There's a world outside the US. E.g. in most of Europe there are virtually no Netflix or Hulu-like services. Nearly everyone uses a Cable or DVB-T service.
A bit painful, considering that my ISP just announced to upgrade my connection from 120/10 MBit/s to 150/15. The bandwidth is there, but I guess it's hard to make licensing arrangements.
Even in the US, even in areas with good enough broadband to stream all your content, people still care about broadcast television because of sports. MS's focus here with ESPN and the NFL is bang-on.
"MS's focus here with ESPN and the NFL is bang-on."
I disagree. They managed to partner with the NFL but yet not show any games. Most of the games for my favorite team I still can't watch. Seems really lame to me.
The main point was more about how somebody who doesn't watch TV will always let you know that they don't. Not really the reasons why. I think in that case, the satire is still relevant. Plenty of people on reddit/HN/the Internet almost bragging about how they don't use a traditional TV setup.
Basically like the old joke "How can you tell if someone is an atheist? Don't worry, he'll tell you."
Maybe you hear that so often because it's a trend, so the idea of it being the focus of your media center box for the next decade might be a little antiquated.
Or it's a vocal minority of people who don't miss opportunities to talk about it. I don't care either way, especially since the article was posted as a little joke.
Most people I know who own a PS3 consider it essentially a blu-ray player.
Most people I know who own an Xbox consider it essentially a Netflix player.
These people bought games, but they don't really play them.
I've got naught but my anecdata, but I think attempting to bill this new console as an entertainment system that happens to also play some great games is a very, very good idea.
Not announced yet but I'd be surprised if they give up that cash cow.
The only thing they said is that Xbox Live will continue to be based around the subscription you have now. So, Xbox Live will still cost $50/year. What services require Xbox Live on the Xbox One is not announced yet but based on the 360 the answer is probably almost everything.
I would be stunned if it was. It seems entirely unjustifiable unless it is just an artifact of the 360 software being designed with only with online services that use Microsoft servers in mind. They clearly know that isn't the case anymore though, it would be pretty damn shitty of them to keep ripping people off like that.
Netflix on the 360 requiring Xbox Live is not an artifact. It's just a cash grab.
The 360 was the first console to offer Netflix and they had exclusivity for a while so they could do it. Once the exclusivity ended they didn't make it free because they felt no need to because lots of people continued to pay up.
Allegedly this was a reason that BBC's iPlayer took so long to arrive on the 360. The BBC's charter was somehow contrary to MSFT's insistence that iPlayer was available only to XBL Gold members, so the release of iPlayer on 360 was delayed by years.
I agree as long as it doesn't sound like a jet taking off in my living room. I gave up on using the 360 as a NF player because it was simply too LOUD. The ATV I have streams NF fine and is silent.
First-gen 360 or the Xbox 360S? The first-gen made my apartment sound like a damn international airport, but the second-gen, while not whisper silent, is pretty quiet.
A rumor I had read (can't find where now, take with many grains of salt) is part of the reason the thing is so large and, well, xbox huge, is that the cooling solution for the box is nearly silent and to do that necessitated the size.
Agreed- I will be very tempted to buy one if it handles live TV well. Right now I have a PC sat under my TV running Windows Media Center and it's awkward and showing it's age. I might buy a game too, who knows.
Alternately, I'd love to be able to put Linux on that box and make it a MythTV box. Sadly, my cable provider locks all their channels. For better or worse, MS are one of the few that could create a set top box that legally decrypts all these channels and has a great UI.
Most of those people got one because of gaming. And then used it as a Netflix machine or blu-ray player.
But why would they pay hundreds of dollars more for a "new" Netflix machine? And if they own none of them, and just want a Netflix machine, why not buy a much better (for media) $100 Roku? Or even an Apple TV?
I received an Xbox 360S 4GB for free from my company at the time. Bought another one for $150 along with some bootleg Hdd's from Ebay. I am going to wait a year for the price drop and to steer clear from any first gen issues.
I own both a PS3 and a 360 and had those same use cases. Then I bought a Roku on whim at Costco one day. As a result, I've used the PS3 once in the last year, I haven't used the 360 at all.
I bought both of those consoles when they were new and collected a bunch of $60 games that I "don't really play". For several years now, the vast majority of gaming I do comes via games bought for a steep discount to console prices on Steam.
I stopped buying DVD/BDs when I realized how few of them I'd actually watch repeatedly. These days, a single $4 stream of a new release on Amazon is the norm.
I think it says something that a person like myself, who could previously be counted on to buy each new generation of console is unmoved by Xbox One.
At the same time, I expect the more mainstream customer might be just fine playing games and watching movies on the smartphone/tablet they almost surely already own.
I don't think this is a bad idea, but I do think it might be too late.
What more do you want them to tell you as a gamer about the new system? They released specs and talked about the cloud gaming capabilities. Having more 3rd party game makers demo games for the system doesn't really improve my appeal to the console.
