Kinect-less XB1 fallout thread *spawn

[Shifty Geezer]

People did it last gen en masse where they paid more for the console with crappier versions of most games and crappier online.

That crappier console with crappier versions was off the back of two runaway console successes, and even then Sony lost about half their audience. And PS3 had a BRD drive so it had a hardware USP, and it had plenty of positive spin so people thought it was awesome even when it provided sub-par games.

XB1 has no hardware USP (it did have with Kinect, but that's no longer a big deal), and isn't as strong a brand as PS was and isn't believed to be the more powerful console even if it isn't. What are the likelihoods of MS keeping even half their audience as Sony managed?

 

[joker454]

That crappier console with crappier versions was off the back of two runaway console successes, and even then Sony lost about half their audience.

They lost half their audience because they literally managed to do almost everything wrong last gen.

What are the likelihoods of MS keeping even half their audience as Sony managed?

As i understand it, the first 6 months of life of the xb1 have it outselling the 360 even though the 360 had a lower cost model available. That's doesn't lead one to believe off hand that they will lose half their audience this gen. If anything what both consoles need to fear longer term is competition from other devices, that is what could cause both of them to not reach the sales of the previous gen, not loss of brand loyalty or 100 fewer lines of resolution.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Then, even a cyclops could play both versions of games and notice that it wasn't just visuals and frame rate that were impaired on one version but that online features were blatantly missing.

Absolutely true. If you were used Xbox Live then the multiplayer service on PSN was a very pale imitation which was an issue if you were an ardent multiplayer gamer. If you weren't it was less of an issue, or a complete non-issue.

But I agree with you in principle. I probably number among the few who really have no axe to grind and buy objectively. Pretty much the only thing keeping on me on Sony consoles is their first and second party studios. If those studios were with Microsoft, I'd own an Xbox One now. It's a crazy notion, I know, but I go where the games I like are

That will depend person to person. The typical buyer will see both and will not be armed with any info from forums like this because lets face it, most buyers don't read anything of what we are typing here. Both consoles will look very similar with mostly the same games and at the same price. So which one to buy?

If you are one of the few who read forums like these you will be better informed about the performance gap. But who buys a games console and doesn't read any of the mainstream gaming sites (IGN, GameSpot, Eurogamer etc) or print mags (I get EDGE and GameInformer digitally) or listens to a gaming podcast, or have friends/family that do? Because all of these places it's very clear from articles, reviews, comments to stories, that Xbox One is less powerful. And believe me, the "news" and "facts" out there in mainstream paint a very different picture is the performance gap. And most people, given a choice of two things for the same price, where one is known/perceived to be less powerful, especially if uninformed, are probably going to go for the more powerful option.

But how many people buying a gaming console live in such a gaming news vacuum?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

With Morpheus, Sony has not had a great track record with peripherals, so I'm not convinced they can bring it to market with content and pricing that will lead to great success.

Whether it flops or not, it's generating buzz. It's a positive differentiator, encouraging people into the PS brand.

Why would someone buy an XBO? They prefer the games, XBL, the multitasking, and the disparity in multi plats (WD is 108p difference) doesn't weigh heavily.

Spell it out for me with an example. Joe Consumer goes into a retailer wanting a next-gen console. What's the advice from the independent sales person?

