Report: Microsoft's April Xbox Event Pushed to May 21

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]evilsizer[/nom]With Xbox taking the stand of no used games (more rant) going back to building gaming PCs or buying a Playstaion if they don't do the same thing as MS.[/citation]
Steam don't allow used games - that's your PC option that does the same
PS4 will have the same always on - that's your Playstation option that does the same
You could always buy Nintendo?
But at least be informed if you are going to rant
 
Look, they're not going to push back the reveal of the console just to get rid of something that you can't see in a one-hour demonstration. Just look at the PS4 reveal - you didn't even see the actual console. If they wanted to do the reveal, the DRM would not be visible anyway, so don't go getting your hopes up on that end.

[citation][nom]shikamaru31789[/nom]Am I the only one ...[/citation]

Choosing only to believe the "positive" rumors is no better. What you're supposed to do is take all in and evaluate them based on logic. Logic tells me that half of those bundled options (DVR, Streaming Cable, TV Tuner) are illogical. The cost of a console that can fit all of that is untenable within reason. As it is the console is rumored to be near $500, so you'll quickly run into the $600 mark that both MSFT and Sony have said they wanted to avoid approaching. The changes to Xbox Live have been talked about, but it's unlikely that they will bump online play down from Gold to Silver for fear of how many Gold subscribers they will lose. And again, the a-la-carte TV service idea is a pipe dream that's been drifting about for years, with no more likelihood now than any time before. It's not that anyone is trying to be more negative on the Xbox or anything, there's just less likely upside than there is downside.
 
[citation][nom]kinggraves[/nom]It's reasonable for people to want to play used games[/citation]
That is not what people want, used games are a means to an end and the end is to pay less money
...
You buy at a slightly lower price, play then sell it again - the upshot being that your total cost of playing is much less than the total brand new retail price
...
If you could buy the game brand new and keep it forever at the same cost as what your outlay was for used and selling again then you would do so
...
If everyone was forced to have a unique copy of each game, eliminating the used game market, the game companies could reduce the cost of games by 75% and still make 100% more profit
...
So the real demand is not "we want used games" the real demand is "we want game companies to honour a lower price if we are all forced to new"

I personally don't trust EA to lower prices as they are scumbags that would steal the pennies from a dead mans eyes, but it only takes 1 company to do it and market forces will kick in and all other companies will follow - 2 AAA titles release at the same time from competing studios and one is $60, the other is $15, which one is not going to sell? If companies artificially keep prices high then that is where the DoJ steps in for price-fixing abuses

But realistically, no matter how much we moan about it, millions of people are going to buy the consoles and play the games and the few protestors will eventually fold, buy anyway and keep playing wether they like it or not
 
I'm skeptical of the "always online" rumor because some ISP's have been considering charging for usage i.e. how much people use the net.

If M$/XBox really does that "always online" thing then, that could potentially be an extra cost for some consumers - on top of all the other extra costs we have to deal with already.

This rumor could simply be an option for those who'd rather download new games. So, it could just not be the full story and not nearly as bad as it has been made out to be.
 
[citation][nom]rebel1280[/nom]IF this is true (dude, im with you in hoping with everything i have that it is) im game. But makes we wonder how big the HD will be haha. That being said, now im wondering if there will be different "tiers" of Nexbox. For example, "For an extra $10 you can use the DVR feature and $5 dollars more, you can play it on any device in the house!" So we would have to pay for Xbox Gold, Netflix, Hulu, a "potential" DVR function as well as DLC content. But if i can choose what channels i get from the cable or satellite company, HOLY COW will i buy it. I don't need to pay for 500 music channels just to get get ESPN, DIY, HGTV and SPEED![/citation]

Some of the rumors and leaks I've read do suggest 2 different NextBoxes. One is essentially a new 360 model with different rumors placing it between $100-150. It'll supposedly be smaller than all previous 360 models. It's essentially an Xbox set-top box made to compete with Roku and AppleTV, a good option for casual gamers as well as a cheaper option to play 360 games since the higher tier NextBox isn't backwards compatible. The higher tier NextBox is the actual Next Generation box, with rumors placing it between $300-500 (with more rumors pointing to the bottom end of that range) and about 30% less powerful than the PS4 (1.23 tflops vs 1.84) with at least a 500GB hard drive in the base model.

As for functionality like DVR and streaming cable channels, some rumors have suggested that they'll be included with a new Platinum tier, which will include some Playstation Plus like features as well (possibly including features such as early or exclusive access to demos and betas, a Microsoft Point stipend each month, and random DLC for free each month). Meanwhile, online play (and possibly access to currently Gold limited online content like Netflix and Hulu) is rumored to be added to an ad supported Silver tier, while Gold will be a way to pay to turn off the ads on Silver, with either other features added to increase it's value or a price drop.
 
