Editorial

Is Microsoft finally getting it right with the Xbox One?

I am the first to admit that I was not a fan of the Xbox One when it was first talked about early last year, the issues surrounding the original announcement have been well documented, but now six months after launch and with what feels like a complete 180 over nearly every feature and idea they originally talked about and Microsoft might finally be on the right track with the console. Focusing on what the public might actually have wanted to buy, an entertainment unit priced reasonably.

Some people have said that the biggest issue they had with the original Xbox One announcement was the bundling of Kinect 2.0. It clearly bumped the consoles pricing up high and was always an accessory that many people rarely used after the first few months of purchasing the original version on the 360.

I never really enjoyed the original Kinect, but I have stated this in the past. The problem seemed to lie with the lack of many decent Kinect games, lack of space in gamer's houses and a hardware based controller which could have added more “hardcore” gamer options rather than regressive hand gesture controls we seem to be getting now.

This never really changed with Kinect 2.0 either, games were non-existent and Kinect Sports Rivals, the one big Kinect release that was planned was the expected flop which has all but ended any chance of Rare ever making a game again, especially after the announcement of layoffs at the company last week. Another issue was voice control was still never 100% accurate and if you are using that as your main control method, it had to be. Heck my console rarely launched with the “Xbox On” command something that should have been spot on.

Microsoft must have known that bundling Kinect 2.0 was a huge risk, but they were adamant that it was their plan all along, especially with their push for voice control of the entire Xbox One UI. Yet they have completely reversed that decision, adding that a future update for the Xbox One will allow far better UI controls via the gamepad rather than Kinect, something that should have been there from the beginning anyway. Microsoft even had plans to integrate Kinect into the Xbox One during development, something I am glad they didn't go ahead with, otherwise we may have had an even longer wait for a kinect-less version.

It has also been well documented that Kinect 2.0 takes up some GPU and CPU time which could and should have been optional for developers. Removing the requirement of having Kinect attached to the console frees up this extra power for developers to not only improve their games, but also attempt to reach the PR important 1080p gaming that PlayStation 4 users are enjoying.​​ I have to admit that as soon as Microsoft's said Kinect will be removed from the Xbox One, I removed it from mine knowing that I will no longer need it.

Removing Kinect 2.0 from the Xbox One isn’t the only improvements that Microsoft have announced over the past months. The early price-cut wasn’t much of a surprise to many people, trying to sell a less powerful console at a much higher price was always a risk and when you already have negative public response to nearly everything that Microsoft announced you are facing a losing battle.

Dropping Kinect and the price will help Microsoft no end, although I still feel that it needs to be priced less than the PlayStation 4 simply due to being less powerful and that will make a big difference to public perception.

Another major change that has been a long time coming is Microsoft’s revamp of their Xbox Live Gold package. The Xbox One will no longer need an Xbox Live Gold subscription for you to access apps like Netflix, YouTube, HBO Go and more. You also won’t need to subscribe to use apps like Skype, Internet Explorer or the OneGuide. These changes are what users have been hoping would happen for some time.

Xbox Live Gold will also now add free games into the mix each month, starting out with the excellent Max: Curse of the Brotherhood and the iffy Halo: Spartan Assault. The free games offer has worked wonders on the PlayStation 3 and 4 and it is great to see Microsoft finally realise what a good thing this is for subscribers.

The upcoming June update for the Xbox One will also add an option for a user to auto-login to the console, at the moment you either have to do it via Kinect’s iffy recognition which can take some time or via a few button presses, either way it is something again they should have got right in the first place.

Microsoft are heading the right way though, especially with their regular monthly updates which not only add new features, but also fix or improve existing ones. The biggest change for Microsoft is that they are finally listening to the public. The public were always vocal about not wanting Kinect bundled with the console, about automatic logins and other features that are now appearing. This change for Microsoft will bring a lot of good feeling from gamers and fans of the company alike.

The next big push from Microsoft will come at E3 – they need games now, even more so after the lacklustre sales of Titanfall, which was previously expected to be a catalyst for sales of the Xbox One and that just hasn’t happened. It is hard to predict what will happen in the future for the Xbox One, but let’s hope the wait is well worth it. The company are listening to you and that is one of the most important things they can do.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Samsung rumored to launch standalone smartwatch this summer

Next Story

The Pursuit of ‘Appyness: Which apps are still missing from Windows Phone?

128 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

If they had done all this at the start I would have got one as I liked my 360. When it broke down after 3 years they collected it from my house and I had a replacement within a few days all for free , that made me a loyal customer and I always planned on getting a xbox one..

I have a PS4 now though , probably for the best as its a more powerful console. To be honest I've hardly used it , it does seem a good console but there's not really any games that interest me and plenty on the PC.

My main problem with both console's is game pricing. It's way to high , £55 for a download is insane. Unless the price drops to £30-40 I won't be buying many games.

MS should have just ate the cost and dropped the price to $400 w/ Kinect. They seem more interested in winning a console war than sticking with their original message. Now it's just an underpowered PS4 for the same price. I hope they land a MAJOR 3rd party exclusive, otherwise I would get all 3rd party games on PS4. I may get one if their deal with the NFL will allow me to watch games without a cable subscription. (does anyone know? maybe there will be more info at E3)

Guys this is really nonsense like it or not the PS4 will still be the more powerful console.I am happy Microsoft has finally realize it was time to remove Kinect for certain reasons not that it a bad product just it should had been sold separately. I am also happy because I want to get the Xbox one for the next Halo game and happy there was a price drop.But lets get the Facts straight and that is Ps4 is still more powerful than XBOX one.

I find it hilarious when Xbox fanboys say that the PS4's performance over the Xbox One is hardly anything, when you know if it was the other way around they would not be singing the same tune. MS is doing so many U-turns on the Xbox One that they're becoming dizzy and they're still desperately trying to play catch-up to the PS4.

CUBBYJR2005 said,
Guys this is really nonsense like it or not the PS4 will still be the more powerful console.I am happy Microsoft has finally realize it was time to remove Kinect for certain reasons not that it a bad product just it should had been sold separately. I am also happy because I want to get the Xbox one for the next Halo game and happy there was a price drop.But lets get the Facts straight and that is Ps4 is still more powerful than XBOX one.

Is it? I know enough to know that I don't know everything and that the Internet is full of other people who think they do. In other words, theoretical limits don't mean much if architectural and system bottlenecks prohibit you from exploiting the available capacity. It wouldn't surprise me if we are seeing less than half of what these systems are capable of. In the end, more power doesn't mean much if you blow the tires off of it every time you pit your foot into it. Generally speaking, the race cars that win are the ones that are balanced and consistent. Microsoft's benchmarking may or may not have led to optimal architectural design decisions. However, the fact that they understand the difference between real world performance and theoretical limits is what leads me to believe that they have the right formula. I always tell my clients that the difference between success and failure is relative to whether you follow the data. Only time will tell but I am not inclined to say that theoretical limits really mean anything this early in this cycle.

