MS Engineer comments

[DavidinCT]

And then you are taking a step backwards, because that means physical and digital games are completely different. They are no longer identical in every way.

Why doesn't Steam do this so then Steam can allow the selling and trading of used games? Surely Steam is evil for not doing this.

This would SOLVE the problem for now, they could advance towards their model of a "Digital World" but, still work with people that need it now. From what was said, off line could not show DRM to confirm you own the game. This could be a simple workaround for now. This would ONLY work for physical disks.

Truth be told, most sales, to start will be from physcal media. It will continue this way unless new games are $40-50 on xbox live, if they are the same price, why would anyone just do a digital download ? There would be no point to it if I could get the nice case and paper work that I paid for(nevermind less bandwith on my ISP and not having to wait possable hours to download a 40gb game).

You may want to and I may be interested in at some point moving to a total digital world (I love the idea of selecting a game from a menu to play, before I would have to "hack" a system to get that) but, it does not work for everyone. This idea is for, no internet but, played the game before ? Put in the disc to use offline for the time being.

It is needed to have an option like this, not everyone in the world has a perfect internet connection. This would solve it for these people.

One of the more "accurate" uses of Kinect v1 augmentation was showcased on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, where you could angle your foot as if stepping on a gas pedal and it would accelerate a vehicle. Maybe that was also shown at a few other places as well. But it never took off or got incorporated into any actual uses - it was a tech demo, at any rate, using a racing game not built with Kinect in mind.

It's not a demo....It works that way in Forza 4, you have to enable it in the menu (I think it does in Forza Horizon too), infact one of the achievements is for driving a car in a race using only kinect... It worked good but, it was not something I would use for the whole game, I tried it for a while but, prefered the controller as I didn't think it was as accurate.

 

[vertigoOne]

MS will wait until things cool down before spending a lot to advertise benefits.

Right now, MS could say that Jessica Alba will personally deliver your ONE to your house and people will complain that it's not a different star.

Where do I sign up for THAT edition?

 

[Mystictrust]

Right now, MS could say that Jessica Alba will personally deliver your ONE to your house and people will complain that it's not a different star.

DO. WANT. Sign me up.

 

[Keith Wallace]

MS will wait until things cool down before spending a lot to advertise benefits.

Right now, MS could say that Jessica Alba will personally deliver your ONE to your house and people will complain that it's not a different star.

What would be the benefit of that? I mean, she's probably not someone who will drive faster than I will, meaning waiting on her to get to my house with the console will mean a longer wait than if I went to the store and picked it up myself. I don't see how having anyone who isn't a professional in the shipping industry deliver my purchase is of any benefit than doing it myself.

 

[Robert Carpenter]

What would be the benefit of that? I mean, she's probably not someone who will drive faster than I will, meaning waiting on her to get to my house with the console will mean a longer wait than if I went to the store and picked it up myself. I don't see how having anyone who isn't a professional in the shipping industry deliver my purchase is of any benefit than doing it myself.

It's not about the console. I would be playing with her controllers if you know what I mean..

 

[HeyCori]

The NSA can't wait for a Google Glass and Kinect in every home in America!

All the ways you're being watched

 

[Reflexx]

It's not about the console. I would be playing with her controllers if you know what I mean..

You mean through SmartGlass on her Lumia 920, right?

 

[Reflexx]

What would be the benefit of that? I mean, she's probably not someone who will drive faster than I will, meaning waiting on her to get to my house with the console will mean a longer wait than if I went to the store and picked it up myself. I don't see how having anyone who isn't a professional in the shipping industry deliver my purchase is of any benefit than doing it myself.

Touche'!!

 

[AaHaa]

I don't really care if this guy is really an MS engineer or not, because either way, he makes some very valid points.
I didn't know about the Steam-stuff, but I can't find anything wrong with what the guy is saying here. The main reason I don't play my PS3 is because the games are so expensive. If MS manages to create a Steam-like platform because of the DRM stuff, I fully support them.

Next to that, I also see a lot of "futuristic" potential with this Kinect, just like this guy is talking about:
I can come home from a hard day's work, shout "Xbox, on. Xbox, play the Beatles". Then walk to the refridgerator while listening to some sweet tunes, getting something to drink, go sit on the couch, pick up my controller, say "Xbox, play Halo" and have it pause the game automatically when I turn my head away to answer an incoming text on my phone. YEAH SCIENCE!