[citation][nom]DRosencraft[/nom]Look, they're not going to push back the reveal of the console just to get rid of something that you can't see in a one-hour demonstration. Just look at the PS4 reveal - you didn't even see the actual console. If they wanted to do the reveal, the DRM would not be visible anyway, so don't go getting your hopes up on that end.
Choosing only to believe the "positive" rumors is no better. What you're supposed to do is take all in and evaluate them based on logic. Logic tells me that half of those bundled options (DVR, Streaming Cable, TV Tuner) are illogical. The cost of a console that can fit all of that is untenable within reason. As it is the console is rumored to be near $500, so you'll quickly run into the $600 mark that both MSFT and Sony have said they wanted to avoid approaching. The changes to Xbox Live have been talked about, but it's unlikely that they will bump online play down from Gold to Silver for fear of how many Gold subscribers they will lose. And again, the a-la-carte TV service idea is a pipe dream that's been drifting about for years, with no more likelihood now than any time before. It's not that anyone is trying to be more negative on the Xbox or anything, there's just less likely upside than there is downside.[/citation]

You say that they wouldn't need to reveal always-online at the unveiling, but you know that the press will ask them whether or not the console will be always online and if they decline to comment there will be a ton of bad press for Microsoft which they don't want. You liken it to the PS4 not being shown at the PS4 unveiling, but Sony did get some bad press over that, and Microsoft even took the oppurtunity to take a potshot at them for it through Major Nelson. Microsoft knows now, after all the bad press the last few days, that always online is a bad idea, and that's assuming they didn't already know that before and the rumor was just a rumor.

You say that one should take the positive and the negative rumors and weigh them with a logical mind. That's exactly what I did. Lets look at the 3 main negative rumors so far. Always-online, used game blocking, and the required Kinect monitoring people. Of the 3, I'd say that only 1 seems even remotely likely, and that's the Kinect monitoring people.

Always-online would cause issues for many in the US, Xbox's leading market, as well as people in several other smaller markets like Canada and Australia where the 360 was at least tying the PS3. That's because the internet infrastructure in these countries is not good, surely Microsoft knows this. The downside outweighs the upside for them, as pirates would most likely find a way around always-online anyway.

As for used game blocking, Microsoft knows how much of the games industry is based on used games. It accounts for at least half the sales of retailers like Gamestop. Surely Microsoft knows that blocking used games would both turn some of the their fans against them and destabilize the games industry. Then there's the fact that Gamestop's CEO praised the Next Xbox after seeing it behind closed doors. Why would he praise a console that was aiming to put his company out of business buy blocking half his companies sales? Surely he would have asked them rather or not it blocked used games after all the rumors, and surely they wouldn't have declined to comment or else he would have suggested that he was skeptical, and surely they wouldn't have lied to him due to the bad press they'd get when it came out that they'd lied. At most they're going to require a one-time only activation code and sell codes for say $5, allowing people to buy games used and buy an activation code to play the game, and even that may be unlikely.

Then there's the rumor about the included Kinect, which is supposedly required to be calibrated in order for the console to work, that would then monitor people to make sure too many people aren't watching content. I suppose that could potentially happen since all rumors seem to indicate either an integrated Kinect or a bundled Kinect, though still, it doesn't seem to me like there's that much incentive for them to do that. Would whatever kickbacks digital content providers give them really outweigh the loss of fans they'd be sure to have?

And then there's the positive rumors, most of which are backed up by multiple sources, several of whom are known to be reliable. You say that features like DVR, TV tuner, and streaming cable tv seem unlikely to you because the price is already rumored to be at $500, but the older rumors and one reliable leak placed the price closer to $300, the base model could be closer to $300 while that $500 could be for the high end model that includes those premium features. Afterall, $500 seems steep for the specs that've leaked, not when the PS4 has better specs and a leaked price of $429 for the base model. Both Microsoft and Sony have admitted that high launch prices last gen hurt early sales, and both have said they want to go lower this time around.

I've seen the following positive features mentioned by multiple and/or reliable sources: DVR, TV Tuner, streaming cable tv, background aps and possibly even games (think of the possibility of being able to read a game walkthrough while playing or pause one game and play another), Skype voice chat and video chat through Kinect, faster wireless controllers, faster load times due to required game installs with installations that take place in the background while you play, and an enhanced SmartGlass ap possibly even allowing you to use your smartphone or tablet as a controller in much the same way as the Wii U's tablet controller (things like world maps and inventory management on the touchscreen).

So it seems to me like the positive rumors about the Next Xbox outweigh the negative rumors, since, chances are, most of the negative rumors are just rumors, and even though some of the positive rumors may be false as well, there are far more positive rumors to begin with.
 
