I already use the unwieldy console browsers from time to time, because I'm lazy at those times and don't want to hold up a tablet or drain phone batteries. A good voice/gesture/pad controlled and immediately available TV browser, and even the suggested TV show apps might see plenty of use, for convenience. If the UI is compelling.
Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
Oh I don't know I will often have a radio on listening to the football of a game that affects my team but is not my team .
Now if I could snap a video feed of that game into the corner to see what happening then I would ......its about offering something your competitor does not or can not .
Microsoft are betting on TV ......kinect ...there own exclusive game library ...there snapping feature .....there game sharing feature.......apps runing along side games as part of the game experience .......trying different things ....new things for a game console ....they may not be new ideas but there new to a games console .
Now as gamers we are ment to like new experiences but as the wii showed we are often not as forward thinking as we like to think we are
Now if I could snap a video feed of that game into the corner to see what happening then I would ......its about offering something your competitor does not or can not .
Microsoft are betting on TV ......kinect ...there own exclusive game library ...there snapping feature .....there game sharing feature.......apps runing along side games as part of the game experience .......trying different things ....new things for a game console ....they may not be new ideas but there new to a games console .
Now as gamers we are ment to like new experiences but as the wii showed we are often not as forward thinking as we like to think we are
Last edited by a moderator:
If you have PIP, you can game and TV simultaneously, and get Facebook and Twitter feeds and NFL stats to your mobile. If you are using all these services at the same doubt, I highly doubt you focus on the game is that much that looking away from TV to mobile is going to have a severe impact on your playing.
Just as a side note in this - most of these things are already offered through other packages. For example, the NFL Sunday Ticket on DirecTV offers every game, 18 player stat tracking, and real time stats and scores from your television every game - without the need for a console. You can also watch several games at once on a mix channel while tracking your players and watching stats. You pull up the stats by pushing a button on your remote - or can just leave them up the entire game.
If you add their "max" package, you end up with the ability to watch games on your computer, tablet, or phone and the games with all commercials and time outs cut out during the next week (basically, each game is reduced to only action plays so you can rewatch games you couldn't watch in 30 minutes). So you could watch your games on the tablet or PC will all of your other programs running simultaneously.
Oh I don't know I will often have a radio on listening to the football of a game that affects my team but is not my team .
Now if I could snap a video feed of that game into the corner to see what happening then I would ......its about offering something your competitor does not or can not .
Microsoft are betting on TV ......kinect ...there own exclusive game library ...there snapping feature .....there game sharing feature.......apps runing along side games as part of the game experience .......trying different things ....new things for a game console ....they may not be new ideas but there new to a games console .
Now as gamers we are ment to like new experiences but as the wii showed we are often not as forward thinking as we like to think we are
Hardcore gamers will complain when they aren't exclusively catered to, which is annoying. Responses like "OMG MICROSOFT Y U MAKE KINECT. IT SUCKS SO HARD. U IDIOTZ" is not too far from the crap you read in /r/gaming and neogaf.
And then I look at how a $100-150 peripheral 5 years into a console lifecycle sold 24 million units (33% install base) which is unprecedented for any peripheral, especially an expensive one, and just shake my head. Or the fact that the Wii outsold both the 360 and PS3 despite the fact that there were numerous articles at launch calling for its doom.
Which is true. I have had the package for 12 years. That said, only 30 million people have that option. The rest of the country would LOVE similar options even if its a la carte NFL games for games of interest out of market.
We really have to wait and see what this tie -up really brings us.out side of Kinect this is most expensive thing about the X1. $400 MM = 8 CU and 32 ROPs
BTW IF it works, it will be a masterstroke. More people watch football than vote in the US. Certainly more people watch football than play videogames... even in the aggregate.
I guess FIFA, or something non-american football related, would be casting the widest global net for them. Gamescon is coming up this August in Germany, if there's similar content deals to entice the RotW I imagine thats when we will hear about them.
Hardcore gamers will complain when they aren't exclusively catered to, which is annoying. Responses like "OMG MICROSOFT Y U MAKE KINECT. IT SUCKS SO HARD. U IDIOTZ" is not too far from the crap you read in /r/gaming and neogaf.
And then I look at how a $100-150 peripheral 5 years into a console lifecycle sold 24 million units (33% install base) which is unprecedented for any peripheral, especially an expensive one, and just shake my head. Or the fact that the Wii outsold both the 360 and PS3 despite the fact that there were numerous articles at launch calling for its doom.
Thankfully, this isn't neogaf and in that sense, fanboysm is in a controlled manner. If we keep the discussion focused around what has been said here on this board, it's clear why some are concerned. If Kinect was merely a side-quest and not a primary focus, no one would be voicing concerns. To the same effect, you don't see people overly criticizing Move for the PS3/4 either. The problem with not being exclusively catered too, is that one is (to some degree) at the expense of another. All the cool next-gen-living-room features come at a price. Not everyone wants that experience, especially not at a trade-off. Now, it's still not clear how big that trade-off is (and if it's big enough to see a big disparity), but I think it's a little unfair to put it down to "hardcore gamers" simply being hurt that their needs aren't exclusively catered too. That's not exactly where the concern is coming from.
