According to Don Mattrick, innovation is exclusive to Xbox One, in the form of kinect and smart glass. He also defends the $499 price by claiming the Xbox one is worth $1000s and that Microsoft is "over-delivering value". The video

Isn't this vaguely reminiscent of what Sony did at the beginning of the last generation? Just seems familiar.

Yep. But despite Sony's rocky start, lack of games and perceived arrogance, they still ended up neck and neck with MS in this generation.

If Sony survived that and all the associated memes ($599 US DOLLARS! Get a second job! Cell powered refrigerators!), anyone who thinks the XB1 will flop because of E3 is kidding themselves.

This is the head of Microsoft gaming, talking about a console they just unveiled and which they want a lot of people to buy. What would you expect him to say? "Well we know it's $100 more expensive than the PS4 man we really blew it but shucks hope some people still buy it or were fucked" It's not news that he's talking shop to try and get people to buy his product.

Exclusive to Xbox One....innovation. Advancement in all other fields has halted. Only the Xbox One can innovate. There's a way to sell your product without sounding like an asshole, or more accurately, an idiot.

Love how the spiel about innovation rolled right into Halo 5.

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS of value folks, even though its a crazy comparison, i do get where he's coming from when he says when compared to other electronics $499 isnt too bad,

but saying consumers are getting THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS of value...............jesus

Microsoft's hubris is quite fascinating to see on display, i am ultimately curious to see if it pays off for them and if nasty policies and ok exclusives (except titanfall) be dammned, and this thing takes off due to the "shiny appeal" of controlling your tv and changing inputs with your voice.

or if they become the sony of 2006 this gen and suffer a good lead/momentum because of it.

even when Microsoft is right, Microsoft makes it wrong by the way they say things

Yeah the thousands of dollars comment is crazy. It's not even true. In terms of hardware it's actually not a bad deal though. A PC box with similar CPU, GPU, and RAM, power supply, and a 360 controller pack will be around $500-$550 but that doesn't include the Kinect.

But then they go and destroy a large percentage of that value to the customer by locking it down and smearing DRM crap into every hole.

I don't think we should be surprised at all that a lead executive right after E3 is talking up their console or game as the best thing to ever exist on the earth. It's how these hype men talk. Just because the last big console war reveal was nearly a decade ago doesn't mean we have to forget how ridiculous they are initially.

My prediction for Don Mattrick's next comment highlighted on NeoGAF and then reposted here:

"$499 is nothing! I've got that in my pocket right now. If gamers are really crunched for cash, they can always whore themselves out. I mean, how do you think I paid for college? Just look at this boyish smile! $499 in a few days, easy. We're basically running a charity by offering this thing at only $499."

I think Mattrick's comments about the always online thing are pretty interesting - "Fortunately we have a product for people who aren't able to get some kind of connectivity and it's called Xbox 360."

Dude's got balls the size of the earth for saying that, but I respect that he defended their policies. That said, I won't be buying an Xbox One but it's pretty cool that he didn't back down.

@humanity: A slightly more political response? If he had talked about why they thought the Xbox One is worth its restrictions and price, Don Mattrick wouldn't be villainized across GAF/other forums. If he focused on explaining why having an online console will benefit games (ensure patches, expanded features to all users, voice recognition as a featured part of gaming and interactivity, etc.), people would be willing to come to his side. People praise things like Siri for its abilities to set an alarm and sometimes give you directions, and Microsoft is trying to bring a giant microphone and camera for interactions into the public's livingrooms. It would help if they didn't sound like the PR manager has gone to sleep and the executives are left to say whatever crosses their mind. Thousands of dollars? my phone can do what the Xbox One can do. Run Aereo for live TV, voice and "gesture" navigation, "always online" except everything still works on an airplane, it notifies me in the background for my fantasy league and plays games. So if they ripped off Android/iOS and shoved it on an Xbox....

