How much you know the market is as much as I do. You assume that the majority of the market is similar to you. I only brought up the other side of the market which you appear to ignore and to believe is insignificant.
Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
How much you know the market is as much as I do. You assume that the majority of the market is similar to you. I only brought up the other side of the market which you appear to ignore and to believe is insignificant.
Why don't you argue against the strategy that Sony decided upon if you think it's wrong? No reason to be quiet about it. Nothing has been decided yet, you only risk being wrong or right
Do you think that Microsoft changed their complete business strategy on DRM, ownership etc based on forum trolls and PS4 fans? I am convinced it was the only way to save their future console from going down in flames and the obviously woke up from whatever made up world they were sleeping in.
And the question of Always On Drm wasn't centered around just the XB1, it was slippery slope that had every chance to spill over to the rest of our consoles and PC. There was a real threat to the basic right to own something you buy. So there was actually nothing stopping every gamer in the world from protesting against that, even though they never had the intent to buy the XB1.
As far as your first paragraph... Why would i need to do that? Its not climate change, or Genetically Modified food or NSA spying.. its a console. I dont care about Sony's strategy. I didnt care about their strategy in the days of the original PSX, the PS3 or now. Who cares? I can use their console or not. I have no need to go bandying about from forum to forum arguing with people about it. That just seems silly to me.
As far as always on DRM the only part i did not like was the "brick if you are not connected part" but that i believe was an easy remedy. In fact i think most of this is an easy remedy. Since i am an owner of their console i do give them feedback about my experience - forum work is not necessary.
As far as slippery slope itunes STILL has drm songs, and shows etc. Netflix doesnt allow you to save streamed movies for use other places, Spotify allows you to try and buy but I'm not sure if you can use spotify acquired music through any other mechanism.
In a streaming world which everyone is now used to due to the rise of mobile, what you are talking about is not really unusual.
Then why do you spend time here if it's silly to discuss these subjects, mildly confusing.
I think your comparison is flawed, but i will leave it that, this is not the thread.
When people make uninformed comments about devices I own and use, I respond. If I have actually used a product and have impressions of it, I write about it.
Both activities are VERY different from what some people, even on this site do with respect to the Xbox One. The time someone else spends, who has never used a product that I use, telling me how "not worth it" the product is, is the issue.
I played the PS4 before most people on this board did and gave my impressions. So I had access to things they didnt and discussed it openly and evenly. Alot of people aren't doing the same. Does that make sense to you?
This is more what Xbox One is fighting in terms of perception across the internet. A perception which is probably affecting their sales.
Again. What are you talking about? If I plainly state I don't pretend to know the market why do you assume that I assume that the market is similar to me or the other side is insignificant?
My problem with your post has nothing to do with how consumers value Kinect. So why do you keep interjecting it into the discussion?
What is your problem? In one hand you aknowledge that not everyone values it like you, and when someone expresses what you aknowledged earlier you go talking about how great kinect is for you and others who are like you as a counterargument. We know what MS aims for. We know what you like. We get it. But thats irrelevant
No, I was relating my personal experience with Kinect to highlight that your perception of Kinect and how it is used is pretty narrow by giving you an actual usage case.
My experience is not a testament on how anyone else feels about it or how they value it. My statements aren't meant represent the market.
"How one values the most marketed features will influence their willingness to incur the price premium." was a statement of agreement of your assertion because perception is what actually leads to sales or non sales. The latter statement was a disagreement because usage indicates experience and the Kinect features and their impact is a lot broader than your perception. Thereby how you perceive Kinect as a non owner is not actually how someone may experience Kinect as an owner.
Your perception and attraction to Kinect may dominate the market or it may not. I have no knowledge of how the market ultimately feels about Kinect or the XB1, so you don't have to construe my statements as doing so.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have described the portion of the market that sees less value in Kinect than you do. You went along describing your personal experience as a counter argument. Nobody questioned your personal experience. Nobody questions MS vision. We get what you personally like about Kinect. We get what MS aims for. I also I did not say anywhere that kinects features are limited. You say the impact is broader. Correction: It is potentially broader. Potentially is not an actuality.
