Looks like Microsoft beat Apple to the punch with the new XBOX. Whatever Apple eventually will show with iTV will be a yawner as a result. Maybe iTV will just be a longer TV.
Looks like Microsoft beat Apple to the punch with the new XBOX. Whatever Apple eventually will show with iTV will be a yawner as a result. Maybe iTV will just be a longer TV.
Aren't you counting your chickens before they've hatched? These all-in-one TV things haven't been too successful in the past.
SOME launch versions did. They took responsibility and fixed them all and extended the warranty. Subsequent units worked just fine. I've had two and never had the slightest issue with either. Lets just put this one to bed as it really doesn't need repeating.
You mean to say that some XBox 360 launch hardware wasn't defective? I think the problem was big enough that they simply had to do that as damage control to save the division. The amount they had to write down to fix bad hardware was not chump change.
You mean to say that some XBox 360 launch hardware wasn't defective? I think the problem was big enough that they simply had to do that as damage control to save the division. The amount they had to write down to fix bad hardware was not chump change.
I bought a Xbox shortly after launch and so did a number of my friends and none of us had a problem. Guess we were part of a good batch.
Yes, your claim that you are worried that Apple has "given up" on a project you have decided to pretend they were working on at all is nothing more than that.
What, do you want to see receipts for all the Apple devices in my signature? Some pictures of me with them perhaps?
I couldn't care less. Because they don't matter. I don't care what you have or pretend to have. That you jump to this lets me know that I'm right, however, since it's nothing to do with the argument at hand.
…simply because I have the ability to give credit where it's due even when it's a competitor to Apple.
As long as you don't couple that with taking away credit where it never existed in the first place, whatever you want to say positive (truthful) about any company is fine.
To say "Microsoft just killed their entire video game console industry" makes you sound like a troll.
I gave reasons. Do you have any rebuttals to said reasons?
Originally Posted by caliminius
Forced to have Kinect plugged? It's an integral part of the control scheme. Just like how Apple forces iPad owners to use the touchscreen.
Wretched analogy. Come on, man, are you serious? No. It's like iPad users being forced to use a combination of the camera and gyroscope to control the OS and apps. Forcing them to have the camera on, no less.
See that thing next to the two boxes that has some buttons and curves? That's the primary control scheme.
And when it comes to the mythical apple produced TV, damn near everyone here is saying they should use Siri which is halfway to the Kinect forced usage you're bitching about.
I challenge your "near everyone" claim as well as your "halfway" claim. Does Siri force YOU to do a dance before you ask her a question? You really ought to take your iDevice in for repairs, then.
Forced to have an Internet connection? The device is mostly pointless without one…
Enough with your pathetic apologist nonsense! How can you possibly defend this DRM?
And how is this any different than the forced Internet connection the AppleTV requires?
What forced Internet connection? I hope you don't mean for Home Sharing or AirPlay.
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
…when its five billion transistors die a premature heat death.
I'm not sure about heat death for this one. Did you see the case? They basically put a computer in a sawed-off milk crate.
Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret
At the risk of opening a can of worms (and one of Tallest's deepest cuts), the 6th iPhone was called iPhone 5!!
It's just Microsoft copying Apple again. Nothing new here.
I bought a Xbox shortly after launch and so did a number of my friends and none of us had a problem. Guess we were part of a good batch.
I recall the fiasco really took the wind out of a quarter's profit for the whole company in order to keep the division viable. Maybe it's a bit much to say most of them failed, but a spectacular portion have.
Actually Sony first tried it. Used games couldn't be played online unless the user had a new activation code that had to be purchased.
I don't mind the move to preventing used games - this has long been in place on the PC. It met the same kind of resistance there but what alleviated it was Steam because there were no activation codes with online purchases, you permanently owned games without discs lying around and the games tended to be cheaper.
Dead Space is on sale right now on Steam for $12.50 for 1&2 but on Amazon for the 360, DS2 is $18.70 and DS1 is $18.40.
The reason to eliminate used sales is that once a game goes into the market, after the first sale, the publisher/developer makes nothing. On the first sale, they only make a fraction too. So say that a game costs $50, the original developer could make as little as 30% of it in profit. That game could get resold 4 times over the course of a year. Total revenue could be $150 for a single copy in a year but the original developer makes $15 from it.
