Xbox One

[chaosprophet]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

But how were you expecting the consumer to accept a 100 dollar price increase when there isn't a "must have" kinect game?

As I said before, at best the 360 only had 30% kinect penetration. This means 70% chose NOT to buy a kinect. You bundling the kinect into the console is forcing 70% of your customers to buy something they don't want to use.

Are you saying the customer is happy to pay $100 more?

Why do you think it wouldn't harm the sales to make your machine 100 dollars more expensive than your competitor? MS took their customers for granted. Kinect can only be good value, if they have a use for it. As it is kinect is nothing more than a spy camera for them, as the consumer sees no benefit on their end.

Are sure about that $100 though? I mean, PS4 is even more powerful than the XBOX, so the Kinect itself may be more than $100 and/or Sony may have been able through a better design make her hardware cheaper.

But then, you probably is misunderstanding me or I'm not being able to make my point well. My post was trying to rationalize why Microsoft would wanted everyone to have one. And my point is that their idea could have worked better if the PS4 was more expensive than it and if people didn't really get as bothered by the always watching feature. I think that was the scenario they thought would happen. But of course, if I'm correct then their expectations failed miserably.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by chaosprophet

Are sure about that $100 though? I mean, PS4 is even more powerful than the XBOX, so the Kinect itself may be more than $100 and/or Sony may have been able through a better design make her hardware cheaper.

But then, you probably is misunderstanding me or I'm not being able to make my point well. My post was trying to rationalize why Microsoft would wanted everyone to have one. And my point is that their idea could have worked better if the PS4 was more expensive than it and if people didn't really get as bothered by the always watching feature. I think that was the scenario they thought would happen. But of course, if I'm correct then their expectations failed miserably.

There was no reason to believe PS4 would be more expensive than the raw Xbox1. We know the internal parts, and in general they costs the same amount to assemble. The only difference was chip designs and how they partition the os. All the pieces exist on the market, unlike the PS3 Cell.

As for MS "want everyone to have kinect"... Well, then they should be giving them away for free. Anything less turns people away, as you can't convince someone to buy something with no perceived value.

[Kirito]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

That's why I believe Kinect isn't a selling point. Kinect is not "worth" $100 to the consumer, even if the hardware costs that much to make it. The public is not convinced that the Kinect is desirable, and by forcing their hands MS is actually making the kinect even less desirable.

That's definitely going to be an issue in terms of a reasonable price cut. I mean the device practically has no use, and the fact that people are paying $100 extra for something that's mandatory and takes up unneccesary space isn't really helping much.

I mean it'll be much easier to put $399 just to save face, but production and hardware seems to logical dampened that prospect in awkward ways.

[chaosprophet]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

There was no reason to believe PS4 would be more expensive than the raw Xbox1. We know the internal parts, and in general they costs the same amount to assemble. The only difference was chip designs and how they partition the os. All the pieces exist on the market, unlike the PS3 Cell.

As for MS "want everyone to have kinect"... Well, then they should be giving them away for free. Anything less turns people away, as you can't convince someone to buy something with no perceived value.

Were people really expecting that thought? After both consoles had it's hardware know to us but before we knew the price at E3, it seemed to me most gaming sites were expecting PS4 to end up more expensive than the X1. Weren't people expecting that GDDR5 to increase it's price a lot?

And again, my whole point is, if MS were expecting the X1 to be cheaper than PS4 even with it's extra cost for the Kinect and wasn't expecting the backlash from people on it always being on, than I could see why they made that decision and thought it would be profitable to them in the end.

[ReaperxKingx]

Originally Posted by chaosprophet

Were people really expecting that thought? After both consoles had it's hardware know to us but before we knew the price at E3, it seemed to me most gaming sites were expecting PS4 to end up more expensive than the X1. Weren't people expecting that GDDR5 to increase it's price a lot?

And again, my whole point is, if MS were expecting the X1 to be cheaper than PS4 even with it's extra cost for the Kinect and wasn't expecting the backlash from people on it always being on, than I could see why they made that decision and thought it would be profitable to them in the end.

Well Sony's products have been well, I think more often than not would cost an arm and leg to get them. My girlfriend and me visited Bestbuy the other day and saw the Sony 4K T.V., best picture no doubt about it though the 5 thousand dollars for just a 55 inch felt like I have been speared by 20 bulls of the Running of the Bulls.

[saravis]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

But how were you expecting the consumer to accept a 100 dollar price increase when there isn't a "must have" kinect game?

You can't use the first Kinect as a representative for the success of the second. The first Kinect had peripheral support woes. Most game companies didn't bother with it because it was an optional add-on peripheral. Not everyone who owned a 360 owned a Kinect. So companies had to be concerned with how many gamers would pass on their Kinect games because they didn't have the Kinect. With it being bundled now, companies don't have to worry about that. There's also the fact that, from what's been shown, the technology has improved.