Edited by fiftytwoeighty, May 24 2014, 11:30pm :

It doesn't take a genius to find out on the internet that the PS4 is not only way outselling the competition and is also more powerful (if you can read numbers).

"Is Microsoft finally getting it right with the Xbox One?"

Not by making Kinect optional. MS should find way to add value to the bundle instead of removing it. Titanfall bundle was a step in a right direction

Microsoft just put Xbox One like the other console. MS have 5 million people invested on Kinect. The difference with PS4 and Xbox One in term of global sales are wide but the infrastructure that MS has created locally within each country are wide also.

The right question to ask is this, Are console defines for living room or personal just like PC? If living room, then Xbox One have just created that path.

both are decent consoles depending on the exclusives you prefer...casual gamer's will always have a preference but lets not kid ourselves whichever console allows us to play our pirated content on it first will win the war

I'm torn... It may help with some sales in the short term but it's also now a weaker product. *shrug* It's too bad Microsoft's original plan didn't work out, I think I kind of got it, but not enough seem to have.

I don't think this will make it sell better than the PS4. They removed the edge it had against it to be able to lower the price but a lower price does not make a better product.

"I have to admit that as soon as Microsoft's said Kinect will be removed from the Xbox One, I removed it from mine knowing that I will no longer need it."

When you say Xbox might finally be getting it right, I thought you were referring to the great improvements that have been made since day one on voice recognition, sign in recognition, and voice navigation. Granted the gestures are a huge step back, but the voice stuff is better than ever.

I walk into the room, say "Xbox On" sometimes you have to say it twice. Then "Xbox Music" on comes the last album I was listening to. Off to make dinner, sit on the couch, "Xbox Netflix", up comes Netflix and fast. "Xbox watch TV" up comes TV, channel changing even works amazing with voice. "Xbox mute, Xbox unmute, Xbox volume up, volume down, Xbox go to Forza Mororsports 5, I get not just to the launch of the game, but the PLACE in the game I last left it, instantly. And I don't really ever have to raise my voice to do any of this with the exception of loud music.

This is a Geekbox, not a Grandma Box. And it works great with voice. Removing the Kinect especially after you already bought it tells us that you are the guy that wanted it $100 cheaper the first time. Glad they addressed your segment, but I'm really glad they are constantly improving, and addressing my segment as well. With the addition of Cortana and some massive machine learning to come, this will be quite the Geek box, and some day, the complete home automation box.

If John Cormack says that there isn't much difference in performance between XOne and PS4, I'll take his opinion over yours. Especially because when they designed this box they knew all along about the incredible improvements to come with Direct X 12.

John Carmack says a lot of things. I don't see how he can argue with the numbers.

XB1: 12CU at 853MHz : 1.31 TFLOPS
PS4: 18CU at 800MHz : 1.843 TFLOPS

Beyond clock speeds and core counts, both GPUs are identical

The numbers clearly show the PS4 is significantly faster. About a 40% faster GPU. That's why it consistently beats out XB1 in resolution and framerates. There isn't a single game that the PS4 renders at a lower resolution or lower framerate. There are only some games where it matches the XB1, probably because the developer didn't care to spend extra time optimizing the PS4 more since.

mrp04 said,
John Carmack says a lot of things. I don't see how he can argue with the numbers.

XB1: 12CU at 853MHz : 1.31 TFLOPS
PS4: 18CU at 800MHz : 1.843 TFLOPS

Beyond clock speeds and core counts, both GPUs are identical

The numbers clearly show the PS4 is significantly faster. About a 40% faster GPU. That's why it consistently beats out XB1 in resolution and framerates. There isn't a single game that the PS4 renders at a lower resolution or lower framerate. There are only some games where it matches the XB1, probably because the developer didn't care to spend extra time optimizing the PS4 more since.

Using that figure it's only about 28% faster in a pure TFLOPS basis. I know it's not the entirety of the system, but the differences really are negligible largely. The Xbox is simply harder to program for with the ESRAM which is peculiar as the 360 had a similar setup.

-T- said,

Using that figure it's only about 28% faster in a pure TFLOPS basis. I know it's not the entirety of the system, but the differences really are negligible largely. The Xbox is simply harder to program for with the ESRAM which is peculiar as the 360 had a similar setup.

How are you getting 28%?

1.843-1.31 / 1.31 = 0.407

Even if it's just 20%, how do you consider that negligible? Negligible is more like 5% difference.

pmbAustin said,
"Negligible" because most average users would be very hard pressed to perceive the actual difference while playing games.

Some users who sit very far away from their TV may not be able to see a difference but that doesn't mean there isn't much difference in performance. Others who sit closer or user monitors will. 40% is not in any way negligible.

Yeah, it is. Because the difference most humans perceive at a distance of 8-10 feet (average distance from living room TV) is just not that significant... and that "40%" you keep quoting is a really low-level number that doesn't translate in to that much difference on the screen as perceived by human beings. Only geeky nerds and hard-core gamers are making any huge deal out of this. Side-by-side comparisons of a dozen games show so little difference that most people won't even notice.

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Yes, the PS4 has a greater capacity for higher detail graphics and/or frame-rates. In reality, at least so far, it simply hasn't been that significant of an issue.

pmbAustin said,
....

Yes. I deal with this in the video space all the time.
IPTV typically streams HD at 6.8Mbit VBR yet my engineers insist we stream at 8Mbit CBR because that's true HD.
Even after Microsoft engineers insist that the difference is imperceptible.
Then cable operators say it makes a difference to win back customers.
Then there are those who insist on bluray.
And even Netflix.

Really, at the end of the day, the(original) MS way aligns with my usage.

mrp04 said,

How are you getting 28%?

1.843-1.31 / 1.31 = 0.407

Even if it's just 20%, how do you consider that negligible? Negligible is more like 5% difference.

As I understand it, those are theoretical limits for the GPU. However, real world benchmarking suggests that more Compute Units do not necessarily benefit the actual throughput if there is another bottleneck in the system. In other words, the PS4 may have more capacity but that doesn't inherently mean that it is able to use all of it. Microsoft's benchmarkng suggested that increasing the clock speed would provide more tangible benefits than it would to include more Compute Units. Were they right? I don't know and neither do you.

Only time will tell once developers become more familiar with the new architecture. I would suggest that many of the perceived shortcomings for the Xbox One will fade into memory in the next couple of years. The next SDK should release approximately 8% of the Xbox One GPU reserve (with or without the Kinect) so that will only bolster performance that much more. But even then, it can take time for developers to understand a system architecture well enough to know how to take advantage of it.

Existing cross platform rendering engines are likely to favor a more simplified architecture but as they evolve, the differences will become negligible. Furthermore, Microsoft left it up to developers to choose resolution vs pixel quality for their games based on their game content and objectives.

Either way, using a theoretical limit as a basis for saying that one platform is more powerful than another isn't necessarily valid if other bottlenecks prevent them from coming anywhere close to those limits.