"Okay, you've got two choices, unless you want a Wii U (ha ha ha). XBox One and PS4."
"Tell me about XB1."
"It's got Live internet gaming so you can play with friends online. It's got media services so you can watch Netflix and the like. It's got Kinect voice control and skeleton tracking..."
"Yeah, I don't want that one. I want the cheaper box without. Not into all that motion gaming."
"Okay, looking at the Kinect-free box, it does everything the other one does just without motion. You can Skype people and you can also run apps alongside your game. MS has some strong exclusive games like Halo and Sunset Overdrive which you can only play on Xbox."
"Sounds good. What about PS4?"
"It's got PlayStation Network internet gaming so you can play with friends online. It's got media services so you can watch Netflix and the like. Sony has some strong exclusive games like Uncharted and The Order 1886 that you can only play on PS4."
"Does either play DVDs and Blurays?"
"Yep. They both do."
"They sound pretty similar."
"Well, they're pretty much the same computer inside."
"Which is cheaper?"
"Both the same price."
"Okay. Is one better than the other?"
"What do you mean by better? In what way?"
"You know, play games better."
"A lot depends on the controller and stuff. Some people find the PS controller a little cramped. Others don't like the XBox controller much. PS has a touchpad and XB has rumble triggers."
"I mean, does one of them play Call of Duty better?"
"Oh, yeah. PS4 tends to play games a bit better at the moment. They are higher resolution or a bit smoother."
"So it's the same price, does basically the same things, and plays games better. What about the future. Any upcoming plans for PS4?"
"It's getting a VR headset next year that puts you inside the game."
"Wow. What'll that cost."
"We don't know yet."
"What about XBox? Is that getting VR or anything?"
"You'll be able to buy apps on your PC or phone and run them on Xbox."
"I can play my iPhone stuff on Xbox?"
"No, Windows phone."
"Oh, I don't have a Windows phone."
"But you could buy a game on Xbox and run it on PC."
"Okay. If I'm honest I hardly touch the PC these days!"
"You and me both!"

That's obviously my take on a hypothetical conversation with a non-partisan consumer wanting an independent choice weighing up the pros and cons. Feel free to present an alternative that I'm missing. I can't see a strong argument for XB1. Everything thus far has been really wish-washy and based on dependent benefits like owning a Windows phone. For a vanilla consumer that is making a simple comparison, how is XB1 going to be presented as the better choice? I'm not seeing it. For those who get to see both boxes in operation, the way XB1 works may appeal to them, but I'm talking about the wide sales and marketing strategy which is trying to win 100+ million consumers.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

As i understand it, the first 6 months of life of the xb1 have it outselling the 360 even though the 360 had a lower cost model available. That's doesn't lead one to believe off hand that they will lose half their audience this gen.

This often spouted data comparing the One to 360 from eight years ago has to be the most useless metric I have seen in a long time. The value it has is really low. The two situations are completely different, not to mention that was eight friggin years ago. 360 came out of nothing and started to trend up against the competition. It had the market for itself for 12 months, building a nice foundation among gamers and dev/publishers. Now the One is getting hammered worldwide and it has none of those advantages. It had great supply at launch, demand then dried super quick, forcing them to make a very drastic strategic decision.

They didn't drop Kinect now, because One is doing so great compared to 360 from another time... It's going to be a tough road for them. I think dropping Kinect was a good move for the platform, but it's hard to say whether it will enable it to see success. An additional proper pricedrop and hopefully strong upcoming exclusives could at least help them in their stronger markets.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

They lost half their audience because they literally managed to do almost everything wrong last gen.

And MS hasn't?! Sony lost their audience. Why do you think MS won't lose theirs?

As i understand it, the first 6 months of life of the xb1 have it outselling the 360 even though the 360 had a lower cost model available. That's doesn't lead one to believe off hand that they will lose half their audience this gen.

The launch number are nigh meaningless. I can't believe this needs to be reiterated. Wi U sold way faster than XB360 and PS3, yet that 6 month total launch number wasn't any indication that it'd sell as well as them. The trends after launch sales are what matters, and XB1 isn't in a great place, selling at least 3:1 down worldwide against PS4 and with few arguments to sway non-partisan consumers in its favour.

If anything what both consoles need to fear longer term is competition from other devices, that is what could cause both of them to not reach the sales of the previous gen, not loss of brand loyalty or 100 fewer lines of resolution.

Brand loyalty and 100 lines of resolution is not the issue. Brand loyalty means people will buy a console irrespective - nothing much Sony nor MS can do about that (loyalty is theirs to lose). The issue is the mainstream looking for a COD box, who doesn't give a shit about brand. The sorts of people who buy a TV on price and looks and what the salesman tells them and what the picture looks like, and not whether its an LG or Panny or Sony or Sammy because of brand loyalty. The sorts of people for whom the 'console wars' don't exist. Their major influences will be media and word-of-mouth, price and obvious features, every one of which PS4 is generally stronger on and can only get stronger on if sales snowball.

