The Xbox One Thread - One X & One SXBOne

[cuco33]

I could have sworn the 1st pack in media content in my PS3 was a Bluray copy of Spiderman 3, a movie made by Sony pictures.

I also could have sworn I could digitally purchase music on PSN, especially Sony Music's own library (without even looking at the video side of things altogether).

And many early PS3s even had SACD functionality, a high quality audio format co-developed by Sony.

ALL of these examples are non-gaming entertainment related. The very thing that MS is getting flack for
No, no support there at all....


And PS, I personally LOVE the fact that these consoles do more than gaming. If my PS3 didn't support Bluray, I'd need another device to connect in my living room.

 

[thelvynau]

Well it will be tough to justify the cost. Especially if Sony do a good job. It could lose them customers.

I still dont see it.

Perhaps going the Sony route making basic online free and having a premium service.

 

[F1 fan]

I still dont see it.

Perhaps going the Sony route making basic online free and having a premium service.

They'd have to deliver high quality content for the premium service to be worth it. Right now, they aren't doing that IMHO. With Sony closing the gap, ms will have to wow us big time. Time for a hypothetical question. Let's just say that psn on ps4 is a better experience than what ms currently offer. Why should I pay for Xbox live? Why shouldn't I buy a console with free online instead? For the same kind of money as an Xbox live subscription, I can subscribe to playstation plus and get free games. That sounds like a better offer.

This is why ms should reevaluate their subscription fees. They may "lose" a lot of money, but not as much as they would lose if a chunk of their customers jumped ship to playstation. Imagine the reaction if ms announced Xbox live would be free. That would sell a lot of systems and possibly even make people conveniently forget that psn has always been free.

 

[Luminis]

Straight up Casual - Nintendo
Semi-Casual/Entertainment - Microsoft
Social/Hardcore - Sony

All of them will try to get their fair share of the casual market. That's where the money is.

 

[thelvynau]

They'd have to deliver high quality content for the premium service to be worth it. Right now, they aren't doing that IMHO. With Sony closing the gap, ms will have to wow us big time. Time for a hypothetical question. Let's just say that psn on ps4 is a better experience than what ms currently offer. Why should I pay for Xbox live? Why shouldn't I buy a console with free online instead? For the same kind of money as an Xbox live subscription, I can subscribe to playstation plus and get free games. That sounds like a better offer.

This is why ms should reevaluate their subscription fees. They may "lose" a lot of money, but not as much as they would lose if a chunk of their customers jumped ship to playstation. Imagine the reaction if ms announced Xbox live would be free. That would sell a lot of systems and possibly even make people conveniently forget that psn has always been free.

If its not bothering people in this gen why would it bother them next gen?

I dont see Microsoft doing thid nor have I seen any indication they will unless you have a source?

 

[F1 fan]

Pure speculation. However, Xbox live users often highlight Psn's shortcomings to justify the cost of xbl. If psn is the same quality as xbl but is free, why should I pay for xbl?

 

[thelvynau]

Pure speculation. However, Xbox live users often highlight Psn's shortcomings to justify the cost of xbl. If psn is the same quality as xbl but is free, why should I pay for xbl?

Psn is free for a reason you get what you pay for.

Also why would Sony upgrade the servers to a higher standard and not charge for it?

It doesn't make sense.

 

[F1 fan]

Psn is free for a reason you get what you pay for.

Yes, but they appear to have made a lot of improvements to psn for ps4. If you read my posts, you will see that I was asking a "what if" question. What if psn is as good as xbl? How can ms continue to justify charging for it? How can you as a consumer justify paying for a service that you could get on another platform for free?

These are important questions as it's possible that psn on ps4 could be as good as xbl, but free. Hence why I said ms will have to either reevaluate their subscription fees or offer some incentive like Sony do with ps plus.

Also why would Sony upgrade the servers to a higher standard and not charge for it?

It doesn't make sense.

I'm pretty sure (but not 100%) that Sony confirmed that psn will continue to be free. They already announced a lot of excellent new features that put it up there with xbl. Why would they do it for free? To lure customers away from ms.

Your move Microsoft.

 

[thelvynau]

Yes, but they appear to have made a lot of improvements to psn for ps4. If you read my posts, you will see that I was asking a "what if" question. What if psn is as good as xbl? How can ms continue to justify charging for it? How can you as a consumer justify paying for a service that you could get on another platform for free?

These are important questions as it's possible that psn on ps4 could be as good as xbl, but free. Hence why I said ms will have to either reevaluate their subscription fees or offer some incentive like Sony do with ps plus.

