The Xbox One Thread

MichaelJamesMichaelJames Website User Posts: 2,038 Enthusiast
So in case you've missed the news... the new Xbox has been previewed and its the Xbox One.  They did a some previews which are available online but Im curious what people think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykN7moSjIVw
This showed off some really cool features that are great for a multimedia center.  I was less then impressed on the gaming side because little was shown that made me think that the current Xbox couldn't do it.  Also, It now requires the Kinect to function... so its going to be costly.
«134

Comments

  • NullUnitNullUnit Website User Posts: 791 Just Starting Out
    edited May 2013
    For me, consoles have reached the point where they are basically computers. As a result, Ive been under-whelmed by the "big three's" new offerings. So, I'm not buying any of the new consoles. I'll be doing my gaming and computing on a computer. I will, how-ever, buy a PS3 when the price drops and finally play Uncharted and a couple of othe PS3 exclusives. (I'm on Xbox 360)
  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator Website User, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 4,450 Enthusiast
    Null - yeah, I'm in a similar boat. There's nothing particularly interesting from the PS4 or Xbox One that I've seen so far. The issue, I think, is that hardware simply isn't very interesting - game design is where it counts, and neither reveal has shown anything of interest there. Given that there's been about 5 games in the whole lifetime of the PS3 that I've found interesting, I'm not holding my breath for the new generation.
    As for focusing on media capabilities...that's all fine, but it's also something we've been able to do for a while to varying degrees already, whether through a PS3, a Smart TV, or a £25 device like the Raspberry Pi. Sure, maybe not as all-encompassing and tidy as on the PS4 and Xbox One, but it's difficult to get excited about that kind of thing.
    I think what I'm mainly noticing is that the concept of separate definitions for 'consoles' and 'PCs' and 'tablets' and 'smartphones' seems a bit irrelevant these days. 
  • DanielGWoodDanielGWood Moderator Website User, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 1,021 Just Starting Out
    Based on this Wired article, here's my two cents:
    I'd need to build an extension to my flat to fit that console in. It looks like it's actually bigger than the other XBox 1. It's very shiny though.
    The spec sounds all right without being mindblowing. They way they've put the components together (custom boards, custom hard drive, CPU/GPU on the same chip etc) actually sounds more interesting than the spec itself.
    I see they're touting "new" multiplayer features, including dedicated servers for games, and even 64 participants per game! PC gaming has had this for 10 years now.
    I can't see that there's any point in the "Live TV" feature, I actually already have a TV for that. Nor do I particularly need to control my TV with my voice or hand gestures. This seems like very little is added to the TV-watching experience in exchange for having another device on all the time, chewing through power and adding background hum.
    Previous games can't be played on it for architectural reasons, which is understandable but always a little disappointing, and there is some confusion at the moment about pre-owned games - some sources are saying you will have to pay a fee to use your disc/game on a friend's machine, others are saying that the game will automatically uninstall itself from your machine if you give it/sell it. I'm hoping for the latter, because the fee sounds more than a little bit cheeky.
    One positive thing though: The new kinect. While probably more expensive, it's got a vastly better camera and vastly better firmware, really looking forward to what people do with that, as the current kinect has already really changed things. More info: http://video.wired.com/watch/new-xbox-kinect-exclusive-wired-video-398878
  • AdyAdy Staff Administrator, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 1,436 Staff
    For me I'm completely the opposite to that of Simon & Null Unit, I have a gaming PC rig that I built myself but I have found I rarely use it (even more so now that my 7.1 THX surround sound kit blew up, sorry Dan I still haven't replaced it!)
    At the moment I spend most of my time on my PS3, and if it's not playing a game I'm usually on Netflix. I was intrigued to see what MS & Sony come up with with regards to the 'next generation' & as others have touched upon it's all be largely underwhelming. 
    Two things have struck a nerve it would seem with the general public with regards to the Xbox One announcement & I will touch upon those below.
    The Xbox One will need to be online at least once every 24 hours:
    Now it would seem this won't truthfully affect most people but I'm sure there will be some people who don't have access to an always on internet connection, what about them? Are they not allowed to play their games if they don't check in with MS every 24 hours? And even the quote from Phil Harrison himself, he doesn't even seem sure that even if you hit the criteria of being online every 24 hours you'll be able to game or watch movies without interruption.
