What is MS strategy here?? (Xbox One)

[TreVader]

I am huge 360 fan. Got it on launch day, loved it since, still think PS3 doesn't hold a candle to it... but MS has done some stuff recently that I just don't understand. I'm still gonna buy the One... but it wasn't the easy decision it should've been.


The decisions I'm not understand are :

First and foremost, why the missing GPU cores? I get that it costs extra money, but they must have had a very good idea of what the PS4 would be packing... and with a simultaneous release date... is there something MS knows that we don't about the benefit of the extra cores?

Second, why the INSANE DRM policy that was later reversed? I really hope several people got fired for that, I don't know who thought that it would be a good idea to pitch games that your "rent" for $70 but they probably cut launch day sales of the One by a good 30% at minimum, if anything by virtue of people just not knowing about the reversal.

Third, What is the deal with the EDRAM and DDR vs GDDR? They already cut costs on die with the cores, why bother cutting them even more?


I still do believe that the controller alone makes the One a much better machine, but I hated and i mean HATED the DS2/DS3. I also think MS has a much better reputation for creating a working, engaging online environment than Sony.

I just wish they would've put more effort into listening to what people really wanted in a new console.

 

[purbeast0]

you should tweet major nelson and ask him, he would know more than random people on a tech forum.

already know the direction this thread is going.

 

[HeXen]

MS is just one of those corporations that relies too much on calculators and data and not enough common sense and thought about what their consumers want. Maybe all the workers fear for their job too much and just try to make the numbers look awesome for the investors more than they should...either way, I haven't been too fond of MS in any of their products since Ballmer took over and i'm glad he's gone.
They need some body with some balls and perfectionist attitude that will actually play with the products and say "hey, this here sucks, that sucks" ..etc and demand changes.

 

[Anteaus]

I think the bigger problem is the underlying war that seems to exist between MS fans and Sony fans. Just like in politics, neither can concede middle ground. The biggest problem is that there are all sorts of assumptions going around based incorrect suppositions and conjecture. It is a fact that the PS4 has superiority in some ways. However; contrary to popular belief that doesn't automatically translate to a linear performance boost. If that were the case why do we have CPUs today that destroy CPUs from 3-4 years back that actually sport higher clock speeds? Software design and overall architecture matter as much. There are real differences between the systems, and throwing a few extra shaders in the PS4's direction doesn't not guarantee anything. I still think the PS4 has the edge, but its quite possible that they needed that GDDR to make up for other deficits, so people really should just chill until the official results start pouring in late November.

My point is, don't let the naysayers making you feel bad about choosing the XB1 or vice-versus. A lot of people honestly don't know what they are talking about, especially when all they do is parrot websites. As someone who has been following the ATI versus Nvidia rhetoric for many years now, I can tell you beyond a reasonable doubt that no matter how much people talk about hardware, its what the developers do with it that actually matters. The AMD Bulldozer versus Intel i7 war is a good recent example. Everything on paper said Bulldozer should have been massive....ended up falling way short.

Until the PS4 and XB1 are in homes and that day 1 patch is released, I would take everything you read except factual hardware comparisons with a grain of salt.

MS really screwed up the PR on this one, and Sony fans have a long memory from when Sony made a few huge PR mistakes themselves as the 360 continued to be popular in spite of it's early problems. Punishment is currently the order of the day I guess.

 

[Gloomy]

Bone gets clowned

 

[exdeath]

Greed. Plain and simple. Trying to create the next cash cow to maximize profit for the least amount of effort with the least regard for your product or customers.

Just like cable and cellular providers. They want to hook you on a never ending subscription model rather than just sell you a product one time that you own and use whenever you want.

 

[zerocool84]

Kinect

That's most likely why they cut down on the GPU, to save money that goes to the more advanced Kinect. We definitely know the new Kinect is not cheap to make as it is a ton more advanced than the previous one so that's just my little assumption. Remember, Sony was going to bundle their Camera but chose to undercut Microsoft and keep it separate.

 

[boomhower]

Some combination of greed and stupidity best I can tell. I think they are banking on (incorrectly IMHO) of turning it into a media center and not just a gaming machine.