That is like comparing the performance of two cars using magazine specs and dyno charts. Despite this, those specs sell cars with people blindly driving around in a modern day hot rod believing that their car does 0-60 in 3.65 seconds and the 1/4 mile is exactly 11.85 seconds. The guys at the track know differently but what they know doesn't sell cars.

Honestly, I feel the EXACT OPPOSITE. I feel that what they originally presented was a bold new vision of the future of gaming, with tons of great and exciting ideas and lots of amazing potential.

Now they've just basically dumbed it down for the morons who can't handle change, and it's "just another console". Boring.

I was super excited when it was first announced. I NEVER understood the attacks that descended almost immediately... they seemed so ignorant and short-sighted and ridiculous. And now I look at the thing and wonder if I should even bother getting one. It's nothing but a marginally better Xbox 360 now, and I already HAVE one of those, and it has tons of games still.

The tyranny of the idiot masses has won, and completely ruined what could have been an advanced, exciting thing with an amazing future. And with Microsoft basically undoing ever new idea in order to please the whiners who can't handle change, there's literally nothing left to differentiate it. It's dull. Safe. Status-quo. Bleh. Meh.

I think this article is exactly and totally wrong. They're not finally "Getting it right"... they HAD it right. They're just "dumbing it down to the lowest common denominator so that those without imagination or balls will buy it." And that's just sad and pathetic.

How did you not understand the attacks?

Daily check ins

Physical disks can no longer be traded freely

"Family sharing" sham which let you "borrow" limited versions of games. Yes they were LIMITED, Microsoft never said they were fully unrestricted games even after people kept asking.

Kinect forcefully bundled and increasing the price by $150 when its useless for gaming which is all most people want to do on their XB1

Seems like pretty obvious reasons for people to get upset, no?

Edited by mrp04, May 24 2014, 5:19pm :

I don't understand the attacks because none of that was a problem. Why would it be? The online elimination of discs is a GREAT thing, and would result in LOWER PRICES for all games... being able to share and use your games regardless of where you were was awesome. The Kinect had a ton of potential. There's no reason for people to be upset... the main reason they were is "I'M TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND AND I JUST WANT THINGS TO BE THE SAME WAY THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN! CHANGE SCARES ME!"

It was completely pathetic and stupid. The whiners about all that stuff, bitching and complaining about things they didn't understand and had never even TRIED, was just contemptible.

pmbAustin said,
I don't understand the attacks because none of that was a problem. Why would it be? The online elimination of discs is a GREAT thing, and would result in LOWER PRICES for all games... being able to share and use your games regardless of where you were was awesome. The Kinect had a ton of potential. There's no reason for people to be upset... the main reason they were is "I'M TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND AND I JUST WANT THINGS TO BE THE SAME WAY THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN! CHANGE SCARES ME!"

It was completely pathetic and stupid. The whiners about all that stuff, bitching and complaining about things they didn't understand and had never even TRIED, was just contemptible.

No competition = lower pricing? No. Go check the prices right now. On the xbox one marketplace the prices are still at MSRP while most of the launch games can be purchased for $30 on disc from retailers.

Where do you get the 'no competitionn' thing from? What gives lower pricing is game manufacturers not having to over-charge on initial sales because they see ZERO from re-sells. It's the "Steam" model. Combine the publisher/developers getting a cut from EVERY sale (not just initial sales), with the fact that there's no physical media, warehousing, or shipping... and you get over-all lower-cost games, and the potential for great sales.

Now, because stupid short-term-thinking narrow-minded whiners exploded in faux-rage, we're stuck with $60/game for the foreseeable future.

deadonthefloor said,

Yes. The vision is dead.
Thank you internet.

No, not thank you. The opposite of thank you.

Internet whiners are why we can't have nice things.

Really... Publishers would lower the price because there are no re-sale... They would keep the price at current rate for longer to make as much money as possible... even increase the price if market would pay for it... Do you think Microsoft would have released a new bundle with a game for 50 less if they were selling more than PS4.
As consumers, our only weapon against them is to vote with our wallets.

The only thing MS getting right is getting knocked back to its sense. Lately, MS has made so many anti consumer DRM centric delusional product which were solely based on premise of making more money to MS at any cost and their screw up customer attitude. I think it has something to do with success of Win 7 getting on their head and thinking they can do whatever they think they can get away with as consumers do not have much choice and they will buy their way with their huge money pile.

Competition is good and this is the only thing which can keep these companies in checked.

No, they need to price the standalone console at $350 or bundle a popular game with it for $400. The $400 SKU is not a good value, the previous $450 bundles with a game and kinect were much better.

If they weren't total idiots they would have released a $350 standalone SKU at launch.

I love my Kinect. Yes the voice recognition can be a pain sometimes (mainly when changing channels, at least for me) What I really would like to see with games is more simple games. Games that make it fun for the family. Bring out some cheap games, less then $9. You know a good bowling type game (not the crap in Rivals). Just inexpensive but fun games to play on occasion. Those make the Kinect fun. Keep integrating the use of Kinect in games for use like Glass is used occasionally, for optional use but necessary (you know like they did in DR with voices attracted the zombies).

However my one pet peeve and the one thing, in my opinion, that they really have screwed the pooch with is digital games. Pricing is wrong, inability to share is wrong.

Pricing is wrong because there is no actual hard distribution costs (other then some data). But, sales exist for discs, but don't really exist in comparison with digital. Just look at the buy two get one free deal they had, discs only. Since media doesn't exist there really is not physical overhead.

Other issues, you can't buy digital codes elsewhere (e.g. Amazon, Gamestop or other online shops) for digital purchase. I would think they would want digital (as was their plan originally) to still be the focus but, they don't seem to show any love for digital at all. Allow others to compete for digital game sales.

The original idea beyond sharing was awesome. It seems they gave a big finger to everyone when they backtracked on the DRM for discs. Not only giving those that wanted to use the disc without checking-in their little fix but, also making it no longer an option to share games with friends at all. When doing the disc check-in change they should have made they share option available for only digital purchases. That one change would have allowed digital to have an advantage. A disc could have been shared with a friend as it has in the past and digital purchased could have been shared over the internet. Right now people must use the old way of giving login info to others share a game(s) purchased digitally. Even Steam has a better model (one share at a time) but, Microsoft's original idea was great. Bring it back for digitally purchased games.

For this console generation I personally have slowed my purchases down. With the 360 (even though I mainly bought discs) I would average 12 games a year. I originally was going to go all digital (mainly because of the sharing option and hoping they would bring it back). However, since they have really have no focus on this one area I have slowed down purchasing games . Currently I don't see myself having purchased more then 6 games by the time I have had the system for a year. I would gladly buy more but not until I see that Microsoft is back on track with digital. And no I do not plan to start buying discs again.