This is one problem with you. On one hand you say you have no knowledge about how the market feels, yet, you dont accept the portion of the market that doesnt feel that value is for them when soneone describes that market as if you DO know how the market feels about it.
The other problem with you is that you assume that my statements are related to how I perceive the kinect experience as a non owner. Correction: I reckognize what appeals to you and others that like Kinect which is hugely related to XB1's unique features. My statements are not about that. Its about the portion (which I have not defined in size) of the market to which it's "broad" features which you bring up again and again are unnecessary. Let me remind you that the broader features of Kinect are largely dependent on unique features build in to the console iself like TV viewing, Skype chatting, etc which arent in the PS4. In features that exist in both and which appeal uniformely to everyone that wants a console there IS an overlap which will be strengthened as competition expands on it and improves it, which competition offers some form of access to without additional cost and the option to join or opt out with the camera ( still at less cost) if you dont want a headset. People interested to have VC in the core features that are standard in both consoles have less incentive to purchase an XB1 because of that.
VC in games is present in both. Using Kinects better depth motion detection ability in games in a manner that sets it apart is still unproven and it is almost unused so far. The immediacy of accessing apps and games via VC is possible in both.
You can start talking about how much better is to have the camera as standard, better developed features from the start and how great it is with snapping and TV viewing etc but thats besides the point.
Not if the poster has a good reasoning for whatever his/hers views are, but i get what you are saying.
A perception that isn't necessarily wrong just because everyone doesn't own it. Imho it's the perception that Microsoft sold themselves. And i still don't see how they will sell the TV part where it can't be used
Not if the poster has a good reasoning for whatever his/hers views are, but i get what you are saying.
A perception that isn't necessarily wrong just because everyone doesn't own it. Imho it's the perception that Microsoft sold themselves. And i still don't see how they will sell the TV part where it can't be used
I cant argue with either point. I never said own, just use. Most people haven't even used the product then write huge article and forum treatises about why no one WOULD ever use that functionality. It doesn't make sense.
As far as the tv part, ultimately the tv pass through is an option. The voice and motion controls are options. Hell xbl and internet connection is an option. I don't play any multiplayer games myself. But to say that the value proposition for a consoles with MORE options is weaker than a similar console without those options just reeks of self validation.
For me the options which I get from Xbox one aren't really replicated well anywhere else. Control of other Av equipment including access to settings channels etc is a boon rather than having to ever setup a remote of any kind again. Xbox does it for you automatically. So console is just worth 399. A console that does more right now, is worth 499. I wish it were 399, but I also wish iPad Airs were 249. :
As far as the tv part, ultimately the tv pass through is an option. The voice and motion controls are options. Hell xbl and internet connection is an option. I don't play any multiplayer games myself. But to say that the value proposition for a consoles with MORE options is weaker than a similar console without those options just reeks of self validation.
For me the options which I get from Xbox one aren't really replicated well anywhere else. Control of other Av equipment including access to settings channels etc is a boon rather than having to ever setup a remote of any kind again. Xbox does it for you automatically. So console is just worth 399. A console that does more right now, is worth 499. I wish it were 399, but I also wish iPad Airs were 249. :
I think this is one of the issues people have with this argument. I just don't see the XBox as having "MORE options" right now.
For instance, where is BlueTooth on the XBox? My cell phone, my headsets, and several other devices use it. I actually can't even control all of the components in my AV rack without BlueTooth and RF controls - neither of which Microsoft's new "center of my living room experience" supports.
Likewise, I can buy a camera for the PS4 for motion controls. My PS4 already supports voice commands, either through the camera or through a headset. The Playstation seamlessly supports remote play via the Vita. I have yet to see Smartglass produce anything comparable. The video sharing on the PS4 is better right now in my opinion. The share button is much easier to use than "XBox, record that" in my experience (and I have tried both). XBox One won't get Twitch or UStream support until sometime next year. It does however have Skydrive which allows for some editing before YouTube - so I can see how some might prefer the XBox.