 

[Graven Pshya]

Well there will always be those who embrace change and those who despise it.. Either way, the future is becoming more digital and we're going to have to embrace now or later.

 

[Keith Wallace]

It's not about the console. I would be playing with her controllers if you know what I mean..

Yeah, she's married and has 2 kids. Just a guess, but she might be more of an upstanding person than to cheat on her husband with some guy she just handed a toy to.

 

[Mystictrust]

Yeah, she's married and has 2 kids. Just a guess, but she might be more of an upstanding person than to cheat on her husband with some guy she just handed a toy to.

She also might have brought along some extra bonus controllers to use for the Xbox One - you never know I'd personally just like to have a chat with her, she comes across as super nice. And great to look at Maybe she could show me the apps she uses on her 920 or something (yea, geeky, I know)

 

[mister2d]

Yeah, she's married and has 2 kids. Just a guess, but she might be more of an upstanding person than to cheat on her husband with some guy she just handed a toy to.

Someone is taking this thread/life/Xbox One issue a bit too seriously. Take some time away from this and come back with a fresh perspective. I guarantee it will be much better for you.

 

[AaHaa]

Anyone brave enough to put these arguments in a well-thought-out JPEG and post it to Reddit/4chan/9gag/Cheezburger? There's WAY too much hate going on over there.

Include Jessica Alba if you like.

 

[someoneinwa]

That's really not a reasonable conclusion, though. My likelihood of using a Kinect goes DOWN with this idea. I'd be willing to buy the Kinect, though I won't use it much, but telling me I HAVE to plug it in shuts me down to using it completely. If all it needs is to be plugged in (and it doesn't need to see the user for the console to function), I will literally wrap the thing in foil and never use it because I think that the concept is THAT dumb. Making someone buy the thing is one matter--they can use console sales as a point in-favor of developing for the Kinect. However, telling developers that the Kinect is plugged in doesn't really hold any MORE weight that "the Kinect has been purchased."

Just as not having the requirement can mean a Kinect on a shelf, having the requirement can mean having a bunch of Kinects wasting space an electricity without ever being used.

Sigh. Keith with all due respect, I doubt there are many customers who will feel the same way as you about the Kinect. And for those who do, there are other products on the market that do not take this approach that you can enjoy. Microsoft also chose to make a console that wouldn't play 360 games. There are probably some folks outraged about that decision as well. There are other options for them too. Kinect IS necessary for the Xbox One to achieve Microsoft's goals for the product. I won't say deal with it, but it does seem you are making way too big a deal about this when the simple solution for you is to not buy the Xbox One.

 

[NaNoo123]

One thing I have heard is that game prices will stay the same.
Sorry don't have link to article.
Just so we don't take it as granted that they will come in cheaper.

Sony said their prices will range between $5-60, so they intend to keep same prices also.

 

[Mystictrust]

One thing I have heard is that game prices will stay the same.
Sorry don't have link to article.
Just so we don't take it as granted that they will come in cheaper.

Sony said their prices will range between $5-60, so they intend to keep same prices also.

I did notice that all the new preorder games used to be set high at $99 on Amazon, but someone must have informed them of this because they are all down to $59.99 again.

Once again, smooth PR talking for Sony, they are really in a good spot right now. They said games would range from $5-$60? That almost makes it sound as if Sony has been working on getting lower prices for their games, when in reality that range already exists (on both platforms). Not saying they shouldn't have said that, just that it was smart PR to state it like that.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Sigh. Keith with all due respect, I doubt there are many customers who will feel the same way as you about the Kinect. And for those who do, there are other products on the market that do not take this approach that you can enjoy. Microsoft also chose to make a console that wouldn't play 360 games. There are probably some folks outraged about that decision as well. There are other options for them too. Kinect IS necessary for the Xbox One to achieve Microsoft's goals for the product. I won't say deal with it, but it does seem you are making way too big a deal about this when the simple solution for you is to not buy the Xbox One.