The game stores love used games because it's very high margins for them:
I'd have said that a good balance to benefit retailers, developers/publishers and individuals would have been the following:
- no activation codes. Burn a unique ID onto every disc and when the disc is tied to an online account, use the code automatically from the disc.
- allow every unique ID to have two non-simultaneous installs. That keeps the second-hand game market and allows someone to give a friend a copy (which then prevents resale).
- make the games cheaper in light of the increased first-time sales.
In the current system, if a game sells for $50, the original developer gets say $15. If it is resold 4 times with 25% off each time, it makes about $150.
Say they priced games at $30, the original developer gets just $9. It gets resold once and they lose that sale but the next sale has to be a first-time sale so they make another $9. They can of course lose the one following that if it's not an online purchase but the next sale again is a first-time sale so another $9. The game store still gets the in-between sales, the developer/publisher gets $27 vs $15 and the customer gets cheaper launch prices for games, which increases pre-orders and general first-time sales.
There's no reason why preventing used sales has to be bad but it can very easily turn people against Microsoft if they do it wrong. If they force people to enter long codes, prevent giving games to friends, have gamers with stacks of old game discs lying around that can't be sold on easily and maintain the high game prices we see today, they'll just hand the market over to Sony (assuming Sony doesn't do the same).
There's no reason why preventing used sales has to be bad but it can very easily turn people against Microsoft if they do it wrong. If they… …prevent giving games to friends…
That's exactly what is being done. If you play it on a different console, you have to pay full price to unlock the game for that console.
You'd have to give your console to a friend along with the game to be able to play it, but then he's playing it locked on your account.
…have gamers with stacks of old game discs lying around that can't be sold on easily and maintain the high game prices we see today…
I imagine that all games will always be playable via the "buy twice" method, but telling someone that he has to pay me first to get the game from me and then pay the company full price again to be "allowed" to play it will turn everyone off the console in the first place.
I find it interesting that everyone, or a vast majority of people find it necessary to pick this product apart solely for the fact that it doesn't have an image of a piece of fruit on the front. How about for once develop a positive outlook and recognize the hard work that a lot of people probably put into it and wish them luck? If it sucks, it'll fail and you all will be right. At the very least it'll force Apple/Sony etc to maybe try to continue innovating as Microsoft just did.
I find it interesting that everyone, or a vast majority of people find it necessary to pick this product apart solely for the fact that it doesn't have an image of a piece of fruit on the front.
Oh, you think that's the reason, do you?
How about for once develop a positive outlook…
How about for once develop a product that isn't a kick to the balls of your consumers?
…continue innovating as Microsoft just did.
Microsoft made a milk crate that is forced always-on, forced always-gimmick, and with DRM that would make EA swoon. That's "innovation" now?
It will be interesting to see how it's graphics power compares to the iPad.
The next iPad should be roughly level with the current-gen consoles. They should be able to port GTA 4 over to it and obviously the other console games. The XBox One was noted as being 5-6x faster than the 360. The PS4 was said to be 10x faster than the PS3.
There are diminishing returns though:
When you hit a certain quality level, further improvements are harder to see. They have things like tessellation to smooth out jagged edges, advanced skin shaders, particle effects, improved collision detection and physics and you can see these in the following PS4 demos:
How about for once develop a product that isn't a kick to the balls of your consumers?
Microsoft made a milk crate that is forced always-on, forced always-gimmick, and with DRM that would make EA swoon. That's "innovation" now?
Yes I do think that's the reason. I understand this is an Apple forum (as I sit here typing on my iMac BTW), but I just don't understand why it seems that every other product that any other company besides Apple puts out has to be viewed as a complete piece of crap or Apple did it better or whatever. I'm not defending M$ or any company in particular, it's just very discouraging that the negativity comes out every time there is a product announcement by a company other than Apple. If they had been the ones to actually put it out, the comments here would lean more towards statement like "Innovative" or "Revolutionary". Apple does a lot of stuff right, but they are not the only innovators in the world and they will not advance technology on their own. Anyone who comes out with something new should at least be given the chance to fail in the market rather than being derided just due to the fact that their product wasn't designed at Apple.
