News & Rumors: Xbox One (codename Durango)

[Rangers]

Well, being particular, that title shows people did want Kinect back then. Whether they still do or not can't be strongly supported by response to the original, new experience. It could be that, "people used to want Kinect, but now nobody wants Kinect," much like interest in Wii was incredibly high yet came to a stop. Or it could be, "people wanted Kinect when it launched, and want it as much/even more now." The only way to really argue that one way or the other would be current sales, methinks. Probably would need a Kinectless SKU to compare to.

A Kinectless SKU at anything approaching less the actual cost of Kinect (<>$100 at least), would crush the Kinect SKU in sales, almost assuredly.

Nothing more bluntly illustrates that Kinect 2.0 is currently a failure, than the fundamental economics.

Would be an interesting thought experiment to try to pinpoint at which price point discrepancy one thinks the +Kinect SKU would outsell the Kinectless...

I can't imagine that point being more than +$40, and I suspect you'd have to get down to perhaps +$20 to be sure of it. In other words if the Kinectless SKU was $399, I dont think the +Kinect SKU would be able to outsell it at more than $440, and probably less than that.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

A Kinectless SKU at anything approaching less the actual cost of Kinect (<>$100 at least), would crush the Kinect SKU in sales, almost assuredly.

That may be true, but until proven as such, it's only one theory. It maybe that XB1 with Kinect and the right software would completely eclipse XB1 sans Kinect sales. We've no real way of knowing. People are basing their assumptions on the evidence at hand, which is mostly coming from the core gamer crowd who weren't the original objective for XB1 and Kinect.

 

[Rangers]

AMD going to fab consoles at GLOFO?

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/34382-amd-amends-wafer-deal-with-globalfoundries

"Under this amendment AMD expects to pay Globalfoundries approximately $1.2 billion in 2014. These purchases contemplate AMD’s current PC market expectations and the manufacturing of certain Graphics Processor Units (GPUs) and semi-custom game console products at Globalfoundries in 2014," the companies said.

 

[AlNom]

Curious, but my first thought was Nintendo trying to find an alternate producer for their GPU (edit: 32nm 360, believe ). Although I suppose it could be prepping for post- 28nm TSMC.

... or simply a dual supplier situation on 28nm itself (in another thread, some Kabinis seem to have been fabbed at GF).

---

No way to know at this point...

 

[Dave Baumann]

Well, being particular, that title shows people did want Kinect back then. Whether they still do or not can't be strongly supported by response to the original, new experience.

Exclusive game crowds aside, its the differentiating feature between XBO and PS4, so you can alternatively make the case that the people that didn't/won't purchase it for the likes of Titanfall purchased it for this differentiating feature. That was the case for me.

 

[Dave Baumann]

No way to know at this point...

If it is a licensed design then that wouldn't be part of AMD's WSA.

 

[AlNom]

If it is a licensed design then that wouldn't be part of AMD's WSA.

mm... thanks.

 

[Cyan]

That may be true, but until proven as such, it's only one theory. It maybe that XB1 with Kinect and the right software would completely eclipse XB1 sans Kinect sales. We've no real way of knowing. People are basing their assumptions on the evidence at hand, which is mostly coming from the core gamer crowd who weren't the original objective for XB1 and Kinect.

I wouldn't want to lose perks like scanning your face in games like Kinect Sports and how useful it could be for RPGs. And many other perks Kinect adds to the system.

The theory you mention will be probably left at that, as a theory. In my opinion, Microsoft aren't going to sell a Xbox One without Kinect. If so, all the R&D behind Kinect would be fruitless, and that's a lot of money.

In any case, they will probably cut the price of the Xbox One eventually, and eat the costs. I think that's better than cutting the fanbase in two, like in the X360 era, with the Arcade and the fully featured X360.

 

[AlNom]

I wouldn't want to lose perks like scanning your face in games like Kinect Sports and how useful it could be for RPGs.

