News & Rumors: Xbox One (codename Durango)

[orangpelupa]

thanks bkilian, can we know why MS did not considering giving voice command option instead of completely disabling it?

Kinect is one of the main feature of X1 and there's still so much mistery about it. But if it does only can work on official countries, then i only need to consider ps4 or buying new laptop

 

[eastmen]

does this include smart phones as well?

I believe so. Dont see why not

 

[-tkf-]

Yes, I fought for allowing US English in all regions, but politically, it didn't fly. If we had done it, then a lot of countries would have complained we were forcing our Americanism on them, so the decision was made to disable voice in regions we didn't support. It is also heavily accent dependent, so the experience will be degraded if you're not a native English speaker. I have problems even because my accent is British-like, and my Live region is US, so it only allows me to use the US database, when the UK database would be a lot more accurate. I have to get all nasally and mangle my vowels to make Kinect listen to me and it makes my family laugh at me.

Do you know if this will be the case for the Kinect 2? Region locked voice control?

 

[bkilian]

thanks bkilian, can we know why MS did not considering giving voice command option instead of completely disabling it?

Kinect is one of the main feature of X1 and there's still so much mistery about it. But if it does only can work on official countries, then i only need to consider ps4 or buying new laptop

We didn't have the time or resources to implement a more complex voice control system, and management took the stance that it was better to have no voice control than a crappy experience. It's also tied to your Live locale. What happens with voice control is that when you connect to Live, you get a console update based on your locale. That console update contains the locale-specific voice database, and there isn't enough space to include other locale databases.

That, plus politics, basically made giving users the option a difficult proposition.

 

[temesgen]

I believe so. Dont see why not

I thought so too but you specified tablets which made me curious if you knew something more on the subject.

 

[dobwal]

Yes, I fought for allowing US English in all regions, but politically, it didn't fly. If we had done it, then a lot of countries would have complained we were forcing our Americanism on them, so the decision was made to disable voice in regions we didn't support. It is also heavily accent dependent, so the experience will be degraded if you're not a native English speaker. I have problems even because my accent is British-like, and my Live region is US, so it only allows me to use the US database, when the UK database would be a lot more accurate. I have to get all nasally and mangle my vowels to make Kinect listen to me and it makes my family laugh at me.

Does Kinect confuse "Peter" with "pizza" because of your accent?

 

[bkilian]

Does Kinect confuse "Peter" with "pizza" because of your accent?

Haven't checked. But I do have a hell of a time getting it to "pause". I have to say it "pahz" instead of how I normally say it, which sounds like "pores" without the 'r'

 

[expletive]

New (?) information on "Home Gold".

"So how it works is, on your console, anybody else on the console, whether it's a babysitter that's come over or a friend or your family, can participate in all the experiences like they're on Gold," Xbox chief product officer Marc Whitten told Polygon. "It's with their gamertag so they're not on your gamertag, you don't even have to be there, they're not messing up your gamerscore or your storage or your queues or anything like that. It's their full account experience, but it really gets to take full advantage of many of the Gold features."

 

[pjbliverpool]

Using an xbox (360 or One) without gold is like using an iPhone without a carrier, or a TiVo without the service (which is 3-4 times the cost of Live). Sure, it's possible, but why would you want to?
Think of it as you buying an extra game a year. A game that allows you to control all your devices, upload your other game clips, access all sorts of online services, and play multiplayer, all with your voice.

I know that's what Microsoft would love everyone to think like but I don't agree. The phone and the TIVO are next to useless without the subscription but traditionally a consoles primary functions do not require subscriptions at all. You purchase the hardware and then you get access to all of it's features. XB/360 changed this a little by putting multi-player and some online content functions behind a pay wall but if you're not interested in streaming media (I don't really know anyone personally that is) or online gaming then the 360 was a perfectly valid purchase without the subscription because you still got full access to the hardware's primary functions - gaming and Kinect.

XB1 is different though since it's being a targeted pretty much equally as a home media hub and a games machine. Yet now it seems that to get most of the worthwhile features out of the system I don't only need to buy the hardware (as you would with any other home media hardware) but I also need to pay a yearly subscription.

If that's how they want to charge for it then good for them, I'm sure they'll make plenty of money anyway but but there's no way I'm paying a yearly subscription to use built in functions of the hardware that I've already paid for (voice control, hand gestures, IR blast etc..) or for services that are free on the PC (Skype).

 

[McHuj]

Yeah, I have to agree. I've been a 360 owner for 7+ years and I've only had live for 2 years of so. The console functioned fine as the majority of games that I was interested in were single player experiences.

I'm fine with paying for something like multiplayer, cloud storage, even DVR uploads. But they're basically asking me to pay for another cable box. If they want that fee, please enable me to get rid of the cable box completely. My current Uverse STB (on my gaming TV) is nothing more than a wireless N stub, there's no reason the X1 couldn't be that.

