Microsoft XBOX ONE

[WizardStan]

I just saw them trying to take away owner ship of games from players, and trying to control more on their end, so gamers could have less on our end.

As an example, you could say something similar if someone invented a teleporter and used it to rob businesses: the media could hype it up as a theft device and all people would see would be the negative effects. Someone could invent a brand new type of gun with some new bit of technology that just kills, like, everybody. That would be bad and all you might see is a murder device, but it doesn't change the fact that it was an innovative new gun.An anecdote from when I was much younger: when I was around 12, I single handedly figured out how to do parallax scrolling on my PC. It was HUGE. A massive boost in everything that I had been playing with. I was so proud, I showed my parents. All they saw was me wasting my time, they had no idea about all the stuff that goes on behind the screen, they just saw an image moving around.

are all gimmicks that don't do much for the base gameplay of current titles

Everything is a gimmick, including changes to base gameplay. Not just in games but in everything. There is not a single thing that has happened in the last 200 years that can't be explained as a gimmick. Faster computers? That's just a gimmick, you don't need to watch videos on your PC, you don't need fancy graphics, communication via text is fine. Email is a gimmick, it's just faster telegraph with a translator. The refrigerator? What a gimmick!That was all sarcasm but the point is that you're using "gimmick" in a nebulous "not a good thing" way without actually defining it or explaining why its bad. Name me one thing that you think Microsoft could have done that would have been innovative and I will tell you why its a gimmick.

MS has also shown next to nothing for ONE

Did you actually read anything that Microsoft said they wanted to do? Not the FUD that activists were latching onto as things that MIGHT happen or things that would be side effects of what they were doing but the things that Microsoft was actually doing and the things they were announcing they were going to do? Because that is exactly what I was talking about: their announcements were full of stuff that had the potential to be amazing: a game system that knew you, could make the game harder or scarier based on your reactions and heart rate; a video player that knew who was watching, recommending the series that you and your SO were watching together and moving the shows that just you alone have been watching to the bottom of the list; games that could interact with not just you but also anyone who might be in the room and other objects lying around; bigger pushes in digital content and always available media.But you didn't see any of that. All you saw was what gaming media wanted you to see, a company that was ruthlessly taking away your rights with these "worthless" features. So they listened, they removed all the things they had been trying to innovate until the XBone was just a slightly faster 360; and just to add a little bit of salt to the wound, they now get complaints that they didn't do anything innovative XBone. Damned if they had and damned when they hadn't. They had so many features planned, so many things that they tried to push, and all of it was scrapped because of complaints steeped in fear of what might happen. Justified fears, to be sure, but still fears of a future that wasn't guaranteed against an impressive feature list that was (right up until it was cut short)

And please, don't go through that list I gave and explain point by point why each one isn't an innovation, I already know what you would say and it's completely irrelevant.

I didn't realize it at the time but I do now: innovation is happening all the time, it's just happening in places that are outside of most people's knowledge frames. They see some new release and think "that's the same as before, only now it's smaller, big deal, nothing innovative there" but they don't realize the new techniques that needed to be invented, techniques that didn't exist before, techniques that will be useful in the future. The transistor was a huge leap forward in computing but to anyone without basic understanding of electronics it just looks like things got smaller, just a gimmick, but that gimmick has lead to smaller and faster devices until we get to where we are today. The incandescent lamp is still the same basic thing it has been since its invention, but now it's cheaper, brighter, more efficient, comes in a wide array of colours, all just gimmicks, nothing really innovative. To the outside observer, LED lighting is just a gimmick, it costs a lot more to do the exact same thing as the incandescent bulb; they don't see the innovations, the savings in energy and use, laws to get rid of the incandescent bulb are seen as tyrannical.

Sorry, rant ran long. It just irked me when I complained that they removed a bunch of innovative features and you respond complaining that they didn't bring anything new which was entirely what I was trying to point out.

 

[TrashyMG]

My gripes are with Microsoft themselves, personally I don't see anything wrong with the Xbox one other than some lackluster performance of the hardware and the name.. seriously there already was an Xbox one...  but  back to my point, I'm making an active effort not to intentionally give Microsoft any money.. so gaming for me is solely on my Linux Desktop and PS3/PS4 for the rest.  

 

[rygD]

there already was an Xbox one

And this seems to be something everyone points out.  Have they ever said why they chose that name?  The name gets some attention, so it isn't all bad for them.

