Poll: Which Next Gen Console will you buy?

[Scrutinize]

Excellent post, squire.

Thing is, Microsoft haven't given themselves a sole future advantage. They have also done the worst sales pitch ever for what is a great concept. The rub comes where the Ps4 is more powerful, cheaper, hard drive upgradable and most importantly fully capable of moving to digital model when consumers are ready.

MS have bolted too early with no long term advantage and nothing Sony can't replicate. MS have assumed console customers want this. Those that already do will be gaming on the PC.

Console gamers want the current console model.

 

[Plainsong]

Console gamers want the current console model.

Not all of them.

 

[dannyjo22]

I get 3.5mb max and I don't have an issue with it. A 24h check-in wouldn't tax a 56k modem, let alone broadband.

Good luck with the digital age on 3.5 max. By he time you have used all your house bandwidth to download anything I will have walked 5 miles to a shop, finished the game and sold it on

Again im not interested in kinect it changes nothing to let me have a box without it as it would be turned off anyway as it would be useless in my office.

I'd rather pay the money to have a headset in the box than that. Far more benefit for a supposed always on connection where you are talking to your friends while watching tv. Yeah you can talk through kinect but I don't want to share my conversations with the whole house.

 

[Scrutinize]

Not all of them.

Based on the fallout so far and internet wide polls, I would say the majority do.

 

[McBain]

"The next generation doesn't start until we say it does" - Sony
"For consumers to think to themselves 'I will work more hours to buy one'. We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else." - Sony

This was leading up to the PS3, and look how that turned out, so it's ridiculous to write a console off so early (it's not even out for another 5 months!)

Regardless, the information we have to go off at this early stage is hardly encouraging, as the poll results would suggest.

 

[biron_w]

I can understand why people are upset, but it's ultimately a sound strategy which puts the power back in the hands of the publishers and not in the retailers, and ultimately that's a positive for the games industry!

How is that a good thing? It might be good for publishers but it isn't good for consumers. Publishers have shown time and time again that they are greedy. Giving them power to control the price of new,used and digital games is a very silly idea.

If they were to show that they would reduce the prices then I'd be all for it. But you only have to look at digital games on consoles to say this probably won't happen.
On Xbox Live you have Arcade games and DLC for games that are years old and they're still priced at exactly the same price they were when they were released!

Lets not forget that retailers get very little money from the sale of new games/consoles as well.

 

[Plainsong]

Lets not forget that retailers get very little money from the sale of new games/consoles as well.

But they do make ****loads from pre-owned and that is at the heart of all this.

XBL have had some good sales this year, I think?

 

[Mr Men]

How is that a good thing? It might be good for publishers but it isn't good for consumers. Publishers have shown time and time again that they are greedy. Giving them power to control the price of new,used and digital games is a very silly idea.

Cause Game etc are really not greedy at all....

 

[biron_w]

But they do make ****loads from pre-owned and that is at the heart of all this.

I'm aware of that. The problem is that retailers don't make much from new,publishers don't make anything from used,they both want more money and it's us consumers that are caught in the middle and us that will have to pay. We are the ones that will lose out.

Cause Game etc are really not greedy at all....

I'm not saying they aren't greedy. But they need to make their money from somewhere. If publishers won't give retailers a bigger cut from new games then they need money from used to stay in business.

 

[Mr Men]

I'm not saying they aren't greedy. But they need to make their money from somewhere. If publishers won't give retailers a bigger cut from new games then they need money from used to stay in business.

Is keeping Game afloat really all that important to you? I would rather gamers money went back into the industry.

 

[biron_w]

Is keeping Game afloat really all that important to you? I would rather gamers money went back into the industry.

Game? No. But actual retail shops are important to me. I like to buy a game on disc because I like to trade in games to lessen the price of a new game. I rarely buy used games.
And publishers make billions of £ a year. They're hardly poor.

 

[NokkonWud]

Good luck with the digital age on 3.5 max. By he time you have used all your house bandwidth to download anything I will have walked 5 miles to a shop, finished the game and sold it on

Why, I can walk to the shops and sell a game on on Xbox One too and installing from a disc ensures that the 3.5mb bandwidth is more than enough (Xbox One made to run comfortably on half that.)
I have no cap on my broadband and can easily switch it over to my phone if need be.