Ulimately, the question is "Why am I basically paying $100 more for Kinect when Kinect games sucked or were stupid" to which I would answer "Developers automatically ignore any peripheral that's not included in the box". A lot of this will depend on the strength of Microsoft's Kinect APIs and how easy they are to integrate into a game. If it's as simple as writing a line of code that basically does "when player says "GRENADE" have grenades ready", then I think developers will end up integrating it without Microsoft having to force it on them.
I don't like the term hardcore gamer to be honest your ether a gamer or not .
Now as a gamer I'll try any game if it hooks me I'll try it again ....now kinect is interesting tech .......and works for certain game types and experience .
Sadly in my experience someone who views themselfs as a hardcore gamer is often very tribal in his out look which leads to lots of hatred directed towards those out side of his tribe .......I.e Sony Microsoft Nintendo ....
Now as a gamer I'll try any game if it hooks me I'll try it again ....now kinect is interesting tech .......and works for certain game types and experience .
Sadly in my experience someone who views themselfs as a hardcore gamer is often very tribal in his out look which leads to lots of hatred directed towards those out side of his tribe .......I.e Sony Microsoft Nintendo ....
Last edited by a moderator:
That's a valid point. Though I would also care to point out, that adding a $100 peripheral isn't the only trade-off. The trade-off is also in that there are fixed resources being devoted to having Kinect ready and accessible at all times. That means, less resources for other things - things that the core-gamer might be more interested in. If it's as simple as adding voice-commands to games, that'd be one thing, but I know a lot of people that bought a X360 and a PS3 to play games with a controller and not with their hands/gestures or through an extra peripheral, no matter how fun they are at parties etc.
As I said, if the cost is minor, no big deal there. If however the trend is that Microsoft actively wants developers to use it because they devoted fixed resources for it that are always there (wether you use it or not), then you might also end up seeing games that perhaps will use it one form or another. And if you will end up with the situation that again you will be splitting the pond with games that do use it (and perhaps target a more casual friendly wii crowd) and the games that don't - you will not have used the console very efficiently.
This is perhaps for the more technical topic; but as far as I understand, Kinect resources are always used, because it's handled by the OS. That means those features (or most basic features) are free in that sense. If a game developer however comes at the conclusion that he is developing a shooter directed at the core-market and thus will not use Kinect, will he be able to use those otherwise reserved resources?
And btw - people that find paying a $100 extra for a peripheral that they never liked, aren't going to change their mind simply because developers start to support it more. They might still find it rubbish, because they don't actually like that form of gaming.
Same applies for me; I didn't buy move - and if I had, it had been purely for having some fun when I have friends over at my place. I definately don't like having an extra controller for that (so Kinect is actually a whole lot more convinient in that sense). But yeah, I'm not in the market for move, nor is my livingroom suitable for that form of gaming. If Sony would force that peripheral on me simply in their persuit of going after a more casual market, I wouldn't be very pleased either.
Well, NFL services have to go Internet. In the end, it's quite possible that everything ends up on the web, better integrated, and using new technologies from Google, Apple, Microsoft, Sony, and everyone else. Yes, TV, home security and automation, outdoor gaming, blah will be on the web too. That's why I have been harping bout WebKit integration since PS3 days.
I wouldn't mind if developers start to think of integrated WebKit use in-game instead of separating apps into a separate VM.
Sony: "We had one good day, but it's not over yet"
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/sony-we-had-one-good-day-but-it-s-not-over-yet/0117256
Microsoft: "In the long run our console will win"
http://translate.google.es/translat.../17/actualidad/1371450808_152102.html&act=url
Sony will need to do more than "openness". Openness need market share. I still think they have to build a bridge to the iOS and Google, either via Gaikai or something else.
Core gamer ....casual gamer .......leave it out .....I've been playing computer games for over thirty years now .
Seen the industry grow and flourish ......crash and burn ......smart phones tablets they prove there is not such thing as casual ......or core gamers any more in my opinion there are just gamers with different tastes .
Now if you want to be successful you better make sure you try and appeal to all gamers ....casual ...core ....young ....old it matters not .
Only by appealing to all gamers will you strike gold its about covering all your possible customers ........that's what Microsoft is trying to do appeal to the whole gaming public not the vocal few who view themselfs as " hardcore "
That's my personal take on what I'm seeing so far
Seen the industry grow and flourish ......crash and burn ......smart phones tablets they prove there is not such thing as casual ......or core gamers any more in my opinion there are just gamers with different tastes .
Now if you want to be successful you better make sure you try and appeal to all gamers ....casual ...core ....young ....old it matters not .
Only by appealing to all gamers will you strike gold its about covering all your possible customers ........that's what Microsoft is trying to do appeal to the whole gaming public not the vocal few who view themselfs as " hardcore "
That's my personal take on what I'm seeing so far
Last edited by a moderator:
Both companies offer digital versions of their games, so not that big of a deal.