I like the PS4 better but Sony will not have a real racing game for 2-3 years on the PS4 for Xbone and Forza it is. I'll pick up a $199 PS4 then.

 

[Fulle]

Microsoft knew that what they wanted to do on the console absolutely needed a good amount of memory, and didn't feel confident enough in the amount of GDDR5 they would be able to supply with an 8GB target. So they went with DDR3.

DDR3 has less bandwidth than GDDR5, so MS needed to use eSRAM on the die of their APU, in order to compensate.

Meanwhile Sony got lucky, and was able to deliver on about twice as much GDDR5 than they expected (target was originally 4GB). Without eSRAM on their APU, they were able to use a slightly larger GPU without increasing costs vs MS.

The end result was Sony was able to deliver a faster console at the same build cost.

Then MS decided to package in Kinect, while Sony dropped their camera from their base console, and Xbox One ended up being 100 dollars more than the PS4.

On DRM, MS was obviously trying to move to policies push digital distribution and mitigate piracy and used game sales, to push up profits... but didn't do their homework on how receptive the market would be to these shifts. Too much too soon, IMO. Some of the ideas weren't that bad, MS just did a bad job of communicating the advantages until after negative fallout was out of control.

All the above considered, it's created a climate where if someone says they prefer the Xbox One, I assume they're either misinformed on the differences between the 2 consoles, or hopelessly biased. That, or they really really really like Forza.

 

[Anteaus]

All the above considered, it's created a climate where if someone says they prefer the Xbox One, I assume they're either misinformed on the differences between the 2 consoles, or hopelessly biased. That, or they really really really like Forza.

The problem with that analysis is that it implies that what MS did was unforgivable to the point of corporate bankruptcy. Many people aren't so black and white, and I think it's wrong to imply that the only way someone would actively choose the Xbox One over the PS4 is either they are misinformed or stupid (hopelessly biased*).

Personally I don't have a problem with what MS did because

A) MS changed their minds PRIOR to console release and didn't actively rip things out once it was in the hands of their gamers. Yes they made big blunders, but none of it actually affected gamers post purchase.

B) Some people still weigh overall design over the value of specific components. I used to not understand why some people would buy an overpriced iMac when they could have had a more powerful PC for less money, but I came to realize that some people people actually preferred the aesthetics and OSX even thought it meant less power and less available software. In other words, people want what they want and they aren't stupid because of it.

There is nothing wrong with being a Sony fan or the PS4 for that matter, but I take offense when close minded people think it's the only answer. I absolutely can't stand the angled case they created, although its marginally better than the PS3's shiny, rounded case. I really like the squared shape of the XB1 in comparison and I've been impressed with MS's controller design except for the very first Xbox controller.

All and all it's quite possible for someone to both be informed and still preferential toward the MS platform. And as to the Forza comment, if there are people out there that will buy the XB1 just because of Forza, then MS should be applauded for creating such a successful franchise, not criticized. Games sell consoles surer than any technical specification sheet, and there is a reason why Sony and MS spend millions securing exclusives.

As a PC gamer that upgrades regularly I know exactly what the specifications mean for both consoles, and I'm still planning on going with MS though I'm going to do the prudent thing and wait a few weeks after release. For all we know, it's quite possible for either company to brick units from the Day 1 patch or unintended manufacturing defects. In spite of that I do believe the PS4 will have a stronger release and has the momentum to stay number one unless Sony screws up. Considering the PS3 was in second place for the majority of it's service life it still had great success and I think many MS fans are mature enough to accept that as a possibility for the foreseeable future.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

MSFT's strategy is pretty simple. They want to replace all of your living room entertainment devices with the X1 (+ your cable/satellite box).

They did not aim to just design a great gaming console. That is the route Sony went, and it's the reason why they will fail in the next generation IMHO. They didn't think big enough or bold enough and within the next 5 years their platform will very weak compared to the innovations that are coming to X1.

 

[Fulle]

I didn't really say anything to suggest anyone should hold a grudge on the Xbox One policy reversal thing...

