Microsoft: Xbox One Delivers "Thousands of Dollars of Value"

[althaz]

I think you have to give credit where it's due, the Playstation 4 is just a beefed up Playstation 3, the new XBox certainly offers a lot more in terms of value. The statement that the PS4 offers more for less is quite absurd. The PS4 offers less for less and for people who only game, is probably a much better deal (cheaper, better graphics), but for the something like 70% of XBox 360 owners who spend more time doing media stuff on their console, there's still not really any choice.

 

[kinggraves]

The Xbone delivers thousands of dollars worth of value (to Microsoft).

 

[cats_Paw]

Thx for the laught MS.

 

[ubercake]

My left hand and my right armpit deliver hours of entertainment value also. Seriously MS, drop the mandatory Kinect option and $100 bucks off the price and I am sure your fans will line up. Does anyone know if you have to hook up the Kinect camera or could you leave it disconnected?

This is a good idea offering the One without the Kinect. If you look at the cost of the PS4 ($400) with the additional purchase of the PS4 Eye ($60 and looks like connect), the PS4 price comes out to $460. That decreases the price difference to about $40.

XBOX One incorporates even more functionality (voice command and gesture) with the new Kinect whereas this whole thing is a new frontier for the PS4. I'm guessing the PS4 Eye is going to be much better than the motion-sensing glowing sex-toy-looking controllers featured on the PS3 that were released to compete with the Wii and Kinect, but still it will probably not be as functional as the Kinect for XBOX One. Sony just doesn't have the same amount of experience with this tech.

Since MS is licensing Blu-ray from Sony, I wonder if Sony is licensing Kinect from MS with their 'Eye' technology? I'm surprised there aren't patent lawyers looking at the blatant copy of technology otherwise?

 

[CrArC]

Slightly faster CPU and Memory don't make much of a difference...just look at the PS3 vs Xbox 360...the PS3 had multiple core CPU etc etc and its games didn't look any better then the Xbox360. Just having bigger numbers when the specs are pretty close to one another isn't a "knockout blow" as some people are making it out to be. Its going to be the developers who are going to show if it is really that big of a difference or not.

There was little real performance delta between the Xbox 360 and PS3. The Cell CPU actually worked out "less" powerful in practice because it only had one general purpose core, whereas the Xbox 360's processor had three.

I doubt the PS4 will deliver a knockout blow, and I suspect the developers will work to the lowest common denominator (except for exclusives) thus there may be little practical difference between the consoles. That said, I would still go for PS4 if I had to have a console - just in case. Plus I hate Kinect with the force of a thousand suns.

Also, who the hell uses their console for "entertainment" anything?! They're loud, power-hungry lumps of plastic compared to proper equipment for the job.

 

[ubercake]

Looks like MS has changed its stance based on response... Now what will all these anti-XBOX-One people have to gripe about:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Xbox-One-Internet-Connection-Regions-used-games,23170.html
http://www.pcper.com/news/Editorial/Microsoft-Gives-Xbox-One-Gamers-What-They-Want-Sort

 

[robochump]

If you need to defend a product then its already bad news. MS stated they knew they would get flak for internet requirement and seriously whats the big deal? Most consoles are on the net as is but this Mattrick guy should've played it smarter and used that angle.

 

[JPNpower]

I think you have to give credit where it's due, the Playstation 4 is just a beefed up Playstation 3, the new XBox certainly offers a lot more in terms of value. The statement that the PS4 offers more for less is quite absurd. The PS4 offers less for less and for people who only game, is probably a much better deal (cheaper, better graphics), but for the something like 70% of XBox 360 owners who spend more time doing media stuff on their console, there's still not really any choice.

Is the Xbox a bluray player? 'cause I remember Sony touting that "unique" feature about the PS3

 

[jdwii]

So it has 50% less GPU resources and has 2.5 times less GPU bandwidth when compared to the PS4 and they still didn't give enough solid information on the 24 hour check, but yet its 100$ more than a PS4? Oh and its a multimedia machine that forces you to pay for netflix twice? PS4>Xbox one anyday.

 

[ojas]

It really doesn't make sense to start with a platform that has hardware less capable than that of your competition and then price it higher.

Slightly faster CPU and Memory don't make much of a difference...just look at the PS3 vs Xbox 360...the PS3 had multiple core CPU etc etc and its games didn't look any better then the Xbox360. Just having bigger numbers when the specs are pretty close to one another isn't a "knockout blow" as some people are making it out to be. Its going to be the developers who are going to show if it is really that big of a difference or not.

PS4's GPU is ~50% more capable than XBox One's. That's not a trivial difference.