My gripes are with Microsoft themselves, personally I don't see anything wrong with the Xbox one other than some lackluster performance of the hardware and the name

I'm making an active effort not to intentionally give Microsoft any money.. so gaming for me is solely on my Linux Desktop and PS3/PS4 for the rest.  

 
And you are far from alone.  Many people have many reasons that they like or dislike something, and often it isn't the product itself that people have these feelings for, but the people or company behind it.  This seems to me to be a growing trend for me, and even if I don't agree with the opinions of others (I probably do agree with you regarding microsoft) I respect that they looked behind the curtain, and thought about what they saw. 

 

[Nintendo]

I don't know which name is worse, Wii U or XBOX ONE?

 

[Jumpman]

Sorry, rant ran long. It just irked me when I complained that they removed a bunch of innovative features and you respond complaining that they didn't bring anything new which was entirely what I was trying to point out.

The long rant was cool, as I like the discussion of it all.

In regards to me personally not seeing innovation, I didn't. When MS revealed their new console, that was the time to "turn water in to wine". Not after the fact, or down the road, or me having to look through tons of information to pull out whats good and whats not.

This is the difference between a good salesman, and a bad one. For all of my current dislike of Apple and what they stand for, Steve Jobs was a master salesman, and when he held a press conference announcing a new Apple product, you knew what it could do, and if you had the slightest interest in any of it, you where interested in buying it.

MS showed me how I could pause a game, and watch football at the same time. Or how I could talk to my TV and change channels. This is what I took away from their conference. Was there more to the ONE, I'm sure there was, but after that dismal showing I no longer cared. I'm a gamer, and I'm sure there are many who are and many who aren't. The mass majority of those watching E3 are gamers. If you want to explain an all in one media device, do it at CES. If you want gamers to back a product, show gamers why they need it. MS did not, and it hurt them.

Yes, I'm probably of a lower intelligence level than most. If I was given an IQ test, it would probably show I was slightly "SLOW"  Yes, I need stuff spoon fed to me. I shouldn't have to find the needle in the haystack because MS wanted to show things at a gaming convention that had nothing to do with "GAMES".

I agree wholeheartedly that ANYTHING can be considered a gimmick. My difference between gimmick and innovation differ greatly from yours. If something improves a current situation and last longer than one generation, I find it to be an innovation. If something comes out that does very little to improve a current situation, and is gone no sooner than it arrived, I find it to be a gimmick. There are tons of gimmicks in gaming that have come and gone over the last 30+ years. There are also many things that are still around and being used daily in great gaming experiences.

MS dropped the ball, plain and simple. It's great if someone can see the better intentions they had, as one of my best friends does the same every-time I see him. He's a smart guy to, and he gets super angry on why the public couldn't see the greater good in the ONE. And I always tell him, good sales are about talking directly to the consumer, and meeting his needs and wants. If your talking to only those few guys who can see your intentions, you get the sales they've gotten.

MS showed time and time again that they had no idea what they wanted to do, or if they did, they lacked the proper communication skills to get it across. After the ONE was revealed, EVERYONE had questions, and they had no way to answer any of them. That to me is a HUGE clusterfuck and I have no interest in donating 500+ to their experiments.

Chris

 

[Jumpman]

I don't know which name is worse, Wii U or XBOX ONE?

WiiU, no question.

There is no confusion at retail for the ONE, as the original XBOX is long gone. I don't see the ONE selling any better or any worse with a different name, as the 360 and ONE are very much unique. The WiiU could have benefited greatly with a different name, as I've seen first hand the confusion they currently have at retail. Over the last few years, I've seen several store advertisements that mix up the Wii and WiiU in pictures. If the advertising department of big retail chains are confused, trust me, many others are to.

Chris

 

[rygD]

I don't know which name is worse, Wii U or XBOX ONE?

Same here.

WiiU, no question.

The WiiU could have benefited greatly with a different name, as I've seen first hand the confusion they currently have at retail. Over the last few years, I've seen several store advertisements that mix up the Wii and WiiU in pictures.

I am not following what this has to do with the name.  If the "U" is causing confusion then it makes me wonder if people get confused by the name of the PlayStation/2/3/4/5.


I am curious what the next in the Wii family would be.  Mii is already being used, us would be too close to Wii, and probably would cause confusion since Wii Us can be both plural for Wii U and a different thing entirely.  Maybe Wii Thim.