Speaking of digital I am at a quandary why they don't have a bundling option for their digital services. You know buy 2 get a 3 free or buy Music get the Video streaming type service or Xbox Live for 30% off if purchased for a full year type deals.

The original idea for family sharing was a vague description that you'll be able to share your games with 10 people. But they never said they were 100% unrestricted versions of the games. People kept asking about that and they never confirmed. Then they just dropped the feature in total.

Why did they drop it? Because it was a sham. There's no reason to drop it from the digital games if it was useful. That would convince people to buy their games digitally instead of on discs. But if it was restricted and they kept it then it would just flare everyone up again. Better decision to just sweep it under the rug and never say anything about it again.

mrp04 said,
The original idea for family sharing was a vague description that you'll be able to share your games with 10 people. But they never said they were 100% unrestricted versions of the games. People kept asking about that and they never confirmed. Then they just dropped the feature in total.

Why did they drop it? Because it was a sham. There's no reason to drop it from the digital games if it was useful. That would convince people to buy their games digitally instead of on discs. But if it was restricted and they kept it then it would just flare everyone up again. Better decision to just sweep it under the rug and never say anything about it again.

its because of people like you the message got muddied.


Haris @EvilFiek
@notwen would the original family share have had only offered time-limited access to games for family members?

Marc Whitten @notwen
@EvilFiek No, that would be silly. Don't believe everything you read online!


Aaron Greenberg @aarongreenberg
@lx_KillFace_xl There was no time limit, it was as we described. Team still investing in more digital features over time.

http://ca.ign.com/articles/201...canceled-family-share-demos

vcfan said,

its because of people like you the message got muddied.

http://ca.ign.com/articles/201...canceled-family-share-demos

He just said on twitter that there were no time limits. Things said on twitter have often been rescinded. Plus he just says no time limits, but doesn't say no feature limits.

And really think about it. Why would they drop it from downloaded games if it wasn't a sham? Why would publishers suddenly let you share with 10 other people when they forced Sony to change it from 5 to 2 consoles you can install a game on for PS3?

They can say whatever they want after they canceled it. They can say it was the second coming of Jesus Christ but hey you guys didn't want it so too bad.

I believe it was genuine,as it was spelled out clearly on the xbox website before reversing the decision on the check in part. they had to rework the software to work offline, and the whole tradeoff with having to check in everyday was you'd have nice features like family sharing.

vcfan said,
I believe it was genuine,as it was spelled out clearly on the xbox website before reversing the decision on the check in part. they had to rework the software to work offline, and the whole tradeoff with having to check in everyday was you'd have nice features like family sharing.

It wasn't explicitly spelled out on the website, that's why people were asking over and over during that week after E3. On June 19th they reversed the DRM and family sharing and then 2 days after reversing it they start posting on Twitter about how it was unrestricted. That's what leads me to believe it was a sham. If it was unrestricted why were they not immediately replying to those tweets and saying so? That would have gone a long way to appease people and in fact I probably would've liked the new system more if they guaranteed that family sharing was legitimate. I was already making plans with friends to alternate who buys single player games and sharing them.

The only real change I would've liked from the original system (if the family sharing was legit) was to drop the daily check in. Only require the check in for other people to play your games or even require your console to be actively connected, but don't require you to be online to play your own games.

If that system was already in place why would they have to remove it? The DRM/licensing changes aren't really that hard to implement. They already have a license manager system, the only difference needs to be is if you don't own a license then check if the game is in the disc drive and if it is then start the game.

If the family sharing really was legitimate then it's just even more proof of how incompetent the leadership was. What they said sounded great, too good to be true even. They never confirmed that it really was true until after they canceled it (and even then not 100%) and at that point they can say whatever they want because no one will hold them to it. They could have re-introduced the feature by now if they wanted to and it really was unrestricted, but I just don't believe that to be the case.

its pretty clear to me.

Give your family access to your entire games library anytime, anywhere: Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend's house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license

vcfan said,

Again, it never explicitly states that it's unrestricted. The rumor was they'd somehow be restricted. Microsoft never said "No, they are 100% full version games" until 2 days after they canceled it.

That is suspect.

I'd absolutely love it for it to be really unrestricted and for them to bring it back for downloaded games. I'm going to buy most of my games as downloads regardless since I buy so few games lately. Only the really good ones that I don't resell. I really would benefit a lot from it.

I just don't believe they were giving us all the information.

Edited by mrp04, May 24 2014, 6:45pm :

mrp04 said,

Again, it never explicitly states that it's unrestricted. The rumor was they'd somehow be restricted. Microsoft never said "No, they are 100% full version games" until 2 days after they canceled it.

That is suspect.

I'd absolutely love it for it to be really unrestricted and for them to bring it back for downloaded games. I'm going to buy most of my games as downloads regardless since I buy so few games lately. Only the really good ones that I don't resell.

I just don't believe they were giving us all the information.

but its never stated that its restricted in any way either,which is usually something that is stated when there are restrictions,not the other way around.

I'm glad Microsoft reversed their policies with the Xbox. They finally listened to the feedback of their own users. Something they should have done from day 1. Now the Xbox looks like an attractive machine.

I love my Xbox One with Kinect and I want to see it develop further. I'm very worried that they will stop developing for or improving Kinect.

It's not about the games for me (I would actually hate playing games with Kinect), it's for the console interaction. I love voice controlling my system. 'Xbox On' doesn't work and many other commands are iffy. As an early adopter I accept this because the overall experience is what I want. With the OneGuide update for Canada in June the Xbox will do everything I bought it for (well, minus the voice control bugginess).

The Kinect let's me Skype Star Trek style, while I love. But my favourite feature is the simplest; I can mute my TV from across the room by simply saying' Xbox Mute'. It's the most consistent voice command too.

They had their day in the sun with the 360. I don't want a single manufacturer to win the console war every time. Every company needs a kick in the rear now and then; competition is good for all. Would Microsoft be working so hard to fix all these problems if not for Sony? In any case and at the risk of being torn to shreds by angry fanboys I believe the PS4 is the superior console this time around.

Since the Xbox One runs on windows 8 core, when they heck can we play games on the console ! this will really make it more enjoyable but I think they don't want to harm the big gaming population.

Well it may be 8 core but until DirectX 12 is out the full core use for games is non-existent. Currently with DirectX 11 in the XboxOne only one core is used for all the pretty DX magic. DX12 will utilize all 8 cores for processing. Unfortunately, this is not going to happening anytime soon (maybe late 2015)

Gibbyhome said,
Since the Xbox One runs on windows 8 core, when they heck can we play games on the console ! this will really make it more enjoyable but I think they don't want to harm the big gaming population.

Not sure what you're doing with yours but I've been playing games on mine since it launched.

MS is, they misread the current situation with the gaming market and tried to force (which Sony did not tag along) gaming in to the direction it's currently heading in too soon.

