Xbox 720 Reveal

[Katphood]

Microsoft should be focusing on exclusives right now, it's the only thing that might save them.

[Nepenthe]

Should be noted that the PS3 posted up there was the most basic model. for 50-100 bucks more you could get a 60 or 80 gig hd instead of the 20 (which didn't have enough room for much more than game saves).

And the x360 didn't have even that...

[licketysplit]

$499 is a bit of a jump, but at the same time they are intending to do more (and presumably hit a wider audience) with it as well.  Though the price point will still hurt widespread adoption on some level.  I'm curious how much, however.

 

As will the kinect. Most gamers want nothing to do with the thing, but it's a required peripheral. Stupid decision by MS. 

[alanschu]

Kinect has roughly a 1/3 install base as an optional buy in, which isn't that bad at all.

 

I don't care for the kinect (though I find it's non-gaming applications a lot more intriguing).  Since the Kinect is built into the console, it's a misnomer to say it's a "required peripheral" and frankly, I'm not surprised that Microsoft invested in it given that they are trying to hit more than just gamers with the device (whether that is successful remains to be seen... as I said, the pricepoint will be a big driver for that).  I don't know how much Kinect contributes to the overall cost (because there's also cost savings, by having it integrated rather than separate), but I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out being a big advantage for pushing the console into the living room, nor will I be surprised if it ends up flubbing it.

 

Sony is hardly immune from adding things that "many gamers" couldn't care about to their console as well.  I, however, also feel that gamers are innately quite conservative, and the only way to get them to like something else is to give them something else.  They rarely ask for it, they only ask for what they know (i.e. sequels).  At least among the more outspoken people.  (The only consistent thing that the masses indicate that they typically want more improvements on, is immediately obvious things like graphics).

Edited June 22, 2013 by alanschu

[Meshugger]

I am starting to think that the console wars are one of the many manifestations on why we aren't exploring space as one yet.

[alanschu]

Why risk dying when we can create video games to satisfy said enjoyment!

[anubite]

Iwata made a pretty good point in an IGN article: Software is key. He hypothesizes the handheld market could have crashed without Pokemon, that the Wii could have doomed Nintendo without Wii Sports, and that the 3DS saw its sales grow considerably with each new major Nintendo title.

 

People buy consoles for the games. Did people buy the PS2 because it could play DVDs? Or did they buy it because it had the largest game library in existence at the time? Did people buy the PS3 to play BluRays? Or did they buy it to play games? They could have just bought a DVD or BluRay player, instead of a console. At best, peripheral features help distinguish consoles from each other on launch day. But they aren't going to move units for the larger audience. I'm not convinced the Xbox One can sell on its TV features alone - google and apple have had their own smart TV ideas that went nowhere.

 

Mobile hasn't taken over the DS/3DS like many analysis predicted - and that's because Mobile's crowning glory is a single title: Angry Birds. I happen to think Iwata's theory is pretty solid. And let's remind everyone: The 3DS didn't sell beacuse it offered 3D. It had pretty mediocre sales at lauch, which gave market analysis a field day.

 

The showing of games for the XB1/PS4 did not impress me. I won't be buying the consoles until I see some solid reasons. For instance, I was pretty disappointed by Clang! - but maybe it's the kind of thing that could work with the Kinect sensor? I've always wanted a full motion sword fighting game, ever since the Wii came out - but I've yet to find one that gets anywhere close to what I want. A game like that could draw me to the Xbox One (well, realistically, I'd prefer to have at least six or seven games that draw my interest), but all we saw was more of the same.

 

Also, here's my theory: The COD players look up to buy the next Xbox for the latest COD. But, they see it's $500 USD. That's kind of pricy, so maybe they check out the PS4 instead? They check and see the next COD is coming to the PS4. So, they buy it because it's a $100 bux cheaper. That seems like a pretty possible scenario that could lose M$ this race. Is the average COD player going to be drawn to the TV features on the Amazon or Best Buy page? Will they think any of that is worth $100 USD?

Edited June 23, 2013 by anubite

[Calax]

 

Should be noted that the PS3 posted up there was the most basic model. for 50-100 bucks more you could get a 60 or 80 gig hd instead of the 20 (which didn't have enough room for much more than game saves).

