Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox

[eastmen]

Nice but Sony, and the fate of the PS3, have nothing to do with MS's decision to blow the price of the XB1 with a fancy camera and then completely leave it unsupported.

It's too late for compelling games on the Kinnect, for it to get consumers attention it needs to have come out with all guns blazing. Not jump around at the back of the bus squeaking 'me too, me too'.

Unsuported ?

At launch they gave a years worth of free fitness software which is an amazing bundle. My gf uses it all the time for yoga .

I also don't understand what its to late for Kinect. The ps3 took 2 years to get interesting games .


This is what makes me laugh about the situation. Before the xbox one reveal everyone was running around saying MS has forgotten the core they only care about Kinect they better show hardcore games that everyone wants. So ms comes out at the revel and e3 showing harcore games. Now its all where are the Kinect games , where are they.

Mean while in the sony camp we have controlers that you can't shut a light off on and analog sticks that are falling apart and no one says anything.



As I've said , MS just needs to keep releasing big games and get the price down. Removing Kinect would be a big mistake

 

[HTupolev]

Before the xbox one reveal everyone was running around saying MS has forgotten the core they only care about Kinect they better show hardcore games that everyone wants. So ms comes out at the revel and e3 showing harcore games. Now its all where are the Kinect games , where are they.

Before the Xbox One reveal, people who didn't want Kinect had a good reason to make their voice heard.

In the world where the console is on the market and is made more expensive because you're forced to buy a Kinect with it, it's understandable that you'd want rock-solid support. Especially when rock-solid support was supposedly the upside of the required bundling.

Furthermore, a lot of the people who asked for less focus on Kinect are still requesting a Kinect-less SKU.

There's really not a ton of consumer hypocrisy here.

 

[-tkf-]

Unsuported ?

At launch they gave a years worth of free fitness software which is an amazing bundle. My gf uses it all the time for yoga .

I also don't understand what its to late for Kinect. The ps3 took 2 years to get interesting games .

This is what makes me laugh about the situation. Before the xbox one reveal everyone was running around saying MS has forgotten the core they only care about Kinect they better show hardcore games that everyone wants. So ms comes out at the revel and e3 showing harcore games. Now its all where are the Kinect games , where are they.

Mean while in the sony camp we have controlers that you can't shut a light off on and analog sticks that are falling apart and no one says anything.

As I've said , MS just needs to keep releasing big games and get the price down. Removing Kinect would be a big mistake

Your vision is getting clouded..

The Kinect technology is from 2010 so they had plenty of time to create the games needed to convince us it's the new black.

I bought into it, happy I did since my kids have fun. But for real games it sucks, sorry.
So when Microsoft decides to build a new console around the kinect tech and ask people to pay for it as well, then I think it's more than reasonable to ask for games that makes it worth it.

I want it since in my case it would be the main thing that interests me vs the PS4, but the real games will be bought and played on the superior PS4.

As for your problems with your PS4 controllers, return them, warranty should cover it.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I'm wondering about AI.

If all AI were shifted to the cloud, along with world simulation, you could have a very large number of entities reacting to the world around them, with the clients syncing based on updates from the cloud/server in a similar way to multiplayer games.

I don't think you could shift all AI to the cloud but perhaps some. Most people tend to react quickly (twitch) to physical stimulus but less quick to other things, like for example a car crash where there is an distinct observe-process-react cycle and more outlandish observations where there is often a 'is this really happening?' thought processes thrown in. These types of slower reactions, along with more complicated crowd behaviours, could perhaps be offloaded.

Maybe I'm missing the thread of the discussion, but you raised gangbuster sellers and My Bitch said these games are rare, and you said they aren't that rare. Regards games not being profitable, 70% fail to break even, so games that are even profitable are uncommon. Games that make significant profits are definitely rare*.

My point was to address Ranger's assertion that "there aren't massive profits in games". There certainly are as gaming as a medium surpassed movies in 2009. I'm not suggesting all games are profitable so perhaps my examples of clearly profitable games sent the wrong message. There are a lot of profitable games launched all the time. And moderate profits on the few negate the minor losses on the many. Profits across the publishers show this to be the case.

