Xbox One on the way. DRM removed, more details to come.

[htz]

Totally disagree. There are plenty of mainstream consumers who will be buying both of these units for the holidays. It's not as if they're $800. Removing DRM was to placate everyone, most especially people who buy used games for their kids or anyone who trades in games in general or sells them secondhand. It wasn't just a move made to please the hardcore. Those "mainstream" buyers may not care now, because they're months away from having to make an informed buying decision, but you can believe MS knew they would be hammered by the general public as well as the hardcore gamers by the time these consoles came to market in the fall with the DRM policy still in place on the XB1. Just because the general public doesn't really care at the moment (and why would they need to?) doesn't mean it wouldn't have been a factor when the average consumer starts paying attention to which unit they're going to buy for themselves or their kids for Christmas.

As far as Kinect goes, MS seems to want the Kinect as a guide for the infrastructure of the system itself -- turning it on, going through menus, etc. Less as a gaming function (perhaps -- we'll see). Now, I may not like it, and I'd rather see it dropped and have the system be $100 less like everyone else, but MS must feel the only way to get people to use it is to mandate it. More over, that extra $100 isn't -- IMO -- going to end up being that huge of a deal for MS. They have an edge with Xbox Live, they've got an online network that has a lot of players who are going to stick with it, they have exclusives that sell in the U.S., and they feel -- rightly or wrongly -- that they can afford the additional $100, even with Sony being out there at a lesser price point.

But if it doesn't work, they'll make adjustments. Like anything else, they can change course if they need to, if Sony truly ends up outselling them this holiday season. Either way, this winter will a battle, but it's not going to win either side the war so to speak, no matter how much fanboy hyperbole is stoked up on message boards.

You are ignoring the fact, that the PS4 and Xbox One will not be the only "must have" products during this holiday. Also the PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii U will compete on price to get the same consumer attention. The 3rd party games can mostly be played on current gen consoles and offer the same important multimedia apps like netflix and hulu.

MS must feel the only way to get people to use it is to mandate it.

About the Kinect, if it was so great, it would sell itself. They don't have enough confidence in the thing so they forced it instead of dropping it like Sony, in the end the ones buying it will foot the cost for the development of this product( like it or not).

"They have an edge with Xbox Live, they've got an online network that has a lot of players who are going to stick with it, they have exclusives that sell in the U.S., and they feel -- rightly or wrongly -- that they can afford the additional $100, even with Sony being out there at a lesser price point."

Sony had a huge edge during the PS2 generation, and they lost it coming into this generation.

Of course they can recover, Sony did with the PS3.

Your completely missing the point.

The average consumer will not get informed until such a time as both Microsoft and Sony's PR campaigns get started. So far we've got exactly one commercial, being aired very sparsely. In two month's time, we'll likely have 4 at least. Plus billboards, product tie-in's (doritos's, mountain dew, etc) being thrown around everywhere.

Consumers do not know they are interested until they see the product, and since mainstream consumers have not seen the product, they do not know they are interested.

I find it funny you have such a knowledge on what the average consumer is willing to pay for things however. I was not aware I was dealing with a market research analyst, that had actually done statistical studies on consumers buying habits.

Or... on the other hand... you could be pulling stuff out of your rear, which is by far the most likely scenario. We'll see in 4 months, wont we?

Like I said before, these 2 consoles are not the only must have products this holiday season. I based my responses on past console launches. Everybody that lined up and bought a console in my area were gamers. The only exception to this was the Nintendo Wii and that console was reasonably priced at $250 and it came with a great game(wii sports) that got the mainstream consumer's attention.

However, if we are talking about a family, I'd disagree. As a parent, I get my kids what they ask for during Christmas. The actual cost of the item is largely irrelevant, within reason. We've already had the discussion about how much most families spend during Christmas (http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/holiday/ ), and found that purchasing a $400-500 machine is well within the cost budget of the average US household during Christmas spending.

Not all families spoil their kids.

 

[RiPPn]

New hardware rumor (sourced from a Beyond3D.com forum post):

https://xboxuncut.squarespace.com/microsoft-asking-developers-about-an-increased-gpu-clock-and-an-increase-to-12-gb-of-ram

Not even sure what this would really accomplish if true. More of the same type of slower RAM won't make much difference other than maybe lowering the footprint of all the OS' running concurrently, not even sure if that would work either, and it still has the same bandwidth.

Also seems like a bad idea to make hardware changes only 4 months from release.

I think hardware changes would be highly improbable at this stage, have to imagine full production is already taking place. But it is odd if the survey is real, why would Microsoft put the survey out there? The never ending Xbox One saga continues I suppose.

 

[phantomfriar2002]

You are ignoring the fact, that the PS4 and Xbox One will not be the only "must have" products during this holiday. Also the PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii U will compete on price to get the same consumer attention. The 3rd party games can mostly be played on current gen consoles and offer the same important multimedia apps like netflix and hulu.