Microsoft has (some) tech cred to trade on. It should focus on what it enables, rather than what it disables. Apple has done that for years, and they have the largest, most walled-in ecosystem ever. Sony came out and stated that their console is heading right for Steam and the console players of today. Want the box that will do what the Steambox might do (if it gets released... ever)? Indies, AAA and all? Check out the PS4. Reasonable price point, big library of F2P and AAA games, and the support of a company that has come back from the PS3 launch and the PSN network failure to make a box that has outsold the Xbox 360 to date worldwide. They make games like Uncharted, and put that on a stage next to Puppeteer. Transistor and Killzone. Kingdom Hearts III and Octodad.

@slag: Or maybe there is literally nothing they can say that won't be twisted and manipulated by Internet fanboys with nothing better going on in their lives than to find every last thing to HATE about the Xbox One? Confirmation bias, especially among small, insular communities, can be truly crazy.

I want more value packed into this thing, I am okay with 500$ but the 24 hour check in thing and the fact that PSN seems like considerably a better deal, ad to the fact that the dashboard is fucking plastered with adds when I pay for gold, aside from the fact that XBL with theoretically still be a stronger service in terms of the ecosystem and online matchmaking stuff it is a no brainier, it just seems fucked that I may end up paying 100 more for a system that is less capable hardware wise and comes with more what if scenarios.

The talk about Microsoft treating us like a demographic is true and is really annoying, and it is starting to piss me off.

BUT. Xbox has the games I want, so it is a tough situation.

@oginor: That's true about to so some extent, but Microsoft definitely has a major approach problem in the way they pitch stuff. They are doing a very very poor job of relating to their customers.

They don't acknowledge legitimate customer concerns at all, instead they tend to be very dismissive of them. They also come across as very arrogant and portray themselves as being without fault. Instead of listening, they are lecturing. Good Sales techniques are conversation based.

When you say stuff like "we are delivering thousands of dollars of value" when you know consumers already think you are too high that's going to sound really tone def and bad to them.

If you are trying to convince me of something I'm incredulous about don't tell me about the value Don Mattrick, Show me the value. Let me be the one who decides if you are overdelivering on value or not.

That is why people recoil, their approach comes across as an uncaring command. Consumes don't like being told what to think, very very few pitchmen (notably Steve Jobs) have the gift to pull off that approach.

It's a totally solvable problem in their approach and for reasons I cannot fathom they seem to not be even trying to correct it.

Would be nice if he would tell us what this value is they are giving us.

I mean find me a off the shelf PC that runs any game at 1080p 60 FPS for $500.

The man ain't wrong i guess but whatever.

PS4 HAS WON NEXT GEN

I guess it depends on how you define "worth" and "value." For certain interpretations, those statements make sense.

Speaking of sense, wouldn't it make more of it to just ignore the PR spin-doctoring going on up until the console actually launches?

This is such a 180º difference from last generation when talking about Sony & Microsoft.

@the_laughing_man: This is what I mean by confirmation bias..MS spent 3 hours showing you the value they're giving you - they showed you more impressive media features, more impressive gaming features, and far more exclusive content - what more could you want in terms of showing you the value they're giving you?! Just because you don't like DRM policies doesn't mean MS hasn't shown you a product with real value.

I have no issue with the DRM. I want to know what this thousands of dollars in value they keep toting.

@the_laughing_man: Ever run a dedicated server? How about 300,000 of them? I'd say access to that is, quite literally, providing the consumer access to thousands of dollars in value.

Ok where was that said? I only heard that for BF4 and Titan fall. Will Assassins Creed 4 have them? Ghosts?

Does PS4 offer dedicated servers?

@the_laughing_man: MS has said that any developer who wants to take advantage of cloud computing for Xbox One games has full access to do so. Not to mention, some of the console's core functionality will be cloud-driven as well (your library on any Xbox One, etc).