 

[bkilian]

I know that's what Microsoft would love everyone to think like but I don't agree. The phone and the TIVO are next to useless without the subscription but traditionally a consoles primary functions do not require subscriptions at all. You purchase the hardware and then you get access to all of it's features. XB/360 changed this a little by putting multi-player and some online content functions behind a pay wall but if you're not interested in streaming media (I don't really know anyone personally that is) or online gaming then the 360 was a perfectly valid purchase without the subscription because you still got full access to the hardware's primary functions - gaming and Kinect.

XB1 is different though since it's being a targeted pretty much equally as a home media hub and a games machine. Yet now it seems that to get most of the worthwhile features out of the system I don't only need to buy the hardware (as you would with any other home media hardware) but I also need to pay a yearly subscription.

If that's how they want to charge for it then good for them, I'm sure they'll make plenty of money anyway but but there's no way I'm paying a yearly subscription to use built in functions of the hardware that I've already paid for (voice control, hand gestures, IR blast etc..) or for services that are free on the PC (Skype).

An iPhone is completely functional without a provider. It is, in fact, still better than an ipod Touch at that point. The only thing you can't do without a provider is make phone calls and get data without wifi. And yet everyone still uses it with a provider, even though those two things are almost the least of what it can do.

The PS3 is the largest consumer of Netflix, and the Xbox isn't far behind. If you don't know anyone interested in streaming media, then you don't know very many people, or you live somewhere where the streaming media options are limited. I may not agree with Microsoft's choice on what to put behind the paywall, but with my usage, about three quarters of what I do on the XBox requires Gold, and I don't do multiplayer at all. Without Gold, my 360 is essentially a rarely used brick.

Some of the stuff they've announced for the One is awesome for me, since now I don't need to have multiple gold accounts in the house.

 

[dobwal]

U know why MS dumps these features behind a pay wall?

They don't want the same circumstance that Sony experienced with the PS3. People buying a console that probably is/was the most feature rich bluray player to ever exist for half of what basic bluray players were going for at the time of the ps3 launch. Barely or not buying any games, forcing Sony into a loss with little or no ability to recover those losses through manufacturer licensing fees.

MS doesn't want people buying their lossy or at cost hardware and see those buyers contributing little or nothing at all towards MS's bottom line.

People should consider the console manufacturers' profit models when looking at their paywalls and what features fall under them.

 

[Tap In]

U know why MS dumps these features behind a pay wall?

They don't want the same circumstance that Sony experienced with the PS3. People buying a console that probably is/was the most feature rich bluray player to ever exist for half of what basic bluray players were going for at the time of the ps3 launch. Barely or not buying any games, forcing Sony into a loss with little or no ability to recover those losses through game sales.

MS doesn't want people buying their lossy or at cost hardware and see those buyers contributing little or nothing at all towards MS's bottom line.

People should consider a console manufacturer's profit model when looking at their paywall and what features fall under them.

exactly.. nothing is free... so tired of hearing people complain about the cost of a hobby which gives so many hours of pleasure... compared to other hobbies this one is pretty cheap even with $60 paywall to keep the lights on

 

[pjbliverpool]

exactly.. nothing is free... so tired of hearing people complain about the cost of a hobby which gives so many hours of pleasure... compared to other hobbies this one is pretty cheap even with $60 paywall to keep the lights on

The hobby of playing online computer games or the hobby of turning my TV on and off with my voice? Because I'm not interested in paying for online gaming considering I get it for free on the PC, and I think it's a stretch to describe controlling my TV with my voice/hands as a hobby which is what interested me about the XB1 before all this pay wall crap came up.

If online gaming and access to other services that are free on a PC are of such great value then by all means put them behind a pay wall, but why put basic features of the hardware that I've already paid for behind that wall (IR blast, TVR, TV control etc..)?

 

[pjbliverpool]

U know why MS dumps these features behind a pay wall?

They don't want the same circumstance that Sony experienced with the PS3. People buying a console that probably is/was the most feature rich bluray player to ever exist for half of what basic bluray players were going for at the time of the ps3 launch. Barely or not buying any games, forcing Sony into a loss with little or no ability to recover those losses through manufacturer licensing fees.

MS doesn't want people buying their lossy or at cost hardware and see those buyers contributing little or nothing at all towards MS's bottom line.

People should consider the console manufacturers' profit models when looking at their paywalls and what features fall under them.

You're assuming the consoles are sold at a loss this time. That may be true but I'm erring on the side of doubt.

 

[temesgen]

An iPhone is completely functional without a provider. It is, in fact, still better than an ipod Touch at that point. The only thing you can't do without a provider is make phone calls and get data without wifi. And yet everyone still uses it with a provider, even though those two things are almost the least of what it can do.

The PS3 is the largest consumer of Netflix, and the Xbox isn't far behind. If you don't know anyone interested in streaming media, then you don't know very many people, or you live somewhere where the streaming media options are limited. I may not agree with Microsoft's choice on what to put behind the paywall, but with my usage, about three quarters of what I do on the XBox requires Gold, and I don't do multiplayer at all. Without Gold, my 360 is essentially a rarely used brick.