Forums get way too hung up on console war perspectives. The discussion and business concerns are much bigger than that.

 

[liolio]

http://www.totalxbox.com/76560/rare-evaluating-what-they-want-to-do-next-says-phil-spencer/

so it looks like even rare is free of the Kinect shackles. Seems to me that Kinect is completely dead

Indeed it is a soft EOL of the product.
I mean what reaction can they expect from publishers anyway, it was standard, they started investing into it, and boom: sales are not OK, and MSFT makes it an accessory once again...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I mean what reaction can they expect from publishers anyway, it was standard, they started investing into it...

I don't think publishers started investing in Kinect. There'll be a few though. If even Rare aren't making Kinect games though, who will? Ubisoft will continue Dance Dance Forever Fever and sell just as they have on peripheral devices like Kinect 1 and Move.

 

[Phil]

People did it last gen en masse where they paid more for the console with crappier versions of most games and crappier online. The so-called "core gamers" for whom games are supposed to be all that matters, millions of them willingly payed more for a shittier game and online experience. It does happen, it's not like every one of the millions of game players out there flock to DF's game comparisons to see what's what. Some will simply buy what their friends have and off they go play, or some with just stick to the brand they know.

My bad, you are right it is different. The xb1 plays versions of games that look mostly the same as the ps4 versions but with lower resolution, whereas last gen ps3 games were missing all sorts of visual features, had blurry visuals, lesser frame rates, crappier textures, longer load times, less online features, etc, etc for the first few years. That much can't be denied because I lived it first hand and profited handsomely from that very fact.

So last gen where the difference in games was far far more pronounced the "all about the games" core gamers didn't care. But this gen where the difference is mostly just resolution that few in real world tests can even notice anyways, somehow people are scratching their heads as to why a gamer would pick an xb1 over the ps4.

C'mon now...

The problem is, Joker, is that you're effectively lumping in all gamers outthere into a singular entity called "core-gamer". They are not. The market is big and diverse. Not everyone buys a console for the same reasons.

I would say that the core-gamers are for the most part early adopters. The people who consume games on a regular basis, are up-to-date on news, discuss about them on forums. These are also the gamers who usually are willing to spend more money on being at the forefront at the launch of a new console. To a large degree, you, me, pretty most posters on this forum are in this group.

The core-gamer doesn't solely care about graphics. It's an important factor, but it's not the only one. When the PS3 came out (a year late mind you), it was also a unique situation because it there was a big shift in the general consumer space, going from SD to HD capable TV sets. Bluray was the next big thing and many of us, justified the higher cost of the PS3 because it was considered "up to date" and "future proof". Future proof because it was the only console to offer 1080p content (in PSN games) and through HDMI. Bluray sweetened the deal. Then there was also the hype surrounding CELL which at least painted the picture that in theory, on paper, PS3 should be at least as capable as the X360. In practice, this perhaps wasn't evident, but for every CoD game that ran better on the X360, there was a Heavenly Sword (near launch) that is probably still one of the most beautiful games on either console to date (ok, with the worst choppy framerate). We've also had countless of strong 1st and 2nd party games to look forward to. Many of us who came from a PS2 knew this and for us this was a factor. Games by Insomniac, Naughty Dog (who landed a win with the Uncharted franchise), even MGS4 - a franchise that had many many countless fans on the PS2.

If you go back in time, you'll see that already on the PS2, many of us "PlayStation supporters" stuck with the inferior PS2 compared to the Xbox. With success comes success and despite the huge performance differential between PS2 and Xbox - the PS2 went on to become the greatest selling console in history.