I don't think that there's much of a meaningful difference between the aesthetics of the case the consoles are in, to where it would be part of the decision making process... unless for some reason one or the other couldn't fit into a specific entertainment center.... Both are just black boxes.

The way the operating systems perform is more interesting, and would be a legitimate reason to prefer one vs the other, but we haven't had a chance to try them out yet.

What we have to go on so far, are hardware design choices, game differences, and price.

Sony's console has the better hardware choices, making it better at playing multiplatform 3rd party titles, and is less expensive. Its just heavily weighted in favor of the PS4 on objective differences....

Leading into my Forza comment. What's a legitimate and valid reason to purchase a console that has inferior hardware, that is also more expensive? It has meaningful exclusive game content I want. Right? I take that as a valid answer. So if you really really like Forza, yay Xbox One. No sarcasm.

Hell, I own a Wii U because there were a few specific exclusives I wanted my family to be able to play...

I also can agree with controllers being a factor, since adapters and 3rd party controller options are unreliable compared to first party controllers. We haven't had an opportunity to try either controller yet though, so it's hard to say which will be better. If a month from now, someone tells me they chose an Xbox One because they preferred the controller, after trying both, I'd consider it a completely logical decision.

But, right now, I don't think I'm being unfair to assume that a lot of the people who are pre-ordering an Xbox One are uninformed or biased, when the exclusive content isn't that meaningful on either console, and all the known objective differences are in favor of the PS4. It feels like they're choosing the inferior product off of brand preference, which is off-putting to me, as someone who's fairly neutral.

 

[zerocool84]

MSFT's strategy is pretty simple. They want to replace all of your living room entertainment devices with the X1 (+ your cable/satellite box).

They did not aim to just design a great gaming console. That is the route Sony went, and it's the reason why they will fail in the next generation IMHO. They didn't think big enough or bold enough and within the next 5 years their platform will very weak compared to the innovations that are coming to X1.

Except that all you can do with the Xbone is turn it on and change channels of your cable/satellite box so it's a glorified remote. Want to watch anything recorded on your DVR? Have to pull out the remote for it.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Except that all you can do with the Xbone is turn it on and change channels of your cable/satellite box so it's a glorified remote. Want to watch anything recorded on your DVR? Have to pull out the remote for it.

Kinect as the driver is a huge upgrade for user experience. Plus that's only the tip of the iceberg. As the platform matures expect to see major innovation. Rumor has it X1 will be able to run apps off the windows store. There is just so much potential in the x1 platform, hard to predict what we will see but we know MSFT will continue to innovate. Plus you will be able to sync all your media across wp8/surface/etc seamlessly. You are really underestimating the platform that MSFT is building. If this were just about games then obv Sony has the upper hand, but its not so stop pretending it is. Our consoles are used for way more than games these days

Meanwhile on the ps4 you can't even play mp3s.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Completely agree with Fulle - exactly my thoughts.

In my case, that is exactly the reason I am considering an XBO. I know it is is less powerful, but I also dont particularly care. Saving $100 doesnt mean much if I still cant buy that game I like (Forza).

I think Microsoft's thinking was that they wanted to reduce costs and be profitable out the gate. No more subsidizing expensive hardware in order to sell software. Nintendo never subsidizes hardware, so they make a profit on each and every console, whereas historically, MS and Sony have invested into hardware into order to make a profit with software later. I dont think MS wanted to do this anymore, or at least, not make as much of a loss on consoles.

I think the reason that Kinect is included, is that MS does not want the XBO to be just another games console. They want it to be different, like the Wii was different. They want the innovative control scheme (in their opinion) to be a big selling point, as well as the TV integration possibilities. Its market differentiation.

As for DRM, who knows? My guess is that a senior exec dictated policy regarding DRM, and the underlings had to follow. When the backlash became too great, they had to relent.

 

[DaveSimmons]

It's just a reversal of last generation:

PS3 - Sony was arrogant, saying you could "work two jobs" to pay for their $600 do-everything box. It had a tricky design (Cell processor) that was harder to get to work right. They assumed everyone would buy it because of the PS2's success.

360 - MS was hungry to take the crown away from Sony. They came in cheaper, with an easier to use design, and cared about developers.