And the x360 didn't have even that...

 

The price quoted above for the 360 was with a memory stick, which was all of 500 mb(?) of saving or something stupid. The "real" price which included a hard drive was 100 bucks more expensive (400 instead of 300, which still beat Sony's launch prices) It took until sony removed the backwards compatibility to get the price to the point most households would buy it.

[Nepenthe]

Did people buy the PS3 to play BluRays?

A lot of people did, since, for years, it was the best blu-ray player available, could still be for all I know.

 

I know I did.

[AwesomeOcelot]

Without Blu-Ray PS3 would have been much less successful, since players were really expensive (I seem to recall $500-1000) the PS3 price wasn't so painful if you had a HD television and needed a Blu-Ray player. Without a Blu-Ray player the PS3 would never have gotten the install base initially for publishers to target it, especially with the difficulties of developing for it.

 

The Xbox1-80 needs the equivalent of that, or I can't see people willing to pay $500. Do Microsoft think their TV integration is the equivalent? Course correction is reasonably simple for them though, get rid of the Kinect, drop price $75-100. It's still going to be less powerful than the PS4 with a less impressive exclusive line up.

[BruceVC]

Without Blu-Ray PS3 would have been much less successful, since players were really expensive (I seem to recall $500-1000) the PS3 price wasn't so painful if you had a HD television and needed a Blu-Ray player. Without a Blu-Ray player the PS3 would never have gotten the install base initially for publishers to target it, especially with the difficulties of developing for it.

 

The Xbox1-80 needs the equivalent of that, or I can't see people willing to pay $500. Do Microsoft think their TV integration is the equivalent? Course correction is reasonably simple for them though, get rid of the Kinect, drop price $75-100. It's still going to be less powerful than the PS4 with a less impressive exclusive line up.

 

Don't you guys think people will buy the Xbox1 because only certain and newer console games will run on it, especially as time go's on? $500 is what PC fans can spend just on a Video Card and we buy it for the enhanced visual experience. So I don't think $500 is unreasonable for a persons improved gaming experience

[Keyrock]

While multimedia capabilities certainly don't hurt, I do agree with the sentiment that it's the games that sell the console.  At the moment I have no plans to buy any "next gen" console, but just hearing Shin Megami Tensei X Fire Emblem gives me wood and makes me at least think about picking up a WiiU, despite the fact that it's easily the least technically impressive console of the 3.  If they release a proper Metroid (it will certainly happen eventually) and a F-Zero (sadly, doubtful), there's a decent chance I'd buy the system just for those games.

[Morgoth]

While multimedia capabilities certainly don't hurt, I do agree with the sentiment that it's the games that sell the console.  At the moment I have no plans to buy any "next gen" console, but just hearing Shin Megami Tensei X Fire Emblem gives me wood and makes me at least think about picking up a WiiU, despite the fact that it's easily the least technically impressive console of the 3.  If they release a proper Metroid (it will certainly happen eventually) and a F-Zero (sadly, doubtful), there's a decent chance I'd buy the system just for those games.

 

I hear you. Right now neither Sony nor MS do anything that makes me buy either system, and given both's trackrecord, I don't think this is gonna change.

 

Give me a SMT and a real Metroid Prime however and I might hammer down some cash, as a complement to my masterrace machine.

[AwesomeOcelot]

Don't you guys think people will buy the Xbox1 because only certain and newer console games will run on it, especially as time go's on? $500 is what PC fans can spend just on a Video Card and we buy it for the enhanced visual experience. So I don't think $500 is unreasonable for a persons improved gaming experience

That graphics card will have over 3.5 times the compute power of the entire Xbox1-80 on its own, very few people buy cards that expensive, and very few people would spend more than $450 on a console. If you look at previous generations, and the current competition, $500 is expensive, and in a territory that's only been successful with the PS3 which can be explained by the Blu-Ray player since you'd be paying more than a PS3 for a Blu-Ray player. For a lot of people, especially with the charge per month to play online (that's going to be $45-60 a year). $500 is above the range they're willing to pay, and there are two competitors that will be better priced, despite what Nintendo say, they will be dropping the price of the WiiU.

