or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › Xbox Area › The Official Xbox One thread...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Official Xbox One thread... - Page 167

post #4981 of 14773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy Anderson View Post

So basically... you want a PS4. I mean, since you want them to take away the only remaining thing that truly differentiates it as a hardware platform, why not just buy the PS4 instead? If you believe all the hype, it will be faster, cheaper and have more support from indie devs than Xbox One.
.......

I can't speak for Mr. scott, but if both consoles had the same game library, obviously I would just buy a PS4. It's clearly the better value all things equal, but they don't have the same games. With that in mind, I think MS can make a better product by eliminating the Kinect requirement. Just because I don't agree with all of MS's decisions, doesn't mean I don't want them to improve on it, and they still have time to do it. Obviously my definition of "improve" is a little different in this situation than yours might be, but that's why it's my opinion. But saying that the XB1 is something entirely different by removing a peripheral makes no sense to me.
post #4982 of 14773
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_P_A View Post

I can't speak for Mr. scott, but if both consoles had the same game library, obviously I would just buy a PS4. It's clearly the better value all things equal, but they don't have the same games. With that in mind, I think MS can make a better product by eliminating the Kinect requirement. Just because I don't agree with all of MS's decisions, doesn't mean I don't want them to improve on it, and they still have time to do it. Obviously my definition of "improve" is a little different in this situation than yours might be, but that's why it's my opinion. But saying that the XB1 is something entirely different by removing a peripheral makes no sense to me.

So you don't believe that the wii would be something entirely different without the sensor bar? It's just a peripheral. You could just use the controller.

How can you say that about the Xbox One that you haven't used yet?
post #4983 of 14773
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rave Damos View Post

..........

Way to counter my argument...
post #4984 of 14773
Sony Never Had Intentions To Implement Used Games DRM

Sony's Andrew House

QUOTE:
House explains why Sony decided to leave well alone: "There's an interesting backstory on that. I guess, dating from about our February event, there had been questions about what our online policy would be. And I have to say that we were slightly perplexed, because we had no intention of changing from a model that I think has served us really well for several platform life-cycles. And then, of course, it was really the actions of others, and the reaction coming from consumers, which led to more speculation. So we felt that with E3, and Monday night's press conference, it was a really good opportunity to set the record straight. But there weren't any changes that we'd been considering."

Call me guilty on speculating on Sony's DRM policies prior to their E3 show. See my last post.

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2013/07/sony-never-had-intentions-to-implement-used-games-drm/
post #4985 of 14773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy Anderson View Post

So basically... you want a PS4. I mean, since you want them to take away the only remaining thing that truly differentiates it as a hardware platform, why not just buy the PS4 instead? If you believe all the hype, it will be faster, cheaper and have more support from indie devs than Xbox One.

Take away Kinect 2 and make this new system the same price as PS4 as seems to be the desire, and what is that makes you want this over PS4? Serious question. And do you stop making changes to their hardware there, or do you also start complaining about the TV functionality of the device and asking them to change that to free up more ram for games? Maybe do away with the three operating systems and just have the Xbox OS, since all you want to do is play games, right? I mean, while we're playing armchair engineer, at what point do you stop telling a company what they SHOULD have done and actually let them show you the advantages of their proposed system like... I dunno... when the thing comes out, maybe?

Remo's comment above is so dead-on true, and Microsoft should have released the product they believed in without kowtowing to internet outrage. This notion of design by committee scares the hell out of me, and is pretty much the standard for how innovation dies on the vine. People always want what they're already accustomed to until something new causes them to become accustomed to that as well. The flip side of that is just... more of the same. And if that's really what you want the next 10 years of console gaming to be, that saddens me.

I haven't seen anyone argue that the TV functionality needs to be taken out to free up RAM, or to cut out the others OSes. It's clear that the kinect is really the only remaining controversy. And Kinect doesn't really differentiate much from the PS4 either. Dont forget it's also got an depth camera with array mic, that can sense the controller via a light (only its visible). Maybe it's not as advanced, but it seems to do everything that matters. The only real differentiator is that it's optional.