Some of the stuff they've announced for the One is awesome for me, since now I don't need to have multiple gold accounts in the house.

I see what your saying but the phone analogy isn't exactly fair, paying for LIVE is the equivalent to paying to access Google apps. If I already paid for data on my phone I don't want to asked to pay an additional fee to use the tools that require internet. Perhaps you could make an argument that MP has a real cost to MS but accessing Netflix, Youtube or browsing do not. Asking people to pay for those services is not at all like an Iphone and your service contract.

IMO a paywall should only surround services that require something tangle on MS's part.

 

[pjbliverpool]

An iPhone is completely functional without a provider. It is, in fact, still better than an ipod Touch at that point. The only thing you can't do without a provider is make phone calls and get data without wifi. And yet everyone still uses it with a provider, even though those two things are almost the least of what it can do.

The PS3 is the largest consumer of Netflix, and the Xbox isn't far behind. If you don't know anyone interested in streaming media, then you don't know very many people, or you live somewhere where the streaming media options are limited. I may not agree with Microsoft's choice on what to put behind the paywall, but with my usage, about three quarters of what I do on the XBox requires Gold, and I don't do multiplayer at all. Without Gold, my 360 is essentially a rarely used brick.

That's fine but for me the only desirable things that sit behind the pay wall are functions that come for free on any PC, Tablet or Smart Phone, or features (TV control etc..) that should be part of the hardware and not something I should be paying a monthly fee for.

You pay a monthly fee with a phone because it gives you a network connection. I'm already paying for the network connection that the XB1 will connect to so why should I also be paying for the functionality the hardware offers when I've already paid for the hardware? That's like paying the £500 up front for an iPhone, then the monthly charge for your network subscription plus an additional subscription charge for access to the phones touch and voice interfaces.

I've no problem with MS charging for online multiplier which is an additional service they provide but IF they are locking out features of the hardware like IR blast and voice/gesture control of the TV then that's a game breaker for me.

 

[dobwal]

You're assuming the consoles are sold at a loss this time. That may be true but I'm erring on the side of doubt.

Why? Are there CE products sporting price tags under $500 regularly flouting 1 tflop or greater in performance?

Given the history of MS and Sony when it comes to consoles, I highly doubt that either is looking at hardware to be a profit center. A hardware's potential for profits is finite while being pressured by retail price reductions. Software's potential for profits is much higher and trying to profit off hardware will a negative influence on software sales.

I assume both are trying to avoid the level of losses seen last gen since one should account for the level investment Sony and MS has made it their cloud delivery service.

Nevertheless, both consoles have expanded their feature sets beyond just basic gameplay. Manufacturer licensing fees isn't a revenue/profit stream able to easily handle all the costs associated with the features added in the next gen or last two generations especially when these consoles have move beyond catering to just gamers.

I rather have non gaming features sit behind a paywall then Sony or MS jacking up retail game prices to subsidize non gaming functions.

 

[Rangers]

why are we still arguing about this junk? both consoles now charge for online mp, but we are never arguing about it on ps4 threads. but it's just constant endless on xbox threads. maybe one reason xbox threads tend to be 2x as big as ps ones around here?

it's just sad how it's simply shifted from "paying for mp is a travesty" to "paying for app or feature X (that gold has behind paywall) is a travesty". what happened to the former?

i'm sorry, some people should just get over it after 10 years. there are competing options (the other core console with MP behind paywall too though, but there's always wii u or pc)...sure it's fun to argue i guess, i dunno.

live/ps+ is 35 dollars if you shop for a sale...thats 3 dollars a month....saw some poster saying how he desires to use voice commands to turn on his stuff, but if ms puts it behind gold they can "shove it". Well I mean, then it's obviously not worth very much to you, and you dont want it very much. that simple.

if you're not willing to pay 35 a year for something desirable, it isn't very desirable, or you'd pay it. i just paid 20 to the nfl to watch 4 pats preseason games out of market...which i'll probably only watch about 3 quarters worth...

anyways who the heck is gonna own these consoles that is core, and not do online (so they want their apps or whatever non-paywalled)? funny how that group got really big on message boards once ps4 went paywall for online but not (some?) apps...

 

[Jay]

The former (PS+) is your paying to use their infrastructure.
Also the debate hasn't shifted, people always complained about certain apps being behind the paywall
Kinect needs to be connected for the system to work because its a fundamental part of the system etc.
Why don't they make it that you can't use it without a gold account either?
As people seem to be saying it's pretty much worthless without it.

I still think it should be a 3 tier system. Half the cost of gold gets you everything apart from multiplayer stuff.
They could sell it as, investment to keep improving your XB1 experience.

They want the XB1 to be centre of living room, regardless if your a gamer or not in the end.
I don't think paying so much on top of your other subscriptions, is the way for them to go about it.