The Official Xbox One thread... - Page 307 - AVS Forum
First ... 305  306  307 308  309  ... Last
Xbox Area > The Official Xbox One thread...
Cravit8's Avatar Cravit8 08:00 AM 11-04-2013
That standby mode...so nice.

pcweber111's Avatar pcweber111 08:47 AM 11-04-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by benjamin-benjami View Post

ok just to clarify, everyone was ripping sony (and rightfully so) on the PS3 (at launch) because it cost more, but now that MS is 25% more it is no big deal?

Nah, just some of course. I've ripped them for being more expensive because while I understand their desire to be profitable from the outset they aren't in a vacuum. They have a very capable competitor (Sony) who has shown with the PS4 they're playing for keeps. MS needed to eat the cost difference, launch at $399 and play up the value of Kinect. As it stands it's $100 more expensive for a less powerful system that people feel is being forced with Kinect. A lot of enthusiasts don't see Kinect as a value now but rather a liability. They can change that perception of course but they definitely shot themselves in the foot. Of course going before Sony allowed this to happen and I really believe they thought Sony was going to launch with the Eye at at least $450. MS got played like a cheap fiddle.
number1laing's Avatar number1laing 09:02 AM 11-04-2013
IIRC... Sony was going to launch at $500 with the PS Eye, changed it at the last minute.

Looking at the past 3 years of Xbox 360 I can see why MS made the decisions they made. Here's how I see it. The Xbox 360 was not a particularly successful system from 2005-2010. Hardcore gamers loved it but it got thoroughly trounced by the Wii. MS also crammed so much hardware into the system that they took huge losses at launch and built an unreliable system that cost them billions of dollars.

In 2010 they redesigned the system and OS, debuted the Kinect, and repositioned the system as more family-friendly. Ads went from showing dirty marines with huge guns to families in white rooms bouncing around (just like Wii ads). And it worked! Xbox 360 became the most popular system. Xbox Live got way more popular as families used it for Netflix streaming and other non-gaming purposes. MS dismantled a bunch of internal game studios and basically stopped releasing "core" games outside of Forza, Halo, and for some reason, Fable. And the system kept selling. In fact the Wii basically collapsed right after - Xbox 360 ate its marketshare. Gamers started looking to other platforms (PC and PS3) but 360 kept selling. Kinect was an amazingly successful piece of hardware too.

So when it came time to design the Xbox One it was basically a continuation of the 360 from 2010 on. The system prominently focuses on non-gaming purposes because the Xbox 360 is widely used in that way. The system's focus isn't on raw power because the Xbox 360 was most successful when it wasn't the most powerful system out there and they can keep costs down. Kinect is a core feature of Xbox One because Kinect is a really popular and successful thing.

Problem is... gamers hate all that. Gamers want a powerful box for games primarily. MS might say who cares right? After all the Xbox 360 has been most successful without gamers, and gamers demand too much anyway. Well the problem is gamers are loud. The type of people who bought a Xbox 360 in 2011 aren't posting on NeoGAF and every comment thread - the people who bought the Xbox 360 in 2005 and 2006 are. And they want a box designed for them. Basically MS lost the early adopter crowd and needs to figure out some way to get them back. Meanwhile Sony has courted the early adopters from day one.
Jeremy Anderson's Avatar Jeremy Anderson 09:17 AM 11-04-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1laing View Post

Problem is... gamers hate all that. Gamers want a powerful box for games primarily. MS might say who cares right? After all the Xbox 360 has been most successful without gamers, and gamers demand too much anyway. Well the problem is gamers are loud. The type of people who bought a Xbox 360 in 2011 aren't posting on NeoGAF and every comment thread - the people who bought the Xbox 360 in 2005 and 2006 are. And they want a box designed for them. Basically MS lost the early adopter crowd and needs to figure out some way to get them back. Meanwhile Sony has courted the early adopters from day one.
They have a box designed for them. It's called the PC, and has been and always will be where gamers looking for the bleeding edge will make their home. As we're seeing even with the power differences between the two next-gen systems, the overall visuals are at a point of diminishing returns for most living room situations. So what will differentiate the two systems? All the stuff in addition to gaming.