    Phil Harrison stated that, "No, it does not have to be always connected, but Xbox One does require a connection to the Internet." When asked to clarify, he explained that just like other devices that rely on the internet, the Xbox One needs to be online to perform many of its features involving TV, cloud connectivity, and DLC delivery. In short, if you can stay connected once per 24 hours, you "should" be able to enjoy games and movies with out interruption.
    There will be a fee if you wish to play a game on a friends account:
    In a bold move, it seems that if you wish to lend a game to your friend or if your brother/mother/dog/cat has an account on the same Xbox One as yours, if they wish to play the same game you bought they must pay a fee. This seems to be the biggest deal breaker for most people & I can understand why. Paying a fee to 'borrow' a game from a friend, seems ludicrous! But I can also understand why they've done it, they don't get any money from the 'lending' of games & they certainly don't when you buy a game second-hand. I'm assuming this development is what led EA to cancel it's Online Pass business model that they announced a few days before Xbox One.
    Xbox One Fees
    EA Removes Online Passes
    It would be interesting to see what game rental places make of this, LoveFilm & Gamefly for example? Would like to know how they see themselves fitting in?
    Sony have yet to reveal their hand (wisely it would seem) when it comes to the above points, so I'm curious to see whether they will follow the same direction as Microsoft or they do something completely different. I guess we will just have to wait & see!
  • B3NB4ILB3NB4IL Website User Posts: 74
    Well that trailer was like watching a car advert mixed with a perfume advert.
    I'm going to admit to liking the new look. I've seen loads off complaints about it being a "box" and "shiny" but these just seem to be silly nitpicks for me. Yes, it's clearly a box and it's clearly been polished, I would prefer a matte black box rather than a fingerprint fest, but that's the design they've gone for, I just want to like what's inside that box. Plus, my TV stand is quite rectangular and boxy so it shall fit perfectly if I was ever going to purchase one.
    However, as stated by some official boffin last night, the PS4 seems to be a "Social experience  whereas the Xbox seems to be focusing on the "Home entertainment", and I can see the way the Xbox has tried to be all futuristic with it's home set up. Voice recognition, Face recognition, etc. 
    Also, whilst sitting on Twitter last night I saw a post from Xbox that seemed to find one tweet from a fan to be post worthy. This was it.
    BK0DEABCcAEqHZk.jpg
    Now I'm sorry, but if you're finding using a TV challenging, then clearly you're doing something wrong. If anything, I'd find Turning on a TV, to turn on a console, to then navigate to the TV feature much more of a challenging task as opposed to just turning on a TV and then pressing a number.
    There's also the talk of the fee's to play your friends games, which admittedly did knock me back, but I came across this through the Xbox Twitter feed this morning, "Another piece of clarification around playing games at a friend’s house – should you choose to play your game at your friend’s house, there is no fee to play that game while you are signed in to your profile." (Click for source)
    I don't believe I will be purchasing neither the Xbox One, or the PS4. I'm quite content with my 360 and my PC, and if anything should happen to my 360 I'd just revert fully back to the PC or purchase a new 360 (If they're still being manufactured.) And as already stated, neither the Xbox or PS4 are bringing anything hardware wise that the PC hasn't already done.
  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator Website User, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 4,450 Enthusiast
    edited May 2013
    The ratio of corporate features (which only benefit the company) to user features (which benefit consumers) seems horribly skewed. When you're adding features that supposedly help your company control things, but which don't offer the consumer anything other than hassle, you're heading towards trouble.
    I wonder if they've announced some of this stuff in vague terms to gauge general reaction, so that they can then make it as draconian-or-not as they want, based on what they think they can get away with?
    Also, remember the Wii U? There's some interesting debate focusing on its now-unique system architecture and what that could mean for cross-platform development. Essentially Xbox One, PS4, PCs and Macs all use very similar hardware infrastructure. That doesn't mean it's easy to do cross-platform, but they at least have commonality.  The Wii U is now stuck out on its own with an archaic infrastructure that adds extra complexity for any dev wanting to include it in a cross-platform release.
    Awkward.
  • AculagAculag Website User Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    Also, remember the Wii U?