I already knew the new xbox would be the next gaming console. It seems like they went for the non-obvious, and wanted to talk about the other features. The games are going to be the draw for gamers, and I'm sure those will be just fine.
agreed. people make it sound like they removed some essential features, just because they didn't emphasize them enough (or because they emphasized others more).
from what i've seen this appears to match the ps4 in every way - even down to the architecture. the only difference is they glossed-over all that and decided to focus on the ways its differentiated..
They removed the ability to buy, sell, and lend games. You have to pay an undisclosed fee to "install" a game that has already been installed, which is mandatory.
the rumor you're basing that on doesn't appear to be entirely accurate [1]. either way, i don't think its fair to draw judgment one way or another until they actually explain how that will be handled..
also, this issue is nothing new and is certainty not unique to microsoft or the xbox. i think its fairly well understood that there's going to be a change in this area as the way content is distributed continues to evolve..
whatever the actual implementation is, i'm pretty sure it wont be as bad as you're implying (... removed the ability to buy, sell, and lend games) and will probably be standard across the industry - and structured in a manner as not to totally decimate the second-hand market..
How did they alienate gamers? Gamers know first and foremost that XBox is a gaming console. They should especially know that after being shown the demo of CoD Ghost. This really is a great move for them, as gamers see the benefit of additional functionality and non-gamers see an intriguing entertainment platform.
I'm a diehard PC fan though so I probably won't get a console anyways
Well, they announced that games would require an install to the HDD, and Wired got a confirmation from MSFT that one would have to pay a fee to install the game to another Xbox. So now people who sell their games will have their resale value reduced and people who take games to their friends' house will have to pay for the privilege.
The event's games presentations were oriented to what is usually called the "Bro gamer" demographic (e.g. Madden/FIFA/CoD) ... It focused on TV, for which many of the core gamers don't care. Contrast this to the PS4 announcement, which had many developers and a lot of talk about how the platform is going to be more "open" for the small guys, and it felt really passionate about the "for-gamers" features. As a gamer, I feel like the PS4 is where the real passion for games is, where someone actually cared to provide tools for the "indie" crowd (who, arguably, are doing the good games these days) ... Meanwhile, microsoft is showing a TV machine, has forgotten the indie channel and has killed XNA. If you don't understand why this was dissapointing for gamers, it's most probably because you are not a gamer yourself I guess. Honestly it felt passionless, pointless and underwhelming. It wasn't a blunder or anything, of course. It was just meh.
'bro gamer' is just a term used by some gamers to feel superior to the CoD demographic (which is everybody). It seems to me to be a kind of signaling used to mark themselves out as 'serious' gamers who think about 'serious' issues while they blow stuff up and shoot zombies.
It's not everybody. CoD has a very large demographic and it encompasses a significant chunk of the console and hardcore PC gaming market, and they're better games than people give credit for, but they're far from universal appeal.
I don't play FPS games, but I know smart and sensitive people who do. They don't pretend it's not a badly justified gorefest though, just like smart people who listen to Manowar don't.
A lot of people are very let down by games that get reviews just gushing over the plot and the atmosphere and puzzles but end up being 90% gore and FPS (like Bioshock for example).
Chill out dude. I didn't say you were a bro gamer, I didn't say I agreed with the term. I tried to answer Caskain's question on "how did they alienate gamers", and yes, part of it is the sentiment of catering to bro gamers. But notice the usage of quotes. Follow your own advice.
The point you're making is essentially that people that might enjoy popular franchises or particular genres of games aren't "real gamers" but a lower, subclass of gamers.
The point I'm making is that just because someone enjoys playing Madden (or football) does not mean that they don't also enjoy smaller, independent games ('yeah, most people have never heard of it'). We can be "gamers" too you know...
No your logic is just incorrect. This is simple propositional logic. If P -> Q does not imply If Q -> P. Bro gamers tend to like games like Madden & CoD. Because you like Madden & CoD does not make you a bro gamer.
E3 is in three weeks. They didn't want this event to focus on games, because then they'd have nothing to show at E3. But they still showed some games just to prove it had working hardware.
Agreed. I don't think Microsoft has to focus on the 'game' aspect of the new Xbox - the people making games for it will do that, and we know the hardware is sufficient for the next console iteration. They are focusing on the rest of the experience, which is completely under their control. I think it's a smart play and the standard gaming media is missing the point really hard.
The way I see it is that every new gaming console is going to do gaming better than the generation before it. Shouldn't that be a given?
Microsoft's job, as far as the Xbox, is the following...
1) Go lobby for components from various manufactures to meet the next-gen specs (whatever that may be)
2) Create tools and APIs for developers to understand the platform for which they are building
3) Improve existing services so that gamers have a consistent and enhanced experience
Its a lot of work, but its no rocket science either. Every console does this. Which goes to my point...