As to PS4 offering dedicated servers - not in an analogous way as far as the documentation and publicity is concerned, to the best of my knowledge. You'd think if it could, Sony would have at least made mention.

The issue has never been E3. The issue is their anti consumer policies that were revealed BEFORE the show even began. I don't think you realize how big a deal it is for people to be able to rent/lend games and to buy/sell their used games without restriction. Do you really believe all the criticism that's been sent in the direction of the Xbone One isn't a big deal?

Just googled it. All X1 multiplayer games will have their owner servers. This is great news.

MS and Sony have said its up the publishers about reselling games and I doubt any of them will be like " No you cant do that"

And if this Shared library thing is what it sounds like you can easily share with 10 people any game in your library.

i find it hard to believe that the sharing with 10 people in your circle is as easy as it sounds (thats badass if its that easy),

if it is then that could easily be exploited and be worse for ALL the corporations involved, cause that will definitely eat into used games, rentals, and new games,

cause then whats the incentive for a consumer to do any of the 3 when you can just wise up and hook up with a friend and be part of their sharing circle?

@the_laughing_man:

I think the whole messaging issue here for MS is a simple case of HUGE NERDS (seriously...Don Mattrick founded a software company at 17...in 1982) thinking/being forced to 'corporate-speak' about something they're really, really excited about. As a fellow nerd who also works in the business world, I can completely relate. I'm surprised more gaming nerds can't, quite frankly. I guess I'm in the minority, but I feel like I can "see" the potential in this device that doesn't exist in the PS4...the same potential and innovation that Mattrick and MS clearly see/have seen, but just aren't doing a good job getting out there.

NO, it's about DRM and incentives not to buy used. Sony doesn't have an online DRM system in place like Microsoft has with Azure. You don't ever have to be online with the PS4 to play single player games. Publishers will have to follow Sony's policy about the system being offline to play. So they will either make their game online only (The Divinity/Destiny) or will give some kind of incentives to buy new over used, like additional levels for the SP campaign, and more MAPs for the MP. Sony doesn't have an Azure system like Microsoft does, so Publishers will have to find other ways to dissuade people from buying used over new. Microsoft's 24 hours check-in is ALL Microsoft's idea, because that's done at the system level with their Azure servers. Publishers may get a kickback because of Partnered retailers, but don't think Microsoft doesn't get something out of every kickback from the Publishers to use Microsoft's Azure system. Yes, Microsoft said they are not charging RETAIL any Fees, that it's all the publishers, but if you see how that is worded it doesn't say Microsoft doesn't charge the Publishers.

As for the shared Family plan, only ONE person can use it at any given time.

@mikewarrior: Correction...only YOU and one other person at the same time.

Please prove this to me

http://slumz.boxden.com/f13/xbox-one-family-share-plan-clarification-1939418/

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license

The second one is straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak - see the 4th bullet point.

You're welcome.

"You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time."

That says you can always play your games, and One person can play your shared library at a given time. That does not mean they can play the same game at the same time. Only one person can use it to play one other game, but they cannot play the same game with you. Like you cannot just buy one copy and play it between the both of you at the same time. ONE person per game at a given time. If you are playing a game then two people can play, but it will have to be different games.

I'd buy a Wii U if it had 3 bad-ass dragons.

Yoshi don't count.

Yes..just like now, two people can't be using the same license simultaneously unless it's a multi-user license. But unlike now, or on the PS4, my friend/family member can play any other game I own someplace else without toting the discs around.

Yes One person per game at a time, but two sharing a library at the same time

With physical discs, I can have 10 family members playing my library at the same time, so not toting the discs around is the big deal?

@mikewarrior: Not as big a deal as sharing the latest indie title? (no disc? no problem!) And way more convenient if your family doesn't all live 2 blocks away, like a lot of adult/college-aged gamers.