Maybe it was early, but the Sports Rivals demonstration of that feature seemed really poor.

 

[Cyan]

Maybe it was early, but the Sports Rivals demonstration of that feature seemed really poor.

What's the video you've watched? The several ones I've seen on the matter were pretty good.

For me, it works, and saves precious minutes or hours of editing your character in RPGs and stuff like that.

It's not only your face but also your body 3D-recreated.

EDIT: Another example.

 

[AlNom]

What's the video you've watched?

@3:10


---


Granted, it could simply be the art-style they're trying to mould your features into.

Certainly, it'd be neat to see Bioware implement or test out.

 

[Cyan]

@3:10


---


Granted, it could simply be the art-style they're trying to mould your features into.

Well, I've watched an Eurogamer's video too -just not this one-, as I am subscribed to Outside Xbox on Youtube, and it's not that bad. Gotta say that in the video you shared it wasn't as good as in others. In the video from Outside Xbox, the guy could choose a hairstyle and facial hair, but oddly enough in the review video from my previous post the guy can be seen with his hair and facial hair well scanned.

Anyways, some of the Eurogamer staff aren't the most objective people to talk about Kinect, since they mentioned in a few articles how much they hate it, going as far as saying that the new Xbox One remote would be better than Kinect.

When in actuality Kinect is much faster than any remote can be, not to mention people don't have to look around for a remote.

Art style also plays a role there too, of course.

 

[Dave Baumann]

http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/2/55...al-apps-run-across-windows-tablets-phones-pcs

Finally. "Universal" apps across all MS devices. Buy once, use across Windows, Windows Phone and XBOX One.

 

[BoardBonobo]

http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/2/55...al-apps-run-across-windows-tablets-phones-pcs

Finally. "Universal" apps across all MS devices. Buy once, use across Windows, Windows Phone and XBOX One.

So that's like PlayMobile?

 

[NRP]

http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/2/55...al-apps-run-across-windows-tablets-phones-pcs

Finally. "Universal" apps across all MS devices. Buy once, use across Windows, Windows Phone and XBOX One.

About damn time.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's like nothing else out there. There's no other integrated ecosystem that runs on desktop, mobile, and console. Sony has a weak mobile presence and can't run PS3/4 games on any mobile devices or desktop computers. Apple has completely separate desktop and mobile ecosystems.

 

[Cyan]

http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/2/55...al-apps-run-across-windows-tablets-phones-pcs

Finally. "Universal" apps across all MS devices. Buy once, use across Windows, Windows Phone and XBOX One.

That's major, in my opinion. I wonder if the Xbox One will run my Microsoft Office Student 2013 though.

 

[Dave Baumann]

That's major, in my opinion. I wonder if the Xbox One will run my Microsoft Office Student 2013 though.

I think the distinction would be the apps that are downloaded via Marketplace/Store, rather than stand alone retail desktop apps. Also note that it is a toolset from MS for "easier" porting, so this doesn't appear to be automatic but rather the developer has to be a willing participant and has to spend the extra effort to do it. That said, MS are likely to make the development environment as easy as they possibly can as this will enhance their ecosystem across all platforms and devs are likely to see the benefits of the increased TAM with little incremental effort.

 

[dobwal]

Problem now is getting large devs/pubs to accept universal apps without charging for access to each category of device. If not, it just becomes a money saving tool for development.

 

[3dilettante]

Problem now is getting large devs/pubs to accept universal apps without charging for access to each category. If not, it just becomes a money saving tool for development.

Possibly make a cross-buy or discount through a Gold account if a non-console version has been purchased and a console version is queued up?
Microsoft would have the ability to track purchases through its app store and apportion some portion of the Live income to provide incremental revenue for what is theoretically an incremental development effort.
Increased value-add from a Gold account + increased appeal of the app store + compensation for additional platform dev and support + total pricing more in line with user expectations for buying a product across devices.