Am I saying that the Kinect is worth the extra 100?
Answer: I have no idea. Its value is dependent on how well the technology works and how much game companies choose to take advantage of it.

[Jazzrat]

Surprisingly, someone at Microsoft had the sense and guts to do this. Very rarely we see corporations change their stance and especially a company as prominent as Microsoft.

I think this would convince people to remain with them especially loyal xbox users. The price & power difference is still favoring PS4 though and a lot more indie dev friendly. But hey, it's a step in the right direction and hopefully we get to see more changes before launch. It's good for all gamers at the end of the day to have a healthy competitive market.

[Nightengale]

It's easy to say things in hindsight like 'eh, can't Microsoft just take a loss on Kinect', but the profits of the Xbox division is NOTHING compared to the Office or Windows division, whose profits are in the billions.

I'm sure the Xbox division faces challenges every year from investors, shareholders & the other 'big brothers' of the Microsoft family over the value of the Xbox division. That's just how corporations work.

If Xbox chooses to make a loss for the sake of selling more units, there will be repercussions of different kinds.

Like for example... no longer having the cash to invest in new game studios & exclusives.

[Jazzrat]

Originally Posted by Nightengale

It's easy to say things in hindsight like 'eh, can't Microsoft just take a loss on Kinect', but the profits of the Xbox division is NOTHING compared to the Office or Windows division, whose profits are in the billions.

I'm sure the Xbox division faces challenges every year from investors, shareholders & the other 'big brothers' of the Microsoft family over the value of the Xbox division. That's just how corporations work.

If Xbox chooses to make a loss for the sake of selling more units, there will be repercussions of different kinds.

Like for example... no longer having the cash to invest in new game studios & exclusives.

Not all division or business are meant to make their own profit. Often times, these are setup to boost other division's profit. For shareholders, their only interest is profit as a whole for the organization. Even some divisions are making losses, it's not going to affect them as long as the corporation is profitable and growing.

It's like selling fresh bread with their own bakery at a supermarket, it's usually causes losses but it's attracts people to the store and often times, other profit making product are purchased as well when these customer come in to buy their bread.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

As I said before, at best the 360 only had 30% kinect penetration. This means 70% chose NOT to buy a kinect. You bundling the kinect into the console is forcing 70% of your customers to buy something they don't want to use.

Are you saying the customer is happy to pay $100 more?

This is somewhat false reasoning. Peripherals have a difficult time penetrating into the mass market. It's amazing the Kinect even did that well, especially compared to the Playstation Move. It's true that cost likely did play a factor, as did games (or lack of), but there's a reason that companies integrate things into the console itself. For one, not doing so divides the market for developers. Unless money can be made supporting the accessory, or the ability to add support is trivial, it's typically ignored by most developers. Why would I make a game just for Kinect when I can make a game that supports the standard controls and appeal to a wider consumer base? For another, there's extra cost, which can deter adopters. "I have to buy the system and this thing just to play a game? No thanks."

This is why it will be much harder to sell people on things like Smart Glass and Vita Remote Play compared to the Wii U Gamepad. The Gamepad comes with every system, requires no additional cost to the consumer once the console is purchased, and is fully integrated into every console so developers can sell their games to everyone with the console, and not just certain customers.

We can argue if things like the Gamepad or Kinect are good ideas, or if consumers actually like it, of course, but it's smart of Microsoft to include it in every single console if they plan to continue supporting it. The point is, include your tech idea entirely, or don't bother. Split markets are bad.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Solace

We can argue if things like the Gamepad or Kinect are good ideas, or if consumers actually like it, of course, but it's smart of Microsoft to include it in every single console if they plan to continue supporting it. The point is, include your tech idea entirely, or don't bother. Split markets are bad.

So we are at the classic "chicken or the egg" problem. You say the reason there isn't any good games for the kinect was because there wasn't enough kinects. I say the reason no one want to buy Kinects is because there isn't any good games for them.

Here is why I believe I have the upper hand; at the very least, MS have the desire to create a 1st party AAA kinect game. The fact that such a game does not exist, is my proof that it is not the fault of a lack of kinect ownership.

Why would good kinect games be made just because more people have kinect units? That logic doesn't add up to me, because we don't have a shortage of good kinect games; we have an absence of good kinect games.

So far, we have no proof that good kinect games could be made at all. Microsoft can prove me wrong by releasing a 1st party Kinect game that blows expectations out of the water, but until then to say "we need more kinect owners" just doesn't add up.

[kenjiharima]

Alpha is still skeptical

YouTube

https://youtu.be/JVzwI_aImrw

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[DingoEnderZOE2]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.n...70428042_n.jpg

Check that out for a good laugh.