I'm not ignoring the fact at all. I happen to think both consoles are going to sell well, and you don't. Let's come back here when the sales numbers are out and see who's right.

Your anecdotal evidence that only "gamers" in your "area" participated in past console launches except the Wii don't gibe with actual sales numbers. Do you consider the 360, which has sold nearly 60 million units, to be something that doesn't appeal to the mainstream? It's not as many as the Wii, no, but it certainly has appeal to more than hardcore gamers, and there are some 30 million plus Xbox Live subscribers out there -- a fair amount of whom will want to upgrade to the latest and greatest thing on the market.

IMO, these units will sell, and they will sell with casual and hardcore on both ends I believe to give both of them a strong holiday season. How big will the launches be? We'll find out, but given comments from retailers, a very healthy number of them have already been preordered. And the pricing -- $400, even $500 -- it's at the same level (or below if you count the PS3) as prior consoles when inflation is factored in.

As far as the other "must have products" this holiday go, well, I certainly wouldn't put the Wii U in that camp, or as major competition for either MS or Sony. I grew up a Nintendo fan but they're in big trouble with that console, no matter what price point it's at.

 

[dmaul1114]

if xbox one was 400 bucks people would be like omg you get kinect with the xbox for that price what a amazing thing and great choice for them to include it. price at 500 = kinect sucks worst thing ever made i hate kinect.

Price has little to do with it for me. I just loathe motion and voice controls, and worry they'll get shoehorned into a lot of games since it's packed in.

Yeah, I don't like the fact that it's $100 more than PS4 largely because it has the Kinect as it's a feature I not only have no interest in but actively hate. However, if the X1 was $500 and didn't include Kinect in every bundle I'd have a much harder decision on which to get as $100 isn't a big deal to me really and I do love Halo and Gears.

As is, it seems the PS4 is the console for people with zero interest in motion controls, and who care about indie and Japanese developed games etc. so my decision ended up pretty easy this generation.

 

[TimboSliceGB]

Price has little to do with it for me. I just loathe motion and voice controls, and worry they'll get shoehorned into a lot of games since it's packed in.

Yeah, I don't like the fact that it's $100 more than PS4 largely because it has the Kinect as it's a feature I not only have no interest in but actively hate. However, if the X1 was $500 and didn't include Kinect in every bundle I'd have a much harder decision on which to get as $100 isn't a big deal to me really and I do love Halo and Gears.

As is, it seems the PS4 is the console for people with zero interest in motion controls, and who care about indie and Japanese developed games etc. so my decision ended up pretty easy this generation.

ps4 has motion controller built into controller which means it's possible a game makes you have eye toy to play it. i think sooner or later eye toy will be packed in with every ps4 system. sony did not waste the time to put in that senser into controller to toss it down the drain. i really think ps eye would have been packed in with ps4 if ms did not get bashed over having it in the box

 

[TimboSliceGB]

I really don't give a shit about Kinect being "off", I care that it's a bad gaming device and if history is any indicator, a pretty bad input device as well. I don't think too highly of the eye either so yes I'm happy that I'm not going to be paying for that when I do get a PS4.

kinect is NOT a bad gaming device their are some games that it's used in a awsome way. hopefully with everyone having it companys will put more money into games for the thing and make great games then they did for 360 kinect. i think both ps move and kinect was great for certain games. Just like the wii the kinect and ps move had tons and tons of shovel ware was pathetic.

 

[dmaul1114]

Doesn't matter.  It will never be the case that every PS4 owner has an Eye camera, so developers will be much less likely to put mandatory motion control BS in their games.  At most we'll see more optional usages of it if it sells well or gets packed in bundles down the road.  But not regular games requiring it as developers don't want to write off a chunk of the user base.

With every X1 having Kinect, much more likely to see games like Halo and Gears, and even some big 3rd party stuff, forcing use of gestures and/or motion controls and that stuff just really lessens my enjoyment of games.

 

[htz]

I'm not ignoring the fact at all. I happen to think both consoles are going to sell well, and you don't. Let's come back here when the sales numbers are out and see who's right.

Your anecdotal evidence that only "gamers" in your "area" participated in past console launches except the Wii don't gibe with actual sales numbers. Do you consider the 360, which has sold nearly 60 million units, to be something that doesn't appeal to the mainstream? It's not as many as the Wii, no, but it certainly has appeal to more than hardcore gamers, and there are some 30 million plus Xbox Live subscribers out there -- a fair amount of whom will want to upgrade to the latest and greatest thing on the market.

IMO, these units will sell, and they will sell with casual and hardcore on both ends I believe to give both of them a strong holiday season. How big will the launches be? We'll find out, but given comments from retailers, a very healthy number of them have already been preordered. And the pricing -- $400, even $500 -- it's at the same level (or below if you count the PS3) as prior consoles when inflation is factored in.

As far as the other "must have products" this holiday go, well, I certainly wouldn't put the Wii U in that camp, or as major competition for either MS or Sony. I grew up a Nintendo fan but they're in big trouble with that console, no matter what price point it's at.