[citation][nom]fulle[/nom]@shikamaru31789http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/engl [...] ether.html[/citation]
I actually know that rule but messed up while typing quickly. I don't usually take the time to proofread my comments, heck, Tom's own editors don't even proofread these articles, I find mistakes in them all the time, so I really don't feel the need to proofread my comments. At least I'm not the only one, somebody else in this comments section wrote "weather or not".
 
/sigh Why does everyone quote the kotaku article, but no one include the most important (imo) part....

That said, a caution and a caveat: other sources familiar with the codenamed Durango console have told us that they are still unaware of any Microsoft plans regarding an online requirement. No one has been able to say it's not true and some have speculated that this is required at the operating system level and therefore isn't something Microsoft has to tell all developers or retail partners. Microsoft also has the ability to change this type of requirement seemingly at a moment's notice ...

As these are test consoles, not all developers will have a model that requires always online to start games, but microsoft needs to vet the process to ensure "online only" games behave properly. Mountain become mole hill...

Wise man once say "Don't count your chickens before they hatch." Since everyone working on Durango is under NDA, you could start a rumor about anything and no one can either confirm or deny it legally without repercussions.
"Project durango gave the FBI my name and address when I played a pirated movie"
"Project durango writes over retail game disc's and destroy's them after install"
"Project durango won't let me play any game unless its connected to the internet"

All of these are as likely as the next, and that likelihood is 0.00%
 
[citation][nom]dalethepcman[/nom]/sigh Why does everyone quote the kotaku article, but no one include the most important (imo) part....As these are test consoles, not all developers will have a model that requires always online to start games, but microsoft needs to vet the process to ensure "online only" games behave properly. Mountain become mole hill...Wise man once say "Don't count your chickens before they hatch." Since everyone working on Durango is under NDA, you could start a rumor about anything and no one can either confirm or deny it legally without repercussions."Project durango gave the FBI my name and address when I played a pirated movie""Project durango writes over retail game disc's and destroy's them after install""Project durango won't let me play any game unless its connected to the internet"All of these are as likely as the next, and that likelihood is 0.00%[/citation]
Yeah, I read that same paragraph in the Kotaku article and it's one of the reasons why I don't believe the always-online rumor. And even if Micrsoft was considering it, they're surely not now after reading all of the criticism over the last few days. And it seems likely that they could simply disable it through the software if they've decided against it now.
 
Sorry, I don't get the drama around having an "always on" console. Every device now is "always on." That's the world we live in. Deal with it. Get with the times and get the Internet.
 
[citation][nom]fulle[/nom]Sorry, I don't get the drama around having an "always on" console. Every device now is "always on." That's the world we live in. Deal with it. Get with the times and get the Internet.[/citation]
Unfortunately, the thing that some people still aren't grasping, is that there are gamers in rural areas, and the only internet available in those rural areas is dial-up (which probably isn't fast enough to actually register your game playing with the servers) and satellite internet (which can be quite expensive and is poor for gaming anyway due to low latency). This particular rumor says that games won't be playable at all unless you're connected to the internet, that means those gamers in rural area won't be able to play any games, and therefore MS would completely lose their sales. The internet may be a part of the world we live in, but if this rumor is true (and I'm not saying it is because I highly doubt it) Microsoft is jumping the gun because the internet infrastructure in the US and other countries like Canada and Australia won't improve enough to get high speed internet to those rural areas for at least another 5 years, maybe more.
 
[citation][nom]shikamaru31789[/nom]Unfortunately, the thing that some people still aren't grasping, is that there are gamers in rural areas, and the only internet available in those rural areas is dial-up (which probably isn't fast enough to actually register your game playing with the servers) and satellite internet (which can be quite expensive and is poor for gaming anyway due to low latency). This particular rumor says that games won't be playable at all unless you're connected to the internet, that means those gamers in rural area won't be able to play any games, and therefore MS would completely lose their sales. The internet may be a part of the world we live in, but if this rumor is true (and I'm not saying it is because I highly doubt it) Microsoft is jumping the gun because the internet infrastructure in the US and other countries like Canada and Australia won't improve enough to get high speed internet to those rural areas for at least another 5 years, maybe more.[/citation]

That wasn't my opinion. It was a slightly paraphrased quote from Microsoft Executive Adam Orth.
 
[citation][nom]fulle[/nom]That wasn't my opinion. It was a slightly paraphrased quote from Microsoft Executive Adam Orth.[/citation]
Sorry, I thought you were one of those people that actually agree with Orth's comments (I've seen a few of them spouting that rhetoric). Of course Heir confirmed that those comments were mostly a troll aimed at him anyway, so it really doesn't matter anymore.
 
Honestly, I think the rumour of no offline play is false. MS would be killing their product if true, and I don't think they're that stupid. I'm sure they will debunk the rumour at some point. I'm surprised the media is so quick to spread this rumour without a real MS source.
 