But now:

PS4 - Sony went with the simpler design that was easier for developers, and priced it cheaper. They reached out to indie developers and learned a bit of humility.

X1 - MS took the lead in America, but also grabbed the arrogance crown from Sony as well. They were dismissive of indie developers, thought they could charge an extra $100, and went with a harder to use design to save them money. They decided developers will take it and like it because 360. Users would bend over for DRM because Halo.

 

[Wingznut]

To be fair, there were advantages to the initial "INSANE DRM policy that was later reversed"... i.e. Games installed fully to the HDD offer faster load times and no disc switching between games.

MS did an absolutely horrific job of marketing the positives of their policy.
Does this outweigh the negatives? Probably not for most users.

MS is entirely shortsighted for not finding a better solution that could offer the full install, yet allow them to protect their interests.

 

[ImpulsE69]

MSFT's strategy is pretty simple. They want to replace all of your living room entertainment devices with the X1 (+ your cable/satellite box).

They did not aim to just design a great gaming console. That is the route Sony went, and it's the reason why they will fail in the next generation IMHO. They didn't think big enough or bold enough and within the next 5 years their platform will very weak compared to the innovations that are coming to X1.

You are actually giving MS too much credit. Sure..it could go that way, but really MS hasn't innovated anything since Windows. They have a tough time delivering what they promise.

 

[Fulle]

Sony's doing a good job on bad press today, I've just realized.

No DLNA, MP3, or external HDD support at launch, and for Blu Ray playback (along with a lot of other basic features), you need a 300MB day 1 patch!

Shuhei Yoshida commented on twitter that Sony is considering patching in MP3 and DLNA support.
- Sony established The Digital Living Network Alliance in 2003, and the PS3 also patched in DLNA after the initial console launch, so lack of a DLNA patch for PS4 would be surprising.

Xbox One also has a day 1 patch for advertised features. They've announced it won't be a media center extender, and have remained quiet on DLNA.

Anyway, neither console has me enthused about "media center" capabilities right now.... Meanwhile, the Ouya works well with XBMC.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Media center means playing friendly with content bought through other providers. Both companies want to make sure that you have to buy content through them. So why implement DLNA? They dont make any money from it.

You aren't buying a device that can do everything you need in your living room. That may be how it is marketed, but that is not what it is. What you are buying is a storefront - a means to buy content from either Sony or Microsoft. Everything about these new consoles is geared to selling you content, and that is why neither is really a decent HTPC, unlike the PS3.

 

[BrightCandle]

Both consoles have gone backwards in being HTPC like devices underneith the TV. But with the previous gen neither of the consoles supported a wide enough list of formats or worked well enough to really be used in that role with HD. They just weren't quick enough. You had to encode very precisely to their settings at the detriment of quality to the video source.

Not having any such features on the new consoles doesn't really surprise me, they did it so badly on the previous generation they think nobody wants it and that they are better off just pushing their video download service. On the 360 I could never understand why DVD quality came with 5.1 surround and HD came with 2.1. Surely the guy wanting the higher quality image also wants the higher quality sound?! Its that sort of rubbish that drove me away from that solution to begin with. With the PS3 I used linux to playback movies until they ripped out the other OS support. I don't trust either of them to fullfill that role under my TV and I bought a HTPC instead. Now I don't care what they are doing with movies/TV because I have my own solution which will be vastly superior to whatever they deliver. Their greed and ignorance on what mattered to their customers made me quite angry with both companies.

I don't know what MS's strategy is, they have explained it as this media hub and yet without the basics of connectivity to the other devices on the home lan to even accept video and the highly likely DRMed to extreme system I can't imagine that is how its going to play out. Sadly I think its a mess from both of them on that front. If I buy either it will be because it games well and there is a game I really want on it and not on the PC (which has a controller for those rare games like Sleeping dogs that really do play better on such a thing). When streaming gets fully released I suspect I'll be playing PC games under my TV and I might never get a console after that point, we shall see. But the mixed messages I am getting about both these devices aren't convincing me that either company has a good strategy in place, its certainly not speaking to me and I bought a PS3, xbox360 and a wii in the previous gen.