When it comes to the games, these consoles are basically the same thing (especially the ps4 and xboxOne). Sure, some platforms may have an exclusive here and a different game there. Overall, the ps4 and the xboxOne will be matching one-for-one the basic gameplay mechanics.
What Microsoft did was say "alright, lets not focus on the redundant, but lets take a look at what separates this console from the other one (ps4)".
This is just an unveiling of what the console is. Don't worry, the games are still here. They will always be here. They could've made a presentation with nothing but demos. Sure, gamers would be delighted. But, if you think of it, it doesn't make sense to do so. Especially that E3 will be coming in only a couple of weeks. There will be plenty of games there.
It is not really a given at all. What matters are the games, not the technology behind the console. Showing off a new COD and Madden is pretty sigh worthy at best.
My limited circle of friends who game have moved back to PC gaming and given up on consoles. We all own them, but they became glorified Netflix boxes. That was until MS decided to charge $59.99 a year for Xbox Live. Then we all bought Roku devices instead.
MS has always required you to have Xbox Live Gold to access Netflix, no? I only first got Netflix when it came to Canada, so maybe they changed it by then.
You are probably right, but I could of sworn there was a period where Netflix did not require a Gold subscription. Maybe I just had a Gold subscription at the time for playing games online and did not think twice about it...
At least on the Xbox side, it has a lot to do with their systematic dismantlement of the machine's GUI, which was originally a joy to use, and geared towards being, you know, a game playing machine. Now it's like webTV for the 2010s.
I used to rave about the old Blades interface and how, OMG, Microsoft made a great user experience, and how weird it was for me to feel so strongly positive about a Microsoft consumer product. So of course they destroyed everything about that interface that was so great.
When Steam put Big Picture mode in beta, I knew I was done with consoles. I got a cube-shaped PC case that was big enough for a full-size video card, put said video card with a nice Ivy Bridge i5 CPU in it, and my consoles got the permanent shut-down.
I am concerned though about the lack of any new info on the steambox in the last, what, year? They announced their intention to create a Linux distro with Steam to run on hardware to a spec, but they haven't moved forward with it at all.
I think Valve would crush the console scene if they actually had anything to show for the hype.
> I am concerned though about the lack of any new info on the steambox in the last, what, year?
Everything I saw about the "Steam Box" suggested to me that it would be an underpowered machine for more casual games.
But the great part about Steam is that I could build my own damn hardware and use Steam and Big Picture Mode on it. So now I have a legitimate mid-range gaming PC hooked up to my TV and launching Big Picture on startup.
As a Linux user and lover, the idea of an eventual Steam box running on Linux is an exciting idea, but in the meantime, I'm running my own box on Windows.
But they have moved forward. Portal, Half-Life 2, and (I think) Left 4 dead 2 all now work under Linux as of a few weeks ago. That's quite an achievement.
To each his own I suppose, but to me the old Blades interface was atrocious. I like the current UI, though the organization could be a little smarter (e.g. frequently used apps should be more accessible)
I second that.. I used to play lot of games on PC.. I bought xbox and some games , but mostly I will be playing youtube videos thru my android youtube app remotely or play a movie in netflix :)
I'd like to be impressed, but it's really hard. I have friends that work at Microsoft and have worked on various bits of this platform. I know personally the incredible amount of hard work that gets put into this product.
This presentation just feels... empty.
It's largely middle-aged men (and a woman who worked at tv companies) dryly reciting a badly written script with significant intentional pauses intended for applause after non-funny jokes.
The opening demo was kind of interesting. It's hard to tell if the tv/kinnect interactivity was staged or not, but it seems real enough to be impressive. More of this please.
Followed by a guy that no one knows or cares about, speaking at length the hardware, about how revolutionary the new product is. He doesn't actully say anything much about how the new system is built beyond "5 billion transistors and 8gb of RAM!", while briefly flashing some tech specs floating next to an amorphous blob of 3d Xbox parts.
Then we get to see a non-MS exec from EA introduce a 2 minute interview with some sports guys....
SHOW THE DAMNED GAME!!
Look, when you're showing off your product SHOW IT OFF. Don't put your fatty bag of mostly water in between the product and the people trying to learn about it.
Then the stream died for me after the CBS/Time Warner lady started talking. I caught the end where guy #1 is talking about Stephen Spielberg and Halo, the it died again.
For the HN audience, there's a ton of lessons to take from today. Talk about the product, don't get in the way, and make sure your tech supporting the launch works and is stable. Everything else will take care of itself.
Everything was stable, I streamed the entire event from Verge pre-show to the end screen without a single hiccup or drop.
I also had far less criticism than you did for the presentation, I found it similar to what Sony and Nintendo do on stage and definitely par the course for a console release.