    Nope.
    I have to agree with everyone else here that this doesn't interest me at all.  It seems clear that even Microsoft isn't really interested in this as a gaming machine.  They're pushing the multimedia features, which is fine, but probably a little redundant or unnecessary for most people.
    I didn't even watch any of the announcement.  The PS4 one was slightly interesting until I realized that my year-old PC can still wipe the floor with the PS4 hardware when it comes to games.  I'll be keeping my PS3 mainly as a Blu-Ray player, but I have no interest in buying a new console again.

  • MichaelJamesMichaelJames Website User Posts: 2,038 Enthusiast
    The thing is people have said its easy to program on the Wii U. To do cross platform play has never really interested console makers because why would I need an Xbox One if I can use my PS4 to play with friends.  So that would put it on the game developers to work out those problems and most do not want to spend lots of extra money for very little reward.  Right now the Wii U just needs games.  New games will be the marketing push it needs.  The lack of games has really hurt the momentum d so has the confusion if its a accessory or a new system.  Remember when everyone doubted the Wii?  Then it caught on. Nintendo is the old console maker... so they are like Microsoft... everyone wants a piece of them.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9uYCU8jFiU
    The PS4 and Xbox One are going to run into the same problem that the PS3 had.  Due to budgeting and time constraints they will never fully utilized the hardware.  PC games can take 5 years to push out and no one bats an eye at that.  Console games cannot take that long because that is typically the length of a console life.  I watched all the games for the Xbox One and didn't feel blown away.  I felt like I've seen those levels of graphics on current systems because these isn't a super major difference any more. 
    I have a ps3(and move) and a Xbox 360(and Kinect) and wii and a Wii U.  I'll probably own the next incarnations of the playstation and the xbox.  That being said innovation isn't just ramping up the specs again and again.  Why is WoW and StarCraft 2 very popular games when they aren't at the visual level of any modern  game?  Its the quality of the game that keeps people coming back.  How many people still play halo 2? or the first uncharted?  You move on immediately when the next one is out and in the grand scheme of things they do not last long in peoples memory.  People still talk about Zelda games or Metroid games from a generation ago.
  • AculagAculag Website User Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    PC games can take 5 years to push out and no one bats an eye at that.  Console games cannot take that long because that is typically the length of a console life.


    How long do you think the typical dev cycle is on a console game?  Grand Theft Auto 5 has been in development for at least four years (probably more like five or six), and there is no PC release confirmed on that (though it's almost guaranteed to be out on PC eventually).  Bioshock Infinite (released simultaneously on consoles and PC) was in development for five years.  Development on games for new consoles starts way before the consoles are announced publicly.
    Games like Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed can be pushed out in a relatively short amount of time because they can reuse assets.  If you're building a new IP, or a new engine for an existing IP, development is going to take much longer because you can't as easily build off of what you already have.  Much of the time, studios are working on multiple projects at the same time, and have begun development on their next game before the current one is even finished.  Like Naughty Dog with The Last of Us.  Development on that began long before Uncharted 3 was finished, so that's probably at least four years ago.
    Anyway, you're definitely right that innovation needs to be more about making a good game, and not necessarily a good looking game, and I think people are definitely working toward that end more recently.  Story has come a long way in video games in the last several years, and I think the only thing that's really stagnating is game mechanics.  You can make the most amazing and realistic and technically impressive first person shooter ever seen, but it's still just a first person shooter.  Those haven't really changed that much in twenty years.  I also don't think that's really likely to change much.  We'll see new genres emerge, but the familiar ones will stay essentially the same year after year.  People will build new tricks into them, but even with motion control or gestures or heart rate monitoring, eventually you're still just playing an FPS/RTS/MMO/ETC.  That's partly because that's what gamers are used to, and what they want, but it's also because that's what developers know how to do.

