been quite different had they revealed first, I suspect, but their PR and marketing departments at least have the knowledge to get everyone on the same page and refraining from comment. The real problem with Microsoft's reveal was that it was a bunch of engineers and tech people who didn't know when to shut up that did all the talking. It's actually pretty hilarious/cringe-inducing to see Microsoft so steadily shoot themselves in the foot.

 

The story was easily the best though in Halo 4, even if the gameplay was more repetitive then 3 and Reach. The focus on the Chief and Cortana's relationship was a smart move, and the Didact was a pretty good villain (even though I was very surprised he isn't the whole trilogy's threat).

Spartan Ops had the same problems; great story, repetitive gameplay. Some of the maps were reused too many times. I only dipped into the MP, but I hear that's where most of the problems are. I'm fortunate that that's not why I play Halo, I guess.