As loud as hardcore gamers can be, it's time to accept that they're now the vocal minority. The way this current generation broadened the market, it may well turn out to be a smart play for Microsoft to not only support great gaming experiences but all those other secondary experiences that people (even gamers) have become accustomed to. Things like DLNA and CD-audio support are examples of that. And given the way they have designed their system so that they can plug in modular apps on the OS side, they're in a very good position to provide even more of the things like what your casual audience are interested in while still maintaining the quality of gaming experiences 360 users have become accustomed to. That's why I'm getting an Xbox One... Not because it needs to be the most powerful system, but because they have a better ecosystem, they're more forward-looking, they bring new experiences to the console gaming table, and because despite all the haters, I think Kinect + controller gaming could very well make gaming better.

But hey... what do I know? wink.gif
pcweber111's Avatar pcweber111 09:28 AM 11-04-2013
Well, I wouldn't count out the impact the core gamer market can have. At least not yet. Most of the non-gaming functionality of the 360 came later in it's life after it had already established itself as a gamers console. Early adopters can set the tone for how a console is viewed and it'd be smart of MS not to underestimate this. I don't think though that MS is abandoning the core market just because the PS4 is more powerful. It's still a games console and is sold in the videogame dept.. They're just hedging their bets a bit more it seems than Sony is (or is letting on).
ahartig's Avatar ahartig 09:31 AM 11-04-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy Anderson View Post

They have a box designed for them. It's called the PC, and has been and always will be where gamers looking for the bleeding edge will make their home. As we're seeing even with the power differences between the two next-gen systems, the overall visuals are at a point of diminishing returns for most living room situations. So what will differentiate the two systems? All the stuff in addition to gaming.

As loud as hardcore gamers can be, it's time to accept that they're now the vocal minority. The way this current generation broadened the market, it may well turn out to be a smart play for Microsoft to not only support great gaming experiences but all those other secondary experiences that people (even gamers) have become accustomed to. Things like DLNA and CD-audio support are examples of that. And given the way they have designed their system so that they can plug in modular apps on the OS side, they're in a very good position to provide even more of the things like what your casual audience are interested in while still maintaining the quality of gaming experiences 360 users have become accustomed to. That's why I'm getting an Xbox One... Not because it needs to be the most powerful system, but because they have a better ecosystem, they're more forward-looking, they bring new experiences to the console gaming table, and because despite all the haters, I think Kinect + controller gaming could very well make gaming better.

But hey... what do I know? wink.gif

You sir speak too much sense and should be promptly banned from this thread.

But seriously, I watched a BF4 comparison video on IGN last night that showed current gen and next gen versions of BF4 side by side, to tell you the truth it was not that big of a difference. Lighting and details were better in next gen, but if you show the comparison shots to a "normal" joe on the street and tell them they need to shell out $500+ for the "better" visuals, they would laugh in your face.

Im in this next gen for a better gaming experience.... 64 players in bf4 and head tracking, yes please. Massive open worlds utilizing the cloud (Ya i said it, the cloud), new gaming experiences with kinect..... Don't get me wrong, I'm getting a ps4 also, but am more excited about the XB1s potential long term.
number1laing's Avatar number1laing 09:41 AM 11-04-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcweber111 View Post

Well, I wouldn't count out the impact the core gamer market can have. At least not yet. Most of the non-gaming functionality of the 360 came later in it's life after it had already established itself as a gamers console. Early adopters can set the tone for how a console is viewed and it'd be smart of MS not to underestimate this. I don't think though that MS is abandoning the core market just because the PS4 is more powerful. It's still a games console and is sold in the videogame dept.. They're just hedging their bets a bit more it seems than Sony is (or is letting on).

Go back to the E3 presentation, you can see exactly how MS wanted the One to be viewed. I don't think they ever wanted it to be viewed as a games console sold in the videogame department. I think they were targeting the people who bought a Xbox 360 late, use it primarily for Netflix but also play a little bit of COD or whatever.

