$75 would be attractive, but shockingly low; even the original Kinect is still in the $100 ballpark. They'll likely choose a price where XB1 + Kinect is more than the current $500 bundle.
Kinect-less XB1 fallout thread *spawn
- Thread starter Shortbread
- Start date
- Status
which will be the final straw to break the Kinect.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Exactly. And the fact remains if their potential customer base for the Xbox was going to be that of current 360 users then they should have stuck with their original vision of an all DD console because their entire customer base would fulfill the necessary requirements. It's the need to expand to new users that led them to do the 180 on their original vision step by horrifically thought out reversed step that got them eventually to where they are now - with a console that offers no benefit to consumers over their competition, unless you are already an existing 360 customer.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm confused.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
How are they going to do both, Dave?
How are they going to continue to provide Xbox support for the Kinect while also stating that removing the Kinect is going to free up resources for the Xbox to compete graphically with the PS4?
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
No, it's not. That's my point.
It seems that those who think this is a good move for MS and the survival of the Xbox are basing that upon a yet to be announced further reduction in price. One that undercuts the PS4 in order to provide an actual advantage to the PS4, other than familiarity with the 360.
My question was what is opinion when that doesn't happen and MS stays with the Xbox at $399 along side the PS4, not just for the next 6 months but through the holiday season as well?
Historically is that what MS tends to do, quickly abandon a market? Ultimately a box hooked to a tv still represents a good place for them to shop their goods and services, so I can imagine them tweaking the formula but abandoning it outright doesn't seem as likely. Unless they are willing to have ~80 million people spend money on competing goods and services and/or have those 80 million people get attached to competitors ecosystems.
oh ms will have a box to hook up to the internet , but it wont be the xbox one if it doesn't start selling better.
I'm still of firm mind that the one will be replaced in 2016 .
There's at least two other threads (and probably this one) actively discussing that; its not rocket science and the notion of freeing additional graphics resource currently earmarked for Kinect started way before the Kinect-less SKU became reality, without, they say, impacting the Kinect enabled user experience.
I don't believe additional "freeing up of resource" is a driver for the Kinect-less SKU, that was likely to happen irrespective as part of the course of system and SDK optimization (although its priority may have been raised). The scuttlebutt is reporting that this is coming in May/June SDK update so the system folks must have been working on it for a long time.
Personally I don't think you need to consider any conspiracy theories, dropping mandatory Kinect now is just a pure factor of cost/price and making sure they don't lose some much early in the cycle that it becomes too much to claw back later. Kinect will still remain a key to the mainstream as the price comes down.
What do you mean? Removal of Kinect to gain graphical power refers to eliminating the Kinect's processing for particular applications. They're not going to throw out a patch that makes XB1 literally incompatible with Kinect.
Curious differentiation you make with that statement, you got me there.
Gotta say birthing also means supporting though, which they had to do after birthing it. Anyways, to me this is just another.... VirtualBoy? now.
Perhaps...
This greatly written article explains it well:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/techno...e-shouldnt-kinect-first-3546553#ixzz31otblWBF
I thought it could make it in the end, but it didn't. It'd take some extra time.
Patience is indeed a virtue.. just hard to practice.
Nintendo has infinite patience, just way too much, but they have backbone. Microsoft try hard to be straightforward but they lack the backbone Nintendo have.
They probably have more to lose than Nintendo if they don't listen to consumers, or it's simply that they don't have the luxury to be rejected by 3rd parties --which Nintendo seems to be fine with.
Kinect was a key differentiating factor for the Xbox One, and I appreciated it went against the bee hive mentality.
But the feedback you talk about was going to be brutal against it. It was functional but it wasn't finely tuned. -voice commands worked well for me for the most part, but gestures implementation was odd, and I always forgave that just because of my almost infinite patience morals-.
Core gamers are somewhat living on great experiences from historic games, so maybe in that regard they are the "wrong" people, but you can't blame them when you focus on Sports and dancing to get them to love Kinect. I hated calling myself a core gamer at times when I read some things about Kinect, but in the end they were right.
Kinect isn't universal, you need space, they'd have to fine tune it to play while sitting all the time if you wanted to. Ideas are cool but like you say, birthing something nice and technologically impressive doesn't mean that you are going to support it well.
It's like having the most beautiful daughter/son in the world but then you realise you can't feed them...
The wrong people were those executives that didn't sell Kinect and forgot the Xbox culture at the same time, which was always the most capable console at launch date.
Their restrictive measures (and I am not talking about the connecting at least once every 24 hours thing, which was to some extent doable for many people --still stupid though) and their attitude of talking like they were presenting the "ultimate device" with an arrogance I've seen very few times, was their downfall.
If those executives looked back at Microsoft themselves, and the Xbox brand the Xbox One idea could have much more personality.
People were sold on the Wii because it was solid and Nintendo had a clear idea in mind, Microsoft executives didn't communicate their ideas that well at all.
Not to mention that while Kinect is unique and different, it is also a byproduct of motion controls, so copying on other people's success isn't always a good idea, especially when the Wii was what you define as an explosive fad.