Unless they're going to gift people free Xboxes so they can try it for themselves, they've got to sell the idea via marketing. Marketing doesn't require the console to be out yet, so the whole "wait till its out" argument doesn't really make sense to me. Whatever injustice you might feel is happening because not everyone sees what you see....it's not the hater's fault, it's Microsoft's. It's their job to sell it, even to people who think they don't want it.
post #4986 of 14773
Thread Starter 
post #4987 of 14773
Quote:
Originally Posted by RemoWilliams84 View Post

Way to counter my argument...

(sound of someone fumbling around with something from far away are breaking up near silence) As you look up you see someone talking into a mic, thats clearly not on and you can't hear a thing. ... (sarcasm) great! argument. haha smile.gif

my response was more for freemeat, I just thought it better to include your quote since that's what freemeat was referring to.
post #4988 of 14773
Quote:
Originally Posted by RemoWilliams84 View Post

So you don't believe that the wii would be something entirely different without the sensor bar? It's just a peripheral. You could just use the controller.

How can you say that about the Xbox One that you haven't used yet?

The wii is an entirely different concept. Every game you play on the wii is based on motion control, or at least I assume. Wii bowling, gotta have motion control. Wii tennis, gotta have motion control. I don't play wii games, so my title list is pretty slim. We have one, and I think I've played maybe 2 hours total on it, and I still feel like it's a gimmick. We never bothered unpacking it after we moved. YMMV.

The games at E3 didn't appear to have motion controls as their core interface. Destiny? Motion control not necessary. Titan fall, not necessary. Battlefield 4, nope, still don't need it. Assassins Creed, Watchdogs, Dead Rising 3, Quantum Break, etc., etc.; sorry, you don't have to have motion control. All these games are primarily traditional controller based. Maybe they can add some interesting features that use Kinect, but if they've got that killer feature that I'm just going to have to have, they sure missed a great opportunity to showcase it and quell all this discontent. Until I see it (the killer app that is), Kinect is just a peripheral.
post #4989 of 14773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rave Damos View Post

Sony Never Had Intentions To Implement Used Games DRM

Sony's Andrew House

QUOTE:
House explains why Sony decided to leave well alone: "There's an interesting backstory on that. I guess, dating from about our February event, there had been questions about what our online policy would be. And I have to say that we were slightly perplexed, because we had no intention of changing from a model that I think has served us really well for several platform life-cycles. And then, of course, it was really the actions of others, and the reaction coming from consumers, which led to more speculation. So we felt that with E3, and Monday night's press conference, it was a really good opportunity to set the record straight. But there weren't any changes that we'd been considering."

Call me guilty on speculating on Sony's DRM policies prior to their E3 show. See my last post.

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2013/07/sony-never-had-intentions-to-implement-used-games-drm/

I don't blame you. I know a lot of gamers were nervous that Sony and MS were on the same page with good reason. It would have given Sony a huge advantage to not have the same DRM that MS had, hence why the absolute loudest cheers at E3 by far were when Sony announced they weren't doing any of those anti-consumer things, like rentals, online requirements, selling your games how you want, etc.

I'm not exactly taking any Exec's word for stone hard truth, Sony or MS when they talk about what their plans were or never were. The DRM could have been on the table. Same goes when MS talks about what they were going to do with the Sharing plan (which they still could have kept if wanted)
Edited by freemeat - 7/9/13 at 1:27pm
post #4990 of 14773
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_P_A View Post

The wii is an entirely different concept. Every game you play on the wii is based on motion control, or at least I assume. Wii bowling, gotta have motion control. Wii tennis, gotta have motion control. I don't play wii games, so my title list is pretty slim. We have one, and I think I've played maybe 2 hours total on it, and I still feel like it's a gimmick. We never bothered unpacking it after we moved. YMMV.

The games at E3 didn't appear to have motion controls as their core interface. Destiny? Motion control not necessary. Titan fall, not necessary. Battlefield 4, nope, still don't need it. Assassins Creed, Watchdogs, Dead Rising 3, Quantum Break, etc., etc.; sorry, you don't have to have motion control. All these games are primarily traditional controller based. Maybe they can add some interesting features that use Kinect, but if they've got that killer feature that I'm just going to have to have, they sure missed a great opportunity to showcase it and quell all this discontent. Until I see it, Kinect is just a peripheral.