This is the difference between a good salesman, and a bad one. For all of my current dislike of Apple and what they stand for, Steve Jobs was a master salesman, and when he held a press conference announcing a new Apple product, you knew what it could do, and if you had the slightest interest in any of it, you where interested in buying it.

Bill Gates must not have sucked too much as a salesman, and at the very least he had a mind for business.

MS showed me how I could pause a game, and watch football at the same time. Or how I could talk to my TV and change channels. This is what I took away from their conference.

I don't think microsoft is known for good presentations.  I remember a lot of BSODs and other problems.

I shouldn't have to find the needle in the haystack because MS wanted to show things at a gaming convention that had nothing to do with "GAMES".

Excellent point.

That to me is a HUGE clusterfuck and I have no interest in donating 500+ to their experiments.

Do you use windows?

 

[Jumpman]

The WiiU biggest issue with the name, is that everything that was released for the Wii, was "Wii" this, and "Wii" that. Everything was accessories, games, etc with the Wii labeled across it, and now most knowledgeable consumers see it as a 300+ add-on. Also, most of the Wii's customer base is long gone, so keeping "Wii" anything would be bad, as it's was dead to most by the end. PS1 fans are looking forward to PS2, then PS3 etc, one rolls in to the next. Yes, you see it as simple, but most do not. 1, 2 ,3 is easy to follow. ii, U, XYZ, what does this mean to anyone?

Even Wii2U would have made a huge difference. The console also looks very similar. I know why "N" did this, as they just though EVERYONE would flock to this system, because of the "Wii" label, but the exact opposite has happened.

Do you use windows?

Sadly, yes I do  Actually, I've been using it so long, I'm very used to it.

Bill Gates must not have sucked too much as a salesman, and at the very least he had a mind for business.

Bill Gates is pretty good. I don't think he's as good as jobs, but he's OK in what he does. The problem is, he's not selling the ONE, his staff is.

Chris

 

[WizardStan]

In regards to me personally not seeing innovation, I didn't

You need to define "innovation" before we can continue, because these things:

MS showed me how I could pause a game, and watch football at the same time. Or how I could talk to my TV and change channels

did not exist in any console before the XBone and are therefore the dictionary definition of innovation.

I'm probably of a lower intelligence level than most

Intelligence has nothing to do with it, I was speaking about average Joe, the guy who doesn't have an engineering degree and doesn't go digging: he can be incredibly brilliant in many fields but be ignorant of electronics and the idea would still work. Innovation is constantly happening and you just don't see it, regardless of intelligence. The average person sees what appears to be a small change and calls it a gimmick but really it's a huge innovation that will help later, but by the time "later" comes along it's already well accepted and still not considered "innovation".

If something improves a current situation and last longer than one generation, I find it to be an innovation.

Except that you are calling things NOW gimmicks or lacking innovation. If your definition of gimmick vs innovation can't be realized until the next generation then how are you judging anything coming out of Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo right now as gimmicky or innovative? What does it mean to "improve the current situation"? Being able to game and keep track of the current football score isn't an improvement? Pausing your game, doing basically anything else, and being able to come back weeks later and just unpause right where you were doesn't sound useful to you? Having a game literally learn what you like and what you don't in order to tailor the experience to you personally is just a gimmick? Sharing special access to your account with a friend so that you can multiplayer a game that only one of you actually owns doesn't matter? Help me out here, what counts as innovation in your mind?

MS dropped the ball, plain and simple.

It's hard to hold onto a ball when practically your entire market is yelling at you over something you haven't done yet and haven't even announced any plans to do.

why the public couldn't see the greater good in the ONE.

I wouldn't call the XBone "greater good", but at least they were trying to do something. But I also know exactly why the public couldn't see it for what it was and that's because of a lot of FUD coming out of the media about how all these features WILL cause problems, how Microsoft WILL use the kinect to pause commercials if you walk away, how Microsoft WILL monitor your eyes and heart rate while watching commercials in order to sell more targetted ads, how Microsoft WILL close your account for any reason and make you lose all the games you've paid for. All of these things are things that may have happened as a side effect of the innovations that Microsoft was trying to promote, pushed to the forefront that caused a lot of people to complain to the point that Microsoft just started ripping the features that would have allowed such things out of their system until nothing was left, and once it was just an upgraded 360 people started complaining about lack of innovation. That's the part that really bothers me: if you're going to complain about features, don't complain when those features are taken away and there's nothing left.
edit: I accidentally an entire sentence...