Problem is those people don't buy systems day one. The people who do want a system that is super powerful (the PS4 isn't super powerful either BTW) and catered to them. A game console with a few other things thrown in.
americangunner's Avatar americangunner 10:07 AM 11-04-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1laing View Post

Go back to the E3 presentation, you can see exactly how MS wanted the One to be viewed. I don't think they ever wanted it to be viewed as a games console sold in the videogame department. I think they were targeting the people who bought a Xbox 360 late, use it primarily for Netflix but also play a little bit of COD or whatever.

Problem is those people don't buy systems day one. The people who do want a system that is super powerful (the PS4 isn't super powerful either BTW) and catered to them. A game console with a few other things thrown in.
I think you are thinking of the reveal, because E3 was all about the games for MS.
bd2003's Avatar bd2003 10:16 AM 11-04-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahartig View Post

You sir speak too much sense and should be promptly banned from this thread.

But seriously, I watched a BF4 comparison video on IGN last night that showed current gen and next gen versions of BF4 side by side, to tell you the truth it was not that big of a difference. Lighting and details were better in next gen, but if you show the comparison shots to a "normal" joe on the street and tell them they need to shell out $500+ for the "better" visuals, they would laugh in your face.

Im in this next gen for a better gaming experience.... 64 players in bf4 and head tracking, yes please. Massive open worlds utilizing the cloud (Ya i said it, the cloud), new gaming experiences with kinect..... Don't get me wrong, I'm getting a ps4 also, but am more excited about the XB1s potential long term.

If that video was 720p/30 at a ****** bitrate like most of IGNs video, of course you didn't see a difference. The format is incapable of displaying it.
pcweber111's Avatar pcweber111 10:30 AM 11-04-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1laing View Post

Go back to the E3 presentation, you can see exactly how MS wanted the One to be viewed. I don't think they ever wanted it to be viewed as a games console sold in the videogame department. I think they were targeting the people who bought a Xbox 360 late, use it primarily for Netflix but also play a little bit of COD or whatever.

Problem is those people don't buy systems day one. The people who do want a system that is super powerful (the PS4 isn't super powerful either BTW) and catered to them. A game console with a few other things thrown in.

Well, in all fairness they did focus quite a bit on games. I think we focus on the non-game stuff because we're so in tune with the industry. That doesn't mean though they've forgotten about the core market. Still yes I agree I feel they probably need to focus a bit less on the other stuff (stuff gamers already know is there) and focus on the stuff we buy it early for. Like has been mentioned the core adopts the console at first and it spreads from there.
ahartig's Avatar ahartig 10:39 AM 11-04-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

If that video was 720p/30 at a ****** bitrate like most of IGNs video, of course you didn't see a difference. The format is incapable of displaying it.

Here is the link, it goes up to 1080p, not sure about FPS:
http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/11/01/battlefield-4-next-gen-vs-current-gen
I'm not saying there isn't a difference, because there is. But is there a $400/$500 upgrade fee difference on graphical fidelity alone? In my opinion, hell no.
bd2003's Avatar bd2003 10:43 AM 11-04-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahartig View Post

Here is the link, it goes up to 1080p, not sure about FPS:
http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/11/01/battlefield-4-next-gen-vs-current-gen
I'm not saying there isn't a difference, because there is. But is there a $400/$500 upgrade fee difference on graphical fidelity alone? In my opinion, hell no.

Low bitrate 1080p may as well be 720p....but then again, so is the Xbox one. The biggest difference will be the frame rate, which you can't see at all in the vid....don't underestimate the difference that makes. This video is completely incapable of showing it.
ahartig's Avatar ahartig 10:47 AM 11-04-2013
Some new tidbits regarding resolutiongate and COD on PS4 and XB1. Mark Rubin spoke to IGN, basically confirming what most of us have been mulling about on these forums:
Quote:
“You know, it’s easy to be comparative when you’re looking at both systems," said Rubin. "When you see one out of context from the other I don’t think it’s a big concern. We did our best to make the best looking game on each console, and making sure we nailed down 60 frames per second. That was a key pillar for us."