[Katphood]

F-Zero (sadly, doubtful)

Doubtful indeed: http://www.gamespot.com/news/f-zero-future-uncertain-says-miyamoto-6410547

[BruceVC]

 

Don't you guys think people will buy the Xbox1 because only certain and newer console games will run on it, especially as time go's on? $500 is what PC fans can spend just on a Video Card and we buy it for the enhanced visual experience. So I don't think $500 is unreasonable for a persons improved gaming experience

That graphics card will have over 3.5 times the compute power of the entire Xbox1-80 on its own, very few people buy cards that expensive, and very few people would spend more than $450 on a console. If you look at previous generations, and the current competition, $500 is expensive, and in a territory that's only been successful with the PS3 which can be explained by the Blu-Ray player since you'd be paying more than a PS3 for a Blu-Ray player. For a lot of people, especially with the charge per month to play online (that's going to be $45-60 a year). $500 is above the range they're willing to pay, and there are two competitors that will be better priced, despite what Nintendo say, they will be dropping the price of the WiiU.

 

 

I'm convinced we in South Africa are over charged for PC hardware, how much does a Geforce GTX680 SOC  cost in your country. We pay $780

[Keyrock]

 

 

Don't you guys think people will buy the Xbox1 because only certain and newer console games will run on it, especially as time go's on? $500 is what PC fans can spend just on a Video Card and we buy it for the enhanced visual experience. So I don't think $500 is unreasonable for a persons improved gaming experience

That graphics card will have over 3.5 times the compute power of the entire Xbox1-80 on its own, very few people buy cards that expensive, and very few people would spend more than $450 on a console. If you look at previous generations, and the current competition, $500 is expensive, and in a territory that's only been successful with the PS3 which can be explained by the Blu-Ray player since you'd be paying more than a PS3 for a Blu-Ray player. For a lot of people, especially with the charge per month to play online (that's going to be $45-60 a year). $500 is above the range they're willing to pay, and there are two competitors that will be better priced, despite what Nintendo say, they will be dropping the price of the WiiU.

 

 

I'm convinced we in South Africa are over charged for PC hardware, how much does a Geforce GTX680 SOC  cost in your country. We pay $780

 

Generally these days around $450-500, though you could get one cheaper if you look hard enough.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Keyrock

[Monte Carlo]

Just pre-ordered 2 x PS4. Will sell one of my pre-orders during the Xmas stampede for a modest profit and keep the other. Monte Junior and I are looking forward to playing Diablo 3 co-op on it. Assuming Diablo 3 is on the PS4 of course.

[Azdeus]

I'm convinced we in South Africa are over charged for PC hardware, how much does a Geforce GTX680 SOC  cost in your country. We pay $780

 

 

680$ here in Sweden.

[Monte Carlo]

About UK£ 400.

[Keyrock]

Man, the mark up in some countries is staggering.  'Murica **** yeah!

 

 

 

[AwesomeOcelot]

Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition goes for around £360 which is around $550, but then the Xbox1-80 is $660, the card is cheaper than $500 in the US which I thought we were talking about since Xbox1-80 is $500 in the US.

Edited June 23, 2013 by AwesomeOcelot

[Azdeus]

Man, the mark up in some countries is staggering.  'Murica **** yeah!

 

Hehehe, well, that's the price we pay for free healthcare, same-sex marriages and... stuffs.

 

I'd honestly be terrified if the guy in the first picture was my neighbour...

[Spider]

Man, the mark up in some countries is staggering.  'Murica **** yeah!

 

It's mostly taxes. prices in Sweden 8and most of Europe) is usually cited including sales tax. Americans tend to say their prices excluding taxes. If you'd add the Swedish sales tax to the $550, it'd be $687, so roughly the same price.

[Keyrock]

 

Man, the mark up in some countries is staggering.  'Murica **** yeah!

 

It's mostly taxes. prices in Sweden 8and most of Europe) is usually cited including sales tax. Americans tend to say their prices excluding taxes. If you'd add the Swedish sales tax to the $550, it'd be $687, so roughly the same price.

 

You sales tax is 25%!?