  • diabloogrediabloogre Website User Posts: 33
    I have and xbox 360 and a ps3. I do think the ps3 is better hardware but find myself playing the xbox the most only because my friends are mostly on xbox. I am in no rush to buy any more systems at this time. I don't like the idea of not being able to borrow or lend games  to friends.  If you buy a product you should be able to do what you want with it and that really does bite you when it comes to 2nd hand games.  I actually have my kinect disconnected on my xbox because it actually would annoy me lol. I only plug it in when there is a kinect game I want to play which is rare. I wish they would spend more time on devloping the things they have instead of rushing to the next console.
  • MichaelJamesMichaelJames Website User Posts: 2,038 Enthusiast

    How long do you think the typical dev cycle is on a console game?  Grand Theft Auto 5 has been in development for at least four years (probably more like five or six), and there is no PC release confirmed on that (though it's almost guaranteed to be out on PC eventually).  Bioshock Infinite (released simultaneously on consoles and PC) was in development for five years.  Development on games for new consoles starts way before the consoles are announced publicly.
    Games like Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed can be pushed out in a relatively short amount of time because they can reuse assets.  If you're building a new IP, or a new engine for an existing IP, development is going to take much longer because you can't as easily build off of what you already have.  Much of the time, studios are working on multiple projects at the same time, and have begun development on their next game before the current one is even finished.  Like Naughty Dog with The Last of Us.  Development on that began long before Uncharted 3 was finished, so that's probably at least four years ago.
    Anyway, you're definitely right that innovation needs to be more about making a good game, and not necessarily a good looking game, and I think people are definitely working toward that end more recently.  Story has come a long way in video games in the last several years, and I think the only thing that's really stagnating is game mechanics.  You can make the most amazing and realistic and technically impressive first person shooter ever seen, but it's still just a first person shooter.  Those haven't really changed that much in twenty years.  I also don't think that's really likely to change much.  We'll see new genres emerge, but the familiar ones will stay essentially the same year after year.  People will build new tricks into them, but even with motion control or gestures or heart rate monitoring, eventually you're still just playing an FPS/RTS/MMO/ETC.  That's partly because that's what gamers are used to, and what they want, but it's also because that's what developers know how to do.

    Some of those games are considered in development because they have a title and a concept that gets green lit for a future release date but is not actively in development.  Eventually they ask for further concepts and the art style is developed.  If they are not creating their own engine things can progress a lot faster.  Larger companies can keep things coming and in 2011 at E3 Bioshock infinite was demoed on the floor and since then most of the key players went to other major games and other people were brought in see it through.  With Bioshock infinite reportedly costing 100 mil before the marketing budget(100 mil) its kind of a question of was the game really worth it?  That's the cost of developing super high end games with so much stuff hardly seems worth it.  Sure you get a critically acclaimed game that's sold 3.7 million copies since launch... but at $59.99 that equals 22,196,300 millions.  Now there were reports that the development cost was not that high and lets imagine that the game was really just 10 million to develop and 10 million to market(even though that game was everywhere)... to make 2 million dollars on a 5 year investment is not as worth it.  Sure your company has a feather in its hat either way but I'd look enviously at games that are made with a lot less investment.  Development costs is the reason why a lot of classic studios have gone under.

     