He went on to explain that there's no agenda or specific reason for the difference. “There’s no maliciousness, there’s no specific reason why one’s 720p, one’s 1080p," he said. "That’s just the way the optimisation came out to. To keep a smooth frame rate we needed to be 720p on Xbox One. That being said, it is being upscaled to 1080p, so it is outputting 1080p on your TV, and for the most part the game does look really good. Some people actually think the textures look a little bit nicer maybe on Xbox than they do on PS4.

"You’ll hear a bunch of opinions back and forth, but that’s all they really are. They’re opinions.”

I asked if Xbox One would achieve 1080p with the next instalment in the series. "Very possibly. We put new technology into this game before we even had the consoles. So we had no idea how well that technology was going to work on the consoles. Now that we are finally getting the consoles we can start optimising those features better. So I imagine... for an example, if you look at Call of Duty 2 over Call of Duty 4, which was our next game, it’s a significant improvement.

“The analogy I’ve used in several interviews is… the first game on a console is sort of like a first date. It’s very awkward as you try to learn what each other’s interests are. That’s how making a new game on a console is.”

The reason Rubin gives for the difference in resolution, then, is unfamiliar architecture and the optimisation process to maintain that 60 frames per second experience.

Ultimately, is it a big deal or not? Does it really matter? Rubin wouldn't be drawn, but he would admit, "The internet seems to think it's a big deal."

freemeat's Avatar freemeat 10:53 AM 11-04-2013
"He went on to explain that there's no agenda or specific reason for the difference. “There’s no maliciousness, there’s no specific reason why one’s 720p, one’s 1080p," he said. "That’s just the way the optimisation came out to. To keep a smooth frame rate we needed to be 720p on Xbox One. That being said, it is being upscaled to 1080p, so it is outputting 1080p on your TV"

That is how it works on the 360 as well, right?
michaeltscott's Avatar michaeltscott 11:00 AM 11-04-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1laing View Post

...and for some reason, Fable.

Hey! Fable is an excellent series. Good stories, interesting gameplay, good graphics and nice, lightweight RPG character leveling system. I really enjoyed the first two and most of the third (I barreled through the story not realizing that I needed to amass a major fortune to bankroll my economically strapped kingdom after assuming the thrown rolleyes.gif). I'm looking forward to replaying the first game when Fable Anniversary releases in February.
mboojigga's Avatar mboojigga 11:01 AM 11-04-2013
Yes that is how it works on the 360.
RemoWilliams84's Avatar RemoWilliams84 11:04 AM 11-04-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahartig View Post

Here is the link, it goes up to 1080p, not sure about FPS:
http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/11/01/battlefield-4-next-gen-vs-current-gen
I'm not saying there isn't a difference, because there is. But is there a $400/$500 upgrade fee difference on graphical fidelity alone? In my opinion, hell no.

Yeah, but I'd like to compare 360 running a match with 64 players (you can't even do that, I know) with the XB1 version running 64 players and see what the graphical difference is then. Either the 360 versio would run look like a complete turd or the frame rate would be in the teens at best.

You just cant compare the two that way unless all you are playing is single player.
michaeltscott's Avatar michaeltscott 11:27 AM 11-04-2013
Looking at that video its kind of a toss up. If I were going to play that game (unlikely) I'd probably rather do it on a next-gen system but it wouldn't seem to enhance the experience that much. Both Xbox One and PS4 are optimized for 60 fps; I assume that they didn't achieve that on 360 and PS3 so that would be a significant improvement.
number1laing's Avatar number1laing 12:22 PM 11-04-2013
Every COD since Modern Warfare runs at 60fps.
Cravit8's Avatar Cravit8 12:37 PM 11-04-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Low bitrate 1080p may as well be 720p....but then again, so is the Xbox one. The biggest difference will be the frame rate, which you can't see at all in the vid....don't underestimate the difference that makes. This video is completely incapable of showing it.

