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

Xbox 2001-2013

 

Good chance I'm getting this, actually.

 

Isn't the sensor integrated now? Regardless, it'd also be idiotic if you needed the bloody thing for anything other than to play games or otherwise use any app that'd require it.

 

It's not integrated but rather included - the fancy trailers they had still have the Kinect sensor as a separate piece that just happens to ship with the main unit. I think it's safe to say Darth-Lando's complaint isn't about having to pay for Kinect but instead having Kinect be a thing at all, let alone so heavily integrated into the system.

 

It may be a separate unit but it's confirmed it's required for Xbox One to operate. If it's not plugged in your Xbox doesn't work.

 

Indeed

 

On top of this I can't help but wonder what this is going to do to the launch price. Last I checked the current gen kinect was over £100. Consoles tend to be launched at a loss for the manufacturer. But is Microsoft going to absorb the cost of kinect in each bundle? Or is it going to add to the price at launch? We all saw what the additional cost did to the PS3 during its initial launch.

 

I would love to know where they are saying Kinect is going to be required for the Xbox One to run, because I haven't seen anything that has specifically said that yet.

 

The link I posted was to Kotaku, which sourced its story from IGN.

Link: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/05/21/xbox-one-will-not-function-without-kinect-attached

 

I'm actually fairly excited about this, even if it seems more like a multimedia device than anything else.

To the naysayers, what about PS4 seems more appealing to you?

 

Who said I find the PS4 much more appealing?

 

I am not even that interested in the next gen consoles in the first place, I didn't even get into the last generation until a few years ago, by ending up with a friend's Xbox 360, and I still want a PS3 before I even worry about getting next gen console anyway.

 

Well i can't say i was impressed at all

The specs where worse than the PS4, it will require Kinect to function. Not many games shown, other than EA and COD tech demo and such. They kept talking about movies, entertainment.. where is the games! But the thing that really pissed me of, is having to install my game on the harddrive, and having to pay, if i want to play it on another console. Really? i don't even own the game i purchased anymore!?

After all this, im fairly sure i will go for the PS4 :/

 

Games are at E3.

 

Exactly. First of all, it's a silly gimmick that is totally unnecessary. Secondly, I'm not thrilled with the idea of a camera and always-on microphone pointed at my couch all day every day.

 

I'm not crazy about the PS4 either. But now I can't help thinking about the original Xbox. You know, that robust gaming console that was, well, a gaming console?

But now what we have is a multimedia hub where gaming is now an afterthought and microtransactions come first; a device that can't play the massive 360 library, is barely comparable to it's immediate competitor and now requires a useless motion detector POS in order to turn it on? Kinda hard to get excited about that, TBH.

 

I think, considering this is the day it was announced and new information is still coming out, a lot has been glossed over and more details are to follow - I totally get that "always-on" frustration, though.

 

Multimedia sells, though, and it'll sell better than a strict gaming platform. Microsoft's smart to try and market to that audience, but a lot of things still seem up in the air about the whole system. I remain optimistic, if a little frustrated, by other developments.

 

Does it sell? Really? The Wii had very few multimedia options and kicked Microsoft and Sony's ass this gen. It didn't even have up to spec graphics at launch. So how did it succeed in the console market? By having a unique function that was fun and welcoming to newcomers to the medium. The kinect could serve that function, though I'm not holding my breath on that personally. I think mandatory kinect could be incredibly annoying. Especially if the issues from the current kinect aren't fixed. That's all we would need, a system revolving around a broken gimmick.

If people want an entertainment hub they'd just turn to a PC or a digital TV box. The latter would be cheaper than an Xbox One too.

 

Ugh, we MUST have Kinect for the new Xbox to work? I hope Sony doesn't announce Playstation Move or Eye is required for PS4 to work. IGN has announced it, from a UK event, and based on how prominent the Kinect was shown in the official reveal, looks like they're still really pushing Kinect (heck, at first I thought the Kinect camera was on the back of the Xbox since they both look alike, black box thingys). Not to mention the host going on and on about using voice commands to control the Xbox One, and voice commands require the Kinect.

Even more I'm worried about the price. Launch prices are usually pretty high, but Kinect was always an expensive add-on too, another reason I never got one. And hopefully they don't use it as an excuse for another piece of licensed trash like Star Wars Kinect was. So will Microsoft just take the loss of adding Kinect in, or will the price just be really high since sounds like you can't buy a "basic" model without Kinect. Well, maybe they'll clarify it by E3, but it doesn't sound good. And at least some of us don't even have rooms big enough for Kinect to work properly so unless they've seriously improved the sensors its just going to be another useless add-on.