The backwards compatibility thing is much different from the Kinect one. With the backwards compatibility, the CPU architecture is a big hindrance in allowing the One to play 360 games. They'd have to put a lot of additional work into the OS to make backwards compatibility happen. In the case of the Kinect, they deliberately worked to create this situation that people are unhappy about. I can accept losing backwards compatibility because I understand why it happened naturally, when they switched off of the PowerPC CPU architecture. However, I cannot accept the Kinect matter because it wasn't a naturally-occurring thing (the console itself dictated the need for the Kinect, like how an x86 CPU cannot handle PowerPC games by default), but the intentional actions of Microsoft to create that inconvenience.

It's funny how you say something is a "simple solution." I prefer to actually educate myself fully on the situation and made an informed decision later on, rather than just say from the get-go "Kinect bad, no Xbox." You can say that the Kinect is needed for them to meet some goal I don't know of, but Microsoft should make some attempt to prove that the Kinect is actually a viable accessory first. So far, all I know about the "Kinect" brand is that it lends itself to inconsistent performance, lots of lag, and a tendency to not even pick up what you are doing, on many occasions. Instead of saying "now you HAVE to buy the second one," prove that you've advanced the technology far enough to warrant a purchase first. That doesn't mean showing off on the E3 stage, because the first Kinect looked good there as well. Instead, make the second iteration optional as well, let everyone know it's a great, dependable product, and THEN move to making it integrated into the system.

If they give us this required accessory and it turns out to struggle like the first Kinect did, it's a $100 investment not worth its weight in dirt. I guess I am saying that I don't see this as a position in which Microsoft can win. Either the Kinect will be mediocre again, and everyone will be really bad about the required $100 investment, or it'll be good, and everyone will say "it had better be." I don't see this as capable of working out like the first Kinect, where people see its potential and clamor for it. There will either be an neutral response to a good product or a HIGHLY-negative reaction ot an average one.

 

[someoneinwa]

The backwards compatibility thing is much different from the Kinect one. With the backwards compatibility, the CPU architecture is a big hindrance in allowing the One to play 360 games. They'd have to put a lot of additional work into the OS to make backwards compatibility happen. In the case of the Kinect, they deliberately worked to create this situation that people are unhappy about. I can accept losing backwards compatibility because I understand why it happened naturally, when they switched off of the PowerPC CPU architecture. However, I cannot accept the Kinect matter because it wasn't a naturally-occurring thing (the console itself dictated the need for the Kinect, like how an x86 CPU cannot handle PowerPC games by default), but the intentional actions of Microsoft to create that inconvenience.

It's funny how you say something is a "simple solution." I prefer to actually educate myself fully on the situation and made an informed decision later on, rather than just say from the get-go "Kinect bad, no Xbox." You can say that the Kinect is needed for them to meet some goal I don't know of, but Microsoft should make some attempt to prove that the Kinect is actually a viable accessory first. So far, all I know about the "Kinect" brand is that it lends itself to inconsistent performance, lots of lag, and a tendency to not even pick up what you are doing, on many occasions. Instead of saying "now you HAVE to buy the second one," prove that you've advanced the technology far enough to warrant a purchase first. That doesn't mean showing off on the E3 stage, because the first Kinect looked good there as well. Instead, make the second iteration optional as well, let everyone know it's a great, dependable product, and THEN move to making it integrated into the system.

If they give us this required accessory and it turns out to struggle like the first Kinect did, it's a $100 investment not worth its weight in dirt. I guess I am saying that I don't see this as a position in which Microsoft can win. Either the Kinect will be mediocre again, and everyone will be really bad about the required $100 investment, or it'll be good, and everyone will say "it had better be." I don't see this as capable of working out like the first Kinect, where people see its potential and clamor for it. There will either be an neutral response to a good product or a HIGHLY-negative reaction ot an average one.

Actually, what you have said is exactly "Kinect bad. No Xbox." over and over again. You've already made the decision it is bad because the first version failed your expectations. I haven't experienced all the problems you have with the V1 Kinect, but hey, to each his own. I think it is entirely reasonable that you want proof that Kinect 2 is better and it is also reasonable to not rely on trade show product demos for that proof. The Xbox One will be out in just a few months and I am sure you will be all over the Internet looking for reviews and comments about how it is or is not better and does or does not do what Microsoft promised. You can see it in action yourself at a local retailer and/or spend time with one that some friend or acquaintance buys. Then, weeks or months after the release, you will make that informed decision you speak of and either buy the Xbox One or not. I totally respect that.