At launch they gave a years worth of free fitness software which is an amazing bundle. My gf uses it all the time for yoga.

What if I go to a gym and don't wan to tdo yoga? Is is still amazing value? I get it, you like Kinect 2 but some of us just want great games without paying for a device that we're not going to use. Now Microsoft say great games are coming, but we heard this from Phil Spencer in 2010 when the original was launched.

Well we view Kinect as a fundamental part of the [Xbox 360] platform. It is as core to the platform as [Xbox] Live is. And we think about the all products in our pipeline, including things that haven't been announced. And just like there's an [Internet] pipe connected to the dev kits, there's a camera connected to the dev kits. So you think about those dev kits and those teams and that creative space, and how they want to add [Kinect] to that experience.

I think over time for first party, you're not going to see that differentiation between "Is that a Kinect game?" and "Is that not a Kinect game?" You're just going to think about these things as 360 games. Now that doesn't mean there's no controller included. This is just like Live, since Live is used in many different ways across many different experiences that we build.

I think our [Kinect] launch lineup is strong. It's deep. I think it's great seeing the third parties step up. But our gamer customers should expect to see Kinect across all genres. All genres will support Kinect at some point.

Déjà vu?

 

[eastmen]

Before the Xbox One reveal, people who didn't want Kinect had a good reason to make their voice heard.

In the world where the console is on the market and is made more expensive because you're forced to buy a Kinect with it, it's understandable that you'd want rock-solid support. Especially when rock-solid support was supposedly the upside of the required bundling.

Furthermore, a lot of the people who asked for less focus on Kinect are still requesting a Kinect-less SKU.

There's really not a ton of consumer hypocrisy here.

Yet the Kinect runs through the entire system and design choices were made for Kinect. Whats an xbox one without an Kinect .

Tkf says it right after you

but the real games will be bought and played on the superior PS4.

Your vision is getting clouded..

The Kinect technology is from 2010 so they had plenty of time to create the games needed to convince us it's the new black.

I bought into it, happy I did since my kids have fun. But for real games it sucks, sorry.
So when Microsoft decides to build a new console around the kinect tech and ask people to pay for it as well, then I think it's more than reasonable to ask for games that makes it worth it.

I want it since in my case it would be the main thing that interests me vs the PS4, but the real games will be bought and played on the superior PS4.

As for your problems with your PS4 controllers, return them, warranty should cover it.

I have an xbox one because of Kinect . I don't need a ps4 since it doesn't do anything different than a superior gaming pc. Because after all the real games will be bought and played on a machine that can push 4k and not struggle with 1080p.

That's the way this goes right ?

The original Kinect was introduced in 2010 yes and it was limited in what it can do. We've only had the new Kinect since nov of 2013. Lets see what comes down the pipe for it. There are a few games in which Kinect is fun for the xbox one. I liked dead rising and being able to lure zombies to you by shouting . I also like the px90 work out (although i'm way to fat lol) Kinect sports is also a fun game. Then there is all the xbox menu interaction .I'm sure at e3 we will see more and more uses out of it.

Its the same way I don't fault the ps4 for only having a single exclusive worth playing.

I don't think you could shift all AI to the cloud but perhaps some. Most people tend to react quickly (twitch) to physical stimulus but less quick to other things, like for example a car crash where there is an distinct observe-process-react cycle and more outlandish observations where there is often a 'is this really happening?' thought processes thrown in. These types of slower reactions, along with more complicated crowd behaviours, could perhaps be offloaded.

For me i'm more interested in the simulation never ending. What if in fable 5 I log out of my game to sleep but the world continues on and changes while I sleep with characters doing different things. So when I log back in the world is different than when I left it. A night wouldn't change anything but 3 months or 3 years ?

What if I go to a gym and don't wan to tdo yoga? Is is still amazing value? I get it, you like Kinect 2 but some of us just want great games without paying for a device that we're not going to use. Now Microsoft say great games are coming, but we heard this from Phil Spencer in 2010 when the original was launched.