Did I ever said both consoles are not going to sell well? I just said majority of those buying it during launch will be core gamers and hence who Microsoft and Sony should be targeting. The mainstream consumers will buy it eventually once the price drops or sales happen.

ps4 has motion controller built into controller which means it's possible a game makes you have eye toy to play it. i think sooner or later eye toy will be packed in with every ps4 system. sony did not waste the time to put in that senser into controller to toss it down the drain. i really think ps eye would have been packed in with ps4 if ms did not get bashed over having it in the box

The only thing Sony added to the DS4 is a light bar. It practically replaces the "Controller 1, 2, 3, 4" indicator on the DS3. The Six-Axis motion feature doesn't require a camera. I mean how much money could Sony had wasted putting a bigger light in the DS4... The light bar is just to tell the camera where you are located. The camera isn't even as high tech as the Kinect 2.0, it doesn't even cost as much as Kinect 1.0. It is more of a bullet point for them that "we also have a camera that can detect motion".

They will pack the camera in a more expensive bundle but I doubt they will remove the base model. Plus force all early adopters to use it in games.

 

[TimboSliceGB]

Doesn't matter. It will never be the case that every PS4 owner has an Eye camera, so developers will be much less likely to put mandatory motion control BS in their games. At most we'll see more optional usages of it if it sells well or gets packed in bundles down the road. But not regular games requiring it as developers don't want to write off a chunk of the user base.

With every X1 having Kinect, much more likely to see games like Halo and Gears, and even some big 3rd party stuff, forcing use of gestures and/or motion controls and that stuff just really lessens my enjoyment of games.

most of those games will only use vice commands and how would that lesson your enjoyment of games

 

[TimboSliceGB]

Did I ever said both consoles are not going to sell well? I just said majority of those buying it during launch will be core gamers and hence who Microsoft and Sony should be targeting. The mainstream consumers will buy it eventually once the price drops or sales happen.

The only thing Sony added to the DS4 is a light bar. It practically replaces the "Controller 1, 2, 3, 4" indicator on the DS3. The Six-Axis motion feature doesn't require a camera. I mean how much money could Sony had wasted putting a bigger light in the DS4... The light bar is just to tell the camera where you are located. The camera isn't even as high tech as the Kinect 2.0, it doesn't even cost as much as Kinect 1.0. It is more of a bullet point for them that "we also have a camera that can detect motion".

They will pack the camera in a more expensive bundle but I doubt they will remove the base model. Plus force all early adopters to use it in games.

um it's not a indicator it's a full out motion controller built in

 

[TimboSliceGB]

but really why does ps4 even get talked about in here this is a xbox one forum not ps4 forum

 

[htz]

most of those games will only use vice commands and how would that lesson your enjoyment of games

Voice commands can be done with a gaming headset. Why would a PS4 camera be needed?

um it's not a indicator it's a full out motion controller built in

What are you talking about? Having a light bar doesn't mean it is a "Full out" motion controller. The motion part is the Six-Axis, we have that on the current DS3.

but really why does ps4 even get talked about in here this is a xbox one forum not ps4 forum

Blame the guy who brought up the light bar issue in an X1 thread.

 

[Gamer4life88]

but really why does ps4 even get talked about in here this is a xbox one forum not ps4 forum

Well to be fair an Xbox cheerleader was the one who brought up the whole PS4 light bar issue and then things kinda snowballed after that. But I agree, I dont know why there's so much PS4 talk in this thread either.

 

[dmaul1114]

most of those games will only use vice commands and how would that lesson your enjoyment of games

1. Because I just find it dumb.

2. Noise issue when playing late at night.

but really why does ps4 even get talked about in here this is a xbox one forum not ps4 forum

Matsui brought it up, blame him.

 

[esquire]

but really why does ps4 even get talked about in here this is a xbox one forum not ps4 forum

i even hear people saying they are not buying a ps4 because they have to have ps plus to play online. video gaming industry seems like it has the biggest amounts of spoiled people that never like change then any kind of industry. Lets face it just because ps eye is not packaged in now with the system don't mean year or two down the road games on ps4 require you to have ps eye to play some of the game. Motion gaming is here to stay.

 

[Ashane]

Last year's spending was ~$850. Let's say a family with two kids is spending that $850 across their entire family. After buying an Xbone, a second controller for their other kid, a game and a year of live we're at $680. That leaves $170 for each parent to spend on each other, other family, and friends they're getting gifts for, and that's assuming the only gift they're getting their kids is an Xbone. Maybe you misunderstood since you apparently just have stacks of money everywhere (how much are your headphones?) but that was $850 total, not per child or per person. That $100 is going to make a bit of difference to the less than informed consumer or people who don't care for motion controls, especially when parents are buying for their kids without consulting them.