I mean, think about it: Sony hasn't even shown off it's hardware yet, and they announced months ago. Now Sony is telling us they'll actually, you know, SHOW US the console in a few more weeks. What gives?
At least Microsoft put the product there, front of stage, and (presumably) ran a few demos on it.
Yeah I can't criticize too much on streaming, other than that it worked fine until half way through and then wouldn't reconnect after that. There's a lot of factors that can affect that. Considering it happened from both my phone over LTE and laptop via wifi at home, 2 data points can triangulate in a certain direction.
Your bar is too low. Expect more from product releases. Was this launch better than the PS4 launch? Absolutely. Was it great, not at all.
I will never introduce a product that doesn't do what its being sold to do until I can stand in front of 100 people and show it working.
Honestly? I don't really know why anyone bothers to do launch events like this any more. Post a bunch of images, videos and some bullet points about the product somewhere. Done.
Well, the Sony PS4 event was actually fairly well done, especially in comparison. There was a lot of noise about them holding off on showing the actual box, but they talked extensively about games, about the things you could do with the console like screen sharing with friends, and about what the new hardware meant for developers and the kinds of doors it'd open for games.
It certainly wasn't without flaw, but it did get me somewhat excited about a console I didn't really have any interest in before the event.
What part of that did the Xbox miss? I only sporadically followed it, but it seemed to have plenty of detail on what you can do with it. Light on games perhaps, but it sounds like that's MS's direction with this generation.
Go back and re-watch the PS4 talk. It was mostly empty and mostly vapid. There were less details given than the Xbox presentation. They showed a controller and that vibrator-looking glowing thing you see in porn. The most interesting bit technology-wise was the old man head. I'll admit that was very cool but I wanted more info.
The screen streaming and sharing is a huge deal, IMO. The integration of the OnLive-like Gaikai service is also big. I just saw a lot more to be excited about.
And while they definitely spent time on the typical shooters and racers, they made a point of spending time on games more off the beaten path, as well.
They should have said that at the beginning of the presentation, not announced before the event and/or somewhere else.
That being said, there was almost no hardware talk today. I know there's some good hardware and engineering in that black slanty box. That's all I've heard hinted about for months, about how impressed we'd be with the hardware, etc. Next to nothing was said about it.
Is the underlying OS Windows 8? I think Microsoft can give its Windows 8 apps platform a big boost by giving them presence in the next Xbox.
EDIT: Looks like they use Windows 8, but the Windows 8 apps will need to be modified to work on Xbox. From Engadget:
In terms of whether apps will be cross-compatible between the regular Windows Store and the storefront accessed by the new console, we're told they won't. Developers will have to do a bit of work to make a Windows app suitable for the Xbox, not least in terms of tuning their UI for Kinect or the wireless controller. But Microsoft's engineers told us that the underlying similarity between Windows 8/RT and Windows for the Xbox should make this a pretty easy feat for coders. [ Ref: http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/21/xbox-one-runs-three-opera... ]
As someone actually interested in playing games (and I know that may make me a minority here), this was the best commercial there will likely ever be for the Sony PlayStation 4.
Personally, as a gamer, the native replay system is the most exciting thing I've seen out of this generation. So many times I've been playing a game with my brother over Xbox Live and something awesome happens, and afterwards we're kind of like, "Man, I wish this game had a record button like Halo so we could watch that over and over again." And now they all will.
The feature Sony announced for the PS4 is actually more powerful than that - it not only records, but also allows live screen streaming and sharing gaming sessions with friends remotely. One of the use cases they suggested was being able to have a friend take over and help you out if you were having a particularly hard time with a section of a game.
Yes, before I saw your comment, I was going to post something similar. I am also one of those weirdos who just wants a really powerful and reliable gaming console. No muss, no fuss, no "social", no voice-activated doo-dads, just really good games and not much else.
I'm afraid that even in the console world the gamers are now becoming a minority, Nintendo opened the way and now the others follow, the "hardcore" , whatever that means, gamers are a minority, you need them for the launch and some games but they are really an small proportion of the possible customers.
As a pretty big console and PC gamer, the best thing that came out of this presentation was that Steven Spielberg will be working on a live action Halo TV series.
I really only care about 2 things from a console box itself:
- will it fit in my cabinet (annoying peripherals included)
- does it have a loud fan or flashy lights that are annoying
Other than that I never look at the thing except to put a disc in. Who cares what the box looks like. You're going to be looking at your TV SCREEN the whole time.
So this is a Windows-lite PC, cable box, Xbox video game system? It has hdmi in right?
I'm officially old because I do not find this interesting at all. My son will want it, so we will have it, but as a person who buys a lot of tech, I am not seeing the appeal.
I think it is the all-in-one, do-everything approach it Microsoft is taking with this that disinterests me. Why does every company want to be your everything now a days?
Normally I'm against do-everything devices, but IMO this is a stroke of genius.