I will repeat my note about always-online - it's something that has been tried at least twice in recent memory by international gaming companies, so it is in no way a stretch to think that MSFT would attempt it. It was even rumored for the PS4. The same for the used game blocking. That rumor started since last year's E3 and had a number of industry people trying to justify it, so it's not at all a stretch to be concerned somewhat that they may try to go forward with something like that. Again, the PS4 had the same rumor until it was disproved when they announced the system. Gamestop's CEO isn't going to trump anyone on something like that and shoot his business in the foot. Even if they lost Xbox used sales, he probably wants his company to continue to exist into the future, which only gets harder if he recklessly spills the beans that Xbox is going to block used games. I'm not saying whether this rumor is true or not, only that I think it a bit unreasonable to think Gamestop's CEO would mention anything about this aspect in any official or unofficial manner before MSFT had a chance to do it themselves. I hope they aren't going to block used games, but it's not a fanciful idea that they would try it.

My note about not delaying the announcement is about just that - the announcement. No one will be able to see if the system requires a persistent connection at a demonstration. If they were to be taking it out, then they could just as easily say this month it was never in than a month from now when they will still be asked about it and will still have the same chance to say no. If anything the extra month is to buy time for the idea to sink in. Even if the developer version required a persistent internet connection, there is nothing stopping them from tomorrow saying the retail version won't. This is about an announcement, not a product release. The system won't be for sale for months, announcing it this month or next isn't going to change that. As for not showing the PS4 itself, yeah, there were some questions, but that was mostly forgotten pretty quickly because everyone knows more or less what the console will look like in the end, and more interest was around the controller, the internal hardware, and the games.

I didn't mention anything about the Kinect because at this point I don't know how much of a rumor that is anymore. Kinect will be at least included in an optional bundle, and no report I know of indicates that a controller won't also be included, so I would be surprised if Kinect wasn't included.

As for the positives, let's look at the price of the current Xbox with Kinect. That's about $300. That's the current Xbox, with 4GB internal memory, and a Kinect. Now, you have to include an actual HDD. To add an HDD to the current Xbox is $130 for 320GB on the Microsoft Store. Since they will still be selling Xbox 360s for at least a few months, it's unlikely that they'll undercut that price too much. Even so, for the sake of argument, let's say they include a 500GB HDD for $100. Now add a DVR to the Xbox, and you're likely talking about around $50 there to license the technology. Then a TV Tuner is at least another $50. Then licensing of the rights for including set-top box functionality from even the top two TV/Satellite providers, you're looking at a very conservative minimum of $50 additional cost to the system. I will note that this TV streaming bit is the most improbable rumor around. Comcast, Time Warner, etc., all have to negotiate with the individual media groups (Turner Networks, NBC Universal, Disney) to secure broadcasting rights, and I don't know that MSFT wants to do that. Even if we assume that MSFT with this Xbox worked around that and just had their box replace your existing set-top- box to stream cable out of the wall into the Xbox, most cable providers charge a lease fee of $8-10 a month for each box, and have you return the box when you terminate service. Unless you have to subscribe to the next Xbox, that is a cost that will either be tacked on the service fee from the cable provider (making it comparatively bad) or have to be incorporated in the cost of the console itself. That's what makes $50 a conservative estimate. All that together already brings the system up to $550. That's before paying for Xbox Live Gold to access these premium options, and the cost some of these will likely incur anyway.

Now, it is possible that, as you say, they will go with two models, but by that would be a very risky gamble since they would then have to leave out all those premium features from the $300 model, and make it seem terribly unattractive by comparison. It is possible, certainly, but again that would be assuming that a brand new Xbox system with its newer internal bits, will be the same price as the current 360. At the very least, should the rumor of having to install all games be accurate, the next Xbox will likely cost more than $300 to put a decent size hard drive in it. Something like Skype is not a particularly big deal. They own it, and they could include it even on the current system through an update. Background apps is possible, and can be useful in some instances. The increased use of SmartGlass is also a possibility, but is hardly an exciting draw. Therein lies the problem with the probably stuff for the next Xbox - many of these do not generate a lot of excitement. They are not terribly difficult to do.

So, again, it's not that the bad rumors are mysteriously or through some conspiracy, have risen to the top. It's that the exciting news for the Xbox is exciting in the wrong way. The most positive ideas are seen as improbable if not impossible for MSFT to pull off, and all that is left are the lackluster improvements and a bunch of onerous stuff a lot of people don't like. The PS4 was the same way until the details of the performance came out, and the new controller was leaked. There's no new controller and the hardware specs aren't as good. So far not a lot o realistic good has been leaked about the next Xbox. It comes down to the fact that the Xbox is a game console, and the only real news so far on the gaming part of the console seems to be "our hardware's not as good as the PS4, and we'll probably require you to be constantly connected to the internet".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.