Er, your actually reading it wrong. That's $850 PER PERSON. "In telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,100 adults nationwide conducted November 11 through 14, 2012, the average planned spending of $854"

So, let's redo your incorrect math.

850 (Adult #1) + 850 (Adult #2) = 1700 (Family, which equals Adult 1+2)

1700 - 680 (game, system, year of live, controller) = 1020

Now, let's also take into account that roughly 37-45% of that 850 is electronics purchases. (It goes clothing -> electronics/video games in order). So... the question is, is that 680 roughly 37-45% of a family's disposable income during Christmas. The answer is of course.. yes, yes it is.

Absolutely no where in that link does it say that the total is "family" spending. In fact, it specifically says it is individuals at least four times in the entire article. That seems to jive with what my family spends.. at minimum 1000, and usually 1500-2000 per Christmas, so I guess I'm average

Next?

 

[4thHorseman]

Er, your actually reading it wrong. That's $850 PER PERSON. "In telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,100 adults nationwide conducted November 11 through 14, 2012, the average planned spending of $854"

So, let's redo your incorrect math.

850 (Adult #1) + 850 (Adult #2) = 1700 (Family, which equals Adult 1+2)

1700 - 680 (game, system, year of live, controller) = 1020

Now, let's also take into account that roughly 37-45% of that 850 is electronics purchases. (It goes clothing -> electronics/video games in order). So... the question is, is that 680 roughly 37-45% of a family's disposable income during Christmas. The answer is of course.. yes, yes it is.

Absolutely no where in that link does it say that the total is "family" spending. In fact, it specifically says it is individuals at least four times in the entire article. That seems to jive with what my family spends.. at minimum 1000, and usually 1500-2000 per Christmas, so I guess I'm average

Next?

Wrong. Nowhere in that article does it specify it's for each individual member of the family. Go ahead and do a search for the term "individual" in that article. You won't find it. I know I didn't. In fact, the exact quote is:

Shoppers around the country say they are planning to spend an average of $854 for gifts this holiday season, up from $646 last year according to the twenty-seventh annual survey on holiday spending from the American Research Group, Inc.

Even the exact questions are posted at the bottom, and they do not specify per person.

What do you think you will spend on gifts this Christmas?

Bam. Plain simple language. Total amount spent on Christmas. Not per person, but in all.

 

[Ashane]

Wrong. Nowhere in that article does it specify it's for each individual member of the family. Go ahead and do a search for the term "individual" in that article. You won't find it. I know I didn't. In fact, the exact quote is:

Even the exact questions are posted at the bottom, and they do not specify per person.

Bam. Plain simple language. Total amount spent on Christmas. Not per person, but in all.

Er, they also do not say families.

"Sample Size: 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of all adults age 18 and older living in telephone households in the continental United States."

The sample size was clearly not in regards to families, but individuals aged 18 or older.

Please also look up the definition of "you", and what relation it has to "family" or "multiple people inside your household". I think your in for a shock sir.

Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids.

 

[dmaul1114]

Wrong. Nowhere in that article does it specify it's for each individual member of the family. Go ahead and do a search for the term "individual" in that article. You won't find it. I know I didn't. In fact, the exact quote is:

Even the exact questions are posted at the bottom, and they do not specify per person.

Bam. Plain simple language. Total amount spent on Christmas. Not per person, but in all.

Yep. And the other issue with the point he's trying to make is that it's not limited to people in the household.

It's just a question asking the respondent how much they'll spend on gifts overall--so not just the spouse and kids, but parents, nieces/nephews, co-workers, friends, extended family etc. etc.

 

[4thHorseman]

Er, they also do not say families.

"Sample Size: 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of all adults age 18 and older living in telephone households in the continental United States."

The sample size was clearly not in regards to families, but individuals aged 18 or older.

Please also look up the definition of "you", and what relation it has to "family" or "multiple people inside your household". I think your in for a shock sir.

Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids.

The question was posed in a generality on how much an individual spends on Christmas. This includes for themselves, spouses, friends, children, distant relatives, etc.

I don't know how something so simple is so difficult to comprehend...

 

[Ashane]

Yep. And the other issue with the point he's trying to make is that it's not limited to people in the household.

It's just a question asking the respondent how much they'll spend on gifts overall--so not just the spouse and kids, but parents, nieces/nephews, co-workers, friends, extended family etc. etc.

I seriously cannot believe you guys are attempting to say that when asked the question:

"How much do YOU intend to spend during Christmas?" that somehow translates into the entire families spending.

The "you" in that statement very clearly means you, yourself, an individual. Not "we", us, a family.

 

[Ashane]

The question was posed in a generality on how much an individual spends on Christmas. This includes for themselves, spouses, friends, children, distant relatives, etc.

I don't know how something so simple is so difficult to comprehend...

Uh, exactly.

On how much a INDIVIDUAL spends on Christmas. Not a *family*, but a *individual*.

I'm not arguing that the entire $800+ amount is spend only on their immediate family, and none of it goes to presents for parents, friends, etc.