The other barer they have to overcome "trust". They want to switch to digital / drm where MS and EA/Activision not been helping to give a sense your game will be here for you in the future where in the past they keep shutting down services, or put highly restrictive DRM on electronic goods. EA/Activision especially on not being perceived as being too greedy when wanting to sell your digital license. The past cost of Psn/Marketplace and cost of digital goods is way to high compared to PC games sales as well. I'm not arguing value / worth of cost, but PC games go down in price and drop lower over time much more then console games and consumers expect this. Steam has managed to earn it's trust, and set the bar on PC.

I honestly can't understand why MS could of done both models. By as digital only with the benefits they wanted, and sold a physical copy that only works if you have the disc. Give the best of both worlds and win over (and prove the trust) over time.

It is interesting to note how much emphasis Microsoft is putting on its gaming and tablet users--at the apparent expense of their laptop and desktop users. It must be a good feeling for a business to be able to ignore a large segment of their customer base. Perhaps MS should look back at what happened to GM, IBM, XEROX, National Cash Register, McKesson-Robbins and other who did the same thing in their own respective times.

Microsoft can't win. No matter who they try to make happy.

if they make their partners happy, the gamer feels screwed..
they make the gamer happy, their partners feel screwed.

and I wont even bring the investors into it

It all comes down to with whom does MS want to "get in bed with" -- the fickle consumer market or the more serious business market (who by the way have made MS quite successful).

A little failure and pain is a good thing. MS made a lot of heavy handed decisions that are costing them money both short and long term. If they're truly learning from these mistakes and it continues, they'll rebound by next year and things could look a lot better for them.

Until they sort out the fact games digitally cost £55 with no resale value where's you can buy in store for £39 and then sell the game on down the line if you have no further use for it, I won't consider them listening.

They need to sort out regional pricing urgently, they can't win over developers with marketshare if they only care about the US. Sony is dominating them across Europe.

I am a devoted certified Microsoft Guy.... I am about to loose my Patience with them. The original Xbox One ideas where what we needed, only thing wrong.

THE PRICE.

Hello, World is still in a Recession, the bottom line Dollar is still what Most people care about. I will near people that care still barley feed their children after 14 hours of work.

Xbox 360 beat PS3 why..... THE PRICE. It was almost always cheaper.....

MikadoWu said,
I am a devoted certified Microsoft Guy.... I am about to loose my Patience with them. The original Xbox One ideas where what we needed, only thing wrong.

THE PRICE.

Hello, World is still in a Recession, the bottom line Dollar is still what Most people care about. I will near people that care still barley feed their children after 14 hours of work.

Xbox 360 beat PS3 why..... THE PRICE. It was almost always cheaper.....

If you still think we are in a recession then you must be stuck in time.

MikadoWu said,
I am a devoted certified Microsoft Guy.... I am about to loose my Patience with them.

Patience is neither loose nor tight.

XBOX ONE is simply not as powerful as the PS4, price is only part of it. If XB1 had something to show for the extra money besides Kinect it might be a lot more successful.

That is the reason it may *lose* this console war.

If they bolster game that design for kinect from day one maybe it won't generate so much controversy and perhaps prove it's much much more to enjoyable beyond just the traditional controller. Microsoft Xbox Team lack the initiative of showing of what's possible by bundling the kinect with X1. It's not the hardware failed to impressed but how they demonstrated is just awry and dull. The potential is always there.

Removing the requirement of having Kinect attached to the console frees up this extra power for developers to not only improve their games, but also attempt to reach the PR important 1080p gaming that PlayStation 4 users are enjoying.​​

That will almost certainly not happen.

Can you see the problem in that? Such games will run faster for those who don't have kinect and slower for those who do. That'd be a bigger PR nightmare for MS.

IMO, the lowest common denominator would still be the Xone with kinect attached.

Which will mean that kinect 2.0's new features won't work while playing games. What'd be the point of having a 2.0 then?

...also, it'd result in different experiences, where kinect will work while playing one game but not in another.

Not sure if MS would allow that, but who knows, they've done a lot of unexpected things in the past 1-2 years.

eddman said,

That will almost certainly not happen.

Can you see the problem in that? Such games will run faster for those who don't have kinect and slower for those who do. That'd be a bigger PR nightmare for MS.

IMO, the lowest common denominator would still be the Xone with kinect attached.

I'm almost positive that Kinect 2.0 has the dedicated processor that they removed from the original to make it affordable. 2.0 should have negligible impact on system performance.

Kinect is always doing skeletal tracking. that's what the 10% time sliced gpu time is for,whether the game uses it or not. most of the voice stuff is done on the DSP,not using the gpu. so if developers don't want to use Kinect skeletal tracking,then the extra gpu processing is available to them. the voice stuff will still work fine for everyone,because like I said, the DSP is doing the work. there is no performance difference if you have Kinect connected or not,and voice commands will still work.

vcfan said,
Kinect is always doing skeletal tracking. that's what the 10% time sliced gpu time is for,whether the game uses it or not. most of the voice stuff is done on the DSP,not using the gpu.

Interesting. I'd like to read about that. Got sources?

I did some research.

http://www.eurogamer.net/artic...wer-for-xbox-one-developers

"Xbox One has a conservative 10 per cent time-sliced reservation on the GPU for system processing. This is used both for the GPGPU processing for Kinect AND for the rendering of concurrent system content SUCH AS snap mode,"

Meaning that not all that reserved performance is for kinect and part of it will still be reserved for the system even in its absence.

All in all, If MS does allow different amount of reserved performance for a kinect-less Xone and a kinect-attached one, it'd result in differing game performance and experience, even if a small one, and I doubt they'd allow that to happen; unless they want to face another wave of backlash from the gaming community.

if they remove the hard reserve,then it will be up to developers to choose if they want to include the Kinect tracking library in their game or not. the system is no longer managing it,but the developer is. most likely it wont matter anymore whether you have the Kinect connected or not,that specific game from the developer will run the same on all boxes(unless the developer chooses to base performance on if its connected or not,but that would just be dumb,and be a big headache).

eddman said,
I did some research.

http://www.eurogamer.net/artic...wer-for-xbox-one-developers

"Xbox One has a conservative 10 per cent time-sliced reservation on the GPU for system processing. This is used both for the GPGPU processing for Kinect AND for the rendering of concurrent system content SUCH AS snap mode,"

Meaning that not all that reserved performance is for kinect and part of it will still be reserved for the system even in its absence.

All in all, If MS does allow different amount of reserved performance for a kinect-less Xone and a kinect-attached one, it'd result in differing game performance and experience, even if a small one, and I doubt they'd allow that to happen; unless they want to face another wave of backlash from the gaming community.