Not every game, but a good chunk for sure. For example The New Super Mario Brother's is pretty traditional in control (yes it is true they have a couple of uses with the wiimote, like shaking the bubble, but it is far from needed in the games fundamental design).
post #4991 of 14773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rave Damos View Post

Sony Never Had Intentions To Implement Used Games DRM

Sony's Andrew House

QUOTE:
House explains why Sony decided to leave well alone: "There's an interesting backstory on that. I guess, dating from about our February event, there had been questions about what our online policy would be. And I have to say that we were slightly perplexed, because we had no intention of changing from a model that I think has served us really well for several platform life-cycles. And then, of course, it was really the actions of others, and the reaction coming from consumers, which led to more speculation. So we felt that with E3, and Monday night's press conference, it was a really good opportunity to set the record straight. But there weren't any changes that we'd been considering."

Call me guilty on speculating on Sony's DRM policies prior to their E3 show. See my last post.

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2013/07/sony-never-had-intentions-to-implement-used-games-drm/
Take this with a grain of salt. Of course they can come out after the fact and say they never had any intentions.
post #4992 of 14773
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_P_A View Post

I can't speak for Mr. scott, but if both consoles had the same game library, obviously I would just buy a PS4. It's clearly the better value all things equal, but they don't have the same games. With that in mind, I think MS can make a better product by eliminating the Kinect requirement. Just because I don't agree with all of MS's decisions, doesn't mean I don't want them to improve on it, and they still have time to do it. Obviously my definition of "improve" is a little different in this situation than yours might be, but that's why it's my opinion. But saying that the XB1 is something entirely different by removing a peripheral makes no sense to me.
So basically, their exclusives would be the only draw for you? What would you have them do to "improve" it hardware wise if you toss the Kinect baby out with the bathwater? Would you have them scrap it altogether and delay release so they can trump the PS4 with a redesigned machine, giving perhaps a slight graphical advantage that most people won't notice at 1080p? Would you have them add something like a touchpad like PS4 has? What thing would you implement that would make Xbox One significantly different than the competitor in a way that matters to the market?

I mean, I get that it's a hundred bucks... but at the same time, IT'S ONLY A HUNDRED BUCKS. This is a forum filled with people who have spent more than that on isolation platforms or calibration gear. Or is the problem that it has a camera/mic and you're concerned about privacy? How would you then advance gaming without something similar? Would you... say, add more buttons to the controller? Maybe mouse/keyboard?

If it seems like I'm asking in jest, it's because it amazes me that people are so flippant about it... but these are the things Microsoft engineers actually have to consider when designing a NEW console. Is it just a faster/shinier box? Or do we actually try to do something new? And if all you want is more of the same but faster, WHY? That's the thing I legitimately don't understand. I mean, 1080p gaming... not something new. Been there, done that. 7.1 surround... not new. Been there, done that. So with that in mind, what's the point in next-gen if it's just the same as before, but with the same iterations we see in the PC sector?

I guess what I'm really asking is... Why even buy a new system if it's not actually doing anything new? And that's the rub here, IMHO. If you just want a regular stream of CPU/GPU/RAM improvements and call that next-gen, why aren't you a PC gamer instead?
post #4993 of 14773
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemeat View Post

I'm not exactly taking any Exec's word for stone hard truth, Sony or MS when they talk about what their plans were or never were. The DRM could have been on the table. Same goes when MS talks about what they were going to do with the Sharing plan (which they still could have kept if wanted)
Quote:
Originally Posted by americangunner View Post

Take this with a grain of salt. Of course they can come out after the fact and say they never had any intentions.

Agreed. I just know speculation is the land of many uses, of which some are very unhelpful.
post #4994 of 14773
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_P_A View Post

The wii is an entirely different concept. Every game you play on the wii is based on motion control, or at least I assume. Wii bowling, gotta have motion control. Wii tennis, gotta have motion control. I don't play wii games, so my title list is pretty slim. We have one, and I think I've played maybe 2 hours total on it, and I still feel like it's a gimmick. We never bothered unpacking it after we moved. YMMV.

The games at E3 didn't appear to have motion controls as their core interface. Destiny? Motion control not necessary. Titan fall, not necessary. Battlefield 4, nope, still don't need it. Assassins Creed, Watchdogs, Dead Rising 3, Quantum Break, etc., etc.; sorry, you don't have to have motion control. All these games are primarily traditional controller based. Maybe they can add some interesting features that use Kinect, but if they've got that killer feature that I'm just going to have to have, they sure missed a great opportunity to showcase it and quell all this discontent. Until I see it (the killer app that is), Kinect is just a peripheral.