I'm arguing that clearly the question was for a individual and how much they spend on Christmas... which is exactly what the survey was. The researches are very clear to note if its a 'household' or 'individual' spending in all of their other research data, which you can look up.

 

[brandtron8000]

Er, they also do not say families.

"Sample Size: 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of all adults age 18 and older living in telephone households in the continental United States."

The sample size was clearly not in regards to families, but individuals aged 18 or older.

Please also look up the definition of "you", and what relation it has to "family" or "multiple people inside your household". I think your in for a shock sir.

Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids.

What's silly is assuming 2 people in a single family would have the exact same budget for gifts and wouldn't just pool their resources together, or that they both have equal pay to create that budget, or ignoring that families can have only one adult or only one working adult or exponential amount of children.

Your extrapolated math makes a lot of assumptions that are clearly not represented in the survey.

Also, look up "You're," you may be shocked as well.

 

[esquire]

What's silly is assuming 2 people in a single family would have the exact same budget for gifts and wouldn't just pool their resources together, or that they both have equal pay to create that budget, or ignoring that families can have only one adult or only one working adult or exponential amount of children.

Your extrapolated math makes a lot of assumptions that are clearly not represented in the survey.

Also, look up "You're," you may be shocked as well.

Exactly. Because in 2 income households each spouse is buying separate gifts for individual family members. Not!

Also, LOL at 2 income households spending $1,700 on Christmas presents. Please tell me where this exists. I'd like to live in one of those households.

 

[Ashane]

What's silly is assuming 2 people in a single family would have the exact same budget for gifts and wouldn't just pool their resources together, or that they both have equal pay to create that budget, or ignoring that families can have only one adult or only one working adult or exponential amount of children.

Your extrapolated math makes a lot of assumptions that are clearly not represented in the survey.

Also, look up "You're," you may be shocked as well.

You do know what a average is correct? I'll be waiting while you figure it out.

While the math of a simple addition may be winging it slightly (since after all, it is a average spending, it could be more, it could be less) that does not change the fact that a average family is spending more then $800 for Christmas.


As to "you're" I'm not sure how you are has any relevant bearing on the discussion of you not understanding that "you" means a individual.

But hey, nice try son. Better luck next time.

 

[htz]

So, let's redo your incorrect math.

850 (Adult #1) + 850 (Adult #2) = 1700 (Family, which equals Adult 1+2)

1700 - 680 (game, system, year of live, controller) = 1020

If I was an individual with no kids and only have $850 to spend for the holidays. Why would I waste $680 and be left over with only $170 to buy my love ones a present? Even $580 with a PS4 is a tough pill to swallow.

 

[Ashane]

If I was an individual with no kids and only have $850 to spend for the holidays. Why would I waste $680 and be left over with only $170 to buy my love ones a present? Even $580 with a PS4 is a ton pill to swallow.

Agreed. Which is why (again) I said that on a individual basis, a gaming box priced at $400-500 + accessories needs to do more then just "be a gaming box" for those who are not hardcore gamers.

Justifying the sheer amount of a individuals budget toward a system that only plays games is a far stretch. However, a system that plays games, integrates tv, cable, and internet into one device controlled by your voice? That at least might warrant a second glance from a potential consumer.

Again, pure speculation on both of our parts and time will tell as to how well it does during Christmas, and more importantly after Christmas.

 

[dmaul1114]

I seriously cannot believe you guys are attempting to say that when asked the question:

"How much do YOU intend to spend during Christmas?" that somehow translates into the entire families spending.

The "you" in that statement very clearly means you, yourself, an individual. Not "we", us, a family.

That's not what I was saying.

I was saying it's asking how much the individual is going to spend on EVERYONE on their X-mas list.

If the average person is spending $850 on EVERYONE they have to buy for--a $500 console (or a $400 PS3) for one member of their household is hard to justify. Of course they could have 2+ kids who will share it and it can be a joint present etc.

But you were arguing like they were spending $850 on average for every person they buy for, or just their immediate family (spouse and kids) etc. and saying that a next gen console more easily fits into that. And it would, but the $850 includes anyone the respondent is planning on buying presents for, so that $850 doesn't go nearly as far.

 

[Ashane]

That's not what I was saying.

I was saying it's asking how much the individual is going to spend on EVERYONE on their X-mas list.

If the average person is spending $850 on EVERYONE they have to buy for--a $500 console (or a $400 PS3) for one member of their household is hard to justify. Of course they could have 2+ kids who will share it and it can be a joint present etc.

But you were arguing like they were spending $850 on average for every person they buy for, or just their immediate family (spouse and kids) etc. and saying that a next gen console more easily fits into that. And it would, but the $850 includes anyone the respondent is planning on buying presents for, so that $850 doesn't go nearly as far.

Ok, now that makes far more sense.. however I'm not sure that is what the others were arguing for. No where did I imply that it was for everyone either. I clearly said $850 per person during Christmas spending, because the argument was that somehow "you" means "we", which is baffling.