 

[HeXen]

A) MS changed their minds PRIOR to console release and didn't actively rip things out once it was in the hands of their gamers. Yes they made big blunders, but none of it actually affected gamers post purchase.

That's not the point, the fact that they considered such tells you what kind of mindset that company has and could have again later in the future. So it's far more likely that they will come up with some other hair brained scheme to extort more nickels and dimes from your wallet. Like how they hid the true cost of purchases behind points..little things like that along with marketing gimmicks and tricks is what type of company MS really is, I mean every company tries something but MS is very consistent with these types of things. Like a crackhead constantly looking for that dime and never stops. It's annoying. They can retract those types of things all they want but they always do it again in some other way or through some other product or service. Money is crack to them.

 

[Tweak155]

Kinect

That's most likely why they cut down on the GPU, to save money that goes to the more advanced Kinect. We definitely know the new Kinect is not cheap to make as it is a ton more advanced than the previous one so that's just my little assumption. Remember, Sony was going to bundle their Camera but chose to undercut Microsoft and keep it separate.

Where was this stated?

Microsoft knew that what they wanted to do on the console absolutely needed a good amount of memory, and didn't feel confident enough in the amount of GDDR5 they would be able to supply with an 8GB target. So they went with DDR3.

Snip...

MINE! I may be late but this is a first post in 5 years. Takes a console release to bring this guy out of the woodworks.

 

[bearxor]

MSFT's strategy is pretty simple. They want to replace all of your living room entertainment devices with the X1 (+ your cable/satellite box).

I think it's even simpler than this.

Microsoft's strategy (and Sony's) is to be profitable in the first quarter of release. That means selling the hardware at a profit.

I think that management at Microsoft is not going to be willing to burn another 3 or 4 years in the red to make inroads in the living room. They will find some other way to do it if the Xbox division begins costing them too much.

If the X1 isn't a success by EOY 2014, I have a pretty strong feeling Microsoft will start pulling out of the market. And, personally, I think they will lose. Every advantage they had with the 360 is gone.

A more easily understood architecture that let developers quickly and easily get up and running as well as being on-par with the hardware Sony is putting out? Nope.
A year early? Nope.
Two hundred dollars cheaper? Nope.

That means that Microsoft is going to have to rely on first-party games in order to attract its fan base to purchase a X1. To me, the only titles they have that matter are Forza, Halo and Gears. Gears is an unknown. Forza is the release game.

That leaves Halo 5. For fall 2014. That will be it for Microsoft. If a new Halo release doesn't bring significant sales to the console, Microsoft will start throwing in the towel.

 

[Aikouka]

Microsoft's strategy is to integrate their machine into your daily life. You'll use it while you watch football games to keep tabs on your fantasy football or whatever.

Also, from what the rumors have said, Microsoft and Sony didn't know what the other was doing until it was announced. Supposedly, Microsoft didn't expect 8GB of RAM, and Sony unbundled the camera to win out on price.

No DLNA, MP3, or external HDD support at launch, and for Blu Ray playback (along with a lot of other basic features), you need a 300MB day 1 patch!

I'm not terribly surprised by any of this. Both Microsoft and Sony have made concessions in regard to features available on day one. If I had to guess, they realized that it was not feasible to get everything into the build and properly tested. So, they had to push things out and possibly remove things. For example, while the XBOX One has the ability to store data on external drives, that feature is not available at launch!

The lack of BR playback without an update is most likely just because it isn't gaming related. Sure, most of the stuff is somewhat handled with games (games have FMVs after all), but the biggest different is in the BR menus, which are done in BD-J. They most likely didn't want to waste time ensuring proper BD-J support for the software build that got sent to manufacturing.

As for the missing features, if I had to guess, Sony figured they weren't that popular. As mentioned, Yoshida said that they might be added in the future, so if you really want it, definitely let Sony know. How else would they know that they're removing a desired feature!

Anyway, neither console has me enthused about "media center" capabilities right now.... Meanwhile, the Ouya works well with XBMC.

As someone that put up with the annoyance of shared libraries between dissimilar hardware for way too long, I'll stick with Windows-based HTPCs.