Déjà vu?

There are already great games on the xbox one. Exclusive wise you have Ryse , forza , dead rising 3 , titan fall to name a few . I'm sure its similar in great games to its rival platforms.

So whats the real problem ? The xbox one costs $500 and people think it has to do with Kinect ?

It might be Kinect that pushes the price up but we don't know if it is or by how much. Is the whole $100 difference Kinect ? If Kinect is removed can they under cut sony in pricing ? Will they be able to undercut sony enough to get past the mentality that tkf is showing ?

Like I've said a price parity non Kinect xbox one sku wont help ms.

Kinect and xbox one should both become cheaper to make as volumes go up and they start hitting die shrinks . until then bundling and a modest price drop is the smartest way forward.

At some point perhaps the 16nm drop Ms will be able to drop costs enough that no one will think twice about Kinect esp if great games keep droping

 

[DrJay24]

Yet the Kinect runs through the entire system and design choices were made for Kinect. Whats an xbox one without an Kinect .

Yet you can unplug it and use it fine. I'd sell it for $349 and call it the Xbox One Gaming Console.

I have an xbox one because of Kinect .

Did you even buy an XB1? I recall you gaming a contest after originally saying you were not buying one.

There are already great games on the xbox one. Exclusive wise you have Ryse , forza , dead rising 3 , titan fall to name a few . I'm sure its similar in great games to its rival platforms.

His quote was about Kinect games. I think his point was if they are going to make us pay a premium for Kinect, at least justify it with software other than yoga.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I have an xbox one because of Kinect . I don't need a ps4 since it doesn't do anything different than a superior gaming pc. Because after all the real games will be bought and played on a machine that can push 4k and not struggle with 1080p.

That's the way this goes right ?

I don't know if you're kidding, but Joe Public isn't wanting to, nor going to, shell out on a 4k capable PC. Your average PS360 owner is looking for a new, simple box to play the next-gen versions of their typical games. They want to play FIFA, and will prefer a box that plays that at 1080p rather than 900p, or at 60fps instead of ~40 (if they can notice the difference), especially if that box the plays those games better is also cheaper. (Of course, they also want other features and services that add into the consideration)

The original Kinect was introduced in 2010 yes and it was limited in what it can do.

IMO it was a lot more capable than what it was ever used for. The lack of content for Kinect goes hand-in-hand with the lack of useful additions to PSEye and Move and other peripherals - devs typically have tunnel vision and fail to innovate much. There's little reason to think Kinect2 will be any better served any more than PS4's stereo camera or DS4 motion controls or touchpad will add to games. MS themselves are hardly pushing the boat out when it comes to making Kinect (enhanced) games that core gamers want.

For me i'm more interested in the simulation never ending...

That's not something exclusive to XB1 though - any game can choose to do that. With running costs, chances are said game would be on a subscription and MMO'd or something. MS may decide to give some Cloud time away free for XB1 games to get a few big exclusives like Fable that provide a fabulous, epic experience even for solo players, but it won't be a mainstream differentiator.

So whats the real problem ? The xbox one costs $500 and people think it has to do with Kinect ?

Yes.

It might be Kinect that pushes the price up but we don't know if it is or by how much.

It's the world's most capable TOF 3D depth sensor AFAIK. Here's a rumour saying Kinect 2 costs nearly as much as the XB1 console itself. Here's a teardown guessing $75. Our prior discussion as inconclusive, but I guess you're still going with the 'K2 can't cost more than $30' view, which will affect your view regards its inclusion in XB1. If it's only $30, sure, include K2 in XB1. If it's $100+, it's suddenly a very different value proposition.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

It's the world's most capable TOF 3D depth sensor AFAIK. Here's a rumour saying Kinect 2 costs nearly as much as the XB1 console itself. Here's a teardown guessing $75. Our prior discussion as inconclusive, but I guess you're still going with the 'K2 can't cost more than $30' view, which will affect your view regards its inclusion in XB1. If it's only $30, sure, include K2 in XB1. If it's $100+, it's suddenly a very different value proposition.