I clearly said before, and again just now in another post, that for a individual to spend that amount of his disposable income on a "gaming box" is unlikely.. which is what I've always said and one reason I think the PS4 will not be the raging success some of you think it may be.

However, in a family situation.. it is assumed both adults will be funding the next gen console, so out of that $850.. it really is only a loss of $200 or $300 depending upon system. Far more reasonable cost then the 75-80% of a single adult's disposable income, wouldn't you agree?

 

[dmaul1114]

Justifying the sheer amount of a individuals budget toward a system that only plays games is a far stretch. However, a system that plays games, integrates tv, cable, and internet into one device controlled by your voice? That at least might warrant a second glance from a potential consumer.

Again, pure speculation on both of our parts and time will tell as to how well it does during Christmas, and more importantly after Christmas.

But pretty much everyone already has DVRs, various devices with Netflix, Amazon, Hulu etc. apps available etc. so other than the voice control there's not much new being offered there to justify the costs either. And even that is coming to DVRs--my DirecTV DVR has some via the iPhone/iPad app, Xfinity is adding it to their X1 DVR etc.

I'm sure these things will sell great as new consoles almost always do around launch. But it will mostly be serious gamers snapping them up. How they sell the first half of next year will be much more telling in terms of how they're selling to more casual gamers etc.

 

[Ashane]

But pretty much everyone already has DVRs, various devices with Netflix, Amazon, Hulu etc. apps available etc. so other than the voice control there's not much new being offered there to justify the costs either. And even that is coming to DVRs--my DirecTV DVR has some via the iPhone/iPad app, Xfinity is adding it to their X1 DVR etc.

I'm sure these things will sell great as new consoles almost always do around launch. But it will mostly be serious gamers snapping them up. How they sell the first half of next year will be much more telling in terms of how they're selling to more casual gamers etc.

It is not really about the devices being available, but the integration into one specific unit that attracts people. It's already been mentioned in this thread by numerous people, to reiterate: When brought up to casuals the idea that you could control all of those devices and features, without a remote, in one centralized box.. it intrigues people. They want to know more.

Agree as well that Christmas wont be the deciding factor, as I said to HTZ, it will be later during the year when we will finally start to glimpse who is ahead in the "war".

 

[brandtron8000]

I think your in for a shock sir.

Also, look up "You're," you may be shocked as well.

Try the grammar book, not the dictionary.

 

[dmaul1114]

It is not really about the devices being available, but the integration into one specific unit that attracts people. It's already been mentioned in this thread by numerous people, to reiterate: When brought up to casuals the idea that you could control all of those devices and features, without a remote, in one centralized box.. it intrigues people. They want to know more.

I do get that. But since it still requires a cable/satellite box they really don't offer much there. Can still work for the apps and Bluray's I suppose. But again, I don't think that's appealing to most who already have that stuff.

Maybe for someone people who don't have a Bluray player etc. it will be a little extra incentive--but nothing over the PS4 (or PS3 currently) since it will play Blus and have all the key apps etc.

The TV thing was their main angle, and that only works if they get more providers on board with apps so people don't need a seperate cable box/DVR.

 

[brandtron8000]

It is not really about the devices being available, but the integration into one specific unit that attracts people.

I wouldn't say plugging in your existing cable DVR integrates the experience into one single unit.

 

[DNukem170]

Apparently I am even less average than most people, as I have rarely gone above $120 on gifts. Now that my mother has passed, that number will be slashed in half or more. I cannot imagine spending $800 on gifts.

Do you consider the 360, which has sold nearly 60 million units, to be something that doesn't appeal to the mainstream?

The 360 sold 60 million units at launch?

 

[4thHorseman]

Apparently I am even less average than most people, as I have rarely gone above $120 on gifts. Now that my mother has passed, that number will be slashed in half or more. I cannot imagine spending $800 on gifts.

Apparently Im in the same boat. My opinion on the study is you=single family unit. Otherwise, its assuming anyone/everyone 18+ spends that much at Christmas. Which seems outrageous that they would lump in people still in/just out of high school with those in established jobs.

Hell, my family falls into the average annual household incomes in the US, and $850 sounds about right. About $200 or so for my wife, my kid and I, then the other $200 split among relatives (which we usually draw who we pick to lessen the financial blow on everyone involved).

 

[Ashane]

Apparently I am even less average than most people, as I have rarely gone above $120 on gifts. Now that my mother has passed, that number will be slashed in half or more. I cannot imagine spending $800 on gifts.

What's funny about that is.. you spend less on Christmas then the average american individual spends on Valentines day. ($130)

Just goes to show you, that averages are average for a reason. Some may spend extremely more (the 1% case) or some may spend a lot less.

 

[htz]

It is not really about the devices being available, but the integration into one specific unit that attracts people. It's already been mentioned in this thread by numerous people, to reiterate: When brought up to casuals the idea that you could control all of those devices and features, without a remote, in one centralized box.. it intrigues people. They want to know more.