Why do you think Phil Spencer uses the logo of the original Xbox in his twitter account? Xbox had personality as it was, it didn't need those stupid new chairmen taking over the division. Thankfully, they are gone.
Phil Spencer was a very good pick.
And you are utterly crazy
Nope, for better or worse 5 years is the absolute minimum they're stuck with this hardware. And I'd only go as low as 5 years if it really continues to struggle.
It's super expensive and massive inertia involved, you dont just jettison a console...
That sounds fine, it makes you learn what these things are about, and it means practicalities, being practical, and not defend ideas meant for losing.
As for what you say, some games have charm despite not being AAA. Call of Juarez was that game for me in the previous generation, I cried with laughter playing it many times.
Yet, it was your typical core game, with some very charming moments.
Your point makes sense with games like those we got for Kinect. I was expecting great games for it, so I was patient with Kinect and its typical games.
I hoped for games like the one Kinect game from Sega on the X360, which was a horror game, and was well done to play with Kinect and a gamepad. If there were more games like that...
But people got this instead...
http://kristinandcory.com/img/f0/f0...nce_Hologram_Girl_featuring_Princess_Leia.jpg
: ) And I've never been a fan of Star Wars, so I didn't mind...
In a vacuum an interface may not be a system seller but it could definitely nudge some people to prefer using the Xbox over something else. Early on, its clear that MS has the more ambitious plans for a UI and have proven they will iterate and refine aggressively as time goes on. I personally prefer the flexibility of the XBO UI (over the other consoles) and the ability to jump from task to task, I only expect the gap to widen over time.
Of course the the XBO *could* have voice input if you later want to add a Kinect 2, and the MS solution should be the superior one given the amount of voice recognition data they'll be collecting from other Kinect 2 users and their other platforms. (MS has been in the voice recognition business since at least 2004 when i used on a Windows Phone.)
The Microsoft ecosystem should expand beyond just the Xbox brand this generation and we are already seeing that with how ubiquitous OneDrive is, for example. That and the advent of universal apps/games across all Microsoft platforms *should* give them an edge in both the ecosystem and the app store content. I guess my point is that the MS ecosystem will have much broader utility for those who buy apps, games, music, and use their services than what Sony or Nintendo offer.
Just because Sony has reached some level of parity with service offerings MS has had for 3 or 4 years doesn't mean they will or can continue to keep pace. MS is a software and services company as part of its DNA and has been the pioneer in the console space since the beginning of last generation.
I understand you put weight on the hardware, and that is fair, but I think you dismiss these other factors as a *given* for Sony when they have not historically been a strength of Sony.
Your point is what does MS have over Sony except HDMI IN but you could just as easily look at it as what does Sony have over MS besides the hardware?
Nothing, but that's all they need to sell to the core gamer who's just after the best COD/FIFA box.
But I can also be a little fairer and say PS4 has Project Morpheus coming which is going to make waves even if it doesn't go mainstream. And it's had service and features that MS is copying (internet services not behind a paywall, subscription service coming with great value content). Both Sony and MS innovate and emulate in their services department and compete in a, broadly speaking IMO, equal footing.It's not like Sony's efforts are at Nintendo levels! Whatever ecosystem advantage XB1 may have, right here and now this year, what's the reason for a gamer to buy XB1 over PS4 when it's offering a lesser game experience and costs the same? When PS4 is going to offer VR? And this year is going to be quite important in establishing XB1. Cross-Windows games and apps might gradually trickle interest in switching phones and wanting an integrated experience across devices, but then you're looking at people way down the line who have been seeing PS4 outselling XB1 significantly for a year or two or three.
If XB1 can't make a name for itself this year, it'll just be the second-rate also-ran for the rest of the gen. Devs will make the most of PS4 and PC with their simple development and shuffle cheap ports to XB1. It'll be pretty uncompetitive.
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.
Games, which is really all that matters. If the XB1 wants to remain relevant its going to have to have a great lineup of titles.
When it comes down to it, ROM the robot, 32X, the powerglove, Kinect, Wii wand and whatever peripheral/feature comes to your mind, aren't what really defines a gen. Its the games. People will remember last gen for Modern Warfare, Uncharted, AC, Gears and a host of other titles more than anything else.
People didn't do it knowingly last Gen, why am I having a deja vu?
The PS3wasn't considered weaker, it was expensive but not proven to be weaker, and when the exclusives turned up the picture was even more muddy. And it offered things that were af value as well, Blu-ray, wireless, hdmi, rechargeable controllers, free multi-player.
The xb1 has been weaker from the start, has nothing to counter with, and offered nothing more to offset the weakness.
It's very different
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...
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Oh, come on Joker. That isn't what happened.
It was common knowledge among everybody that the PS3 with Cell! was far more powerful than the 360 and it was only lazy developers and the fact that it was going to take time to figure out the complicated architecture that was leading to the 360 initially looking better.
Sure, "initially" kept going on for years and years, but even then it wasn't until extremely late in the generation that the general consensus began to change.
So no, I wouldn't say that last generation millions of people willing paid more money for a console that they knew was less powerful.
- Status