Possibly but what makes you think MS haven't already looked at improving XBL to counter PSN to justify more to keep the fees? Not enough information on the new PSN or XBL to make assumptions on this.

I still cant see MS removing a large revenue raiser thats X box live.

 

[F1 fan]

Possibly but what makes you think MS haven't already looked at improving XBL to counter PSN to justify more to keep the fees? Not enough information on the new PSN or XBL to make assumptions on this.

I still cant see MS removing a large revenue raiser thats X box live.

I already told you it was a hypothetical situation. I'm sure they have made improvements to the service, but if psn is on a comparable level, they may have to scrap the fees. Why? Competition. Say a bunch of your friends bought ps4's and told you the service was as good as xbl. What would you do? Continue to pay for something you could get for free or jump ship?

 

[thelvynau]

I already told you it was a hypothetical situation. I'm sure they have made improvements to the service, but if psn is on a comparable level, they may have to scrap the fees. Why? Competition. Say a bunch of your friends bought ps4's and told you the service was as good as xbl. What would you do? Continue to pay for something you could get for free or jump ship?

I have both systems so it wouldnt be jumping ship.

Ill be getting both next gen.

 

[dr_slump]

I have both systems so it wouldnt be jumping ship.

Ill be getting both next gen.

His question was rather in a general sense than in direct reference to you.

 

[thelvynau]

His question was rather in a general sense than in direct reference to you.

My response was based more so on I cant relate to that scenario more than anything else should have worded it better.

Edit: I will agree it can be possible but I just dont see MS stopping a major revenue raiser.

Then again stranger things have happened.

 

[Jawehawk]

Didn't really work out too well for Sony, either.

I reckon the reason for Sony not getting a lot of sales with the PS3 early on, was because of its cost and the fact that it came out quite a bit after the 360 had already established itself. Having a Blu-Ray player is one of the deciding factor why the PS3 is now quite popular. In other words, it was a good investment. Just needed better marketing at start.

If your talking about xbox live why would they stop charging for it?

They would make a fortune on subscription fees.

Who knows. Maybe people will wake up and realise that they are paying for something that should be free. Something that is free on all other platforms. Maybe MS will become less greedy ? I understand that a business has to revolve around making money, but charging for playing online, is just downright cheap.

 

[Wardez]

Yeah, mostly every single dedicated Xbox 360 player I know is waiting to hear only one magic word, "Free Xbox live."

The system could be as simple as they want, as long as it has free XBL, Microsoft's audience will move along happy to the next iteration to keep their gaming dynasties, reputations, and friendslists going.

The Gamerscore must flow.

 

[daus26]

Well, I personally know a lot of people that are willing to continue to pay for their Xbox Live because of their gamerscore and relationship with their friends. I'm not sure how many are willing to drop all their gamerscore and jumpship to PSN, even if it's pay vs. free. Xbox Live already has a large user base, so I think it will only be the minor ones that are willing to drop Xbox Live for free PSN, not the majority.

This will also probably be the reason why people need to own the next generation Xbox, even if it has very, very few exclusives with other titles being available on the PS3 and PC. The only reason to own an Xbox would be the established community, Halo, Gears of Wars, Fable, Forza, and Kinect if it's unique enough from Sony's next gen Pseye. I just don't see the need to own an Xbox other than those reasons.

 

[sems4arsenal]

The question remains though is why should Microsoft keep charging for XBL if the PSN will be on par with it and be free?

 

[Scaff]

The question remains though is why should Microsoft keep charging for XBL if the PSN will be on par with it and be free?

The question remains though is why should Sony not charge for PSN if the XBL will be on par with it and makes MS money and people pay for it?

Its easy to switch it both ways and its not just about feature count either when you talk about being on par.

 

[sems4arsenal]

The question remains though is why should Sony not charge for PSN if the XBL will be on par with it and makes MS money and people pay for it?

Its easy to switch it both ways and its not just about feature count either when you talk about being on par.

Too lure consumers away from buying the next XBOX I reckon,I also am asking this question assuming XBL won't perform better still and contain more features.

 

[Jawehawk]

The question remains though is why should Sony not charge for PSN if the XBL will be on par with it and makes MS money and people pay for it?

Its easy to switch it both ways and its not just about feature count either when you talk about being on par.

As already stated by Sems4arsenal, it's a good selling point. And there's the matter of having just a little respect for your consumers. Something MS doesn't seem to have. They are kind of like EA and Activsion on that matter.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

Serious question: Everyone freaking out about the current tagline for the Infinity... you do realize the 360 isn't just about gaming either, right?

In fact, the original Xbox wasn't explicitly just about gaming either. So...