The OneGuide feature of the Xbox One is behind the XBL Gold paywall, so are the other entertainment apps. http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live?xr=shellnav#features

You can have the required cable box plugged in but the feature is useless without paying for XBL Gold. I hope this doesn't get into an argument about the value of XBL Gold, just want to point out that for $499.99, the other half of the Xbox One's features require a yearly subscription.

I just don't think your average consumer is willing to spend that much for something they can't even use out of the box without paying more. I'm also not saying they will lean toward the PS4 either even though Sony doesn't paywall the entertainment apps.

 

[Blaster man]

The OneGuide feature of the Xbox One is behind the XBL Gold paywall, so are the other entertainment apps. http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live?xr=shellnav#features

You can have the required cable box plugged in but the feature is useless without paying for XBL Gold. I hope this doesn't get into an argument about the value of XBL Gold, just want to point out that for $499.99, the other half of the Xbox One's features require a yearly subscription.

I just don't think your average consumer is willing to spend that much for something they can't even use out of the box without paying more. I'm also not saying they will lean toward the PS4 either even though Sony doesn't paywall the entertainment apps.

I thought that MS wouldn't keep Netflix and other paid services behind the paywall. When Netflix was first added to Xbox 360 as a streaming option, the only other option was to stream to computer and shortly afterwards Roku was added. It took a while before other devices got it. I think it was exclusive on game consoles to Xbox 360 for a year or so. Now the service is on every device known to man from smartphones and tablets to blu ray players and directly on new TV's without any other devices hooked up.

There's just no reason to keep it behind the paywall other than to force some miniscule subset of the Xbox Live members to pay for gold for the sole purpose of streaming Netflix because they have no other devices to use it on. Aside from that, why wouldn't you let silver members use it? They can do it on so many other devices they already own and by stopping them from using your console to stream Netflix, you're getting them to turn on their console less often and have fewer chances to sell them your products.

 

[Ashane]

I just don't think your average consumer is willing to spend that much for something they can't even use out of the box without paying more. I'm also not saying they will lean toward the PS4 either even though Sony doesn't paywall the entertainment apps.

I do not see it as a huge disadvantage to be honest. The idea of paying a yearly sub for services is normal.

Furthermore, it's assumed that anyone purchasing a X1 or PS4 has at least a slight interest in gaming, therefor they'd need the yearly service of either to use both boxes to their full potential.

I thought that MS wouldn't keep Netflix and other paid services behind the paywall. When Netflix was first added to Xbox 360 as a streaming option, the only other option was to stream to computer and shortly afterwards Roku was added. It took a while before other devices got it. I think it was exclusive on game consoles to Xbox 360 for a year or so. Now the service is on every device known to man from smartphones and tablets to blu ray players and directly on new TV's without any other devices hooked up.

There's just no reason to keep it behind the paywall other than to force some miniscule subset of the Xbox Live members to pay for gold for the sole purpose of streaming Netflix because they have no other devices to use it on. Aside from that, why wouldn't you let silver members use it? They can do it on so many other devices they already own and by stopping them from using your console to stream Netflix, you're getting them to turn on their console less often and have fewer chances to sell them your products.

Agreed.

With 4 months till launch, and with Microsoft showing a very clear willingness to change it's policies, I'd hesitate a guess to say we will see a fair number of changes to what is and is not behind the XBL pay wall.

 

[spatenfloot]

The whole last page sounds like when people were arguing over the family plan semantics.

 

[Blaster man]

The whole last page sounds like when people were arguing over the family plan semantics.

I love to argue as much as the next guy but it's getting to be too much.

 

[WV Matsui]

Damn all I did was being up the lightbar :lol:

And it goes in from there. For those saying the PS4 was never talked about before I brought up the lightbar are nuts and can go back and read the last 200+ pages.

Neither console will fail. No matter how hard either party wants it to.

 

[ShockandAww]

Matsui, do you work for MS or a company that is contracted out to by ms or in any way associated with the company? Seriously, not a joke - real question. Your unflinching devotion seems strange.

WV you never answered the question.

 

[DNukem170]

Neither console will fail. No matter how hard either party wants it to.

Not out of the gate anyway.

Although our definition of success and Microsoft's and Sony's definition are three different things.

 

[WV Matsui]

Not out of the gate anyway.

Although our definition of success and Microsoft's and Sony's definition are three different things.



Very true and a valid point.

 

[SaraAB]

If I pick a next gen console which I most likely will not at launch I would pick the ps4 solely for the fact that I wouldn't have to pay for gold just to use the consoles features those yearly subscriptions add up over time and I have seen how much MS locks behind the Paywall which is basically everything. I am cool with Sony charging for MP because I hardly use MP and I feel plus offers a very good value for the cost so it would be more worth it than paying for gold.