Most Wii games wouldn't require it either if they had released a standard controller instead of the nunchucks. Paper Mario doesn't use motion controls at all. The Zelda games, Mario kart, and I'm sure a bunch of the other traditional games wouldn't require it either if the controllers just had a normal amount of buttons. So yeah, pretty much the same concept.
post #4995 of 14773
I believe the success of the XOne will depend entirely on how many Kinect 1 owners are happy with that device. The motion-gaming fad has come and gone (like it or not, both Sony and Microsoft tried to hitch a ride on that bandwagon), so the question is now....has Kinect 1 done enough to justify people upgrading to Kinect 2? That is the main way I see Xone having a chance out of the gate. Otherwise, I still believe $500 is too expensive and folks who are interested will wait for a price drop. And I"m sorry folks, but if there is no early adoption for whatever reason, and you've got a competitor who is selling well, that's not good news for you even if you are trying to evolve for the better.
post #4996 of 14773
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

I haven't seen anyone argue that the TV functionality needs to be taken out to free up RAM, or to cut out the others OSes. It's clear that the kinect is really the only remaining controversy. And Kinect doesn't really differentiate much from the PS4 either. Dont forget it's also got an depth camera with array mic, that can sense the controller via a light (only its visible). Maybe it's not as advanced, but it seems to do everything that matters. The only real differentiator is that it's optional.
Well, not really the ONLY differentiator. Sony's version is basically just using binocular vision with standard webcams, meaning it's subject to the same tracking issues they've had before, primarily room lighting (same as the original Kinect often had with games that relied on RGB in addition to the IR dot tracking). It also gives you less precision than even Kinect 1 had, since it relies on the differential between images to calculate depth and isn't using dual 1080p cameras. They're likely making money on it at that $60 pricepoint, because there's nothing exotic about it. And it being optional means it will get used about as much as the EyeToy did... or PS Move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Unless they're going to gift people free Xboxes so they can try it for themselves, they've got to sell the idea via marketing. Marketing doesn't require the console to be out yet, so the whole "wait till its out" argument doesn't really make sense to me. Whatever injustice you might feel is happening because not everyone sees what you see....it's not the hater's fault, it's Microsoft's. It's their job to sell it, even to people who think they don't want it.
That only applies to launch. You know they will do just like everyone does and have these things in WalMart, GameStop, etc. for people to try. And that's dependent upon the thing actually being on the market first. As far as the early adopters go, I understand your point. The question remains though... As an early adopter, if you take out Kinect and drop the price to match PS4's, what feature is left with Xbox One to make you pick it over Sony's presumably slightly more powerful version of similar hardware?
post #4997 of 14773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy Anderson View Post

So basically, their exclusives would be the only draw for you? What would you have them do to "improve" it hardware wise if you toss the Kinect baby out with the bathwater? Would you have them scrap it altogether and delay release so they can trump the PS4 with a redesigned machine, giving perhaps a slight graphical advantage that most people won't notice at 1080p? Would you have them add something like a touchpad like PS4 has? What thing would you implement that would make Xbox One significantly different than the competitor in a way that matters to the market?

I mean, I get that it's a hundred bucks... but at the same time, IT'S ONLY A HUNDRED BUCKS. This is a forum filled with people who have spent more than that on isolation platforms or calibration gear. Or is the problem that it has a camera/mic and you're concerned about privacy? How would you then advance gaming without something similar? Would you... say, add more buttons to the controller? Maybe mouse/keyboard?

If it seems like I'm asking in jest, it's because it amazes me that people are so flippant about it... but these are the things Microsoft engineers actually have to consider when designing a NEW console. Is it just a faster/shinier box? Or do we actually try to do something new? And if all you want is more of the same but faster, WHY? That's the thing I legitimately don't understand. I mean, 1080p gaming... not something new. Been there, done that. 7.1 surround... not new. Been there, done that. So with that in mind, what's the point in next-gen if it's just the same as before, but with the same iterations we see in the PC sector?

I guess what I'm really asking is... Why even buy a new system if it's not actually doing anything new? And that's the rub here, IMHO. If you just want a regular stream of CPU/GPU/RAM improvements and call that next-gen, why aren't you a PC gamer instead?