Whether the difference will matter in practice is a different question. It's possible, for example, that most cross-platform games will be developed with the lowest common factor in mind. It's also possible, and probably more likely, that because the two new consoles use nearly identical architecture, that every game will simply look better on PS4. (Xbox one gets normal quality settings; PS4 gets "console Ultra").

theoretically the 7970 is much more powerful than the GTX 680! There is barely a difference in the realworld!

Turn up depth of field, anti-aliasing or throw a compute workload at the cards, and there's plenty of difference.

 

[lemon07r]

Hardware isnt the only thing that needs to be look at, ps4 will be using opengl 4.2 and xbox one will be using directx 11. Whats the difference? Visually nothing, virtually identical. Performance wise, believe it or not opengl is much better, for instance a ported version of left for dead 2 in open gl had 140fps vs the 110fps it had in directx 11, not to mention the port was poorly optimized as it was only a month old. The reason why directx is so much more common is because it is heavily marketed to developers and is much easier to use and develop with and not to mention directx = microsoft, windows = microsoft, of course microsoft is going to try and standardize its own api. Not to mention ps3 had nvidia graphics chip, which does not run opengl as a current gen amd chip would. So expect the ps4 to have quite the marginal advantage over xbox performance wise, though it will be interesting how xbox one's esram effects its performance, perhaps if both consoles were based on the same api they would have more closer performance, but actual performance will come down to how well the game is developed and optimized for opengl (ps4) and directx (xbox). another thing, the need to check in on the internet and no used games thing got canceled for the xbox, but interestingly it probably would have been better if it hadnt been canceled, look at this:
http://gizmodo.com/the-xbox-one-just-got-way-worse-and-its-our-fault-514411905 pretty interesting.

 

[ojas]

Hardware isnt the only thing that needs to be look at, ps4 will be using opengl 4.2 and xbox one will be using directx 11. Whats the difference? Visually nothing, virtually identical. Performance wise, believe it or not opengl is much better

Yeah i watched Valve's presentation a few months ago, they were talking about the benefits of switching to OpenGL, and how even if you were calling more functions to do the same thing, you may still see better or the same performance.

 

[drip50291]

This guy just blows smoke out his you know what. Can we start making memes displaying how incompetent this Microsoft lackie is?

 

[ubercake]

Now that everything is the same, the weak point of the XBOX One is the weaker hardware configuration. Bad mistake.

The strong point is XBOX Live, the services that will come along with it, and Kinect. These are all good points, but even for me who is a fan of the XBOX 360 (after owning both PS3 and 360, the 360 was better; no contest), I can't get past the weaker hardware configuration.

 

[catfishtx]

I am happy that MS changed its mind on the 24-hr check-in. I am sure my nephews will be unwrapping a new XB1 on Christmas morning now.

I don't know why the PS3 didn't get more credit as a home entertainment hub. It can play Blu-Rays, DVDs, stream, and also stream videos/mp3s,photos from your PC without using the horrible Media Center software, and it could play videos/mps3/photos from USB sticks you install locally on the unit. The xBox 360 cannot do any of that last stuff. Which is why I chose the PS3 over the 360 years ago.

I wonder if the PS4 is still going to support local media playback?

 

[fatboytyler]

Now that everything is the same, the weak point of the XBOX One is the weaker hardware configuration. Bad mistake.

The strong point is XBOX Live, the services that will come along with it, and Kinect. These are all good points, but even for me who is a fan of the XBOX 360 (after owning both PS3 and 360, the 360 was better; no contest), I can't get past the weaker hardware configuration.

What services are you speaking of? Sony requiring a PS Plus subscription is still cheaper than a Live Gold subscription. Also with PS Plus you get hundreds of dollars of games for free that you can ALWAYS play as long as you are a subscriber. I have gotten 13 full free games since I have been a subscriber.
And people who say that the servers aren't as good on Playstation is lying. Most online games are based soley on user connection (COD for example).

 

[ubercake]

Now that everything is the same, the weak point of the XBOX One is the weaker hardware configuration. Bad mistake.

The strong point is XBOX Live, the services that will come along with it, and Kinect. These are all good points, but even for me who is a fan of the XBOX 360 (after owning both PS3 and 360, the 360 was better; no contest), I can't get past the weaker hardware configuration.

What services are you speaking of? Sony requiring a PS Plus subscription is still cheaper than a Live Gold subscription. Also with PS Plus you get hundreds of dollars of games for free that you can ALWAYS play as long as you are a subscriber. I have gotten 13 full free games since I have been a subscriber.
And people who say that the servers aren't as good on Playstation is lying. Most online games are based soley on user connection (COD for example).

Hackers are definitely fond of Sony's servers.

$35 gets you a code for a year of Live Gold. How much is PS Plus running these days? The only time the price goes up to the $60/year for Xbox Live is around the Holidays. Renew February-October and you pay $35/year for Live. There are a bunch of free games on Live as well.