 

[Jumpman]

Except that you are calling things NOW gimmicks or lacking innovation. If your definition of gimmick vs innovation can't be realized until the next generation then how are you judging anything coming out of Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo right now as gimmicky or innovative? What does it mean to "improve the current situation"? Being able to game and keep track of the current football score isn't an improvement? Pausing your game, doing basically anything else, and being able to come back weeks later and just unpause right where you were doesn't sound useful to you? Having a game literally learn what you like and what you don't in order to tailor the experience to you personally is just a gimmick? Sharing special access to your account with a friend so that you can multiplayer a game that only one of you actually owns doesn't matter? Help me out here, what counts as innovation in your mind?

Most of what you describe I've been doing on my PC or other consoles for the last gen or so, not all but most. I also didn't compare gimmick to innovation until you said everything can be considered a gimmick. I just made a distinction between the two, and how one is better than the other(at least to me). Yes, most of what you say could be considered innovation, but if no one uses it, or wants it, is it truly innovative? I guess that is the question. What you are calling innovation, I personally see as clutter and shit I don't want or need.

I can tie a rock to a stick and beat someone to death, and I've now innovated a new weapon right? Does anyone want this, or need it? Your mistaking innovation at MS for something consumers wanted, or needed, or requested. If these innovations as you call them where as great as sliced bread, wouldn't the ONE be selling better? Wouldn't the average joe be flocking to this? Just because something is innovative doesn't mean you deserve success.

When the shit hit the fan, Sony just told the masses what they wanted to hear. I personally think they planned most of what MS did, but once the public spoke up on what they perceived to be issues with ONE, they where able to back pedal and paint a different picture. I personally understood most of what they offered when it was all said and done, but I just didn't want it, and I'm guessing many others didn't as well.

Chris

EDIT: so to answer the question, "[SIZE=11.818181991577148px]If your definition of gimmick vs innovation can't be realized until the next generation then how are you judging anything coming out of Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo right now as gimmicky or innovative?" If no one wants it now, it's very doubtful anyone will want it later.[/SIZE]

 

[WizardStan]

if no one uses it, or wants it, is it truly innovative?

Yes. Ford is oft quoted as saying something along the lines of "if I asked what people wanted they'd tell me faster horses". And in the early days automobiles were very much a luxury item that no one really wanted or needed, only the rich owned them. Because no one wanted or needed them, automobiles aren't innovative?Michael Faraday discovered that by wrapping a compass with wire and then passing a magnet under the other end of the wire he could cause the needle of the compass to move. He didn't know it at the time but he had just "invented" electricity and the electromagnet all at once. When he demonstrated this someone asked "of what use is it?" to which he responded "of what use is a newborn child?" He had no idea what it would be used for, no one else had any idea what it actually was, but innovation doesn't care if you can find a use for it right away. 200 years later we have electricity because of that "useless" trick. Because no one wanted or needed it, electricity isn't innovative?

Your mistaking innovation at MS for something consumers wanted, or needed, or requested.

No, that's your mistake, thinking that innovation can only happen if someone asks for something and can put it to immediate use. We'd be way behind where we are now if only things that people wanted right this second were invested in.

I personally see as clutter and shit I don't want or need.

Irrelevant. I don't need or want hair spray, it doesn't mean I can't recognize the innovations being made in hair styling products and see that there are millions of people that do like styling their hair. It doesn't bother me that such hair care products exist.

I can tie a rock to a stick and beat someone to death, and I've now innovated a new weapon right?

It's called a flail. But assuming it didn't already exist, yes, if no one had done it quite that way before then it is an innovative new weapon.

Just because something is innovative doesn't mean you deserve success

I never argued against that. I wouldn't have shed a single tear if Microsoft had implemented the XBone as they had envisioned it and then failed anyway, at least they would have tried and failed on their own merits. What they're doing now is just sad and the media's reaction to it is pathetic.

If these innovations as you call them where as great as sliced bread, wouldn't the ONE be selling better?

I didn't make any claim at any time as to the quality of the innovations, I'm simply saying they exist in contrast to you saying that they don't. Also it wouldn't be selling better even if the features were the best thing in the world because, as I've said numerous times, most of them were stripped out because of fear mongering about how those features COULD have been used with no acknowledgment on what they were intended to be used for.