I was already leaning more towards a PS4 rather than Xbox anyway (assuming I even get a next-gen console this year anyway, unless Destiny or Watch Dogs or Diablo 3 looks really really better on next-gen), since I was an Infamous fan so Second Son looks good (and PS3 still has at least a few really big games in the next few months). Don't really care about Forza, and we'll see what other games they announce. A Halo TV series with Spielberg could be big, but it'll probably be on Hulu soon enough too so don't care. I would have thought Halo 5 would have made for a big reason to own a Xbox One, especially with them changing over to Blu-rays, but guess its still too early. I only bought a 360 originally mainly for ME2 (and 1) and that's not an exclusive anymore.

Too bad backwards compatibility doesn't seem to be a big priority anymore. Yes, I know back in the days of the SNES we never had backwards compatibility, but gamers have gotten used to it since the PS2 era. Not to mention a huge last-gen library is an added reason for some. Oh well, guess that's what PCs are for (only in the last few years have I gotten into PC gaming). Hearing XBLA games won't even work anymore is annoying, guess building an emulator on the new architecture is more trouble than its worth (I think Sony had the same problem).

More than anything else the show really emphasized the entertainment bits. A few vague game announcements (Call of Duty, Forza) but nothing really new or exciting. They're probably saving quite a few announcements for E3, but still.

 

They kept saying that games will be featured more prominently at E3. This reveal was mostly about the console's unique features, I believe.

I don't get the gripes about Xbox One's obsession with being a multimedia hub. The 360 was the first gaming device (IIRC) to feature things like Netflix, Hulu, iHeart Radio, etc. The 360 was clearly attempting at serving as a multimedia device, and I know people who indeed use it as their sole source of entertainment (subscribing to Netflix/Hulu for television/movie purposes, etc). Of course, nowadays almost any blu-ray player can be used in this fashion.

This is obviously a very nifty attempt by MS to make their device standout from the blu-ray players that can stream shows/movies. Their new device can let you control your viewing preferences with a word, seamlessly letting you mesh through live-TV feeds, movies, Internet browsing, etc.

On those grounds alone, I'm fairly impressed. Certainly more impressed by this than I was by the Wii U (which I think has turned out to be rather disappointing to the gaming industry and perhaps Nintendo all together).

As far as gaming goes, I suppose I don't expect too much of an improvement over the current gen consoles. Even the cinematic trailers they showed at the reveal didn't look any more impressive than high profile 360 trailers.

 

Wii sold amazingly well, despite literally everyone hating on it and complaining it wasn't a true gaming system. I'm not saying multimedia > games, but rather that a multimedia centre is a better investment from a marketing and production standpoint. If gamers don't take to it, there's still a wealth of other features that could move SKUs.

Mandatory Kinect is misleading as a buzzword, I think - it's there, it's included, and yes, a lot of features use it, but the implication of that term is that all games somehow require it. I think Kinect is a clever idea that's been implemented poorly - if it was branded more in line with the philosophy of "all in One," as a way to connect to your media and entertainment in some obscurely BS-marketing way that made it seem "meaningful," it'd be a bigger selling point.

I like a lot about this console, but there's plenty I want to learn more about and plenty I'm still wary of.

 

I believe over the years I've come upon several articles (some on cnet) that suggested that the 360 was the most commonplace current-gen gaming device and that most gaming households had one.

I don't think the Wii "kicked MS and Sony's ass." The Wii seemed to be a low-cost low-price device and sure, while that meant that Nintendo could quickly turn a profit on it, the device itself hasn't endured very well imo. Kinect is being accused of being gimmicky in this thread--but the Wii was even more so (with even more problems). The Wii's motion controls were significantly inferior to Kinect, and that device required its (sloppy) motion technology to use every feature (with the exception of Gamecube games).

edit:

Ok, according to Wikipedia, the Wii outsold the 360 (which in turn out sold the PS3).


Edit 2:

And of course, there are other articles that suggest/claim that the 360 will be prove itself as the dominant console of the current gen.

 

Well the Wii has sold around 99 million units while the 360 and PS3 are fairly even at around 77 million each. The Wii won the money game because it was a lesser investment, plain and simple - but for something that costs more, like the 360 or PS3, people expect more features.

3DS, however, prints money. Or just the DS in general.

 

The Wii was not a low cost system. At one point it was more expensive than the 360 here. Also the Wii wasn't intrinsically broken. I request you watch Angry Joe's review of Steel Battalion on youtube. The kinect has a mind of its own in it. This combined with the infamous input lag makes the Kinect a broken gimmick in my opinion.

Also here is the lifetime sales data for the three systems from Febuary last year (if you can find more up to date figures feel free to post them.)

Wii: 95 million
Xbox 360: 66 million
PlayStation 3: 62 million

That's just under 30 million units ahead of the 360.