It's an interesting perspective, Kinect 2 can be so integral and offer unmatched experiences but costs such a trivial amount?

I agree with the basic premise from Eastman though - Removing Kinect2 from the One is a losing proposition, and getting to price parity without the Kinect2 is waving the white flag on the entire generation (although MS has already just about done that with including the BR, reversing DRM, continually changing message, etc).

The One needs to differentiate itself from the PS4 and the way to do that is to stick by their original roadmap (at least as much as they can at this point), by pushing Kinect and other entertainment options.

The reality is that the One is simply too expensive. It needs to have price parity with Kinect included. But I don't see this as that big of a deal. The Titanfall bundles were already $449, so remove the bundled game and the Live membership and sell just the console at $399 and be done with it.

Put Sony in a position to explain why their console should be the one you purchase when it doesn't include a cool camera thing like Kinect or allow you to control your TV, etc.

It's all about the price.

 

[zupallinere]

It's an interesting perspective, Kinect 2 can be so integral and offer unmatched experiences but costs such a trivial amount?

I agree with the basic premise from Eastman though - Removing Kinect2 from the One is a losing proposition, and getting to price parity without the Kinect2 is waving the white flag on the entire generation (although MS has already just about done that with including the BR, reversing DRM, continually changing message, etc).

The One needs to differentiate itself from the PS4 and the way to do that is to stick by their original roadmap (at least as much as they can at this point), by pushing Kinect and other entertainment options.

The reality is that the One is simply too expensive. It needs to have price parity with Kinect included. But I don't see this as that big of a deal. The Titanfall bundles were already $449, so remove the bundled game and the Live membership and sell just the console at $399 and be done with it.

Put Sony in a position to explain why their console should be the one you purchase when it doesn't include a cool camera thing like Kinect or allow you to control your TV, etc.

It's all about the price.

Of course dropping the kinect doesn't mean it won't do the TV thing just that you won't be using gestures and having your face log you into the machine. Just need a decent array of microphones and a remote or an app for your smartphone or some such.

 

[MrFox]

Pushing Kinect would be a good strategy if they had something real and impressive to show. Maybe they'll have something cool at E3.

If they are still unable to give gamers anything more than voice control and fitness games, it's pretty much a failure. This isn't just MS, it's also Sony's Move and Nintendo Wiimote and Wiiblet. Each company is doing a few interesting things that are exclusive to their respective technology, but never a big AAA game that's worth buying the console for, or a really innovative gameplay that changes our perspectives beyond the gimmick aspect. I love these things, I love motion gaming, but all three have been gimmick so far, nothing close to what was promised. MS is special in this case, because they promised the moon, and delivered nothing better than their competitors who didn't hype as much.

MS have been spinning everyone around on the potential of kinect-2 (which is a really really great TOF camera). They did exactly the same thing with kinect-1, I remember the sales video, it was filled with things that were not possible with the first kinect.

There was never a "message" problem, and I clearly remember the whole sequence of events that led to their loss of market share. The missteps were all bad decisions and bad assumptions about gamers. Assuming we were a "loud minority" which wouldnt' show up in real sales. What they called a message problem was their spin that didn't work, assuming people would accept the loss of ownership for mild convenience, or a wishful thinking about the potential of Kinect that they didn't deliver, or the spin about cloud gaming which people called it for what it was. The new strategy was to attack the consumers for "not understanding their vision" and later saying it was just because the message was not clear. That was complete bullshit and nothing to do with the message.

It's not all about the price.

 

[itsmydamnation]

i find it funny, for all the talk in this thread i think john sums it up best
"zero button mouse with a lot of latency on it". Everything else can be whatever it is but until both those points are resolved Kinect wouldn't be able to be the centre point of user input for "core games".

 

[Nesh]

It's an interesting perspective, Kinect 2 can be so integral and offer unmatched experiences but costs such a trivial amount?