If no one wants it now, it's very doubtful anyone will want it later

So you are defining innovative as a new invention that someone wants? And who are these "someones"? Just you? If so that makes "innovation" a very personal thing that cannot be nailed down.

 

[Jumpman]

So back to basics:

You find the ONE to be innovative, I do not. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Chris

 

[Klumpen]

I don't know which name is worse, Wii U or XBOX ONE?

I'd like a "Mind U!"

 

[WizardStan]

You find the ONE to be innovative

No I don't. Have you not listened to anything I've said? What they wanted to put out originally had the potential to be innovative and that was all stripped away because of fear. It is now just an upgraded 360 with nothing new added. You don't find it innovative NOW because all the innovation was removed. What I still don't understand is if you honestly didn't see the innovations that could have been if they'd stuck with what they were showing off at E3 and in press releases.

We'll have to agree to disagree

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm trying to understand your point. I can't disagree with something I don't understand.

 

[rygD]

Jumpman, regarding the microsoft stuff, I can understand using windows, but not supporting the xbox one, as it is that product that you have issues with, so it makes sense if you don't mind the other products of the company.  I don't know if money from windows sales goes to the xbox stuff, though.  Regarding Jobs/Gates, Jobs kinda sucked at some of the business stuff.  Remember, he got kicked out of the company he created.  I don't remember a lot of details, but Jobs was a bit out there at times, while Gates was seemingly bloodthirsty.  

 

[Jumpman]

You find the ONE to be innovative

No I don't. Have you not listened to anything I've said? What they wanted to put out originally had the potential to be innovative and that was all stripped away because of fear. It is now just an upgraded 360 with nothing new added. You don't find it innovative NOW because all the innovation was removed. What I still don't understand is if you honestly didn't see the innovations that could have been if they'd stuck with what they were showing off at E3 and in press releases.

You found it innovative before hand right? I didn't find it innovative before, during or after. That is all I said in my original post. Arguing if ANYTHING is innovative or not is left to each person and what they may find innovative. I also believe there are other ways to gauge this, but for now, personal opinions will have to do. I've been watching TV and gaming on my PC at the same time for years, I can switch between the two at will, or do them at the same time. I can also play my PSP, leave it for days, or weeks(as long as it has power) and return directly to my game. Why is this innovative? I don't personally see it.

All I saw MS doing was adding multimedia functions and social crap to a device that was no longer a gaming machine, but everything else. This is why the public had issues and nothing more. Yeah, did the media get stuff wrong? Of course they did(that's the media). Was it then MS job to make it clear? Yes it was and they failed to do their jobs. Why is that so hard to understand?

I agree they should have stuck to their guns if they believed they where on the right track, as the Kinect is now the same paperweight it was last gen. It's not my job as a consumer to understand MS and their "innovation". If they wan't my dollars, it is their job to make me and others understand what they view as innovative, and why we need it. They failed, plain & simple.

Chris

 

[WizardStan]

Arguing if ANYTHING is innovative or not is left to each person and what they may find innovative.

Ok, that's where we can disagree. Innovation is pretty clearly defined quantitatively, it's easy for me to say whether something is or is not innovative. You define innovation differently, in a qualitative way that varies from person to person. Fine, I got you now, we are literally talking about two completely different things here.

 

[Nintendo]

http://metro.co.uk/2014/08/17/who-won-gamescom-2014-xbox-one-playstation-4-or-call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-4835122/


I hate metro.co.UK soooooooooooo much!! Even the people who commented aren't too fond of metro either.

 

[Klumpen]

X-Bone Parity Clause

It goes something like this: You can't release a game on XBone if you've already released it on another system. Also IF you plan to release it on multiple platforms (and haven't already) you have to release them all at the same time.
M$ wants this rule so they can do timed exclusives that come to XBone first and then released later on other platforms.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=XBox+One+Parity+Clause

By trying to force the devs to make XBone exclusives, they'll lose them all.

Looks like throwing buckets of cash for exclusivity is going to be part of the strategy -

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=872876

"Rise of the Tomb Raider" to be XB1 exclusive - whether timed or permanently they aren't being entirely clear.

 

[Nintendo]

lol I loved that movie (bad grandpa)