Simmer down now smile.gif

Actually, I'd be good if they just remove the Kinect must be plugged in requirement. I'm not asking that much biggrin.gif And yes, I am generally happy with new and shinier graphics. To think devs won't be able to do more with 8 GB of memory than they did with 512 MB is silly. Let's see what they can serve up! I'm excited about next gen gaming (even if it is with they a tired 'ol handheld controller). TBH, I've never tried PC gaming, but I don't have a desktop in my house, so cost is certainly a barrier to entry. I suppose if I have to have a reason, I just prefer gaming on my 60" TV as opposed to a monitor. And my couch is more comfortable than my desk chair.

And while $100 might not be much to some, it's 1/5 of the cost of the XB1, so it's still a good chunk of change compared to the cost of the console.
post #4998 of 14773
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy Anderson View Post

So basically, their exclusives would be the only draw for you? What would you have them do to "improve" it hardware wise if you toss the Kinect baby out with the bathwater? Would you have them scrap it altogether and delay release so they can trump the PS4 with a redesigned machine, giving perhaps a slight graphical advantage that most people won't notice at 1080p? Would you have them add something like a touchpad like PS4 has? What thing would you implement that would make Xbox One significantly different than the competitor in a way that matters to the market?

I mean, I get that it's a hundred bucks... but at the same time, IT'S ONLY A HUNDRED BUCKS. This is a forum filled with people who have spent more than that on isolation platforms or calibration gear. Or is the problem that it has a camera/mic and you're concerned about privacy? How would you then advance gaming without something similar? Would you... say, add more buttons to the controller? Maybe mouse/keyboard?

If it seems like I'm asking in jest, it's because it amazes me that people are so flippant about it... but these are the things Microsoft engineers actually have to consider when designing a NEW console. Is it just a faster/shinier box? Or do we actually try to do something new? And if all you want is more of the same but faster, WHY? That's the thing I legitimately don't understand. I mean, 1080p gaming... not something new. Been there, done that. 7.1 surround... not new. Been there, done that. So with that in mind, what's the point in next-gen if it's just the same as before, but with the same iterations we see in the PC sector?

I guess what I'm really asking is... Why even buy a new system if it's not actually doing anything new? And that's the rub here, IMHO. If you just want a regular stream of CPU/GPU/RAM improvements and call that next-gen, why aren't you a PC gamer instead?

Because... Kine...Drm...M$..just...spies...and...Microsoft just wants my money!
post #4999 of 14773
Quote:
Originally Posted by garciab View Post

I believe the success of the XOne will depend entirely on how many Kinect 1 owners are happy with that device. The motion-gaming fad has come and gone (like it or not, both Sony and Microsoft tried to hitch a ride on that bandwagon), so the question is now....has Kinect 1 done enough to justify people upgrading to Kinect 2? That is the main way I see Xone having a chance out of the gate. Otherwise, I still believe $500 is too expensive and folks who are interested will wait for a price drop. And I"m sorry folks, but if there is no early adoption for whatever reason, and you've got a competitor who is selling well, that's not good news for you even if you are trying to evolve for the better.
The success will all depend on the games they put out, not Kinect. I don't care for Kinect, but I enjoy the MS games and ecosystem, so kinect isn't enough to make me not get the system.
post #5000 of 14773
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_P_A View Post

I suppose if I have to have a reason, I just prefer gaming on my 60" TV as opposed to a monitor. And my couch is more comfortable than my desk chair.

You should try playing on a upper range PC plugged into surround on a 60" plasma. Witcher 2, battlefield 3, and Metro are gorgeous.

Yeah, I spend too much money on electronics. But I'm a programmer with a good income and it's one of a few of my hobbies...
post #5001 of 14773
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_P_A View Post

Simmer down now smile.gif

Actually, I'd be good if they just remove the Kinect must be plugged in requirement. I'm not asking that much biggrin.gif And yes, I am generally happy with new and shinier graphics. To think devs won't be able to do more with 8 GB of memory than they did with 512 MB is silly. Let's see what they can serve up! I'm excited about next gen gaming (even if it is with they a tired 'ol handheld controller). TBH, I've never tried PC gaming, but I don't have a desktop in my house, so cost is certainly a barrier to entry. I suppose if I have to have a reason, I just prefer gaming on my 60" TV as opposed to a monitor. And my couch is more comfortable than my desk chair.