I agree with the basic premise from Eastman though - Removing Kinect2 from the One is a losing proposition, and getting to price parity without the Kinect2 is waving the white flag on the entire generation (although MS has already just about done that with including the BR, reversing DRM, continually changing message, etc).

The One needs to differentiate itself from the PS4 and the way to do that is to stick by their original roadmap (at least as much as they can at this point), by pushing Kinect and other entertainment options.

The reality is that the One is simply too expensive. It needs to have price parity with Kinect included. But I don't see this as that big of a deal. The Titanfall bundles were already $449, so remove the bundled game and the Live membership and sell just the console at $399 and be done with it.

Put Sony in a position to explain why their console should be the one you purchase when it doesn't include a cool camera thing like Kinect or allow you to control your TV, etc.

It's all about the price.

Its also about the games, the paywalls and the performance. The average joe wont check specs he doesnt understand but he listens to this: "more powerfull".
And yes the PS4 has a camera too that does cool stuff.
You might say the kinect is more advanced and has more support. The average joe doesnt care. He sees two cameras that both can track you and understand your voice. He slso doesnt care as much about being able to control the TV. The console is primarily bought for games.
If you slap on a console a feature that is considered unnecessary it doesnt make it a strong selling point. Kinect and TV control is like slapping a toaster on a fridge and call it "major feature".
The price is a problem because those things that raise the price like TV and Kinect are not valuable for the majority.
Those are things the tech geeks are most likely to pay for contrary to what MS was trying to communicate.
You wont see the coach potato or someones wife go pay a few hundred dollars so they can watch TV and control it with voice. Its still the gamer who will pay for it as the price is that of a next gen console not that of a universal controller for dummies.

 

[Phil]

I don't think that power is a particularly big factor. Most people can't tell the difference, or don't particularly care. Even the people who make a lot of noise can't particularly tell. PS3 was ravaged by the 360 in terms of multiplatforms when it first launched, in a similar way to Xbone, but most people didn't care or couldn't tell most of the time.

I just wanted to respond to this - as an PS3 owner, who did notice the graphical disparity to a degree. The reason though why it didn't matter, was because the PS3 (and the PlayStation brand as a whole) has typically always excelled as a platform with great content. While multiplatform titles were typically worse on the PS3, the platform itself was carried by the extremely strong 1st and 2nd party franchises and games, that went the extra mile in both graphics and gameplay.

I think I would even argue that Sony has a stronger tie to its customers thanks to these 1st and 2nd party games - compared to Microsoft who has typically relied on strong multiplatform support.

Right now, the situation is that Sony still has a strong 1st/2nd (and 3rd party exclusives) AND the talent to maximize the already stronger hardware - compared to Microsoft who now has the weaker graphics across the board, only a few exclusives (by 3rd parties) and a muddled perception of a machine that's going after a more mainstream audience (that possibly isn't that interested in the first place).

This IMO is also the reason why it may be more difficult to lure a PlayStation consumer to the Xbox platform - where as it might be easier for an Xbox consumer to jump ship. Besides Halo and some others, most big successfull games on Xbox are multiplatform. These multiplatforms are just as successfull on the PlayStation platform, but besides them, there are also many other exclusive games that cater to large crowds that are not found on any other platform.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying Microsoft doesn't have exclusives, or even in-house exclusives that people like and play. My point is that Sony has more of them - and been building a brandname around them for years - starting with Crash Bandicoot, Gran Turismo, Metal Gear and eventually leading to Naughty Dog games (Uncharted / Last of Us, to still Gran Turismo, KillZone and others).

Microsoft may have Forza and Halo (great start) but IMO they need more. They IMO need devs like Naughty Dog that push the extra mile and create franchises that become synomynous with their platform.

 

[Deleted member 86764]

Right now, the situation is that Sony still has a strong 1st/2nd (and 3rd party exclusives) AND the talent to maximize the already stronger hardware.

Well said (cheaper hardware too). I think you've essentially described why Sony are in a very strong position this generation. Stronger than most people would have actually predicted.