The Wii U offers a poor value right now, since it does not have the features of the other consoles and has a very restrictive library of games with many publishers saying they will not develop for the console. It's clear to me this console will not get any of the big games that I would like to play. I am not doing another Wii and missing out on all the games. If I am purchasing one system this is not it. If the console was cheaper say $199 I could see purchasing it as a secondary machine to play Nintendo games but at the current price points Sony just completely outclasses it.

The only way the Xbone would be worth it is if I could use it to replace a cable box, and do that without having to pay a yearly subscription for gold and if it would also function as a DVR unit. This would reduce entertainment center clutter, reduce cable box rental fees, cut power consumption of the electricity sucking cable boxes and reduce the number of inputs I would have to use to hook everything up. So as it is now the Xbone is not doing much over what the 360 does for entertainment needs since all it does is let you plug in your cable box which does not do much as I can change inputs in the same amount of time I could probably flip to the TV feature on the Xbone. It takes me 3 seconds to switch inputs so I don't see how this new feature is actually useful. If did all of these things then it would be truly revolutionary and would actually be useful. If MS really wants us to have everything in one box this is what their system has to do. I know I am making up things it should do but its not really doing anything that is new and different I am sorry.

 

[Dark Lord Greg]

The attempt to make the PS4 controller light an issue is comical. The damn thing is on the underside of the controller. You're not even gonna see it when it's sitting in your lap.

Same for the "people are hypocrites because, laptops, cell phones, derp..." Anyone that can't distinguish between the always on Kinect camera and those should just back away from the keyboard.


Uh, no? Price difference aside, I don't care if either company includes it in the box. I don't want to be forced to connect either if I don't play those types of games. It's like forcing everyone to connect a guitar controller every time you turn on your system even if you never play a Guitar Hero or Rock Band game. Sounds preposterous right? It's the same for making me connect a camera if I'm not using it, it's preposterous.

It also has nothing to do with MS or Sony like you insinuate. I'm an xbox guy, or was until the Xbone debacle.

you can say the same thing about the kinect camera, its going to be on top of your tv/xbox/media center its not like you have to wind it up to turn on the xbox, people who are still making a deal of the kinect camera really should just back away from the keyboard

and ah the always necessary "i was an xbox guy now going with PS4" disclaimer lol, I take them with a glass of salt because while I prefer Xbox heavily (mainly because i prefer western games and competitive multiplayer) I am no fanboy blinded by brand love (I own or have owned a PS2, PS3, PSP, PS Vita as well as GC, Wii, DS) I have yet to see anything that would make any real xbox gamer give up what is xbox (exclusives, online, controller, multimedia) to go to PS4 save for the $100 difference which i dont read/hear as much of an issue as it was last gen but then again the PS3 was $200 more than the Xbox 360

Why would I tape up the Kinect, if I'm going to pay $100 more for it?

because you are petrified Major Nelson is using it to see what brand soda you drink

Hope? It's already been confirmed there are more exclusives lined up for the PS4 than the X1. Hell, Gamescom is going to be a big event for Sony and let's not forget Tokyo Game Show.

Xbox has already shown the majority of their exclusives. PS4? Not so much. Try again "microsoft boy"

oh I can't wait to see the avalanche of Japanese titles and indie games that will fill up the PS4 "exclusives" list

 

[ShockandAww]

So WV is in "Marketing" according to his profile page, and pleads the 5th as to whether or not he is an MS shill. Pretty interesting.

 

[WV Matsui]

If I pick a next gen console which I most likely will not at launch I would pick the ps4 solely for the fact that I wouldn't have to pay for gold just to use the consoles features those yearly subscriptions add up over time and I have seen how much MS locks behind the Paywall which is basically everything. I am cool with Sony charging for MP because I hardly use MP and I feel plus offers a very good value for the cost so it would be more worth it than paying for gold.

The Wii U offers a poor value right now, since it does not have the features of the other consoles and has a very restrictive library of games with many publishers saying they will not develop for the console. It's clear to me this console will not get any of the big games that I would like to play. I am not doing another Wii and missing out on all the games. If I am purchasing one system this is not it. If the console was cheaper say $199 I could see purchasing it as a secondary machine to play Nintendo games but at the current price points Sony just completely outclasses it.

The only way the Xbone would be worth it is if I could use it to replace a cable box, and do that without having to pay a yearly subscription for gold and if it would also function as a DVR unit. This would reduce entertainment center clutter, reduce cable box rental fees, cut power consumption of the electricity sucking cable boxes and reduce the number of inputs I would have to use to hook everything up. So as it is now the Xbone is not doing much over what the 360 does for entertainment needs since all it does is let you plug in your cable box which does not do much as I can change inputs in the same amount of time I could probably flip to the TV feature on the Xbone. It takes me 3 seconds to switch inputs so I don't see how this new feature is actually useful. If did all of these things then it would be truly revolutionary and would actually be useful. If MS really wants us to have everything in one box this is what their system has to do. I know I am making up things it should do but its not really doing anything that is new and different I am sorry.



So you are not going to get PS+?