Everything about operating a TV today is pure pain. The centerpiece here is an obtuse, 100-button remote that no one fully knows how to use. You use this remote to get at the "mode switcher", which changes you from TV watching mode, to bluray watching mode, to gaming mode, to whatever else you do with your TV.
It's painful, not to mention a lot of people have receivers to handle the audio portion of this. It's like a really, really bad KVM.
The only way to eliminate that pain was to take over all of the above responsibilities, and MS just did that. With any luck this means you will basically never have to touch your TV's god-awful remote ever again, and the terms "Video 1", "Video 2", and "TV" will cease to have any meaning.
You're still going have a layer of terrible user interface where you're picking through all the kitchen-junk-drawer full of items that Microsoft has packed into this device. It won't be labeled "Video 1, Aux 1", true, but you'll still have to pick through every time you want to use the system. Probably end up being more of an interface problem, actually.
Power on, wait, skip special offers from Microsoft, no I don't want to update the console today, click to make anti-virus warnings go away, okay, now I can pick whether I want to play games or watch TV, TV, live TV or internet, internet, now pick the Netflix channel, and start watching! Hurray!
Yeah, that's so much better than picking "Video 2" and using the Netflix box.
Oh come on, no console - including the 360 - has ever been like that. There has never been an anti-virus, much less one that prompts you at startup. Console software updates are few and far between (twice a year on MS's schedule), not to mention it looks like they're doing more and more in the background.
Nor has Microsoft or Sony ever held up anything so you can watch a special offer. This is just FUD.
Go watch the keynote, they cover all of this. They're betting on voice control lowering the "depth" of the UI. Instead of "TV -> live TV -> Sy Fy -> Star Trek" it's just "go watch Star Trek", ditto for on-demand, ditto for sports, ditto for games even. Everything they showed today indicates single-action-to-final-destination.
I can't wait till families start having loud arguments about what show they want to watch, each trying to be louder than the other, so it picks up their voice. This was designed for families.
I was most interested by their Live TV offering. But does anyone have any details on how they get the TV stream? One of the slides mentioned HDMI In/Out - does that mean it's going the GoogleTV route? I have a logitech revue - and I absolutely hate it.
Most likely it will have to work with an external subscription. The guy on stage mentioned that he uses Comcast and then did the demo. So I imagine it will work like Google TV and just be a glorified channel changer without any content of its own.
I too have the Logitech Revue and it eventually just became a netflix box for my kids. We just switched back to having a dedicated laptop for our TV and never looked back.
It is definitely telling that it took them 30 minutes into a 60 minute presentation to talk about games, then another 10 to talk about a non-sports game. Yes, they're saying they're going to talk more about games at E3, but a reveal is a "put your best foot forward" type of event, and Microsoft seems to be going for a "games are an afterthought" type of approach.
Compared to the PS4's continuation of Sony's "games first" philosophy and Nintendo's "we're sorry core gamers!" philosophy with the Wii U (that's not working out so hot right now, given how lukewarm core game developers are to it), it may be a risk that pans out for Microsoft, but it's a bit unfortunate: gaming—and not just sports gaming—has made gains into mainstream culture over the past decade, and it doesn't seem like it really needed to be brushed aside in order to "win" this generation's console war.
With WiFi direct, I wonder if this'll finally bring Miracast/WiDi mainstream. Maybe the ability to stream audio and video wirelessly is a niche feature, but for me Airplay is the one thing keeping me on Apple's platform.
I think this is fantastic for folks like me who have to juggle between my htpc (which has a cablecard so I can watch live tv on my media center) and my xbox (which I use to play games). Ofcourse il still have my htpc connected and use it frequently for other things (I am not sold on IE on xbox) but atleast it will make switching between watching tv,netflix, hulu and my games very simple. microsoft can take my money now, i want one of these things !
Most of the comments here focus on Microsoft, Sony, and gamers; I'd like to (indirectly) bring the traditional cable co into the discussion.
Last semester several Comcast reps gave my class a presentation which included a summary of their media strategy, a demo of their new cable TV platform/cable box, and a Q&A section. Their new cable box (a small, black, ATV-like 'dumb' set-top box) is progressive: it has a modern UI, connects to the Xfinity cloud platform, and can be updated through software rather than hardware changes.
However, one student asked their VP of Media Acquisition a simple question: "Who is your biggest competitor?" His answer shocked us.
"Microsoft."
At the time (~March), he told us Comcast expected Microsoft to stage a coup to claim "input A," the consumer's primary content interface. Traditionally, consumers would have their cable boxes plugged into input A and their gaming consoles plugged into input B. Microsoft, he said, would attempt to take over input A by including a cable jack in the back of the Xbox and offering live TV alongside streaming/web browsing/apps/games.
Yeah. As soon as I saw CBS (which weirdly, was first presented in the context of the voice-activated command feature), I knew it had a pretty good chance of taking over the "input A".