It seems then that what you are really complaining about is that you want to buy the Xbox on or about day one but won't because of Kinect and your suspicions about the product in general (the big brother aspect) and whether it is truly better then V1. And what you want is for Microsoft to abandon the goals they've built the Xbox One around and sell you an ala carte version. I don't expect that to happen for the reasons that many others have explained here. You want Microsoft to prove they've advanced the Kinect and then maybe incorporate into the next generation, whenever that device comes out which of course could well be 7 or 8 years from now. You will get your proof in just a few months time and can then make your decision.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Nope, you're missing what I've said. I've said that the first Kinect had problems, and that I'd like to actually be able to see that this one is improved first-hand before I buy it. I've said that I don't like that I have to make the extra $100 investment in the technology when I have yet to see it work successfully. I've also never said that the Kinect itself is a single reason I am currently planning to pass on the Xbox One for a bit. I've stated it's the combination of the $500 price (a result of the Kinect), the requirement of plugging the Kinect in (just sounds a little creepy, I admit slight paranoia), the check-in (think it's too punishing to some, even if it won't hurt me), and the lack of clarity on the sharing features (just because I want to know their function fully before I pass judgment on them). I've stated that I have a problem with the Kinect. I've stated that I don't CURRENTLY plan to get an Xbox. I've not said that one is entirely related to the other, because they simply are not. If my ONLY issue was the Kinect, I'd still get the Xbox. Instead, there are 4 or 5 meaningful things that I don't like, so I want to wait to see how this all develops right now.

I agree, testing it at Best Buy is an option. I don't like the idea of doing it (just because I don't like the thought of playing a Kinect game in public, making myself look like a goofball), but that's a personal preference that I don't consider as having any weight in the discussion. I could try it as a friend's, and that WOULD be what I end up doing, in some cases. However, I'm kind of the go-to person among my family and friends with this stuff. So, if I'm telling people I am holding off on getting the Xbox One for a variety of reasons, it is likely they will as well (not trying to make myself sound important, it's just the way it tends to go--I was the first person I knew with an Xbox, the first with an Xbox LIVE subscription, the first with an Xbox 360, the first with a Zune, the first with Windows 8, and I would have been the first with Windows Phone, but I couldn't upgrade at the time). Point is, it's LIKELY going to be that I have to take the plunge on the Xbox One before anyone I know and am around will do so (it's possible my cousin in Texas gets it first, but I can't exactly drive 12+ hours on a whim to go try his console out in November, when finals are about to start, haha).

I'm not asking Microsoft to abandon their goals whatsoever. I AM asking for a console without a Kinect, but I'm more-importantly asking for a better pricing model. I could warrant $400 with the Kinect, but not $500. Yeah, the "it's only $100" argument or the "if $100 matters, you shouldn't be buying it anyway" arguments exist there, and they're semi-valid. However, it's not just "$100," it's a 25% price increase from $400 to $500. I can also say I typically get around $400 for Christmas, but not quite the $550 or so a console would cost after tax. I've also suggested that Microsoft could make these new Kinect requirements a later-on feature, like after an OS update in a year or two. At that point ,the console costs will likely have come down enough to where they could make a Kinect bundle $400, drop the Kinect-less option, and add the Kinect plug-in requirement.

I'll add that I'm a little confused with this staunch defense of everything. I mean, people have long criticized Apple for requiring a specific connector for their phones to work, which costs about $20-30. We're then willing to support than same vision for a $100 Kinect, call it "the future," and then defend it to the death, it seems. We hate the DRM on music and movies, and we voted EA the worst company in America for 2 years because of their Online Pass, in an attempt to earn some money off of used games. Microsoft uses this check-in system to attempt to monetize the used games market as well, and people defend that. Sony released the PS3 at $500, while the Xbox 360 was $400 (for the HDD version), and we dogged them for that, despite they were using the Blu-Ray drive as "the future," in a way that worked out well for all of us (as Blu-Ray beat out HD-DVD and had a greater storage capacity). Microsoft touts the Kinect as "the future" (and not in a way that is as widespread as Blu-Ray has been), uses it to release the Xbox One at $500 (while the PS4 is $400), and that gets defended as well. I'm just unsure (beyond the loyalty to the logo) why something folks here castigated other companies for in the past is now a similar matter which they are defending Microsoft for, claiming it's some kind of "revolution of gaming."