 

[NokkonWud]

How is that a good thing? It might be good for publishers but it isn't good for consumers. Publishers have shown time and time again that they are greedy. Giving them power to control the price of new,used and digital games is a very silly idea.

Because ultimately it's the publishers that fund development costs for games. With more money comes more security and more of a likeliness to take risks with game concepts for development studios. Retailers taking the money may offer us lower prices (not the case at all in NA btw) and offers absolutely nothing for the future of the gaming industry.

Game? No. But actual retail shops are important to me. I like to buy a game on disc because I like to trade in games to lessen the price of a new game. I rarely buy used games.
And publishers make billions of £ a year. They're hardly poor.

Some do, the very minority, and whilst they make 'x' amount of money it doesn't cover outgoing costs. When you take into consideration that even the lowest rung of games run into Millions of dollars, then yes, I'd say the publishers who front the risks deserve money more than brick and mortar retailers. They're not being cut out entirely either, some will be able to resell second hand, they sell new and online stores also sell new, so you'll be able to get your games on disc regardless.

 

[Macro]

Interesting post on Reddit of all places which I think gave a reasonable summary of some of the XBOX One issues being discussed. It doesn't tackle everything and granted it's written by someone who is "pro Xbox" and I'm sure people can pick holes in it but overall I think it's a pretty good level headed summary. YMMV of course.

If nothing else I tend to think it shows what a bad job MS have done of communicating this stuff if a customer can manage to put this together. Apologies in advance if it's already been posted elsewhere.

____________________
To start off, the Xbox One will allow you to buy games at launch through digital download or through discs by going to a retail store.

USED GAMES
One of the X1's main feature is the ability to install the disc directly to the hard drive and play it without a disk. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a feature many asked for when the feature was added to 360, but it was only to allow the game to run better.

Contrary to popular believe, the used game does exist in the X1.

"Trade-in and resell your disc-based games: Today, some gamers choose to sell their old disc-based games back for cash and credit. We designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers. Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games."

What can we take away from this? Easy. If you bought a disc based game, you can sell and trade it to any participating retailer. It means that game publishers will work out deals with retailers in order for the developers and publishers to take a cut of used games sales. Microsoft will not receive any money from these transactions. If you bought a digital copy, just like any digital copy, you will not be able to do this.

FIRST PARTY GAMES
"In our role as a game publisher, Microsoft Studios will enable you to give your games to friends or trade in your Xbox One games at participating retailers. Third party publishers may opt in or out of supporting game resale and may set up business terms or transfer fees with retailers. Microsoft does not receive any compensation as part of this. In addition, third party publishers can enable you to give games to friends. Loaning or renting games won’t be available at launch, but we are exploring the possibilities with our partners."

All first party games will be allowed to be resold and be given away (more of this below).

RENTING GAMES
"Loaning or renting games won’t be available at launch, but we are exploring the possibilities with our partners."
Microsoft and companies such as Gamefly are working on a system to make this work.

DRM--WHY?
As we saw above, you will be able install your games to your hard-drive and have your entire library available to play without putting the disc in the disc tray.

This is why the 24-hour check is required. Without this, many copies of the same game could be installed into multiple X1's and it would be absolutely crumble game sales.

The drawback to this is not being able to game offline. Microsoft has said that the final decisions to this issue have not been final. I believe if they allow you to play offline with the disc in the disc tray, this would become a non-issue.

PRIVACY
This is one of the biggest things people have been complaining about. Microsoft has already addressed the issue, but of course it fell on deaf ears. People already had their pitch forks out and had Sony on a pedestal by this point.

"You are in control of when Kinect sensing is On, Off or Paused: If you don’t want the Kinect sensor on while playing games or enjoying your entertainment, you can pause Kinect. To turn off your Xbox One, just say “Xbox Off.” When the system is off, it’s only listening for the single voice command -- “Xbox On,” and you can even turn that feature off too. Some apps and games may require Kinect functionality to operate, so you’ll need to turn it back on for these experiences."

As I've stated before, you will have the control to everything that the Kinect has to offer. If you don't want it to hear you? You can do that. If you don't want it to see you, you can do that. Don't want it to listen for the "Xbox On" while it's off, you can also do that.