And while $100 might not be much to some, it's 1/5 of the cost of the XB1, so it's still a good chunk of change compared to the cost of the console.

Yeah, I'm way more annoyed at being forced to use it than the money. The cost for something I don't want to use only bothers me in principle. Having to use it actually bothers me in practice.

I haven't canceled my preorder over it, but if its as annoying or useless as I think it'll be, I'll prob return it.
post #5002 of 14773
Quote:
Originally Posted by RemoWilliams84 View Post

Most Wii games wouldn't require it either if they had released a standard controller instead of the nunchucks. Paper Mario doesn't use motion controls at all. The Zelda games, Mario kart, and I'm sure a bunch of the other traditional games wouldn't require it either if the controllers just had a normal amount of buttons. So yeah, pretty much the same concept.

I didn't know that there are that many games for the wii that don't require motion control.

Interesting that fewer games would use the motion control if more buttons were available. What little I've played on a wii, I didn't care for the motion aspect. But Nintendo marketed that console as a motion controlled device. That was their hook, and that was the gimmick that sold so many consoles out the gate. But, as garciab mentioned above, the fad has really died off. Most of the people I know with wii's don't play them anymore.

But again, so far MS hasn't shown me anything about the XB1 that would make the Kinect fundamental to its operation to the point that I shouldn't be able to unplug it. I don't want yet another device to clutter my TV. BTW, I think a wii will actually start up without the sensor bar connected, right?
post #5003 of 14773
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_P_A View Post

Simmer down now smile.gif

Actually, I'd be good if they just remove the Kinect must be plugged in requirement. I'm not asking that much biggrin.gif And yes, I am generally happy with new and shinier graphics. To think devs won't be able to do more with 8 GB of memory than they did with 512 MB is silly. Let's see what they can serve up! I'm excited about next gen gaming (even if it is with they a tired 'ol handheld controller). TBH, I've never tried PC gaming, but I don't have a desktop in my house, so cost is certainly a barrier to entry. I suppose if I have to have a reason, I just prefer gaming on my 60" TV as opposed to a monitor. And my couch is more comfortable than my desk chair.

And while $100 might not be much to some, it's 1/5 of the cost of the XB1, so it's still a good chunk of change compared to the cost of the console.
Let me put it another way... You can put together a PC right now for about the cost of these consoles that, at 1080p, will be graphically superior to either console... and you can put it in your living room, have wireless peripherals to play games on it (including the 360 controller), and do far more than just play games on it. And you won't have to have any motion control whatsoever. And next year, if you want an improvement, you can just add ram... or a video card... etc. You can seriously hit NewEgg right now and put together a PC that will outdo either of these consoles, complete with HDMI out for your 60" TV. And you can put it in a case that isn't horribly dissimilar from the Xbox One's form factor, actually. And a great deal of the games coming to console will come to PC and look BETTER because PC is the bleeding edge platform. So... why buy an Xbox One?

If you take away the reasons console gaming is unique, why bother having it?
post #5004 of 14773
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_P_A View Post

I didn't know that there are that many games for the wii that don't require motion control.

Interesting that fewer games would use the motion control if more buttons were available. What little I've played on a wii, I didn't care for the motion aspect. But Nintendo marketed that console as a motion controlled device. That was their hook, and that was the gimmick that sold so many consoles out the gate. But, as garciab mentioned above, the fad has really died off. Most of the people I know with wii's don't play them anymore.

But again, so far MS hasn't shown me anything about the XB1 that would make the Kinect fundamental to its operation to the point that I shouldn't be able to unplug it. I don't want yet another device to clutter my TV. BTW, I think a wii will actually start up without the sensor bar connected, right?

It'll start up, but you can't control the interface without it. The sensor bar is nothing more than two IR LEDs, the actual sensor is in the remote itself. But that bar is a cheap innocuous little thing.

They're not having the same PR issues because they were the first out of the gate with motion controls, and Wii sports was an amazing use of it.
post #5005 of 14773
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

It'll start up, but you can't control the interface without it. The sensor bar is nothing more than two IR LEDs, the actual sensor is in the remote itself. But that bar is a cheap innocuous little thing.

They're not having the same PR issues because they were the first out of the gate with motion controls, and Wii sports was an amazing use of it.