Which is true. I have had the package for 12 years. That said, only 30 million people have that option. The rest of the country would LOVE similar options even if its a la carte NFL games for games of interest out of market.
We really have to wait and see what this tie -up really brings us.out side of Kinect this is most expensive thing about the X1. $400 MM = 8 CU and 32 ROPs
BTW IF it works, it will be a masterstroke. More people watch football than vote in the US. Certainly more people watch football than play videogames... even in the aggregate.
Of the 30M who have the option how many pay for the package? The problem with many of these TV packages is that the content producers themselves are preventing consumers from buying al a carte bc they know consumers would opt for ESPN or BEIN Sports exclusively and not pay for other channels with smaller audience so they package everything up and force you to upgrade your package to get access to the content you want.
IPTV could completely revolutionize things if consumers could build their own packages of content based off their own interest but short of legislation from Congress it isn't happening bc it will cost the producer revenue. I was hoping Google would take a serious stab at disrupting things but then I realized that it would comprise advertising budgets in the long run.
If MS made a serious run at content producers to enable IPTV with real channels that people actually want they would be on to something but it would take massive dollars to get content producers to play ball.
Are you sure they just didn't reverse engineer it. That's what developers did with the Mega Drive/Genesis.
At this point, smartphone and tablet crowd definitely also draw the traditional gamer crowd.
Both companies will likely want to tap on that much larger user base.
Integration with FIFA, NFL, maps, stock market, TV, FaceBook, etc. will be important. They help make gaming relevant to people.
Kinect is nice but IMHO, secondary compared to gamification of the net. First, touch input is easy and pervasive compared to a few years ago. Second, motion and voice input can be cumbersome. They are great for specific use cases.
Edit:
I dislike the "3GB reserved memory for OS" position because it hampers true game-web integration. They should have the integration in-game any way the app/game dev wants.
Both companies will likely want to tap on that much larger user base.
Integration with FIFA, NFL, maps, stock market, TV, FaceBook, etc. will be important. They help make gaming relevant to people.
Kinect is nice but IMHO, secondary compared to gamification of the net. First, touch input is easy and pervasive compared to a few years ago. Second, motion and voice input can be cumbersome. They are great for specific use cases.
Edit:
I dislike the "3GB reserved memory for OS" position because it hampers true game-web integration. They should have the integration in-game any way the app/game dev wants.
I mean I won't have to pick up an XBone controller to switch the system on and find/launch content and so on. I can do that with voice now that Kinect is fully integrated.
I suppose it's possible with some remote app on a smartphone, but then I'd have to do away with the saucer.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
I think a lot of people fail to see the possibilities with Kinect and what it might offer. MS has to realize it's full potential for gaming and entertainment or their strategy was incorrect.
It has it's value. I just don't think it's very apparent, at least to the mainstream. If we approach this as a thought exercise in what a feature is worth, we'd start with PS3 at $100 cheaper. Then we look at XB1 and see what it adds in terms of features and services and how they are worth the $100 extra. So, for example, maybe NFL abilities are worth that $100 surcharge for a lot of Americans. Then again, with apps on touch devices, maybe they'd only really be willing to pay an extra $10-20 for that feature, and more than that they lose interest. Maybe Kinect gaming is worth $100 to lots of people - quite possible if supported in software. Fancy PIP? My gut feeling is that's not worth a great deal. Voice control? Similarly disinteresting on the whole for the majority, is my unfounded guess. Whatever, it's tha package that needs to justify the expense, and a lot of the key features strike me as supported in other ways that they don't necessarily add up to a significant $100 added value. If XB1 was $30 more, sure. Or maybe $50. But $100 extra and significantly weaker on paper makes the value pretty uncertain IMO save for a fraction that'll definitely value the key features.
I disagree there. Look up previous discussion on what could be done with motion controls (sixaxis), camera interfaces, Kinect. We're full of ideas and optimistic expectations, but most of these never get realised. I can see all sorts of possibilities for XB1, but that doesn't mean they'll happen, or that they'd be successful as a business. That doesn't mean I'm right, but I'm certainly not blinkered to possibilities, and think that's reasonable true for a significant part of B3D's populace.Now as gamers we are ment to like new experiences but as the wii showed we are often not as forward thinking as we like to think we are
FIFA was the most obvious target, but I don't know what added value MS can add to it. We don't have a significant FFL that warrants a fancy new app that serves up stats. So short of providing a FIFA channel with access to games, I'm not sure where they could go with it. I also expect it'd cost serious dollars to secure a deal, and that'll only be for a subset of the populace. You could follow JonnyAwesome's idea of interactive services for certain reality TV franchises but that too would cost serious dollars. It's not impossible, and maybe MS are going to splash out $2 billion on securing sports and reality TV content, but, as I say, it'd be an unprecedented push.
As above, I disagree, unless you're talking about the wider population and gamers in general. Discussion on this board has talked about all sorts of possibilities that, so far, have rarely come to anything. Kinect could be awesome (and I lament the lack of inclusion of PSEye as standard with PS4 for exactly some of those awesome possibilities), but I for one won't commit to a console on the hope it'll be awesome.