If you want to learn more about the Kinect's privacy settings, you can click this link: Kinect Privacy

XBOX ONE- A GAME OF CIRCLES
Now onto the other things. As some of us know, you will be able to have a "circle" of friends, 10 people to be exact, that will be able to access your game library from anywhere (in the same region, I'm assuming..still not clear about this) at anytime (as long as you or someone else in your circle isn't playing it). This is of course how things work now, two of your friends can't play the game at the same time from one disc on two separate consoles.

This is a feature that is absolutely wonderful, but the people raging about it had not heard about it before.

"Give your family access to your entire games library anytime, anywhere: Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend’s house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time."

I absolutely love this feature. For example, my cousin is 200 miles away when he's away to college and I've let him borrow LA Noire and Dead Rising. I've yet to receive those games from him. With this feature, we don't have to be close in order for him to borrow any of my games! It's crazy as to how so many people dismissed this feature because it's a big jump forward in digital technology. No longer will my friends or family have to be close to me in order for them borrow one of my games.

Important Update: New information has risen relating to this feature. You +1 friend from your circle can play the same game at the same time. Others can still play from your other library selection.
SOURCE

Another Important Update: DLC will be shareable through your circle. Your friend will be able to play all of the DLC that you buy. They will not need to purchase their own DLC for the game they're playing from your Xbox One.
SOURCE

GIVING AWAY GAMES
Do you have a game that you will no longer play? Your friend can still play it off of your Xbox (if they're in your circle). What if they're not? As long as they have been in your friend's list for 30 days, you can give a game away to your friend, free of charge! This can only be done once per copy.
Disclaimer: Microsoft has left it up to the publishers to decide whether or not you will be able to give your games to your friend. As stated above, first party games will allow you to this.

AFTER-THOUGHT: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The big change in the Xbox Live system is the feature to allow all users on one console to have gold by just one user having it. For example, if I have Xbox Live Gold and my brothers also use the same console, they will also be able to use all the perks of a Gold account. They will have access to all the games on the console even if it was installed through my account.

In short, one Gold account subscription per Xbox.

AFTER-THOUGHT OF AN AFTER-THOUGHT, A KINECT STORY
Disclaimer, the following is information that I believe. I have no source for some, just my opinion.

The main question I'm seeing is why the Kinect is being forced upon us.

This is what I believe is the case in relation to this matter.
The past version of the Kinect was not the big leap in innovating that Microsoft wanted. It is a powerful machine, but many developers were not making games for it. The games that were being made specifically for the Kinect we really not that great. They didn't appeal to many gamers as they were soft and childish. This wasn't what Microsoft was looking for from developers.

Why weren't developers making games for the Kinect? Was it because they couldn't?

A CHANGE OF MARKETS
If a developer made a game for the Kinect, their market instantly became much smaller. Why? Not everyone has a Kinect. As of February 2013, the Kinect has sold an estimated 24 million units. This does not mean that these units have been sold to individual customers, but to retailers. Which means that there are Kinects in the shelves or warehouses that will never reach the individual customer. In comparison, the 360 has sold an estimated 77.2 million units, again not all sold to invidual customers, but it's safe to assume that there a lot more 360's in the hand of an individual customer than there is Kinects. In an instant, your market shrinks to about 31% of the possible market. Keep in mind, this number will change depending on how many units of each product have been sold to each consumer.

With that information given to you, what I believe is happening is simple. Microsoft is shipping a Kinect with every console because like this, if you own an Xbox One--you will aso own a Kinect. With this, I'm thinking Microsoft is ensuring the developers that the market is out there! In this move, Microsoft want the developers to explore the possibilities of the Kinect. They want newer innovations as they believe they've made a product with enormous potential. Why do you believe they were shoving the Kinect down everyone's throat last E3? They wanted to expand their market.

Just think of everything that can be developed for the Kinect. For example, Dead Rising 3 will have a feature where it will listen outside of the game through the Kinect. If you make a loud sound while playing, the zombies will hear you and they will come after you. This is the kind of thing Microsoft is looking for with the Kinect, innovation.

As to why it can't be disconnected, that I'm not sure. Maybe it's for the same thing? I can't expand further on this.