  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator Website User, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 4,450 Enthusiast
    Just to clarify, my above post was about cross-platform development (ie, releasing the same product on multiple platforms), not cross-platform play (multiplayer across different systems). It means the Wii U could very easily end up isolated with only Nintendo's own games. As good as they might be, that's not an easy position for them to be in.
  • MichaelJamesMichaelJames Website User Posts: 2,038 Enthusiast
    Well the Wii was isolated during its beginning success because too many developers doubted Nintendo and then It just did gangbusters.  The 3DS was called a failure and compared to the Virtual Boy due to its weak launch.  Nintendo was able to address that with a heavy discount, free virtual console games for early adopters, and new games completely reinvigorated that system.  Nintendo has the IP to make the Wii U Popular.
    Back on to the Xbox.  None of those features really make me feel like I have to have them.  Halo 3 was one of the more popular games on the 360 and it was not really the most beautiful game.  There was way better around on the same system.  I feel like  Microsoft needs to show off more then FPSs and sports games if they want my gaming dollars early.  Those are the 2 genres which liter Sony and Microsoft's console and are immediately fun and then are typically something which gets put down.  I just got into the Assassin's Creed series and I love it because there is a little more effort in that game then in a typical FPS.  Watch Dogs is a new game that has a very interesting concept of hacking electronics.
  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator Website User, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 4,450 Enthusiast
    Yeah, Watch Dogs looks intriguing. Ass Creed 1 and (especially) 2 are great.
    I'm similar with FPS games - especially military FPS. Having played Spec Ops: The Line, I simply can't play patriotic/overly simplistic military FPS games anymore.
    I've never really understood sports games. I understand watching sports and I understand playing sports (for real). Playing a computer game of a sport seems utterly bizarre to me. Computer games which have BECOME sports, like Counterstrike, DOTA, Starcraft etc....that makes more sense to me.
    As I remember it, the Wii was laughed at a lot prior to release, but on release immediately did really well and continued to be massive for a long while. That's how I remember it, anyway. The problem was that all the people buying it were buying it for the free tennis game or Wii Fit, and so didn't translate into game sales nor carry over to the WIi U.
    I'd like to see all systems succeed, simply because competition is a good thing in this arena. I'd never want Microsoft/Sony/Apple/Valve to hold all the cards.
  • MichaelJamesMichaelJames Website User Posts: 2,038 Enthusiast
    Lol "Ass Creed"... I think that's an adult game .
    I've preferred unrealistic FPS games like Quake or Halo where you can do crazy things and take a million shots while screaming Leroy Jenkins and running into an arena with a rocket launcher and bringing the noise.
    There have only been a few sports games which have really caught my attention, like Blitz the League.  It was not just solely football.  There were a lot of other interesting decisions and abilities in the game.  Do you send hookers over to the rival team the night before the game?  Do you juice your players to give them the strength and the speed needed to win?  Do you take cheap shots and try to injure the opponent? 
    I love games like StarCraft because its pure strategy and at the  minute mark you see if your initial strategy worked and start implementing additional strategies to win.
    The Wii was a run away success because it was from completely out of left field.  The Wii U needs games which show 1)its a new powerful system 2)The Tablet Is a smart idea.  Most people I know who knock the tablet idea haven't really used it.  Their use amounts to well I tried Super Mario brothers with it and just didn't see the point.  From the most basic concept in Assassins Creed 3 where it holds a large detailed map so you can pause less.  I wish they would of released that Aliens Colonial Marines game(and that it was the  version they were demoing off) because what was declared the best version of the game was the Wii U version.  Having critical information in an easy to see area is nice.  Some games use the tablet for a different perspective.  The Wii had some great concept games which I would love to see comeback.
     red-steel-2-20100406050747456.jpg

    Red Steel 2 was a visually beautiful game that reminded people of Borderlands with a good concept. 
    madworld.jpg
     Mad World was a fun and brutal game with a unique art style.  Even the original The Conduit was a good idea just not pulled off well.
    no-more-heroes-2-e3-screens.jpg
    No More Heroes 2 was an amazing game with a great concept and amazing art style.  If they came back to the Wii U it would be like no other.

