First, just want to say thanks for the thoughtful response.
I do think the Kinect will eventually get better, however, AFAIK this version of Kinect probably won't address the issues you specified. To that end, does it concern you that you will need to actually disconnect the power from the Xbox One in order to turn off the Kinect? That is to say, do you have any concerns that the Kinect is constantly recording your home - at least the audio, at all times, even when the Xbox One is powered down? Considering the recent news that the NSA is collecting data and is in league with Microsoft, is that of any concern to you?
I understand the logical leap we're making here... The microphone is always on, and the system is always connected to the internet. Ergo, anything said in the vicinity of the Kinect can be recorded at all times. And in light of PRISM and everything else the NSA is doing, we should be extra concerned with people illegally recording our information.
But I look at it like this: The Xbox One has been built to provide a feature with substantial benefit for the user: The ability to control the entertainment hub by voice commands. In order to do that, a small amount of power needs to be available at all times. The internet part I'll get to a little later in this response, because it is an issue which, while I would employ willingly, I'm not thrilled about being required. Anyhow, that's neither here nor there right now. If Microsoft was making recordings of our house and conversations, they would be crushed legally. I don't expect the potential benefit here outweighs the potential harm, nor do I think it would be too difficult for someone to find if audio or video data was being sent from their console unknowingly. I see the features here being included as a benefit to customers, and the fear of surveillance spreading from recent governmental decisions.
So on to that. I am opposed to unwarranted recording. I have no fear about Microsoft, as a company, spying on me. They don't have the Patriot Act to hide behind. There would be concern for what a hacker can do if they get into the system, or the NSA. But if the NSA is going to spy on me by whatever means necessary, not buying an Xbox One is going to change anything. Political battles need to be fought in the voting booth, in the best way voters can. I'm a bit more cynical about that nowadays than I used to be, but it's the only weapon we've got at our disposal.
This is great, but do you think Microsoft has the ability to muscle out the cable companies? I've heard Microsoft and Apple both say these things before, promising to replace traditional home media - but it hasn't happened. I don't exactly know how an HDMI input will help in this regard considering DVR capabilities are offered from any cable company anyway as X has said earlier. Yes, there will be an OSD, and the Xbox will constantly be functioning as an extension of your television, which is cool and is certainly an advantage the Xbox has over PS4; but with that said, I don't know if this single feature outweighs the cons as well as the price difference.
Yes. I do believe cable companies are going to become a thing of the past, it's just a matter of who lands the finishing blow. With Netflix, Hulu and Apple TV, the need for cable companies is diminishing. HBO is reportedly seriously considering becoming a subscription-based service, and everyone knew that was coming when they launched HBO Go. I suspect other channels would do the same, so long as it is economically viable. The issue comes to, who has the power of distribution? If Time Warner threatens to drop HBO outright if they offer a subscription-based service to people without a cable contract, will HBO manage to retain most of those customers, and would they be able to pick up enough others to make up the difference? I'd imagine that line is getting close nowadays, and another in-home device like the Xbox One will bring us a step closer.
Capitalism isn't perfect (nothing is), but where the market is concerned, it will eventually do what is best for the consumer. And the internet will eventually render cable television obsolete. It's just a matter of when.
Malt, I guarantee you, almost all of these games for both consoles will eventually be PC ports because both consoles are x86 systems for the first time in history. A good example is the original Xbox which really brought "Games for Windows" into being simply because porting games from the Xbox 1 to the PC was fairly simple. I think both of these consoles will have fewer exclusive titles in their continuing years as they roll out, as it makes less sense for developers to only develop for one and not both.
You're probably right, but I think we're at least 2 years away from drawing any definitive conclusions. The battle over digital rights has been raging on PC for over a decade, and Steam has shown that people will concede "ownership" of a game, so long as they aren't negatively impacted. Steam provides some nice perks as well, such as game sales and discounts, and the ability to log into your game account from multiple PCs. We know Microsoft is doing the latter, and I suspect they're going to push for digital downloads on the new console. I suspect we'll also see a fair share of the former. By eliminating a used games market and increasing digital downloads, which have the added benefit of not requiring a physical disc to be created thus reducing cost, the margin for developers increases. Some of that may be used to drop game prices a bit quicker than the standard game market does and generate weekly sales, and some of it will mitigate the risk developers take on to develop AAA titles.
Now, if we imagine game developers to be money-driven and uncaring (EA
), this won't benefit consumers much at all. However, the cost of AAA production is so high right now that missing on a game can set a studio back for years, if not entirely run them bankrupt. That's part of the reason we see so few original titles anymore. It's safer to make a sequel to an already popular franchise, and that mitigated risk is everything.