Interesting article. It seems pretty clear to me that they were planning on lifting this GPU reserve from the beginning. This article was written 15 months ago. If Microsoft made a mistake, they may have given developers too much flexibility for resolution vs pixel quality. By not requiring 1080p, they opened themselves up to criticism from those who believe that 1080p equates to higher quality visuals. Here is an excerpt from that article that caught my eye:

"Just some clarification here - does the release of Kinect and app reservation add to the overall 1.31TF of GPU compute power in Xbox One? The answer there is no - that 1.31TF is the theoretical limit of the GPU before reservations. The point is that more GPU resource will be available in future to game developers by giving them access to the hitherto reserved GPU allocation. As we understand it, the PlayStation 4 also reserves some GPU time for the background system - but it's highly unlikely to be anything as high as 10 per cent."

btw digital foundry recently said one of their sources says the reservation will be lifted in the may/june sdk update.

vcfan said,
btw digital foundry recently said one of their sources says the reservation will be lifted in the may/june sdk update.

Here is a report from January that shows that the "fixed" reserve will be dropped to 2%. According to this report, 8% GPU reserve is for Kinect and apps and 2% is for voice. More than likely, they have been working in a dynamic algorithm from the beginning. Performance between those with or without Kinect should be very close if there is any difference at all.

http://m.theinquirer.net/inqui...k-xbox-one-gpu-to-rival-ps4

All these might be true, but my entire point, which somehow got missed, is that the amount of reserved GPU performance while playing a given game will most probably be equal for both kinect-attached and kinect-free cases.

If not, then the game will perform faster when kinect is absent and MS will face a lot of complaints from gamers who use kinect.

Gamer: "Why my game runs slower when I connect my kinect?"
MS: "Well, kinect uses GPU cycles. If you want better FPS, remove the kinect."

eddman said,
All these might be true, but my entire point, which somehow got missed, is that the amount of reserved GPU performance while playing a given game will most probably be equal for both kinect-attached and kinect-free cases.

If not, then the game will perform faster when kinect is absent and MS will face a lot of complaints from gamers who use kinect.

Gamer: "Why my game runs slower when I connect my kinect?"
MS: "Well, kinect uses GPU cycles. If you want better FPS, remove the kinect."

Agreed. What these reports show is that they were going to lift all or a large part of the reserve either way so the impact for using or not using the Kinect will be null. However, both of them are likely to benefit once the reserve is lifted for all platform configurations. As you indicate, if there were any theoretical benefit for removing the Kinect, Microsoft is very likely to continue to use the full component configuration as a baseline one way or the other.

eddman said,
All these might be true, but my entire point, which somehow got missed, is that the amount of reserved GPU performance while playing a given game will most probably be equal for both kinect-attached and kinect-free cases.

If not, then the game will perform faster when kinect is absent and MS will face a lot of complaints from gamers who use kinect.

Gamer: "Why my game runs slower when I connect my kinect?"
MS: "Well, kinect uses GPU cycles. If you want better FPS, remove the kinect."

I tried to explain how this probably wont happen,as it will be the developers choice if they want to use Kinect skeletal tracking. for example,lets say call of duty doesn't need to use Kinect tracking,then the Kinect tracking stuff wont use the gpu,therefore it doesn't matter if Kinect is plugged in or not,the game is not loading the Kinect code in the gpu. these resources are free for use for graphics or other compute work. lets say there is a game that wants to use Kinect tracking,then the game will allocate usage on the gpu for Kinect tracking,regardless if you have it connected or not.

@vcfan

Then we are saying the same thing, only using different words, and we failed to understand each other.

One question still remains for me. A game might not have any kinect related features, but doesn't kinect also do fulltime, OS level, tracking and recognition? Isn't that one of the main new features of kinect 2.0? Aren't there apps that utilize kinect which could be used alongside a game?

I guess we were saying the same thing

about the tracking, that's what the gpu reserve is for, the tracking is always processed on the gpu right now,regardless if the game uses it or not. so what they might do is only allow the tracking to happen if the game needs to use it. like my example above,if call of duty doesn't need to use tracking, then tracking is disabled when you play call of duty and the game can use the gpu resources for graphics instead of it being hogged for Kinect tracking which the game doesn't use. the voice may still use some gpu,but the grunt of the work is done in the audio DSP.

vcfan said,

I tried to explain how this probably wont happen,as it will be the developers choice if they want to use Kinect skeletal tracking. for example,lets say call of duty doesn't need to use Kinect tracking,then the Kinect tracking stuff wont use the gpu,therefore it doesn't matter if Kinect is plugged in or not,the game is not loading the Kinect code in the gpu. these resources are free for use for graphics or other compute work. lets say there is a game that wants to use Kinect tracking,then the game will allocate usage on the gpu for Kinect tracking,regardless if you have it connected or not.

More than likely, the algorithm is more dynamic than that. In other words, the fixed reserve was more of a safety net until they were able to gather more data. The net effect may be the same thing but the SDK may display available GPU compute based on 98% in lieu of 90% capacity. When they use Kinect, the SDK will show them available capacity based on more accurate usage estimates instead of the relying on a fixed reserve. If they aren't using GPU compute for Kinect, there is very little risk for opening it up. If they are, those without a Kinect aren't going to use the title anyway. Either way, if you have the Kinect now, leave it plugged in and use it! You are unlikely to see any performance benefit by unplugging it but everyone will see a performance bump where developers take advantage of it on titles where Kinect usage is light enough to allow for it.

vcfan said,
I guess we were saying the same thing

about the tracking, that's what the gpu reserve is for, the tracking is always processed on the gpu right now,regardless if the game uses it or not. so what they might do is only allow the tracking to happen if the game needs to use it. like my example above,if call of duty doesn't need to use tracking, then tracking is disabled when you play call of duty and the game can use the gpu resources for graphics instead of it being hogged for Kinect tracking which the game doesn't use. the voice may still use some gpu,but the grunt of the work is done in the audio DSP.

Are you sure? Aren't there some OS level tracking/recognition related features that can be used even in-game?

Edited by eddman, May 25 2014, 12:11am :

about if the tracking is always there regardless? yes because they said it at build. or are you talking about the audio stuff?

vcfan said,
about if the tracking is always there regardless? yes because they said it at build. or are you talking about the audio stuff?

So, if there is OS level tracking that works all the time, then the reserved GPU cycles for those specific features cannot be released, and for the sake of performance parity, it'd still remain reserved even if kinect isn't connected.

today,thats exactly how it works. in the new sdk, they might allow the game to decide if the tracking should be disabled so the game can use those resources.

Forget the games. There are no games. Leave them. I mean NON game related features. I'm assuming the game has ZERO kinect code and the developer decides not to use any GPU cycles for that BUT, if there are kinect tracking features that are NOT game related and are SYSTEM WIDE, for APPS, etc. then those specific reserves can NOT be released. What if I need to use apps during gameplay?

Was I clear this time or should I try again.

snapped apps wont use skeletal tracking,since you're playing the game with the controller. And when you suspend a full screen game to the background, then the OS and Apps have full access to the gpu because the game is not rendering,therefore not using the gpu.