This isn't the talk where I would expect any mention of developer stuff like XNA. It wasn't even core gamer targeted, with such a heavy focus on sports/Call of Duty. This was meant for a wider audience. E3 is the earliest I would expect them to publicly talk about the developer tools.
For me...the first xbox really rocked my world. I dropped in a mod-chip, used XBMC and my eyes for a home-entertainment system that can read digital files were finally opened.
I haven't used an optical disc for a movie since.
I used the original XboX, then transitioned to 360, then to PS3 - now my PS3 does what all of my previous xboxes did.
But....the truth is, with the 360, I was so blown away by how easy it was to connect to all my MSFT networked devices that I would gladly give this new xbox a chance to rock my world again.
MSFT has really gotten XboX right. Every. Single. Time.
I hope they don't try to lock down this one - where you can't play 'pirated content' and they have some hardware DRM or some bullshit like that.
That's the only reason I will wait until others try it out.
If it doesn't allow me to watch the content I want to watch - then I won't get it.
If I can......I just may.
Then again...my current PS3 is already pretty awesome so I may not need to.
164 comments
[ 1373 ms ] story [ 2979 ms ] threadhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5744967
It was up at #3 then went to the second page,strange.
A bit painful, considering that my ISP just announced to upgrade my connection from 120/10 MBit/s to 150/15. The bandwidth is there, but I guess it's hard to make licensing arrangements.
I disagree. They managed to partner with the NFL but yet not show any games. Most of the games for my favorite team I still can't watch. Seems really lame to me.
Basically like the old joke "How can you tell if someone is an atheist? Don't worry, he'll tell you."
Most people I know who own an Xbox consider it essentially a Netflix player.
These people bought games, but they don't really play them.
I've got naught but my anecdata, but I think attempting to bill this new console as an entertainment system that happens to also play some great games is a very, very good idea.
I own a 360 but I don't use it anymore.
The only thing they said is that Xbox Live will continue to be based around the subscription you have now. So, Xbox Live will still cost $50/year. What services require Xbox Live on the Xbox One is not announced yet but based on the 360 the answer is probably almost everything.
The 360 was the first console to offer Netflix and they had exclusivity for a while so they could do it. Once the exclusivity ended they didn't make it free because they felt no need to because lots of people continued to pay up.
http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/consoles/bbc-we-d-still...
Alternately, I'd love to be able to put Linux on that box and make it a MythTV box. Sadly, my cable provider locks all their channels. For better or worse, MS are one of the few that could create a set top box that legally decrypts all these channels and has a great UI.
my bet is they are going to make use of [1] HDMI-CEC.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#CEC
But why would they pay hundreds of dollars more for a "new" Netflix machine? And if they own none of them, and just want a Netflix machine, why not buy a much better (for media) $100 Roku? Or even an Apple TV?
I bought both of those consoles when they were new and collected a bunch of $60 games that I "don't really play". For several years now, the vast majority of gaming I do comes via games bought for a steep discount to console prices on Steam.
I stopped buying DVD/BDs when I realized how few of them I'd actually watch repeatedly. These days, a single $4 stream of a new release on Amazon is the norm.
I think it says something that a person like myself, who could previously be counted on to buy each new generation of console is unmoved by Xbox One.
At the same time, I expect the more mainstream customer might be just fine playing games and watching movies on the smartphone/tablet they almost surely already own.
I don't think this is a bad idea, but I do think it might be too late.
Maybe you just got old? It takes a lot to get me to play a video game these days.
Oh, I definitely did, in a way that's the point.
The product appears to be aimed at my changed tastes, it's just arriving late.
I've been a diehard Xbox fan since I first got my hands on the original, but this makes me want to switch back to Playstation.
I already knew the new xbox would be the next gaming console. It seems like they went for the non-obvious, and wanted to talk about the other features. The games are going to be the draw for gamers, and I'm sure those will be just fine.
from what i've seen this appears to match the ps4 in every way - even down to the architecture. the only difference is they glossed-over all that and decided to focus on the ways its differentiated..
also, this issue is nothing new and is certainty not unique to microsoft or the xbox. i think its fairly well understood that there's going to be a change in this area as the way content is distributed continues to evolve..
whatever the actual implementation is, i'm pretty sure it wont be as bad as you're implying (... removed the ability to buy, sell, and lend games) and will probably be standard across the industry - and structured in a manner as not to totally decimate the second-hand market..
[1] http://www.polygon.com/2013/5/21/4348916/xbox-used-games
I'm a diehard PC fan though so I probably won't get a console anyways
Not exactly gamer friendly.
Just because I like Madden, I'm a "bro gamer" now? Get over yourself.
I don't play FPS games, but I know smart and sensitive people who do. They don't pretend it's not a badly justified gorefest though, just like smart people who listen to Manowar don't.
