keris

Just stop. Microsoft's cloud computing 'vision' for Xbox One remains unchanged.

Then can we agree that the TV features aren't actually going to sell the XOne. Doubly so if features like Netflix are behind a further XBox Live Gold subscription? And why would you say that hardcore gamers aren't the bulk of the people who are buying Call of Duty, Madden, FIFA, and even motion control games? They're still games, and the hardcore play games.

Two times have game consoles dipped into the mainstream, that's the PlayStation 2 and the Wii. The PS2 caught the wave of DVD adoption. The Wii captured people's imagination with Wii Sports. The PS3 tried to ride the wave of Blu-ray adoption, but that fizzled. Kinect tried to cash in on the Wii audience, but they'd already left their Wiis dusty and forgotten.

The only reason people are going to buy an XOne is because of a game. All of that TV, internet streaming, HDMI pass-through, fantasy league, skype shenanigans are just value-adds, cherry-on-top, sprinkles. They're toppings where as games are the ice cream, banana, and fudge.

Microsoft's emphasis on all these periphery features shows that they're less concerned with what will actually sell their system. The hardcore will be ones taking a chance to buy a system that may be a possible flop. The hardcore will be the ones to report with word-of-mouth to the mainstream if the XOne is worth purchasing. Regardless of that, developers will do the best with the system they're given. If some developer makes a great XOne game, then the system will sell. That's how it works.

@shinjin977: Fan boys exist because they're already deep in the XBox ecosystem. They're definitely already going to buy whatever games come out on the XOne. I don't think that anyone who isn't already in the XBox (i.e. the mass market) would actually get the XOne for its multimedia pass-through capabilities.

Even if you get a XOne, you'd still need the HDMI switch to choose between 360 and cable box.

@mcdayman said:

How is that going to sell to a mass market audience though? Who's going to pay $500 and then $60 a year to have a Kinect-enabled viewing experience? Is there actually a market segment that chose to buy a 360 and then paid for XBox Live Gold just to only watch Netflix?

DRM:

How big a chasm is Sony going to have to make people jump if they already have a digital system in place? This is about DRM affecting physical media. As it stands Sony's system is already ready for a digital future.

Always online:

Why is it that you don't understand that it's not about being onine, it's the requirement to be always (or near always) online or else the device loses functionality. Everyone understands that should connection to the internet be broken, then stuff like multiplayer gets busted. If one loses their connection to the iTunes store, their iPad doesn't become a brick as a result. Whatever app that doesn't use a connection still works fine.

Furthermore, why would people pay $500, and then $60 yearly to be able to watch Kinect-enabled Netflix? Sure, lots of people have anecdotes of how their friends lists are filled with people watching Netflix instead of playing games. But do you really think that those people bought their 360s solely based on its Netflix capabilities?

May I have S.P.A.Z.?

edit: Make that the pack that includes

• Vessel, Torchlight, Rochard, S.P.A.Z., and Shatter

Sure, I'll take the bait! The facts are as such: You were griefed in Red Dead Redemption (Normal or Hardcore) Free Roam. You didn't want to play in Friendly Free Roam (where you probably would have been griefed by people shooting your horse) because you felt there were insufficient people playing that mode. You devised an "experiment" (henceforth, referred to as "your experience") wherein you attempted to play in the mode where griefing is built in while not attempting any retaliatory or overtly offensive actions. The only quantitative data you recorded was time played, number of players met, and your number of deaths. You then come to this forum and present "your experience" and a qualitative conclusion as "your experience" being indicative of these players' individual mental health status. You then denigrated "gamers" as a whole as somehow being culpable in "your experience".

People in this forum expressed their misgivings about "your experience" masquerading as experiment and your conclusions from "your experience". You then engaged in deflection and name calling instead of attacking their arguments. You stated that because you don't engage in certain behavior, that such behavior does not exist. When grilled upon this point again, you gave a qualitative reason as to why it shouldn't be. I attempted to reinforce my arguments with articles and actual figures with actual data. You dismissed those arguments out of hand because Magnus Carlsen said something. I provided a retort as to why Magnus's quote does not apply. Eventually, you resorted to calling me "a idiot". You somehow concluded that I was "clearly a stupid human being, borderline retarded." You rebuffed my hinting that ad hominem attacks are fallacy and do not constitute good arguments.

My conclusions are such:

1. You are a loser. (This is evidenced by you dying repeatedly in RDR multiplayer)
2. You do not understand what science is and what role quantitative data plays into science.
3. You lack the proper credentials to make a ruling on the mental states of others.
4. You do not understand how to form a cogent and meaningful argument.
5. You lack empathy.

Thank you for so graciously conceding defeat and letting me win.

Well it's good that you acknowledge that ad hominem attacks are wrong.