" I have to admit that as soon as Microsoft's said Kinect will be removed from the Xbox One, I removed it from mine knowing that I will no longer need it."

what was preventing you from not using it anyway? Neowin needs to bring on more competent help

Irritation of auto-login. It's minor but knowing they will finally offer auto-login with an update helped my decision. Oh and that of my wife complaining about Kinect sitting there looking ugly and not being used for anything.

Byron_Hinson said,
Irritation of auto-login. It's minor but knowing they will finally offer auto-login with an update helped my decision. Oh and that of my wife complaining about Kinect sitting there looking ugly and not being used for anything.

You complaining that it was not being used for anything but you didn't use it for anything. Your problem!

Byron_Hinson said,
Oh and that of my wife complaining about Kinect sitting there looking ugly and not being used for anything.
One of the biggest complaints about the "toys" I have in our house.

mrp04 said,
Not at all. Terrible DRM and family sharing was a sham. Kinect jacks the price up too much and kills it.

Except the DRM was epic; not at all terrible. You just didn't understand all the advantages imposed by the DRM. It'sbecause of the vocal minority like you that we lost easy game sharing; playing disc games without disc etc.

Lord Method Man said,
I wish they had stuck with their original plan. It would be hilarious to see Xbox One sell dozens of units each month.

Competition is key in this industry; without Xbox, PS4 would not be what it is today; and the same counts for Xbox.

DRM wasn't epic.. It was a sham by MS to control the xbox market & remove retailers from making money doing 2nd hand sales.... And ensure that gamers paid high prices even for old games unline now when you can go to GameStop & get an old game for 10 bucks.

If they were serious about their online vision, they would have had sales on xbox live marketplace... But they are still at full retail prices even after 2 years...

Yeah cos Gamestop are the good guys here. They deserve to lose business and I'd have liked the DRM to speed up the process of these vultures, leeching off the market, coming to a stop

Jarrichvdv said,

Except the DRM was epic; not at all terrible. You just didn't understand all the advantages imposed by the DRM. It'sbecause of the vocal minority like you that we lost easy game sharing; playing disc games without disc etc.

Right, it was the vocal minority here. Don Mattrick's answer to lacking broadband being "Get a 360" had nothing to do with the implosion of Microsoft's plans. :rolleyes:

MS was betting too much that 3rd party developer will magically creates awesome kinect games just because the kinect are available at launch,
and MS simply decided to not releasing any exciting 1st party kinect games.

Bad decision.

Kinect Sports, Dance Central, Kinect Joy Ride and then all the smaller games from the arcade were fun, good for parties.

The Kinect just isn't a tool for normal games, what it does do well in is short bursts of fun and silliness.

I certainly don't think the Kinect is dead, first of all it's worth having alone for the voice controls and video for Skype/Upload Studio. Also Indie games are coming for the Kinect and they are the exact type of games that will suit the Kinect. Something short, simple cool and silly that you could play for an hour at a party of when you have some friends over.

Edited by Gaffney, May 24 2014, 12:07pm :

The only Kinect game I ever played that worked properly was Double Fine Happy Action Theater, and that game was specially designed around the fact the Kinect didn't work properly.

There is a company called Double Fine Made some awesome Kinect Games like Happy action theater that when my kids friends came over and played I have 3 parents go out and buy the xbox360. I love the Kinect but I do bereaved it needs to be an add on and not part of the unit.

Kinect just isn't good enough to make a truly awesome game. That's why there aren't any. Plus people don't want to flail around.

It's only been 6 months since Xbox One's release. There wasn't even close to enough time given for those 3rd parties to create anything at all really.

Yes.. And those 3rd parties came to know about Xbox One only after it was released... You know games takes months to develop & all the studios had known about it for so ong... But no one, not even MS studios, created any compelling game for Kinect.. The only game that was released was Kinect Sports Rival by Rare studios... But that failed miserably & Rare is laying people off now...

They've been doing what everyone has been crying out for but taking a very long time in the process; removing the stupid (and I'm really sorry that the only people on the whole of the internet that don't think it was stupid happen to all be neowin users) DRM and selling on restrictions, unbundling the kinect, reducing the price, finally adding the promised features missing from the initial release and extra drive support, and the pathetic paywall for netflix etc.

n_K said,
They've been doing what everyone has been crying out for but taking a very long time in the process; removing the stupid (and I'm really sorry that the only people on the whole of the internet that don't think it was stupid happen to all be neowin users) DRM and selling on restrictions, unbundling the kinect, reducing the price, finally adding the promised features missing from the initial release and extra drive support, and the pathetic paywall for netflix etc.

I was waiting for this to happen, great price and not more the need to have Xbox gold. Now I am dropping PS4 in favor of the Xbox one. Now is very attractive and neck to neck with PS4.

n_K said,
They've been doing what everyone has been crying out for but taking a very long time in the process; removing the stupid (and I'm really sorry that the only people on the whole of the internet that don't think it was stupid happen to all be neowin users) DRM and selling on restrictions, unbundling the kinect, reducing the price, finally adding the promised features missing from the initial release and extra drive support, and the pathetic paywall for netflix etc.

You think like a dinosaur and like many people that's why we can't have nice things of the future. Everything they did from the beginning was the right move and the concept of the online DRM was great because that way you could share your games with your family with no physical media in between, now you can't do those nice things.

Kinect is the future, it's a sensor and the future is sensor base. You know like the sensors we have(eyesight, hearing, touch, etc) the future of technology requires sensors to better understand us. The people that are stuck in the past are always going to bit.ch about it.

Surely Apple will be releasing a Kinect like feature soon and people would be all over them. Why? because people love to hate on MS and MS was stupid to follow the trolls with the removal of the Kinect.

This articles mentions that "Removing Kinect 2.0 from the Xbox One isn't the only improvements that Microsoft have announced over the past months."

This is in no way an improvement, heck this cripples the system to what it should become.

It already works without it being plugged in, how does not including one in the box 'cripple' it? If Microsoft really cared they'd already have a solid line-up of Kinect titles, but they don't have anything close to that.

As for the Kinect 2.0 itself, it doesn't work well enough. I've seen people repeat themselves over and over to get to work, and they really only use it because the Dashboard is annoying to navigate with the controller (something they've said they're improving). Some people don't seem to have this problem, until it's consistently reliable for everyone it's not the future of anything and still falls into being a gimmick (which seems to be the general consensus of the user base at this time.)

As for the DRM, they had some nice ideas that might have benefited the hand-full of households that owned multiple Xboxes. They could have kept it, or parts of it, for games sold digitally.

nickcruz said,
<snip>

What arrogance. You've stated no factual information here but rather assume that everything would just work great.

Also, it's not that people hate the Kinect or Microsoft, it's that some people just don't care enough about it to pay more than $400 for the console. That my friend is a limitation of the market itself. If people don't want to buy it to the point that Microsoft feels the need to unbundle the Kinect, then that is Microsoft's problem. Obviously, if it wasn't an issue, Microsoft wouldn't worry about it.