Exactly. In fact you can get 15% off from Pizza Hut if you order pizza using your 360 right now. The 360 has been doing more than gaming for a LONG time. So the Infinity doing this, is nothing new. Only new if you are not already a 360 owner. Otherwise most of the non gaming features mentioned for the Infinity are already on the 360.

 

[Scaff]

As already stated by Sems4arsenal, it's a good selling point. And there's the matter of having just a little respect for your consumers. Something MS doesn't seem to have. They are kind of like EA and Activsion on that matter.

And your saying that Sony wouldn't love the revenue if they could get it.

Also please don't try and play the respect card as a plus for Sony and a dig at MS, they are both businesses and that kind of comment doesn't help at all. I could after all counter than Sony had so much respect for my data that they put in place a security system that allowed a massive breach and then hid the fact from everyone for as long as they could.

Neither is better than the other in that regard.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Big News!

Jeremy: Is it the Dacia Sandaro?

No, but IGN has a report out that confirms and denies the functionality of several of the Next Xbox features. This is coming from Paul Thurrott on Windows IT Pro.

NOTE: The following should be regarded as Rumor unless MS opens their mouths and confirms any and all information. But due to their policy of not commenting, it isn't likely.

Item 1: Did you know that Microsoft was going to offer a "Entertainment only" and "Full feature" SKUs of the next gen console? The entertainment only SKU, codenamed 'Yuma' was going to be shipped without the ability to play video games, but at a cheaper price. Ultimately plans for a entertainment only SKU were put on hold in 2013, possibly scrapped.

Item 2: Thurrott notes that the often rumored fate of the console requiring a online connection is correct. According to some rumors, if you are not connected to a internet source, the application or game will shut down in three minutes, and the network troubleshooter will start.

Item 3: Following up on an earlier report, Thurrott reports that two SKUs will be offered, a non-XBL commitment at $499 and a 2 year XBL gold commitment for $299. XBox Live will remain $10 a month.

Item 4: To address Backwards Compatibility, Microsoft will release a Third generation 360, codenamed 'Stingray', and it isn't clear whether the device is coming out because the Next Xbox would not be backwards compatible or to provide a low cost alternative. A third option is that the 360 has become cheaper to make compared to 2005, and it is still selling well.

Item 5: Building on rumors that Windows 8 could be the OS of choice in the next gen console, Thurrott reports that the system is based on a "core system of Windows 8." He goes on to say, "This suggests a common apps platform or at least one that is similar to that used by Windows 8."

He also thinks that Microsoft could open this up for enthusiast developers, and will discuss more at the Build conference in San Fransisco in late June. The Build conference is where the company is also expected to unveil Windows 8.1.

 

[stiggygonzalez]

The question remains though is why should Sony not charge for PSN if the XBL will be on par with it and makes MS money and people pay for it?

Its easy to switch it both ways and its not just about feature count either when you talk about being on par.

It's a great selling point which is one of the reasons why I got a PS3.

 

[ImaRobot]

Yeah, mostly every single dedicated Xbox 360 player I know is waiting to hear only one magic word, "Free Xbox live."

The system could be as simple as they want, as long as it has free XBL, Microsoft's audience will move along happy to the next iteration to keep their gaming dynasties, reputations, and friendslists going.

The Gamerscore must flow.

I'm a dedicated 360 player, or was, havnt really played to much recently, but I must say that the price of a years subscription doesnt bother me at all really. $35 a year isnt really something to groan over.

What I mainly like about the xbox is the Party chat. If PS had that I think I would buy a PS3 again. Games like Grid, on the PS3, where to hard to coordinate with people to join in the same room half the time.

I dont care about gaming score, the people I talk to (as most of my friends are just people I know in real life. The other half will still be on this site, so I can still talk to them.), and I have no reputation as I usually wont use my mic unless I'm with a group lol.

 

[Wardez]

Yeah, Party Chat is awesome, glad it's seen as an expected standard for gaming now.

I don't think it makes XBL worth paying for necessarily though, not saying that you think so, but I just hear it from a lot of people once they're run out of things to defend for the Xbox. "Uh... but, but Party Chat!"

Big News!

Jeremy: Is it the Dacia Sandaro?

No, but IGN has a report out that confirms and denies the functionality of several of the Next Xbox features. This is coming from Paul Thurrott on Windows IT Pro.

NOTE: The following should be regarded as Rumor unless MS opens their mouths and confirms any and all information. But due to their policy of not commenting, it isn't likely.

Item 1: Did you know that Microsoft was going to offer a "Entertainment only" and "Full feature" SKUs of the next gen console? The entertainment only SKU, codenamed 'Yuma' was going to be shipped without the ability to play video games, but at a cheaper price. Ultimately plans for a entertainment only SKU were put on hold in 2013, possibly scrapped.