You mean to say that some XBox 360 launch hardware wasn't defective? I think the problem was big enough that they simply had to do that as damage control to save the division. The amount they had to write down to fix bad hardware was not chump change.
Reminds me of the first batch of NES's that came out. A ton of them had defective belt wireing and Nintendo wisely did the right thing and replaced them all for free as I recall.
Even still there were a LOT more 360's RRoD at launch.
I'm not a huge gamer and I've never paid the release price for a console but with this one I think I'm going to. It's basically a 360 but with all the complaints fixed. Like Kinect working when you stand closer to it, switching between apps being faster, supporting live tv from your cable box, actually installing a game without you needing to press a button and then not requiring the disk. Plus those gestures are super cool, voice is already amazing on the 360 so making it even better is just perfect.
As for the whole used game argument. Personally I don't care as I don't buy used games. But how is this different to what people already do on there phones and tablets? It also seems to stem from the idea that it's annoying needing to put the disk in when you've installed the game. But if you don't put the disk in how can they tell you still own the game? I also read that they've actually denied a lot of this and that it's most likely that you can sell a game and what will probably happen is when someone loads it on there machine your install will stop working.
Lastly, saying "Xbox On" and it turning on, recognising who you are.....that's cool.
If Apple really do have a TV coming out, I can't wait to see how it stacks up to this. Because the demo of this was fairly amazing.
Bit moot since Apple doesn't control the content. The only wy this kind of TiVo type trick works is if the content is properly tagged.
How exactly is that moot? It's what the consumer wants. I don't care how it can be done now, I just want it done for the future. Someone can build it so its not a trick. That's the whole point of innovation.
When someone makes an account based around anti-Apple posts…
Huh?!?! An account based around anti-Apple posts? The guy made one post- it said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew0020
I cannot wait. Look's amazing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
"Impressive"?! HA! That's a good one. Microsoft just killed their entire video game console industry.
Nice false concern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Nice false concern.
Not really that false. We do know Apple has been working on it, because Cook said so himself. But voice and gesture recognition is absolutely the way of the future. I think Microsoft won't get it right- I think Apple would. The question lies- is Apple going to actually go after it, or are they just going to focus on mobile. That's not false- that's a valid concern. Please recognize the difference.
Comments
Moderator edit: If you're joining just to crap on Apple, you're not long for this forum
It will be interesting to see how it's graphics power compares to the iPad.
Do you also find it amusing that Sony pays royalities to Microsoft for using Blu-ray?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iHasBeen
Looks like Microsoft beat Apple to the punch with the new XBOX. Whatever Apple eventually will show with iTV will be a yawner as a result. Maybe iTV will just be a longer TV.
Aren't you counting your chickens before they've hatched? These all-in-one TV things haven't been too successful in the past.
You mean to say that some XBox 360 launch hardware wasn't defective? I think the problem was big enough that they simply had to do that as damage control to save the division. The amount they had to write down to fix bad hardware was not chump change.
I bought a Xbox shortly after launch and so did a number of my friends and none of us had a problem. Guess we were part of a good batch.
Originally Posted by oneaburns
False concern?
Yes, your claim that you are worried that Apple has "given up" on a project you have decided to pretend they were working on at all is nothing more than that.
What, do you want to see receipts for all the Apple devices in my signature? Some pictures of me with them perhaps?
I couldn't care less. Because they don't matter. I don't care what you have or pretend to have. That you jump to this lets me know that I'm right, however, since it's nothing to do with the argument at hand.
…simply because I have the ability to give credit where it's due even when it's a competitor to Apple.
As long as you don't couple that with taking away credit where it never existed in the first place, whatever you want to say positive (truthful) about any company is fine.
To say "Microsoft just killed their entire video game console industry" makes you sound like a troll.
I gave reasons. Do you have any rebuttals to said reasons?
Originally Posted by caliminius
Forced to have Kinect plugged? It's an integral part of the control scheme. Just like how Apple forces iPad owners to use the touchscreen.
Wretched analogy. Come on, man, are you serious? No. It's like iPad users being forced to use a combination of the camera and gyroscope to control the OS and apps. Forcing them to have the camera on, no less.
See that thing next to the two boxes that has some buttons and curves? That's the primary control scheme.