    Nintendo pushes Microsoft and Sony into innovation/replication.  Kinect 2.0 has amazing features and is the result of Microsoft wanting in on the casual market which Nintendo hit on.
  • AculagAculag Website User Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    Sony just completely destroyed Microsoft at their E3 conference.
  • MichaelJamesMichaelJames Website User Posts: 2,038 Enthusiast
    Eh I feel like both consoles are really just going to kill us with fps games.  The only gamesI'm truly looking forward to is the last of us and watch dogs. 
  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator Website User, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 4,450 Enthusiast
    edited June 2013
    Yeah, Microsoft have been doing an amazing job at marketing the PS4 in the last few weeks. I've gone from not really caring much about either console, to being quite interested in the PS4.
    The cultural and ethical differences between the Xbone and PS4 are so huge that I almost feel compelled to invest in a PS4 for no other reason than to encourage the kind of gaming culture, community and history I want to see. If the Xbone succeeds it'll be a terrible, terrible thing for gaming as an artform, cultural force and entertainment medium.
    It feels like both consoles are spin-offs of PC gaming culture from the last 5 years. The difference is that Microsoft have ignored those 5 years, while Sony have observed the various debates and designed a system that reflects the direction we're heading in.
    Edit: This topic should probably be renamed 'The PS4 thread'. :P
  • NullUnitNullUnit Website User Posts: 791 Just Starting Out
    Well, Sony did indeed beat Microsoft at E3. Though, the nature of modern consoles would allow Microsoft to back-pedal and remove the restrictions that have everyone so rightfully pissed off. Which I could actually see happening within the first year of Xbones release. That said, I'm still not buying a new console for now. I like to stay behind the curve and buy games for cheap. Now back to Saints Row 3 and Batman: Arkham City.
  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator Website User, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 4,450 Enthusiast
    Thing is, Microsoft and Sony have both revealed their corporate cultures. Even if Microsoft goes back on some of this stuff, the knowledge of intent is still out there. Sony not only seem to have the better device and price, they also have the ethical upper hand - which is an unusual and enviable position.
    Of course, the Xbox will still sell a crapload. Apparently pre-orders have already 'sold out'. But the long term effect is the one to look for. Especially when the PS4 starts to benefit from the same vibrant indie scene that makes the PC such an exciting platform, while the Xbox is stuck with yet more crappy FPS games.
  • AdyAdy Staff Administrator, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 1,436 Staff
    edited June 2013
    Seems Microsoft can't help but shoot themselves in the foot, face & groin! Absolutely shocking PR for them at the moment.
    Microsoft: No internet? We have a Product called the Xbox 360
  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator Website User, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 4,450 Enthusiast
    The triple-whammy calamity of Windows 8, Surface and Xbox One is quite stunning. While sales have been OK, the general perception of Microsoft's products has been increasingly terrible. It's like they're genuinely unaware of modern culture and communications trends. 
  • SuroSuro Website User Posts: 26
    The XBox One Marketing thing just keeps giving! :D
  • MichaelJamesMichaelJames Website User Posts: 2,038 Enthusiast
    I am sure Xbox one will come with a version now that does not include the Kinect 2.0. priced at $399.  Its not really a fair comparison to say $399 vs $499 and be outraged.  Yea the idea of Kinect sucks to a lot of people(at the moment) but its a cleaver way to add more buttons without doing exactly that.

  • AdyAdy Staff Administrator, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 1,436 Staff
    No, I'm afraid the Xbox One will not function without the Kinect, and I can't see them changing their whole business model & indeed console design just to get the price down.
    This feels awfully similar to the PS3 launch when people questioned the inclusion of a Blu-Ray drive & the PS3's high price.
    Xbox One won't work without Kinect
  • SimonKJonesSimonKJones Moderator Website User, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 4,450 Enthusiast
    Yeah, the Kinect is directly integrated into just about everything the Xbox does. It's not an optional peripheral like the PS Camera thing.
    Ady - I don't recall that debate, interesting. The blu-ray player was the main reason I bought a PS3. :P
  • AxelWilkinsonAxelWilkinson Staff Administrator, Imerge Beta Tester, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 5,242 Staff
    edited June 2013
  • OrangePekoeOrangePekoe Website User Posts: 478
    1001854_10102080611998722_566308629_n.jp

    This is hilarious!! 
     

  • AculagAculag Website User Posts: 708 Just Starting Out
    Yeah, heroin is much more fun than video games.   ;) 
  • duffmanduffman Website User, HitFilm Beta Tester Posts: 235 Enthusiast
    PS4 or XB1.....PS4.  The  price difference wont sway me one way or the other but the ability to play any used game will.
    The biggest drawback is that my PS3 is still hummin right along so why buy either.
    Duff
Sign In or Register to comment.