Item 2: Thurrott notes that the often rumored fate of the console requiring a online connection is correct. According to some rumors, if you are not connected to a internet source, the application or game will shut down in three minutes, and the network troubleshooter will start.

Item 3: Following up on an earlier report, Thurrott reports that two SKUs will be offered, a non-XBL commitment at $499 and a 2 year XBL gold commitment for $299. XBox Live will remain $10 a month.

Item 4: To address Backwards Compatibility, Microsoft will release a Third generation 360, codenamed 'Stingray', and it isn't clear whether the device is coming out because the Next Xbox would not be backwards compatible or to provide a low cost alternative. A third option is that the 360 has become cheaper to make compared to 2005, and it is still selling well.

Item 5: Building on rumors that Windows 8 could be the OS of choice in the next gen console, Thurrott reports that the system is based on a "core system of Windows 8." He goes on to say, "This suggests a common apps platform or at least one that is similar to that used by Windows 8."

He also thinks that Microsoft could open this up for enthusiast developers, and will discuss more at the Build conference in San Fransisco in late June. The Build conference is where the company is also expected to unveil Windows 8.1.

Here's the source for that:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/04/25/next-xbox-functionality-pricing-reportedly-outed

If this is all true, I'm fully convinced the X∞ will bomb.

I'm glad they didn't go ahead with the "Entertainment only or Full feature" thing. That would've just turned casual consumers off.

I don't get Item 3 exactly. So are we gonna sell game systems like phone contracts now? Either get a contract and save (but you still end up paying them off over the two years by buying XBL @ $10 a month) or buy it 'unlocked' for full price.

Item 4's funny, " hey guys! Ah-hah, sorry the X∞'s not backwards compatible. As a favor we're gonna go ahead and let you buy a cheap-o Xbox360 for $99! How's that?! - Don't thank us too soon! *crickets*"

Item 5 - makes sense for it to use Windows 8 as the core OS or whatever, ooooo Infinnnnity symbol.

Yes, all still rumors in the end. But Thurrott was correct about the May 21st reveal date, so there's definitely smoke here to follow.

 

[Kitten]

Pre-owned games expected to be locked after first use to one console

Any new if this rumor is fake ? Because poor Microsoft if they do that.

 

[Luminis]

The question remains though is why should Microsoft keep charging for XBL if the PSN will be on par with it and be free?

It doesn't matter whether PSN is equally good. If people believe XBL is better, they'll be okay with paying for it. Right now, I'd say it's worth it. Whether that is the case with the new consoles remains to be seen. However, as long as MS can market the whole thing well enough, it'll work out for them.

The fact that you're paying for it makes it easy to suggest it's a premium service because more expensive = better, in a lot of people's heads. Same reason why expensive brands are being bought over equally good, cheaper stuff.

Also, Sony has to improve PSN before any of this talk matters. We'll see how MS deals with it if Sony gets PSN to the same level as XBL. That's not a given. It's not guaranteed, at all. PSN has been working well enough for Sony and XBL has been working very well for MS (they've been making a metric crapton of money off of the subscriptions, I hear). So, at the moment, the safest bet would be to assume that they won't change a running system. People who've been okay with paying XBL for almost eight years now won't all of a sudden turn around, pissed at the cost and people who've endured seven years without a cross-game chat won't be dropping PSN over it. They both might change their online services, but there's hardly any indication to believe they will have to do so or that they really want to do so. Personally, I can picture the battle between "you get what you pay for"-XBL vs. "lol it's free"-PSN for another generation.

As already stated by Sems4arsenal, it's a good selling point. And there's the matter of having just a little respect for your consumers. Something MS doesn't seem to have. They are kind of like EA and Activsion on that matter.

You know, I've said this quite often, but: How on earth do people come to the conclusion that MS is any worse than Sony? I really have to wonder. MS asking three bucks from me to play online for a month isn't really making me feel like I'm being treated like dirt or anything. I'm paying for a service and that's that. My gym's asking almost ten times that per month, and I'm not out to rip their heads off.

Big News!

Jeremy: Is it the Dacia Sandaro?

No, but IGN has a report out that confirms and denies the functionality of several of the Next Xbox features. This is coming from Paul Thurrott on Windows IT Pro.

I don't know your definition of "confirming" something is, but this sure isn't mine. He even got the name wrong.

 

[Jawehawk]

And your saying that Sony wouldn't love the revenue if they could get it.

Also please don't try and play the respect card as a plus for Sony and a dig at MS, they are both businesses and that kind of comment doesn't help at all. I could after all counter than Sony had so much respect for my data that they put in place a security system that allowed a massive breach and then hid the fact from everyone for as long as they could.

Neither is better than the other in that regard.

And you think the 360's security system is un-hackable? Nothing is. But then agian, I never said that Sony was a saint. But unlike MS, they do at least seem to have some degree of respect for their consumers. They continue to support old platforms, and it's not like they sat on their butts when they were hacked. In the end, the hack cost Sony money, and so it should.

As I mentioned. I completely understand that making a profit is the most important goal of any company. But showing that you actually appreciate your consumers every once in a while, doesn't hurt.

As for the people defending that you have to pay for Live. The most common arguement in favor of Xbox Live that I hear, is that it has Party Chat. While this certainly is a nice feature, there is zero reason why you should have to pay for this. You don't on the PC. It's not an expensive service to keep running. And I would argue that playing games online is the most important online feature on a console. And as it stands, the 360 and PS3 both offer lag free (at least in games with proper net coding) online play. The difference is that the 360 demands payment for this.

You could say that the 360 has a better user interface for inviting friends into games, but this has nothing to do with the online service.

Anyway. I don't think that MS will change their current policy on online play. Though it could be interesting to see if you will be expected to pay for the subscription if the console demands constant online connectivity.

As for those who say it's not a lot of money to pay. With all due respect, but that's just about the dumbest arguement I've ever heard. You are spending money on something that is free on all other platforms. And there's no reason that you should need to. Some of you say that Live is a service, and thus it makes sense to charge for it. Well then. I guess all developers should charge people for playing their games online as well. After all, it's a service that they provide. It's a matter of principle. Not whether or not it's a lot of money.

Edit: With all this said. I am looking forward to hear what MS is bringing to the table.

 

[Scaff]

And you think the 360's security system is un-hackable? Nothing is. But then agian, I never said that Sony was a saint. But unlike MS, they do at least seem to have some degree of respect for their consumers. They continue to support old platforms, and it's not like they sat on their butts when they were hacked. In the end, the hack cost Sony money, and so it should.

I don't recall even suggesting that MS's security is un-hackable or even come close to implying it. My comment wasn't in regard to the hack but the reaction of the company after it had occurred, which showed a remarkable lack of respect.

As I mentioned. I completely understand that making a profit is the most important goal of any company. But showing that you actually appreciate your consumers every once in a while, doesn't hurt.

As a longtime consumer of both (as in every console they have both released)
I've seen appreciation and apathy from both over the years. Neither one has been a standout in terms of respecting me in any way (and I say this as a Sony Beta Tester).

As for the people defending that you have to pay for Live. The most common arguement in favor of Xbox Live that I hear, is that it has Party Chat. While this certainly is a nice feature, there is zero reason why you should have to pay for this. You don't on the PC. It's not an expensive service to keep running. And I would argue that playing games online is the most important online feature on a console. And as it stands, the 360 and PS3 both offer lag free (at least in games with proper net coding) online play. The difference is that the 360 demands payment for this.

In terms of feature set, stability and quality of connection the two do differ and it no surprise that the one that charges is also the one with a better standard. Quality of voice comms alone differs significantly between the two, with Live being far more stable and clear.

You also forget that some of the features that Live charges for, Sony also charge for (as you don't get early access to some demos, additional discount and cloud storage for free with either).

You could say that the 360 has a better user interface for inviting friends into games, but this has nothing to do with the online service.

Why doesn't it have anything to do with the on-line service?

Anyway. I don't think that MS will change their current policy on online play. Though it could be interesting to see if you will be expected to pay for the subscription if the console demands constant online connectivity.

As for those who say it's not a lot of money to pay. With all due respect, but that's just about the dumbest arguement I've ever heard. You are spending money on something that is free on all other platforms. And there's no reason that you should need to. Some of you say that Live is a service, and thus it makes sense to charge for it. Well then. I guess all developers should charge people for playing their games online as well. After all, it's a service that they provide. It's a matter of principle. Not whether or not it's a lot of money.

Edit: With all this said. I am looking forward to hear what MS is bringing to the table.

I'm paying money for a mixture of things, a small number of which are free on other services and some which are not free on other services, please keep in mind that.

As for being dumb for using that argument, what people chose to pay for is entirely subjective and as such its not dumb, its simply not an argument you subscribe to. I have both services (including PSN Plus) and could limit my on-line games to the PS3, however I pay for Live and don't have an issue with doing so (does that make me dumb), as I can personally see the difference in the service it provides and for me it offers value. If I get value from what I pay for how can that be dumb?