I skipped the PS3 despite having owned all other Sony consoles and handhelds. In actuality, it's for the very same reasons that I'm skipping the Xbox One this time. Media focus, underpowered, cost, etc.

I have to admit that I'd have liked to have seen one of them continue with the previous tradition of going for all out power, but I understand that neither had much of an incentive considering the current economy.

Still, I look forward to seeing what they both do for E3 this year and I'm absolutely certain Microsoft will have a few tricks up their sleeves and will pull out their big guns, they'll also probably mention things that may occur >2014. Hopefully not another Halo borefest.

 

[wco81]

It seems as if MS wanted to protect XBL subscription revenues. Particularly putting Netflix and other apps behind the paywall.

They noticed towards the end of X360 that a lot of XBL Gold subscribers were spending more time on Netflix and other apps than gaming itself.

So Kinect with the TV features was suppose to be another draw to subscribe to XBL.

Problem is it raised the cost/price of the hardware and then people realized there's really no justification for paying for XBL Gold to access Netflix.

 

[Rangers]

PS3 exclusives looked (arguably) better than 360 exclusives. That will not be the case for PS4/XBOne.

Did PS3 really "claw it's way back into contention" or more like, regress towards the (PS2) mean after the debacles of $600 and a year late began to be corrected?

In which case we might be giving those exclusives, and the PS3 comeback, more credit than they're due.

In a way I think that's still going on. The advantages PS4 has versus PS3 at the start are utterly monumental. Going from a year late and $200 more to the same launch time and $100 less, are almost incalculable differences in positioning. Leaving aside DRM debacle and power. That's another reason I think the X1 gloom can be overblown. None of this is really rocket science, and it could be argued X1 is holding it's own pretty well, given.

I think the next test of whether MS execs have any intelligence is whether they think "games" will do the trick at E3 (they wont, and never have) or whether they understand a major price cut is absolutely necessary, and that price and cheap DDR3 are their best weapons going forward. And that ditching Kinect is probably the smart move.

I doubt they'd just ditch Kinect, too much invested in it. I think where Kinect can be valuable is in family shopping around the holidays. So they could perhaps make a heavily family aimed, multi-kinect family games packed in, Kinect SKU for $100 more.

For all the people saying "we haven't seen the gamessss" about Kinect, I'm just skeptical of software based arguments in general. If we haven't seen the "killer app" for Kinect yet, I guess it doesn't exist, but will forever be something that is talked about because it has no meaningful definition.

 

[Rangers]

GAF says X1 is confirmed for Japan release 9/4. Even though the link they give is 403-ing for me.

Here's previous Xbox sales in Japan

Xbox - 472,992
Xbox 360 - 1,612,391

Given how poorly PS4 is doing in Japan some are wondering whether MS should bother.

Anyways I dont know, 50k first week sales?

 

[temesgen]

Did PS3 really "claw it's way back into contention" or more like, regress towards the (PS2) mean after the debacles of $600 and a year late began to be corrected?

In which case we might be giving those exclusives, and the PS3 comeback, more credit than they're due.

In a way I think that's still going on. The advantages PS4 has versus PS3 at the start are utterly monumental. Going from a year late and $200 more to the same launch time and $100 less, are almost incalculable differences in positioning. Leaving aside DRM debacle and power. That's another reason I think the X1 gloom can be overblown. None of this is really rocket science, and it could be argued X1 is holding it's own pretty well, given.

I think the next test of whether MS execs have any intelligence is whether they think "games" will do the trick at E3 (they wont, and never have) or whether they understand a major price cut is absolutely necessary, and that price and cheap DDR3 are their best weapons going forward. And that ditching Kinect is probably the smart move.

I doubt they'd just ditch Kinect, too much invested in it. I think where Kinect can be valuable is in family shopping around the holidays. So they could perhaps make a heavily family aimed, multi-kinect family games packed in, Kinect SKU for $100 more.

For all the people saying "we haven't seen the gamessss" about Kinect, I'm just skeptical of software based arguments in general. If we haven't seen the "killer app" for Kinect yet, I guess it doesn't exist, but will forever be something that is talked about because it has no meaningful definition.