A lot of people are very let down by games that get reviews just gushing over the plot and the atmosphere and puzzles but end up being 90% gore and FPS (like Bioshock for example).
The point you're making is essentially that people that might enjoy popular franchises or particular genres of games aren't "real gamers" but a lower, subclass of gamers.
The point I'm making is that just because someone enjoys playing Madden (or football) does not mean that they don't also enjoy smaller, independent games ('yeah, most people have never heard of it'). We can be "gamers" too you know...
Microsoft's job, as far as the Xbox, is the following... 1) Go lobby for components from various manufactures to meet the next-gen specs (whatever that may be) 2) Create tools and APIs for developers to understand the platform for which they are building 3) Improve existing services so that gamers have a consistent and enhanced experience
Its a lot of work, but its no rocket science either. Every console does this. Which goes to my point... When it comes to the games, these consoles are basically the same thing (especially the ps4 and xboxOne). Sure, some platforms may have an exclusive here and a different game there. Overall, the ps4 and the xboxOne will be matching one-for-one the basic gameplay mechanics.
What Microsoft did was say "alright, lets not focus on the redundant, but lets take a look at what separates this console from the other one (ps4)".
This is just an unveiling of what the console is. Don't worry, the games are still here. They will always be here. They could've made a presentation with nothing but demos. Sure, gamers would be delighted. But, if you think of it, it doesn't make sense to do so. Especially that E3 will be coming in only a couple of weeks. There will be plenty of games there.
My limited circle of friends who game have moved back to PC gaming and given up on consoles. We all own them, but they became glorified Netflix boxes. That was until MS decided to charge $59.99 a year for Xbox Live. Then we all bought Roku devices instead.
I used to rave about the old Blades interface and how, OMG, Microsoft made a great user experience, and how weird it was for me to feel so strongly positive about a Microsoft consumer product. So of course they destroyed everything about that interface that was so great.
When Steam put Big Picture mode in beta, I knew I was done with consoles. I got a cube-shaped PC case that was big enough for a full-size video card, put said video card with a nice Ivy Bridge i5 CPU in it, and my consoles got the permanent shut-down.
I think Valve would crush the console scene if they actually had anything to show for the hype.
Everything I saw about the "Steam Box" suggested to me that it would be an underpowered machine for more casual games.
But the great part about Steam is that I could build my own damn hardware and use Steam and Big Picture Mode on it. So now I have a legitimate mid-range gaming PC hooked up to my TV and launching Big Picture on startup.
As a Linux user and lover, the idea of an eventual Steam box running on Linux is an exciting idea, but in the meantime, I'm running my own box on Windows.
This presentation just feels... empty.
It's largely middle-aged men (and a woman who worked at tv companies) dryly reciting a badly written script with significant intentional pauses intended for applause after non-funny jokes.
The opening demo was kind of interesting. It's hard to tell if the tv/kinnect interactivity was staged or not, but it seems real enough to be impressive. More of this please.
Followed by a guy that no one knows or cares about, speaking at length the hardware, about how revolutionary the new product is. He doesn't actully say anything much about how the new system is built beyond "5 billion transistors and 8gb of RAM!", while briefly flashing some tech specs floating next to an amorphous blob of 3d Xbox parts.
Then we get to see a non-MS exec from EA introduce a 2 minute interview with some sports guys....
SHOW THE DAMNED GAME!!
Look, when you're showing off your product SHOW IT OFF. Don't put your fatty bag of mostly water in between the product and the people trying to learn about it.
Then the stream died for me after the CBS/Time Warner lady started talking. I caught the end where guy #1 is talking about Stephen Spielberg and Halo, the it died again.
For the HN audience, there's a ton of lessons to take from today. Talk about the product, don't get in the way, and make sure your tech supporting the launch works and is stable. Everything else will take care of itself.
I also had far less criticism than you did for the presentation, I found it similar to what Sony and Nintendo do on stage and definitely par the course for a console release.
I mean, think about it: Sony hasn't even shown off it's hardware yet, and they announced months ago. Now Sony is telling us they'll actually, you know, SHOW US the console in a few more weeks. What gives?
At least Microsoft put the product there, front of stage, and (presumably) ran a few demos on it.
Your bar is too low. Expect more from product releases. Was this launch better than the PS4 launch? Absolutely. Was it great, not at all.
I will never introduce a product that doesn't do what its being sold to do until I can stand in front of 100 people and show it working.
It certainly wasn't without flaw, but it did get me somewhat excited about a console I didn't really have any interest in before the event.
And while they definitely spent time on the typical shooters and racers, they made a point of spending time on games more off the beaten path, as well.
http://www.polygon.com/2013/5/20/4347614/microsoft-reveals-i...