Oh wait here's some more:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/04ac92d44...np75o3_500.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/c2cd1e127...np75o2_500.jpg

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

So we are at the classic "chicken or the egg" problem. You say the reason there isn't any good games for the kinect was because there wasn't enough kinects. I say the reason no one want to buy Kinects is because there isn't any good games for them.

Here is why I believe I have the upper hand; at the very least, MS have the desire to create a 1st party AAA kinect game. The fact that such a game does not exist, is my proof that it is not the fault of a lack of kinect ownership.

Why would good kinect games be made just because more people have kinect units? That logic doesn't add up to me, because we don't have a shortage of good kinect games; we have an absence of good kinect games.

So far, we have no proof that good kinect games could be made at all. Microsoft can prove me wrong by releasing a 1st party Kinect game that blows expectations out of the water, but until then to say "we need more kinect owners" just doesn't add up.

You're missing the point. Peripherals create a split market. Microsoft or some other developer could release a slew of great games for Kinect, but it will never have anything close to a 1:1 ratio with the console itself. As a consumer, I have to decide if the extra cost is worth it for those games. As a developer, I have to decide if making a Kinect focused game is going to be worth the investment versus appealing to the consumer who has not bought a Kinect.

By including a Kinect in every system, Microsoft avoids both issues entirely. Developers can use it or not, with no risk. Consumers don't need to justify the additional cost, because it's built right into the console's price. And if it's a bust, and no one really likes Kinect, MS can cut it when they make the next console.

Let's not forget retailers have to carry this stuff too, and space is a premium. A console will always have high visibility, but a peripheral generally doesn't. Chicken and egg, however you want to phrase it, but peripherals and their support historically lag behind the actual console itself.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Solace

You're missing the point. Peripherals create a split market. Microsoft or some other developer could release a slew of great games for Kinect, but it will never have anything close to a 1:1 ratio with the console itself. As a consumer, I have to decide if the extra cost is worth it for those games. As a developer, I have to decide if making a Kinect focused game is going to be worth the investment versus appealing to the consumer who has not bought a Kinect.

By including a Kinect in every system, Microsoft avoids both issues entirely. Developers can use it or not, with no risk. Consumers don't need to justify the additional cost, because it's built right into the console's price. And if it's a bust, and no one really likes Kinect, MS can cut it when they make the next console.

Let's not forget retailers have to carry this stuff too, and space is a premium. A console will always have high visibility, but a peripheral generally doesn't. Chicken and egg, however you want to phrase it, but peripherals and their support historically lag behind the actual console itself.

It doesn't matter "how many" developers want to develop for kinect. My point stands; we don't lack quantity of kinect titles. It is MS's responsibility to create a AAA kinect game title. As a first party game.

And YES, consumers do need to justify the additional cost. It's called "buying a PS4 for 100 dollars less."

You keep telling me there needs to be more developers on board in programming for the kinect. I keep telling you that until MS create a proper good selling game that actually benefits from using kinect, it doesn't MATTER how many kinects is in homes.

If Microsoft can't make Kinect work as a fun, functional game peripheral, no one else would want to try no matter how many kinects are in homes.

Make a good game, and they will buy it. And until you create that good game, no one would believe kinect is worth 100 dollars.

MS needs to prove that Kinect is a good gaming peripheral. That does NOT means forcing it into everyone's homes.

[kenjiharima]

Originally Posted by DingoEnderZOE2

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.n...70428042_n.jpg

Check that out for a good laugh.

Oh wait here's some more:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/04ac92d44...np75o3_500.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/c2cd1e127...np75o2_500.jpg

lol that was a great read.
I think that is what MS is thinking right now.

[kaito-kid]

Originally Posted by takai

http://www.gametrailers.com/side-mis...any-ten-people

Now THIS is interesting. If they go by these rules it will absolutely make up for the DRM thing. Sharing games with a friend of mine in Chicago this easily is insane. I'm eager to hear more news about this.

A familie member will have to download the game from your library and install the game first right? Or are we talking about cloud streaming!? If so, this is going to be hilarious.

[Vajra]

Originally Posted by kaito-kid

A familie member will have to download the game from your library and install the game first right? Or are we talking about cloud streaming!? If so, this is going to be hilarious.

They're doing away with the whole DRM/anti-sharing plan that includes the family/1 game plan as well.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Phirk

They're doing away with the whole DRM/anti-sharing plan that includes the family/1 game plan as well.

The sharing was a last minute idea. They didn't want to do that to begin with. So now that they aren't doing any DRM, they certainly don't want the sharing to happen.

[kaito-kid]

Yeah I understand that, but I was just wondering HOW this was supposed to work.

And also, It actually sounds like a bad deal for the developers and publishers, as less people would have had to buy the actual game If you could share a game with 10 people and if two people could play a game at the same time. I'm sure a lot of their partners would have left them if this happened... It would have been a sweet deal for the consumers though. It might have even justified the extra 100 dollars.