This just goes to show you guys that regardless of all this, "Microsoft is still doing great!" attitude, Microsoft is still unhappy with their position and opt to not be complacent sitting behind Sony in terms of console sales.

If you like the Kinect, kudos to you. Enjoy it! I see little reason why one would feel the need to complain about what other people may not care for, or worse yet, complaining about people complaining. That's just silly.

I see ur point.. But the author of this post, just put everyone in the same basket.

which they shouldn't have done. I personally loved MS original vision, and there are no plans for Kinect, to be disconnected from my One.

and all these 180's do slow down the release of new features. For every 180, that's means resources for new features have to be brought to a crawl. As resources are pulled just something can be reversed.

You know one of the issues is everyone that wants just a game system expect kinect to be tied into every game or its fail. If the xbox worked good without kinect they wouldnt be having to update the dashboard to be better used without it. The people that approve of kinect are probably people like me that use all the tv and media features.

True. I use my Kinect (voice wise) mainly for TV also.

Removing the Kinect itself removes a lot more then just voice commands. Since remote blaster is in the Kinect, the TV guide must be removed as an option as well (you can't change channels without the blaster). People will not be able to Skype (not a biggie for me) but little things where video or voice (minus the headset) is needed can add up. But, to each his own. As long as Microsoft keeps advancing the Kinect usage and integrates it into their own games as an optional use then I am fine with their 180 change on this matter.

Yes, I understand a percentage of people don't want the Kinect. That is fine with me, I can live with it now (not at first, I was ####ed when they made the change) I really believe if there were a series of (good) games that were out that were Kinect specific and released on day one of the console we probably would not being having this conversation about removing the Kinect (or at least Microsoft would not be giving the option of it being sold without). But, there has been only a few games that use it as the primary input, none of which I consider good games.

Perhaps they should prioritize to get Cortana on board as quick as possible. Allow integration of this type of voice assistant may drive better sales of the Kinect based version (especially with the third party apps). Imagine saying "Cortana remind me when Gilligan's Island is on TV Land again".

Edited by Andrew, May 24 2014, 6:21pm :

nickcruz said,

<snip>

Family sharing was a sham. A pretty accurate leaker said that developers could put restrictions such as time or feature limits on family shared games. Microsoft never responded to people repeatedly asking to clarify family sharing. If it wasn't a sham and they clarified it right away then that would have gone a long way to stopping the yelling about the DRM situation.

If you just think about it for a little you'll realize the family sharing makes no sense. Why would publishers let you share your games so easily with any 10 people? That would lose them a whole lot of money. The PS3 originally let you install your games on 5 consoles and they raised hell over that since some people were abusing it and sharing games with friends. They forced Sony to reduce it to 2 consoles. Now you're saying they'd be OK with 11 consoles? Not happening.

Removing Kinect does nothing to cripple the system if all you want to do is play games. That's what the majority of people just want to do. Plus the Kinect just doesn't work well enough.

Apple won't be coming out with a Kinect like thing. Apple hasn't been innovative since 2007.

pjosephson said,
True. I use my Kinect (voice wise) mainly for TV also...

Everything there has pretty much nothing to do with gaming. Kinect is just not essential for gaming which is why it shouldn't be forced. If you want to use the XB1 as a media hub then go ahead and get the Kinect SKU or buy Kinect later. But for people who just want to play games forcing them to pay $100 for Kinect is just killing the console.

But the $400 price for a standalone console is not a good value. They need to reprice it at $350 or include a game to make it a good value. If you are interested in Titanfall or Forza the bundle makes more sense.

mrp04 said,

Everything there has pretty much nothing to do with gaming. Kinect is just not essential for gaming which is why it shouldn't be forced. If you want to use the XB1 as a media hub then go ahead and get the Kinect SKU or buy Kinect later. But for people who just want to play games forcing them to pay $100 for Kinect is just killing the console.

But the $400 price for a standalone console is not a good value. They need to reprice it at $350 or include a game to make it a good value. If you are interested in Titanfall or Forza the bundle makes more sense.


People will never be happy... Do everything people ask, and the demands will never stop...

Drop DRM...Done
Well drop Kinect and price to $400... Done...
Well take APPS From paywall, that are not behind paywalls else where... Done...
Well that's not good enough... Drop it to $350

MS is darn if they do, and darn if they don't.

Showan said,


People will never be happy... Do everything people ask, and the demands will never stop...

Drop DRM...Done
Well drop Kinect and price to $400... Done...
Well take APPS From paywall, that are not behind paywalls else where... Done...
Well that's not good enough... Drop it to $350

MS is darn if they do, and darn if they don't.

I always said from the start to drop it $350 without Kinect. Before the XB1 launch there was an AMA on reddit from an Xbox One engineer and he stated that the XB1 could be sold significantly cheaper than $400 if Kinect wasn't bundled.

$400 standalone is not a price drop, it's just a different option. They were selling the console + TitanFall or Forza + Kinect for $450. How is $400 for just the console a drop?

And it makes sense. Sony is claiming the PS4 hardware is already profitable at $400. It's ~30% faster than the XB1 overall. It makes logical sense that the XB1 should be able to be sold at $350. It also doesn't make sense to sell it at the same price as the PS4 when it's significantly slower.

In this case they're only damned if they don't. They just need to do one more thing, which is price it at $350 or include a game at $400.

Showan said,
People will never be happy... Do everything people ask, and the demands will never stop...

Drop DRM...Done
Well drop Kinect and price to $400... Done...
Well take APPS From paywall, that are not behind paywalls else where... Done...
Well that's not good enough... Drop it to $350

MS is darn if they do, and darn if they don't.


Except that if this article is true, then it would appear Microsoft IS doing something right.

http://www.neowin.net/news/gam...-xbox-one-due-to-price-drop

I had a couple customers come in the other day to pick up the Xbox One for $399 thinking it was already available.

dead.cell said,

Except that if this article is true, then it would appear Microsoft IS doing something right.

http://www.neowin.net/news/gam...-xbox-one-due-to-price-drop

I had a couple customers come in the other day to pick up the Xbox One for $399 thinking it was already available.


An article like this can never be true if 100% of the people don't agree with it...

If 3 million people like these changes and 2million don't like the changes

It can be: Microsoft is trying to do do things right by some of its current user base, and some of the potential buyers of Xbox One.

Because at the end of the day there's still this view (which I probably into somewhere): MS is shafting some of their user base, and potentially, some future Xbox One owners by changing up policies that were presented to them and were changed.


mrp04 said,

Everything there has pretty much nothing to do with gaming. Kinect is just not essential for gaming which is why it shouldn't be forced.

Wrong, remember during the Microsoft surface pro 3 event. Adobe announce a desktop touch friendly photoshop for x86 program. Adobe as a developer choose to make the adoption just like Kinect. If you choose to invest in Surface Pro 3, why would you not want a touch desktop program? Photoshop aren't design for 12" screen.
Kinect is not necessarily design just for gaming, it's up to developers to open that door.