Absolute sales numbers really shouldn't matter to anyone but fanboys though. To put it another way if PS4 or XB1 for that matter do less in overall sales than PS3/360 but manage to be more profitable I'd say that's a win.

MS still might figure out a way to build out their TV ecosystem and it may turn out to be quite profitable, same goes for PS4. I think both companies see the hardware as a way to sell subscriptions and will do likely come up with some interesting propositions to get consumers to pay monthly fees. Some like PSNow and Project Morpheus imo will not be successful but a streaming IPTV service even if its just HBO or ESPN/Disney would be a game changer.

 

[eastmen]

I don't know if you're kidding, but Joe Public isn't wanting to, nor going to, shell out on a 4k capable PC. Your average PS360 owner is looking for a new, simple box to play the next-gen versions of their typical games. They want to play FIFA, and will prefer a box that plays that at 1080p rather than 900p, or at 60fps instead of ~40 (if they can notice the difference), especially if that box the plays those games better is also cheaper. (Of course, they also want other features and services that add into the consideration)

Last gen it seems like people were evenly split between a box that cost more and offered worse performance and a box that cost less and offered better performance.

IMO it was a lot more capable than what it was ever used for. The lack of content for Kinect goes hand-in-hand with the lack of useful additions to PSEye and Move and other peripherals - devs typically have tunnel vision and fail to innovate much. There's little reason to think Kinect2 will be any better served any more than PS4's stereo camera or DS4 motion controls or touchpad will add to games. MS themselves are hardly pushing the boat out when it comes to making Kinect (enhanced) games that core gamers want.

The problem with Kinect wasn't Kinect so much. Think about the history of add ons. They do what 10% of the base if lucky. So a lot of developers would have been gun shy about supporting the Kinect thinking it would be an eye toy. But then the Kinect blew up and sold what 30m of them. But as the ball started rolling 2010 became 2011 and then 2012 . Games take awhile to develop and while we got some Kinect game and some Kinect enhanced games by the time anything would be ready we would be looking at the start of this generation.

That's not something exclusive to XB1 though - any game can choose to do that. With running costs, chances are said game would be on a subscription and MMO'd or something. MS may decide to give some Cloud time away free for XB1 games to get a few big exclusives like Fable that provide a fabulous, epic experience even for solo players, but it won't be a mainstream differentiator.

MS is giving azure time to titan fall which isn't subscription based. An experience like I described can be a mainstream differentiator . Remember when console fps games were horrible and sold poorly and then halo hit and its controls and lan play changed everything ?

Yes.

From what I've heard before the xbox one at $500 is sold for a profit. Take the profit away and it wont be $500 anymore. That's before removing Kinect.

It's the world's most capable TOF 3D depth sensor AFAIK. Here's a rumour saying Kinect 2 costs nearly as much as the XB1 console itself. Here's a teardown guessing $75. Our prior discussion as inconclusive, but I guess you're still going with the 'K2 can't cost more than $30' view, which will affect your view regards its inclusion in XB1. If it's only $30, sure, include K2 in XB1. If it's $100+, it's suddenly a very different value proposition.

It may not be $30 but it sure as heck isn't the same price as the xbox one. Going by that the xbox one could be sold at $250 without Kinect and then I would agree that they should just dump it and put the one out at that price.

I'll agree with the $75 price as that seems more reasonable.

But like I said if removing the Kinect only gets them price parity with sony then it wont matter. Listen to everyone in this thread , no one actually cares about the Kinect. They care that the ps4 is more powerful than the xbox one.

Getting down to $400 with no game or $450 with multiple free games and keeping Kinect is the important thing.

A lot of people make fun of tv features of the one , but at some point it will become attractive for cable companies. Make a small little tunner box that hooks up to the one and boom you got one of the best cable boxes ever made for the consumer

 

[eastmen]

MS is rumored to have a few JRPGs slated for the One that could help it sell well (compared to past xbox systems) but who really knows