And when it comes to the mythical apple produced TV, damn near everyone here is saying they should use Siri which is halfway to the Kinect forced usage you're bitching about.
I challenge your "near everyone" claim as well as your "halfway" claim. Does Siri force YOU to do a dance before you ask her a question? You really ought to take your iDevice in for repairs, then.
Forced to have an Internet connection? The device is mostly pointless without one…
Enough with your pathetic apologist nonsense! How can you possibly defend this DRM?
And how is this any different than the forced Internet connection the AppleTV requires?
What forced Internet connection? I hope you don't mean for Home Sharing or AirPlay.
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
…when its five billion transistors die a premature heat death.
I'm not sure about heat death for this one. Did you see the case? They basically put a computer in a sawed-off milk crate.
Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret
At the risk of opening a can of worms (and one of Tallest's deepest cuts), the 6th iPhone was called iPhone 5!!
It's just Microsoft copying Apple again. Nothing new here.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Guess we were part of a good batch.
You say it sarcastically, but you were.
I recall the fiasco really took the wind out of a quarter's profit for the whole company in order to keep the division viable. Maybe it's a bit much to say most of them failed, but a spectacular portion have.
I don't mind the move to preventing used games - this has long been in place on the PC. It met the same kind of resistance there but what alleviated it was Steam because there were no activation codes with online purchases, you permanently owned games without discs lying around and the games tended to be cheaper.
Dead Space is on sale right now on Steam for $12.50 for 1&2 but on Amazon for the 360, DS2 is $18.70 and DS1 is $18.40.
The reason to eliminate used sales is that once a game goes into the market, after the first sale, the publisher/developer makes nothing. On the first sale, they only make a fraction too. So say that a game costs $50, the original developer could make as little as 30% of it in profit. That game could get resold 4 times over the course of a year. Total revenue could be $150 for a single copy in a year but the original developer makes $15 from it.
The game stores love used games because it's very high margins for them:
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=23396
I'd have said that a good balance to benefit retailers, developers/publishers and individuals would have been the following:
- no activation codes. Burn a unique ID onto every disc and when the disc is tied to an online account, use the code automatically from the disc.
- allow every unique ID to have two non-simultaneous installs. That keeps the second-hand game market and allows someone to give a friend a copy (which then prevents resale).
- make the games cheaper in light of the increased first-time sales.
In the current system, if a game sells for $50, the original developer gets say $15. If it is resold 4 times with 25% off each time, it makes about $150.
Say they priced games at $30, the original developer gets just $9. It gets resold once and they lose that sale but the next sale has to be a first-time sale so they make another $9. They can of course lose the one following that if it's not an online purchase but the next sale again is a first-time sale so another $9. The game store still gets the in-between sales, the developer/publisher gets $27 vs $15 and the customer gets cheaper launch prices for games, which increases pre-orders and general first-time sales.
There's no reason why preventing used sales has to be bad but it can very easily turn people against Microsoft if they do it wrong. If they force people to enter long codes, prevent giving games to friends, have gamers with stacks of old game discs lying around that can't be sold on easily and maintain the high game prices we see today, they'll just hand the market over to Sony (assuming Sony doesn't do the same).
Originally Posted by Marvin
There's no reason why preventing used sales has to be bad but it can very easily turn people against Microsoft if they do it wrong. If they… …prevent giving games to friends…
That's exactly what is being done. If you play it on a different console, you have to pay full price to unlock the game for that console.
You'd have to give your console to a friend along with the game to be able to play it, but then he's playing it locked on your account.
…have gamers with stacks of old game discs lying around that can't be sold on easily and maintain the high game prices we see today…
I imagine that all games will always be playable via the "buy twice" method, but telling someone that he has to pay me first to get the game from me and then pay the company full price again to be "allowed" to play it will turn everyone off the console in the first place.
I find it interesting that everyone, or a vast majority of people find it necessary to pick this product apart solely for the fact that it doesn't have an image of a piece of fruit on the front. How about for once develop a positive outlook and recognize the hard work that a lot of people probably put into it and wish them luck? If it sucks, it'll fail and you all will be right. At the very least it'll force Apple/Sony etc to maybe try to continue innovating as Microsoft just did.