Now back to your argument - why did last generation "people pay more for inferior a console with crappier versions"? Because while we did get crappier versions of many multi-platform games, we also got an array of extremely strong 1st and 2nd party exclusive games that were graphical achievements. Games that we knew were coming - part of them, already games we bought a PS2 for back in the day.

The core-gamer segment in probably only a smaller part of the overal market. Early adopters / core-gamers drive a console when it launches - and at some point, more casual gamers follow, buying either that what their friends have or what is considered to be "the best console" currently. PS2 had this. Driven by fans and core-gamers, eventually, it was bought by many of the more casual gamers (who to a some degree probably ventured off to Wii and now to tablets). PS3 was similar: We had "close enough" hardware (which we thought was more powerful on paper), we had HDMI and bluray and we had the games we knew and loved back from the PS2 making a return. Those are the reasons why the cost back then was justified.

Even if we assume that the core-gamer is a graphics-whore (and rates it above all else) - it's pretty evident that the PS4 is the more powerful of the two and sitting at the right price. And at this point, there are more of them running out to get a PS4 instead of a Xbox One. Personally, as I said above, I don't think graphics are as important to the majority of PS owners outthere than perhaps to the general Xbox fans. Most PS owners have lived with inferior hardware to a degree - but we still ended up getting a PS because we like the games the platform has always offered. I think there's a strong tie between many PS owners and the games that have been offered generation after generation. Some of these games have become multi platform over the years which limits the appeal, so other factors like graphics/performance, price and overal company/vision become stronger factors when comparing these consoles. Factors which seem to favor the PS4.

 

[Nesh]

Hey Joker. If the imaginary "non-core" market you were talking about and MS was aiming for really existed MS wouldnt have removed Kinect to reduce the price. It would have been selling by the bucketloads as it was.
"Core" gamers cant stop the rest from purchasing an XB1.

Sales talk. These people didnt exist

The XB1 would have been selling like crazy if the market was filled with tech geeks/enthusiasts. This is the real market the initial vision appealed to contrary to what MS or you may believe.

The reality is very simple.

There are casual and core consumers alike out there that want a device at a good price that does great what it is meant to do.
Everything else about "IR Blasting, controlling your home entertainment with voice and gestures, watch TV blah blah" are unnecessary luxuries that only a few would care to pay for at the expense of everything else and at a heftier price.

XB1 would have been a good deal if it was 399 with Kinect

2 products were released simultaneously and people had a choice and they chose

 

[Deleted member 13524]

The XB1 would have been selling like crazy if the market was filled with tech geeks/enthusiasts. This is the real market the initial vision appealed to contrary to what MS or you may believe.

I'm every bit of a tech geek as possible and I couldn't care less for the xbone and its kinect. Neither was any of the tech geeks I personally know of.

The Kinect was initially marketed at english-speaking countries who care more about american sports and american TV, which narrows its supposedly wordwide market to... some americans who like to watch TV and play a few games (with worse IQ than PS4, which also has an impact, no matter how small some think it'll be).
The japanese-equivalent in the PS4 was if Yoshida had been speaking about exclusive deals with pachinko shops and maid cafés for most of the unveil, and the console had to be $500 in order to come with a peripheral to simulate pachinko arcades.



The Kinect didn't sell because there wasn't enough consumer interest in it. This could be for technical reasons (lag, requirement to yell at the TV, etc.) and/or because Microsoft and developers couldn't find anything interesting enough to do with it.

But please refrain from saying that "all tech geeks/enthusiasts would enjoy the Xbone".
As much as you might like the Kinect gimmick, that general assumption is just not true.

 

[Arwin]

Does Xbox One even have anything equivalent to Playstation's bundled camera and controller demo? Because that kind of thing really tickles the geek in me.

I really like Kinect, by the way, but I've stated my issues with it many times before and the Xbox One iteration hasn't convinced me the issues with the original have been solved. And it's a shame, because I'm one of the biggest motion controller fans on this board, I think.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Does Xbox One even have anything equivalent to Playstation's bundled camera and controller demo? Because that kind of thing really tickles the geek in me.