That being said, there was almost no hardware talk today. I know there's some good hardware and engineering in that black slanty box. That's all I've heard hinted about for months, about how impressed we'd be with the hardware, etc. Next to nothing was said about it.
EDIT: Looks like they use Windows 8, but the Windows 8 apps will need to be modified to work on Xbox. From Engadget:
In terms of whether apps will be cross-compatible between the regular Windows Store and the storefront accessed by the new console, we're told they won't. Developers will have to do a bit of work to make a Windows app suitable for the Xbox, not least in terms of tuning their UI for Kinect or the wireless controller. But Microsoft's engineers told us that the underlying similarity between Windows 8/RT and Windows for the Xbox should make this a pretty easy feat for coders. [ Ref: http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/21/xbox-one-runs-three-opera... ]
Seems like the real next gen gaming console will be i5 with low profile 7950 shoved in HTPC enclosure.
I want to play some games for fun. But seems we will be getting enhanced online multiplayer socially enabled jump controlled experiences instead.
That should say a lot.
Other than that I never look at the thing except to put a disc in. Who cares what the box looks like. You're going to be looking at your TV SCREEN the whole time.
"Who cares what the box looks like." I'll just leave the Limp Bizkit stickers on it then.
I'm officially old because I do not find this interesting at all. My son will want it, so we will have it, but as a person who buys a lot of tech, I am not seeing the appeal.
I think it is the all-in-one, do-everything approach it Microsoft is taking with this that disinterests me. Why does every company want to be your everything now a days?
Everything about operating a TV today is pure pain. The centerpiece here is an obtuse, 100-button remote that no one fully knows how to use. You use this remote to get at the "mode switcher", which changes you from TV watching mode, to bluray watching mode, to gaming mode, to whatever else you do with your TV.
It's painful, not to mention a lot of people have receivers to handle the audio portion of this. It's like a really, really bad KVM.
The only way to eliminate that pain was to take over all of the above responsibilities, and MS just did that. With any luck this means you will basically never have to touch your TV's god-awful remote ever again, and the terms "Video 1", "Video 2", and "TV" will cease to have any meaning.
Power on, wait, skip special offers from Microsoft, no I don't want to update the console today, click to make anti-virus warnings go away, okay, now I can pick whether I want to play games or watch TV, TV, live TV or internet, internet, now pick the Netflix channel, and start watching! Hurray!
Yeah, that's so much better than picking "Video 2" and using the Netflix box.
Nor has Microsoft or Sony ever held up anything so you can watch a special offer. This is just FUD.
Go watch the keynote, they cover all of this. They're betting on voice control lowering the "depth" of the UI. Instead of "TV -> live TV -> Sy Fy -> Star Trek" it's just "go watch Star Trek", ditto for on-demand, ditto for sports, ditto for games even. Everything they showed today indicates single-action-to-final-destination.
I too have the Logitech Revue and it eventually just became a netflix box for my kids. We just switched back to having a dedicated laptop for our TV and never looked back.
Compared to the PS4's continuation of Sony's "games first" philosophy and Nintendo's "we're sorry core gamers!" philosophy with the Wii U (that's not working out so hot right now, given how lukewarm core game developers are to it), it may be a risk that pans out for Microsoft, but it's a bit unfortunate: gaming—and not just sports gaming—has made gains into mainstream culture over the past decade, and it doesn't seem like it really needed to be brushed aside in order to "win" this generation's console war.
Last semester several Comcast reps gave my class a presentation which included a summary of their media strategy, a demo of their new cable TV platform/cable box, and a Q&A section. Their new cable box (a small, black, ATV-like 'dumb' set-top box) is progressive: it has a modern UI, connects to the Xfinity cloud platform, and can be updated through software rather than hardware changes.
However, one student asked their VP of Media Acquisition a simple question: "Who is your biggest competitor?" His answer shocked us.
"Microsoft."
At the time (~March), he told us Comcast expected Microsoft to stage a coup to claim "input A," the consumer's primary content interface. Traditionally, consumers would have their cable boxes plugged into input A and their gaming consoles plugged into input B. Microsoft, he said, would attempt to take over input A by including a cable jack in the back of the Xbox and offering live TV alongside streaming/web browsing/apps/games.
Looks like he was spot on.
I haven't used an optical disc for a movie since.
I used the original XboX, then transitioned to 360, then to PS3 - now my PS3 does what all of my previous xboxes did.
But....the truth is, with the 360, I was so blown away by how easy it was to connect to all my MSFT networked devices that I would gladly give this new xbox a chance to rock my world again.
MSFT has really gotten XboX right. Every. Single. Time.
I hope they don't try to lock down this one - where you can't play 'pirated content' and they have some hardware DRM or some bullshit like that.
That's the only reason I will wait until others try it out.
If it doesn't allow me to watch the content I want to watch - then I won't get it.
If I can......I just may.
Then again...my current PS3 is already pretty awesome so I may not need to.