Hate to bring up broadcast TV, but bd2003 is correct. 1080p crushed by a low bitrate to decrease streaming file size essentially makes it 720 (or less even). I turn on CBS on Saturday's and get so disappointed with the "pixelation" of what should be an amazing football scene. But I know it's not CBS, it's Cox lowering the bitrate to shove all the HD/SD channels at the same time through a single coax.
michaeltscott's Avatar michaeltscott 01:09 PM 11-04-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cravit8 View Post

Hate to bring up broadcast TV, but bd2003 is correct. 1080p crushed by a low bitrate to decrease streaming file size essentially makes it 720 (or less even). I turn on CBS on Saturday's and get so disappointed with the "pixelation" of what should be an amazing football scene. But I know it's not CBS, it's Cox lowering the bitrate to shove all the HD/SD channels at the same time through a single coax.

Cox doesn't do that here in San Diego. I've recorded the same program simultaneously from my cable and OTA with my TiVo on most channels and gotten essentially the same sized files.

CBS, I believe, is one of the networks which provides their feed at about 45 Mbps, to be down-rated by their affiliates to a broadcast rate of their choosing. Fox, and I think PBS, provide their feeds at broadcast rates, using equipment at the affiliates which can graft overlays (like station ID bugs) into the realtime feeds without decoding and re-encoding it. It got Fox's affiliates up to HD broadcasting in record time and very inexpensively.
MikeRich's Avatar MikeRich 05:14 PM 11-04-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by number1laing View Post

IIRC... Sony was going to launch at $500 with the PS Eye, changed it at the last minute.

Uh....Where are you recalling this from?

jasonstiller's Avatar jasonstiller 11:33 PM 11-04-2013
Everything I've read up to this point leads me to believe sony wanted to do this as well. Why else would they put a light at on the controllers that only work with their camera? Of course, pure speculation and rumors lol.
spid's Avatar spid 06:33 AM 11-05-2013
I was watching an Adam Sessler video for Rev 3 and he said there would be plenty of Xbox One preview coverage on Wed so hopefully this will include the dashboard preview the media received last week plus game coverage.
RandomNinjaAtk's Avatar RandomNinjaAtk 06:51 AM 11-05-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by spid View Post

I was watching an Adam Sessler video for Rev 3 and he said there would be plenty of Xbox One preview coverage on Wed so hopefully this will include the dashboard preview the media received last week plus game coverage.

This Wednesday the 6th? or next Wednesday the 13th? The 13th would make more sense to me because of the embargo rules on Xbox One game review info that is holding them up till after the 12th...
Daekwan's Avatar Daekwan 07:13 AM 11-05-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonstiller View Post

Everything I've read up to this point leads me to believe sony wanted to do this as well. Why else would they put a light at on the controllers that only work with their camera? Of course, pure speculation and rumors lol.

Why would they not want to do it?

Having a unique selling premise allows you to not only command more profit, but to own a unique feature the competition doesnt. It gives a reason for your product to stand out versus the competition, and opens the use of your product to a wider audience of potential buyers.

How can you guys not remember the success of the Wii?
number1laing's Avatar number1laing 07:28 AM 11-05-2013
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Sony-PS4-Camera-Price-Xbox-One-Comparison,23278.html

"According to sources close to IGN, the reason that Sony was able to drop the price of its next gen console to be cheaper than the Xbox One was because it cut the PlayStation 4 camera at the last minute."

Right now the Kinect looks like a liability but if it catches on then this will be a weakness for PS4.
Arutha_conDoin's Avatar Arutha_conDoin 07:34 AM 11-05-2013
This sounds good for Indie Developers
Announcing Unity for ID@Xbox Developers
pcweber111's Avatar pcweber111 08:03 AM 11-05-2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonstiller View Post

Everything I've read up to this point leads me to believe sony wanted to do this as well. Why else would they put a light at on the controllers that only work with their camera? Of course, pure speculation and rumors lol.

I'd have to agree. A lot of the talk of changing plans at the last minute as a response to MS seem to make sense and would explain a few things. It obviously doesn't matter now though so we'll see how much the Kinect gamble will pay off.
mboojigga's Avatar mboojigga 08:35 AM 11-05-2013
http://www.metalgearinformer.com/?p=10126

No retail version of Ground Zero on XB1 and PS4. Digital only.
Tags: Monoprice , Xbox One Console Day One Edition
First ... 305  306  307 308  309  ... Last

Up
Mobile  Desktop