Originally Posted by johnnash
I find it interesting that everyone, or a vast majority of people find it necessary to pick this product apart solely for the fact that it doesn't have an image of a piece of fruit on the front.
Oh, you think that's the reason, do you?
How about for once develop a positive outlook…
How about for once develop a product that isn't a kick to the balls of your consumers?
…continue innovating as Microsoft just did.
Microsoft made a milk crate that is forced always-on, forced always-gimmick, and with DRM that would make EA swoon. That's "innovation" now?
The next iPad should be roughly level with the current-gen consoles. They should be able to port GTA 4 over to it and obviously the other console games. The XBox One was noted as being 5-6x faster than the 360. The PS4 was said to be 10x faster than the PS3.
There are diminishing returns though:
When you hit a certain quality level, further improvements are harder to see. They have things like tessellation to smooth out jagged edges, advanced skin shaders, particle effects, improved collision detection and physics and you can see these in the following PS4 demos:
http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/4telxd/killzone--shadow-fall-ps4-gameplay-demo
[VIDEO]
(3:21 in the 2nd video)
If Apple doubles performance every year, they should have comparable visuals in an iPad by about 2016-17.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Oh, you think that's the reason, do you?
How about for once develop a product that isn't a kick to the balls of your consumers?
Microsoft made a milk crate that is forced always-on, forced always-gimmick, and with DRM that would make EA swoon. That's "innovation" now?
Yes I do think that's the reason. I understand this is an Apple forum (as I sit here typing on my iMac BTW), but I just don't understand why it seems that every other product that any other company besides Apple puts out has to be viewed as a complete piece of crap or Apple did it better or whatever. I'm not defending M$ or any company in particular, it's just very discouraging that the negativity comes out every time there is a product announcement by a company other than Apple. If they had been the ones to actually put it out, the comments here would lean more towards statement like "Innovative" or "Revolutionary". Apple does a lot of stuff right, but they are not the only innovators in the world and they will not advance technology on their own. Anyone who comes out with something new should at least be given the chance to fail in the market rather than being derided just due to the fact that their product wasn't designed at Apple.
Even still there were a LOT more 360's RRoD at launch.
Originally Posted by johnnash
Anyone who comes out with something new should at least be given the chance to fail…
I like this wording, and I agree.
…being derided…
No, that's PART of the failure.
…just due to the fact that their product wasn't designed at Apple.
Is anyone saying that? I see far more people supporting Microsoft and lying about Apple than supporting Apple as the reason to deride Microsoft.
I'm not a huge gamer and I've never paid the release price for a console but with this one I think I'm going to. It's basically a 360 but with all the complaints fixed. Like Kinect working when you stand closer to it, switching between apps being faster, supporting live tv from your cable box, actually installing a game without you needing to press a button and then not requiring the disk. Plus those gestures are super cool, voice is already amazing on the 360 so making it even better is just perfect.
As for the whole used game argument. Personally I don't care as I don't buy used games. But how is this different to what people already do on there phones and tablets? It also seems to stem from the idea that it's annoying needing to put the disk in when you've installed the game. But if you don't put the disk in how can they tell you still own the game? I also read that they've actually denied a lot of this and that it's most likely that you can sell a game and what will probably happen is when someone loads it on there machine your install will stop working.
Lastly, saying "Xbox On" and it turning on, recognising who you are.....that's cool.
If Apple really do have a TV coming out, I can't wait to see how it stacks up to this. Because the demo of this was fairly amazing.
How exactly is that moot? It's what the consumer wants. I don't care how it can be done now, I just want it done for the future. Someone can build it so its not a trick. That's the whole point of innovation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
When someone makes an account based around anti-Apple posts…
Huh?!?! An account based around anti-Apple posts? The guy made one post- it said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew0020
I cannot wait. Look's amazing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
"Impressive"?! HA! That's a good one. Microsoft just killed their entire video game console industry.
Nice false concern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Nice false concern.
Not really that false. We do know Apple has been working on it, because Cook said so himself. But voice and gesture recognition is absolutely the way of the future. I think Microsoft won't get it right- I think Apple would. The question lies- is Apple going to actually go after it, or are they just going to focus on mobile. That's not false- that's a valid concern. Please recognize the difference.