 

[m4rk84]

Because ultimately it's the publishers that fund development costs for games. With more money comes more security and more of a likeliness to take risks with game concepts for development studios. Retailers taking the money may offer us lower prices (not the case at all in NA btw) and offers absolutely nothing for the future of the gaming industry.


Some do, the very minority, and whilst they make 'x' amount of money it doesn't cover outgoing costs. When you take into consideration that even the lowest rung of games run into Millions of dollars, then yes, I'd say the publishers who front the risks deserve money more than brick and mortar retailers. They're not being cut out entirely either, some will be able to resell second hand, they sell new and online stores also sell new, so you'll be able to get your games on disc regardless.

Really can't see your argument? Your trying to say that giving a select few retailers a monopoly on used games is a good thing for the consumer?

These retailers will not need to compete with ebay or any other 3rd party reseller, game prices of used games will undoubtedly be close to retail price, and trade in prices will be ridiculously low. For all intents and purposes the trade in feature on Xbox may as well not exist.

Also Microsoft don't give a damn about creativity and or risks, they care about money. Just look at the god awful indie policy. The new Oddworld game won't be coming to Xbox, why? Because to put the game on the console they need a Micorosoft authorised publisher to split the profits with despite the fact they have made the game completely with their own money.

Even if they did manage to get it on the console how much does it cost to patch a game on the Xbox? That's right it costs developers lots of cash to deploy patches on the console, to make the games better. This is why DayZ will be coming to PS4 and not Xbox One. Because to patch a game on the Xbox costs tens of thousands of dollars, however PS4 fully supports self publishing and patching for free.

I can definitely see how Microsoft are consumer focused but just misunderstood!

Why Oddworld will not be coming to Xbox One

DayZ not on Xbox One

 

[413x]

This.

The used games marketplace will basically be redundant.

 

[Davey_Pitch]

Interesting post on Reddit of all places which I think gave a reasonable summary of some of the XBOX One issues being discussed. It doesn't tackle everything and granted it's written by someone who is "pro Xbox" and I'm sure people can pick holes in it but overall I think it's a pretty good level headed summary. YMMV of course.

If nothing else I tend to think it shows what a bad job MS have done of communicating this stuff if a customer can manage to put this together. Apologies in advance if it's already been posted elsewhere.

Snip

A great post which I fully agree with. A damn shame MS couldn't present the information themselves this clearly.

 

[m4rk84]

A great post which I fully agree with. A damn shame MS couldn't present the information themselves this clearly.

On the contrary the majority of the information was already known and clear to me at least. The problem is the subtle disclaimers.

The fact is why put in an OS level toggle to disable the ability to trade in games at all?

It's clearly there for a reason, and plenty of 3rd party publishers will clearly make full use of it. The only reason the toggle exists at all is to provide plausible deniability for marketing reasons. If they could have gotten away with it game trading would be fully disabled.

 

[Macro]

It's clearly there for a reason

Agreed

plenty of 3rd party publishers will clearly make full use of it.

I've not seen a statement from even one publisher saying they will use it - "plenty" is pure guesswork and as valid as saying "none" at the moment. Having said that it's reasonable to think it could be used, how widely remains to be seen. It seems more likely the controls are there to allow you to have roaming digital copies of the game. The trading in arrangement ensures the previous digital (fully installed) copy is deactivated when you sell it rather than you install it and then sell the game and carry on playing. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I didn't notice anything say "OS switch to disable trading", only it has to be done through retail partners. I may have missed it though.

The only reason the toggle exists at all is to provide plausible deniability for marketing reasons.

In your opinion...

If they could have gotten away with it game trading would be fully disabled

That doesn't seem likely does it, It seems more likely that publishers would encourage trading if there was a mechanism for them to get a slice of the profits rather than just the retailers.

MS have also said you can give a game away to a friend when you are finished with it, I can't see a reason why in that case you couldn't also ebay or charge a mate £10 but I'm just guessing.

Keep in mind Microsoft do not take a fee or slice for game trading

 

[Yaayuh!]

I put "XBox One Only" for some reason. I will actually be getting both, i think.

XBox 1 for Media (with Surface and Windows 8 PC, this should all be very nicely linked)
PS4 for console games.
PC for majority of games.

Then i also won't be kicking myself when there are decent console specific games released.