I really like Kinect, by the way, but I've stated my issues with it many times before and the Xbox One iteration hasn't convinced me the issues with the original have been solved. And it's a shame, because I'm one of the biggest motion controller fans on this board, I think.

Microsoft screwed up bad in terms of software for X1 launch. They should have had a Kinect demo that shipped with the console, or that could be played in stores. There was literally nothing to use Kinect for out of the box. Kinect Fitness was free for a while (still?), but they didn't seem to advertise it at all. Kinect Sports should have been ready and bundled at launch. I'm big on the idea of Kinect v2, but I haven't used the skeletal tracking on mine at all yet. No software.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Kinect Fitness was free for a while (still?), but they didn't seem to advertise it at all. Kinect Sports should have been ready and bundled at launch. I'm big on the idea of Kinect v2, but I haven't used the skeletal tracking on mine at all yet. No software.

Fitness is free to Live Gold users until the end of the year. Kinect Sports Rivals had the wave rider demo available from the off.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Fitness is free to Live Gold users until the end of the year. Kinect Sports Rivals had the wave rider demo available from the off.

Yes, you're right. I did try the wave rider demo. Totally forgot about that. It seemed to work pretty well.

 

[Arwin]

Did anyone here play sports rivals? If so how was it?

 

[Scott_Arm]

Did anyone here play sports rivals? If so how was it?

I did not. Can't say I was happy with the sports they chose. Also, reviews were not great, from what I saw, but I didn't read them in detail.

 

[Dave Baumann]

Did anyone here play sports rivals? If so how was it?

Its on my purchase list.

 

[steveOrino]

The investment MS made in Kinect just goes to show how poorly management was. It seems they looked at the Wii-mote control system in sales only and not the limitations of the technology.

I do get why people were excited. The first prototype concepts of people punching/swinging in front of the TV bringing the promise of a whole new era of interactivity to games sparked the imagination of what could be possible. But lack of collision/tactile feed back, depth perception when interacting with a fixed 2D plane (TV) and general input failure doomed this tech from the start. Slaying dragons by swinging imaginary swords at air is as interesting as it sounds and that was always the fatal flaw.

As an OPTIONAL input device I can see some value for people who want to play certain games that work well with the technology or want the convenience of hands free to operate their consoles. But to design the entire system around this sensor system had me asking for the longest time, "WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY SMOKING AT THE XBOX DIVISION". To expect developers to magically make the problems of motion gaming go away is really head scratching but to sell the idea to management so the design team had to make overall platform sacrifices to get this thing in the box for less than 600 dollars is really laughable.

Sure early adopters will get the shaft (they always do) but the new management had to do this because having a dead-end tech for gaming as a money boat anchor doesn't make sense when you are selling a brand that you spent years building as a GAMING brand only to throw it out the window at the system's unveiling.

I expect them to ditch Kinect all together mid-life. The tech makes far more sense on mobile platforms for non gaming use, which (surprise surprise) Apple bought.

 

[Nesh]

I'm every bit of a tech geek as possible and I couldn't care less for the xbone and its kinect. Neither was any of the tech geeks I personally know of.

The Kinect was initially marketed at english-speaking countries who care more about american sports and american TV, which narrows its supposedly wordwide market to... some americans who like to watch TV and play a few games (with worse IQ than PS4, which also has an impact, no matter how small some think it'll be).
The japanese-equivalent in the PS4 was if Yoshida had been speaking about exclusive deals with pachinko shops and maid cafés for most of the unveil, and the console had to be $500 in order to come with a peripheral to simulate pachinko arcades.



The Kinect didn't sell because there wasn't enough consumer interest in it. This could be for technical reasons (lag, requirement to yell at the TV, etc.) and/or because Microsoft and developers couldn't find anything interesting enough to do with it.

But please refrain from saying that "all tech geeks/enthusiasts would enjoy the Xbone".
As much as you might like the Kinect gimmick, that general assumption is just not true.

I didnt say all. But your point illustrates that its even wirse. Even the tech geeks arent interested