When I line the two machines up and go through them feature by feature - the real differences seem to be:
Playstation 4:
Better hardware
Bluetooth support
Remote Play
XBox:
HDMI in
Kinect (if you don't buy the PSEye)
Everything else has an equivalent on both machines right now and it is an argument of which is "better". For me at least, the HDMI in is worthless. It does not fit into my entertainment system, and I would have to spend a lot of money to try and make it fit. This is coming from someone who thinks buying a $300 remote control is fine by the way - the problem is that the XBox is not a valid replacement right now for a high end universal remote. There are too many devices it cannot control.
Kinect really has very low value to me right now. The "voice" commands already exist on my PS4, and the vision of the XBox as the center of my living room just will not happen. Not until the XBox One adds RF and BlueTooth support. Gaming wise, Playroom might still be the best next gen "motion controlled" game out there right now. I don't think that will stay the case, but the software just isn't there. All of this comes after having used it by the way - not just reading internet reviews.
People value different things. For me, BlueTooth support alone is worth the cost it would take to replace my current headset with one of equal quality. On the other hand, the HDMI port is practically useless to me because I cannot use it to do any of the "wonderful" things people keep talking about. I wouldn't even be able to get it to turn on all of my audio components - not to mention actually controlling them.
I would agree that both sides do a lot to dismiss the advantages the other side has. Those who favor the XBox right now dismiss remote play, BlueTooth, and the more powerful hardware. Those who favor the Playstation tend to dismiss the HDMI in and Kinect controls. I do not believe either side can blindly make the statement that their console has better value in general though.
So what you are saying is that those who keep dismissing the PS4 Camera as less than the Kinect are too busy focusing on what the PS4 camera can't do rather than what it can?
*edit - thought I should clarify rather than just respond with sarcasm.
The original claim was that the XBox obviously had more value because it had Kinect. The problem is, the XBox is missing things that the PS4 has too - things that cannot be fixed in software. For instance, the XBox does not have a BlueTooth receiver. This is a physical hardware difference - not a cosmetic change. You will note that the list of things I had for differences are physical hardware differences. I did that in the context of current value proposition.
The article you linked talked about dismissing a technology without trying to envision what it would do in the future. I assume you were trying to infer that everyone who doesn't accept the Kinect as the most ground breaking thing since the invention of the transistor are "can't-do" people. Because they are focusing on what Kinect "can't-do" vs what it can. The problem with that is that you can say the exact same thing about those who don't accept the PS4 Camera as the same. It also has no actual bearing on my post on why Kinect has little value to me right now. For two reasons. 1) I never claimed it would not have value in the future. As a matter of fact, I pointed out that I expected the game situation to change dramatically as the technology matures. At that point, Kinect may begin to have value for me. 2) I was focusing on what Kinect can do. I just pointed out that what Kinect can do does not add value for me. Because for my situation, what Kinect can do is not useful - it adds no value. I suspect you will find that far more common than you think.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Xbox can control one display device (television or projector), one avr, and one STB device simultaneously and does so primarily through IR BLASTS.
I dont have an AVR at my condo in DC where I live. I use comcast cable and a 46" Samsung LCD in the living room and a no-name 42" Insignia LCD TV in the bedroom. The XBox controls sound, channel changes, and live video controls on both sets at least as well as my remote. "Xbox on" turns on everything. "Xbox turn off" turns off everything.
When I had the XO in my living room, both the Xbox and the Kinect sat in a rack two rows below the stand mounted Samsung that also provides sound from a connected sound fin. I have hardwood floors and a leather couch and the opposite wall is 12 feet away. Creme colored walls.
Even in my bedroom theres a bed, directly in front of the Kinect at roughly 4 feet, and the Kinect sits above both the cable box and the Insignia TV that I kludged together to support it. Creme walls in here too but carpeted.
At my house in MD, I have Directv for my STB, Comcast internet, and an Optoma HD20 1080P display at 120". I also have a Denon 3802 AVR WITHOUT HDMI ports. Guess what? When I connected it all to my XBox One, it found and controlled all of the components flawlessly. The only modification I had to make was to turn off HDMI Audio from the Xbox and select optical out to my Receiver. The Kinect found all of the codes to control every device (the projector on the ceiling, the AVR and directv STB on the rack perpendicular to the Kinect). The walls in there are painted midnight blue and the opposite wall from the Kinect is 24 feet away; carpet through out.