I Googled it after I posted that, and it looks like it's not uncommon to play a wii without the sensor bar connected. Seems like even Nintendo had the foresight to not make it mandatory biggrin.gif
post #5006 of 14773
Quote:
Originally Posted by RemoWilliams84 View Post

You should try playing on a upper range PC plugged into surround on a 60" plasma. Witcher 2, battlefield 3, and Metro are gorgeous.

Yeah, I spend too much money on electronics. But I'm a programmer with a good income and it's one of a few of my hobbies...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy Anderson View Post

Let me put it another way... You can put together a PC right now for about the cost of these consoles that, at 1080p, will be graphically superior to either console... and you can put it in your living room, have wireless peripherals to play games on it (including the 360 controller), and do far more than just play games on it. And you won't have to have any motion control whatsoever. And next year, if you want an improvement, you can just add ram... or a video card... etc. You can seriously hit NewEgg right now and put together a PC that will outdo either of these consoles, complete with HDMI out for your 60" TV. And you can put it in a case that isn't horribly dissimilar from the Xbox One's form factor, actually. And a great deal of the games coming to console will come to PC and look BETTER because PC is the bleeding edge platform. So... why buy an Xbox One?

If you take away the reasons console gaming is unique, why bother having it?

I might have to look into it. However, I did build an HTPC several years ago, and while it was fun to put it together, and get it going initially, I finally got tired of constantly having to tinker with it. I just wanted to play a movie with the thing and ended up replacing it with a dedicated streamer. I guess that's one of the appeals of a console. I know I can just pick up a controller and start playing.
post #5007 of 14773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy Anderson View Post

Well, not really the ONLY differentiator. Sony's version is basically just using binocular vision with standard webcams, meaning it's subject to the same tracking issues they've had before, primarily room lighting (same as the original Kinect often had with games that relied on RGB in addition to the IR dot tracking). It also gives you less precision than even Kinect 1 had, since it relies on the differential between images to calculate depth and isn't using dual 1080p cameras. They're likely making money on it at that $60 pricepoint, because there's nothing exotic about it. And it being optional means it will get used about as much as the EyeToy did... or PS Move.

It looks to be enough for a bunch of silly tech demos, which is all I really want out of motion games at this point. I never asked for an exotic camera. I was perfectly fine with eyetoy and move existing...If they showed something cool enough to make me want to buy it, I would have. But they never did, and just like every other accessory, it rarely ever got used outside of first party games. Just like the Kinect 2 will.
Quote:
That only applies to launch. You know they will do just like everyone does and have these things in WalMart, GameStop, etc. for people to try. And that's dependent upon the thing actually being on the market first. As far as the early adopters go, I understand your point. The question remains though... As an early adopter, if you take out Kinect and drop the price to match PS4's, what feature is left with Xbox One to make you pick it over Sony's presumably slightly more powerful version of similar hardware?

The same things there always have been - a slightly different selection of games, different interface, services, controller, streaming services, competitive pricing. They dont need to have radically different functionality, because all the differences get chopped away by cross platform games to fit the common mold. I just want two solid platforms that can compete on quality and continually raise the bar, not gimmicks. If they're gonna go gimmick, they need to go full-gimmick, and then expect their sales to reflect the niche they just cornered themselves into. Otherwise they're just adding useless frills that can only get in the way of the core experience.
post #5008 of 14773
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_P_A View Post


I might have to look into it. However, I did build an HTPC several years ago, and while it was fun to put it together, and get it going initially, I finally got tired of constantly having to tinker with it. I just wanted to play a movie with the thing and ended up replacing it with a dedicated streamer. I guess that's one of the appeals of a console. I know I can just pick up a controller and start playing.

Thats what actually makes consoles unique - theyre cheap and easy to use. $499 is pushing the boundaries of cheap, and Kinect is just adding needless complexity. Every time I'm forced to use a gesture or a voice command and it doesnt work, I'm going to want to tear that thing off my TV.
post #5009 of 14773
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

they're just adding useless frills that can only get in the way of the core experience.

I see it this way:

"they're just adding interesting features that can only enahnce the core experience.
post #5010 of 14773
Quote:
Originally Posted by RemoWilliams84 View Post

I see it this way:

"they're just adding interesting features that can only enahnce the core experience.

What interesting feature have you seen demoed that isnt just some imaginary potential use?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Xbox Area
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › Xbox Area › The Official Xbox One thread...