This is a long way to get around to saying that, while I do completely agree a lot of these games will be available on a PC, it will because a PC already incorporates a lot of what Microsoft is trying to do at the console level. But I do think some developers are secretly pushing hard for this direction, and I expect they'll even take a small loss in revenue to help push the cause. Small being the operative term there.
The DRM, imho, will likely lead to Sony winning this round of the console war. I'd be surprised if Sony didn't end 2014 with a double-digit lead in next-gen adoption. I think that will be much larger factor for publishers who ultimately decide what platform particular titles are developed. I do think the Xbox One will have more titles than the PS4 simply because of it's support of DirectX - but in the age of Apple and Android (neither of which use DirectX) there are many more developers in the market today that are very comfortable with SDL or OpenGL. This creates a completely different landscape than what we observed for the last two console iterations. So we'll just have to wait and see.
I agree Sony is winning right now, though carrying momentum from June through December shouldn't be taken for granted. I suspect both systems will sell out at their initial launch, as always happens.
Now, if Microsoft screws the pooch at launch as MDog1 implied, and no one can play games because Microsoft's servers become overloaded, then they will loose this battle in dramatic fashion. Microsoft better have a thousand contingency plans to make sure things don't get messed up on their end for years to come. However, once these systems come out, we'll figure out who gets an advantage. How does Xbox's new Kinect system compare to the old one? Will the benefit of a home entertainment console prove large enough to justify consumers rethinking these devices simply as game systems?
A lot remains to be seen.
I can understand that, but I also think as consumers we have a responsibility to hold companies accountable for what most likely consider overreaches. Microsoft is changing the concept of software ownership by eliminating the usefulness and re-usability of physical media. I think consumers should tell Microsoft what they think about being stripped of that ability by looking at alternatives, even if the Xbox One offers some nice new features.
I think voters have a responsibility to hold their government accountable. I think consumers have a responsibility to make informed purchases which benefit them best in their private life. Microsoft isn't doing a thing to change the concept of software ownership. This battle was fought by iTunes, Steam, etc. years ago. Microsoft is just getting itself in line. It benefits the producers at the harm of retailers, and some consumers. As a consumer who already buys games new so I don't have to deal with the hassle of not being able to play a game online since a registration key was already used, I'm not the consumer who is facing any penalty. I can hope that the benefit the production company gets will benefit me somewhere in the long run as I mentioned earlier, but there is no harm done on my end.
Considering the differences between the two, is Kinect and the OSD TV feature worth $100 for a graphically inferior console that imposes such tight DRM restrictions? Is it worth the loss of privacy? I'm just wondering where do you draw the line and say "yes, this is a cool feature (kinect, hdmi-in), but I can't deal with the reduced graphics, higher price, DRM, and privacy issues."
Assuming the DRM isn't invasive (IE If I buy a game legally, but due to some Microsoft error I am blocked from playing it) it doesn't bother me. I understand how big of a deal game piracy is, and I understand this is a necessary evil. Diablo 3 and SimCity screwed up big though, by requiring players to connect to their servers at all times. That's noticeably different from what Microsoft is trying to do, where the game itself runs and saves on your own system, but merely needs to "check in" within 24 hours. If Microsoft screws up, and on launch day I'm stuck screaming at my TV because I can't access my games, I'll be happy to make the nerd rage post on here talking about how wrong I was to buy this system. But they haven't given themselves as much of an undertaking as EA has in the past, and I suspect they'll launch flawlessly.
Graphically inferior is a strong claim to make, especially considering how similar these systems are under the box. We'll see how they perform once they're both running in houses.
Privacy has been most of the topic of this response, so I'm not sure how much more needs to be said. I don't think any of my privacy would be compromised by this system at all. A microphone running and a system being connected to the internet are two separate events. I highly doubt Microsoft would ever compromise the privacy of consumers. These are mutually exclusive concepts.
I'm not sure what else to say on the subject. This felt mostly like a defense, but to be honest, I'm really excited about the Xbox One. I've had a great experience with the 360, and the PS3 was very "meh". I feel like I am the target demographic for the new system, because every feature the Xbox rolls out is something I can see myself using. I think Microsoft PR is doing a terrible job managing the conversation on their console right now, which is unfortunate because they have a lot of revolutionary features coming with the system.
That said, PS3 destroyed Microsoft at E3 the year before the PS3 launched. (They had the advantage of coming a year later), but they didn't deliver on the console. I bought into the hype back then. This time, they need to show me something before I sign the check. Sony always wins the press battles, it's not necessarily proof they've got the better system though.