I have you given you three disparate environments with totally dissimilar acoustics, floor, wall, and furniture characteristics as ir reflectors, with a range of distances, and highly variable display technologies and they all work.
Im not saying that it WILL work for you, but unless you tried the Xbox One to see if it works, how you can make a statement that it just wont... is beyond me.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I don't know about Xalion but the reason the Xbox One couldn't be the centre of my system is because I have a Wii, PS3, PS4 and MacMini running XBMC - which is my entertainment hub. I've not found anybody that claims to have got an Xbox One to control an XBMC device. With my terrestrial TV signal going direct into the TV and tuner card in the MacMini (DVR functionality) the Xbox One adds nothing.
What might work would be an XBMC client app for Xbox One, which talks to the XBMC machine itself over the network. There are apps like this for other platforms but right now, Nada.
It is fairly easy. The XBox One does not support RF.
To turn on my television to watch it, you must turn on a cable box, a TIVO box, the television, the receiver, switch an HDMI switch to input 4, and turn on my sub woofer. The sub-woofer is controlled by RF. So the XBox One cannot turn it on. At this point, it cannot work.
But we can continue. You claimed that the XBox One could turn on 3 devices (a display device, an avr, and an SBT device). So, I would have to disconnect my TIVO box and make sure that it wasn't routed through the HDMI switch even to have a chance just to control the devices I have. However, doing this I would lose all of my network programming (because it comes in through an antenna hooked to the TIVO box, the cable box doesn't have an antenna in) or pay extra so that I could get the local channels from cable. I would also lose the ability to record programs.
I could make it work. I could replace my subwoofer with an always on model (~$600). I could get rid of my TIVO box and use the cable providers DVR (~$50 service fee, monthly fee would be offset by not paying for TIVO). I could replace my receiver with a newer model that supports more HDMI ins (~$2500 for the newer model of my current that has 7 inputs instead of 2). Then I could have the full experience.
So you tell me - do you think it is worth ~$3150 for me to pay so that I can get the full XBox One experience?
Um, you turn on your TiVo box? Mine is always on, I had to tell my harmony remote to ignore it. Having both a cable box and TiVo does add a wrinkle though.
my reciever setup has a subwoofer also but not as specialised as yours.
Are you saying that none of the TV, Tivo, Cable box or Recievers have IR? None of them?
Thats hard to believe considering most of the components in my setups are pre-2007 except for the Optoma. HDMI control is not necessary at this point and I do not know if HDMI-CEC is actually supported but the Kinect can "see" everything connected to it. My 3802 is only connected through Optical out so theres no mechanism like HDMI-CEC to control, Kinect just accepts my toggle that theres a Denon AVR, then proceeds to go through IR codes to find the appropriate one. It eventually found it and voila.
I've never had a Tivo so i dont know what the pass through control mechanisms could exist for it. For example, if the Tivo has a "switched" versus "unswitched" plug in back of it, or a mechanism that allows it to turn on your cable box when it turns on. If so then that solves your problem right there and all of your other devices other than the Subwoofer are controllable.
None of that means that the Xbox one is less valuable, because your control case doesnt apply to PS4 either. Which is the basis of my point. I cant do on a PS4, what I can with Kinect on Xbox One and control all of my AV devices through voice (not just selecting games mind you) at this time. PS4 camera has a camera and microphone but not the IR blaster that can then control the output sources to my screen.
My multiple setups, are all probably within one standard deviation of most peoples setups, and yours is slightly beyond that - but it still sounds workable. That fact that you have not (cannot, will not wont, not interested in, wont ever try) means that you really don't know how well it could work either... so to dismiss it still doesnt make sense.
Hopefully in future OS upgrades the span of device controllability will extend beyond a three device setup and accomodate your use case better.
Last edited by a moderator:
