HorrorScope wrote on May 21, 2013, 18:45:

Lorcin wrote on May 21, 2013, 18:40:
And for all the big talk of one media center? 500gb HDD

Yeah that is pretty funny. I need to go over to a console only site to see what the excitement level is, because here, it's a total loss.

Verno wrote on May 21, 2013, 18:36:
I still like consoles so I will get a PS4 most likely but I am definitely not getting this, that event was a train wreck. The football pandering was obnoxious and I am still in disbelief that they aren't challenging the unquestionable advantage Playstation Plus now has. It is a no brainer if the PS4 interface is improved which it has every indication of being.

Redmask wrote on May 21, 2013, 18:29:

PropheT wrote on May 21, 2013, 18:25:

Beamer wrote on May 21, 2013, 18:01:
Which, likely, wouldn't be much. What would Coke or Proctor & Gamble actually get from knowing what you do while you watch TV or Xbox? How much is that kind of data really worth to them, relative to the cost for Microsoft to provide it. Put yourself in the shoes of a brand manager for Sobe or Pringles or whatever - what could Microsoft possibly tell you that you don't already know and that would be worth an eight figure deal?

Like I said earlier, though, they're already doing this. They might not be checking in on you with a Kinect camera to see if you're drinking a Dew and playing Halo IV, but if you enter the codes from a bottle into your account and play the game then they can certainly track that and have the marketing information available to say that Tom Smith drinks Mountain Dew and plays Halo IV, along with the demographic information from his Gold profile, and so on. The programs for market data statistics are already there and have been in use particularly with the 360 for years now, and tied with general user information from their Gold profile and Home screen they can target ad data on the Xbox, or feed information back to their partners like Pepsi so that they know just how popular those Halo IV codes are among people of that targeted group.

The Kinect thing I think is sort of irrelevant, it's just a more high tech way of this sort of advertisement data that they've been doing for years already. Given that the console seems to be designed around the idea of on-demand content replacing standard ad-driven cable/broadcast media, then yes; it's absolutely worth a lot of money to get their foot in the door on what could well be the future of what the television commercial evolves into in a tech market designed around on-demand content over cable or broadcast TV.

Simple things like 'head turns when commercial plays' would be useful to Microsoft, let alone advertisers who placed significant value on a lot less for many years now. It doesn't take much imagination to see the possibilities there.

Either way the Kinect requirement is stupid and yet another nail in this dumb things coffin for me.

Lorcin wrote on May 21, 2013, 18:29:

Creston wrote on May 21, 2013, 18:16:
So other than showing an actual box, MS announced basically nothing Sony didn't, yet they were crowing and laughing at Sony for their "poor showing."

Staying classy as always: Microsoft.

They might as well have called it the Yawnbox where my interest is concerned. Oooh, Kinect is coming back!

Creston

TBH they showed less - Sony did show gameplay which was pretty much ENTIRELY lacking from the M$ presentation. So they both showed controllers, one showed games, one showed a box, one announced they'd made Siri for your TV.

For my money PS4 has won this round of the consoles wars just on the reveals and leaked tech specs. M$'s presentation smacked of desperation - if a player scores a goal you can instantly pull up your fantasy league and see how it affects your scores then skype your friends to rub it in their faces????????

Oh just been reading elsewhere - 3gb of the system RAM is reserved for the OS so the Xbox has 5gb usable. Reports on the PS4 are 0.5gb-1gb reserved so 7-7.5gb usable.

At least they named it right in terms of progression. Xbox 1 (original), Xbox 360 (big jump forward), Xbox One (step backwards from the competition).

Maybe they'll release a cheap version with only Wii U style specs and call it the Xbox Zero.

PropheT wrote on May 21, 2013, 18:25:

Beamer wrote on May 21, 2013, 18:01:
Which, likely, wouldn't be much. What would Coke or Proctor & Gamble actually get from knowing what you do while you watch TV or Xbox? How much is that kind of data really worth to them, relative to the cost for Microsoft to provide it. Put yourself in the shoes of a brand manager for Sobe or Pringles or whatever - what could Microsoft possibly tell you that you don't already know and that would be worth an eight figure deal?

Like I said earlier, though, they're already doing this. They might not be checking in on you with a Kinect camera to see if you're drinking a Dew and playing Halo IV, but if you enter the codes from a bottle into your account and play the game then they can certainly track that and have the marketing information available to say that Tom Smith drinks Mountain Dew and plays Halo IV, along with the demographic information from his Gold profile, and so on. The programs for market data statistics are already there and have been in use particularly with the 360 for years now, and tied with general user information from their Gold profile and Home screen they can target ad data on the Xbox, or feed information back to their partners like Pepsi so that they know just how popular those Halo IV codes are among people of that targeted group.

The Kinect thing I think is sort of irrelevant, it's just a more high tech way of this sort of advertisement data that they've been doing for years already. Given that the console seems to be designed around the idea of on-demand content replacing standard ad-driven cable/broadcast media, then yes; it's absolutely worth a lot of money to get their foot in the door on what could well be the future of what the television commercial evolves into in a tech market designed around on-demand content over cable or broadcast TV.

Verno wrote on May 21, 2013, 18:18:

Redmask wrote on May 21, 2013, 18:04:
I don't know who you are and I'm not taking your word for anything. They require a Kinect for the console, have the tech, have the software and contrary to your earlier belief they do have the resource headroom without a doubt. So yes I believe companies will pay for the ability to see how long people watch commercials, what products might be in their living room, how many people currently play games with them and so on. It really doesn't take a genius to see how that sort of information would be useful to Microsoft and/or advertisers.

Requiring Kinect is probably related to some sort of data mining, I don't know if it would be advertisement related necessarily. It's pretty low on my list of WTF for todays crap though so I wouldn't sweat it too much, there are many other important things.

No games, where the fuck were the games? A bunch of DLC exclusives and some TV crap that the market is already served by. Can anyone see cablecos liking this BTW? I think they will fight it tooth and nail, Microsoft already does video on demand which competes with one of their emerging revenue streams. I wouldn't be shocked to see some STBs conveniently incompatible with it.

Anyways massive disappointment even with the little expectations I had, no shill can spin this into a win IMHO.

Creston wrote on May 21, 2013, 18:16:
So other than showing an actual box, MS announced basically nothing Sony didn't, yet they were crowing and laughing at Sony for their "poor showing."

Staying classy as always: Microsoft.

They might as well have called it the Yawnbox where my interest is concerned. Oooh, Kinect is coming back!

Creston

DangerDog wrote on May 21, 2013, 17:46:
Developers are in a tight spot right now, they need to keep pumping out xbox 360 games while appeasing xbox "one" gamers with some extra flashy graphic bits.

at least for the most part the games shown weren't some "this is what we hope it looks like" rendered animations. The EA sports one is probably guilty of that.

Redmask wrote on May 21, 2013, 18:09:
First it was they don't have the power, now you're nitpicking whether or not they have an appropriate patent or not. It's obvious whatever I post or say you will keep shifting the goalposts so I'm not playing with you. You seem hell bent on making excuses for this company so I already know how it will play out.

Redmask wrote on May 21, 2013, 18:07:
Does this guy always do this crap?

Redmask wrote on May 21, 2013, 18:04:

Beamer wrote on May 21, 2013, 18:01:
So what kind of data do you realistically think Microsoft can mine from video of users and sell to companies that you think would be worth a price tag to companies high enough to get them to pay Microsoft enough that Microsoft feels comfortable dealing with the giant privacy issue that would come from them watching people naked? What companies do you think are paying for this?

I don't know who you are and I'm not taking your word for anything. They require a Kinect for the console, have the tech, have the software and contrary to your earlier belief they do have the resource headroom without a doubt. So yes I believe companies will pay for the ability to see how long people watch commercials, what products might be in their living room, how many people currently play games with them and so on. It really doesn't take a genius to see how that sort of information would be useful to Microsoft and/or advertisers.

I don't know why you're tripping all over yourself to make excuses for them but literally zero evidence points to your scenario and plenty works for mine so I'm going to be skipping their hardware.

Redmask wrote on May 21, 2013, 17:52:

Beamer wrote on May 21, 2013, 17:20:
You really think this thing has the power to not only serve you video or play games but also see if you, sitting 6-10 feet away, are drinking Coke or Pepsi?

They patented the tech and both the hardware and software capability is there to do it in the abstract. They require a Kinect for the console to operate which makes no sense so yes I believe there is an advertising motive for them because you would have to be daft to ignore the possibility given all of the evidence so far.

Redmask wrote on May 21, 2013, 17:15:

nin wrote on May 21, 2013, 17:13:

SpectralMeat wrote on May 21, 2013, 17:09:
I find the Blu-Ray player in the xbox pretty amusing

They're trying to slide that one under the radar.

Along with the online requirements and Kinect datamining, looks like that patent was the real deal.

Redmask wrote on May 21, 2013, 16:55:

"Xbox One will not work unless Kinet is connected"

Of course, they are going to be harvesting information using the cameras for advertisers.

Yosemite Sam wrote on May 21, 2013, 16:51:

Beamer wrote on May 21, 2013, 16:33:

Yosemite Sam wrote on May 21, 2013, 16:30:
Well watched the whole thing and my first impression seems correct. Microsoft innovated for non-gamers, odd for a game machine, seems the only thing Microsoft did for gamers was buy exclusives. From a purely video game standpoint, the PS4 looks to be the clear winner.

You have that impression for 2 reasons:
1) There really isn't much room for innovation for gamers, hardware-wise. We're at old technology. It's kind of like expecting your alarm clock to innovate. Things can be done here and there, but we're really at refinement, not truly changing. Just the point on the product curve we've reached
2) They didn't show game stuff here because this was a general public announcement. Want the game specific one? Wait for E3. Which is smart - these are the announcements that make the 6 o'clock news, so hit with them. Then, with this stuff exhausted, you can focus on games at E3 so people don't roll their eyes when you show them some NFL exclusive BS that's 100% identical to the ESPN BS you led off with

Here's the product curve I mean. Depending on where you sit, consoles are either at mature or decline, but no one will deny that they're past innovation.
That kind of goes for video games as a whole. People blame consoles exclusively, but we're at the point where graphics can't really get better, at least not in any way even remotely cost-effective, and there's little else to be done. Things like Occulus Rift may change that somewhat, but people keep saying "it looks like Crysis" for a reason - everything is incremental now, changes in lighting and the like mostly, and we won't ever really have the "holy crap!" moments we got the first time we saw ourselves leave bloody footprints in DN3D.

Well I maybe incorrect but I think E3 is just going to be about the games. IE the actual games themselves, not what the console was designed to do with the games, that would have been shown today. Where as the Sony presentation was pretty much all about what they did with the system to enhance the gaming experience... but like I said I could be wrong and Microsoft may have left all that for E3, we'll find out in 3 weeks.

Yosemite Sam wrote on May 21, 2013, 16:30:
Well watched the whole thing and my first impression seems correct. Microsoft innovated for non-gamers, odd for a game machine, seems the only thing Microsoft did for gamers was buy exclusives. From a purely video game standpoint, the PS4 looks to be the clear winner.

Zanderat1 wrote on May 21, 2013, 15:49:
No backwards comparability with 360 is a big mistake.

siapnar wrote on May 21, 2013, 14:48:

Beamer wrote on May 21, 2013, 14:20:
The original Crysis was nowhere near as good. The lighting, particles, textures, etc., are all significantly beyond anything Crysis could consider.

Like, light years beyond.

I fully disagree. I'm surprised you can say that after seeing the COD footage.
The lighting looks no where near as realistic as Cryengine 2's. The textures and surfaces in Crysis are far sharper, with proper parallax mapping (something no console game I've played has used).
The particles.. did you see how it looked under water in COD Ghosts? And the explosion?
Nothing dynamic, nothing with physics - just an emitter effect with texture layers.
It's a joke compared to what Crysis did or BF3 does now.

From what I've seen, that is the opinion I've gathered. Maybe it'll change when they show actual gameplay.

And compared to BF4?

Ha!