Developers aren't paying for those servers with 15%* of their retail sales and 30%* of their digital sales? And multiplayer being a Live Gold feature? Between licensing fees and pay-gated multiplayer, third party devs have probably generated a couple of billion dollars for Xbox over the last five years - dedicated servers seems like a pretty meager offering considering the revenue that games generate for platform holders. If we're talking about the value that Xbox is offering this gen, it seems odd to give them a lot of credit for making available a service which you essentially pay for every time you buy a game and every month through Live Gold. It's great that they are offering dedicated servers and server-side processing and storage for other features but to call it a "value-add" seems a bit odd.

*Or whatever it is.

Kinect's going to allow for all kinds of cool stuff. So I agree with that part.

Yes, but you are sacrificing the ownership of being able to have a physical disc that allows the possibility to increase in value. This family plan can be done without getting rid of physical discs. It's just an idea that gives a little to sugarcoat the A LOT they take away.

@rebgav:

Entitled much? Servers don't run themselves (they don't pay for or install themselves either). Gold costs you $60/year...so that's $600 over ten years...you haven't even paid for one server. Or 1 week of a tech's salary at a very modest wage.

I'd say that dedicated servers are a very substantial offering and that's exactly why Sony isn't having them.

Yoshi don't count.

Well, yeah, he is a dinosaur after all!

You miss the point. MS is offering this functionality to developers, developers are "paying for" this functionality with the billions of dollars that they generate for MS through game sales. The scales don't come close to balancing, the functionality on offer represents a sliver of that revenue.

@rebgav: Please prove that statement? I don't think that's anywhere near accurate.

What would you like me to prove? That Microsoft takes a percentage of every game sale? That the Xbox has sold several hundred million games over the course of the generation and that that adds up to a lot of money? That the cost of 300,000 servers doesn't come close to the value of the revenue generated by game sales? Which would you like proven?

The last point...because I'm pretty sure that margin is slimmer than you'd think it is. I'm not saying it isn't profitable, simply that it's not quite as profitable as most gamers would like to believe. It's not like it's fire and forget and then sit back and relax while the checks roll in after a launch, especially not when it comes to any game with a multiplayer component.

I don't want to sound like a dick, but I can find you a console that runs any game at 1080p 60 FPS for $400, it also has better RAM, a replaceable HDD and more popular policies - guess what it's called. And that's really the overall point here, the console market. No one argues that PC gaming is better priced than the XBox One, but everybody can see that the PS4 is better priced for a similar service, except for Mattrick, seemingly.

Let me stress the word similar: if Don Mattrick was better at showing everybody what great things differientated the XBO from the PS4, it would be a done deal. All we have so far is vague promises on the Infinite Power of the Cloud, poorly justified restrictions on ownership and always-online (it would be fine if they talked about encouraging discounts on their online store like Steam, but they never even mentioned something like that), lots of unsupported countries throughout the world, a bunch of interesting launch exclusives, a pretty interesting "family" sharing ability and a $100 price disadvantage. Also, I think it's unfair to mock people's concerns about the mandatory Kinect in light of the fact that MS was the first american company to give in the NSA's PRISM program in 2007.

My point being: as time and clumsy PR moves pass, it becomes harder and harder not to start believing that Microsoft doesn't just have bad messaging, but a bad message that goes with it. I think I'm being fair to Microsoft so far, and I truly hope they get their shit together and put up a fight this gen, because no competition is never a good thing. But I also think you shouldn't be so dismissive of critics, even though the Internet starts resembling an angry anti-MS mindless crowd, because, really, MS brought this upon themselves, in multiple ways.

I'll take a crack at it.

As of 9.24.12, the 360 had life-to-date software sales of 284M.

According to Onlive, the portion of the retail price of a game accounted for by platform royalties is $7.

According to Windows Calculator, the amount of revenue generated by 284 Million sales at $7 per sale is $1.988 Billion (which is a nonsense number, obviously, in terms of total revenue, with Xbox earning 4.24 Billion total in Q2 2011 alone, for a real-life comparison.)

*And then I spend forever looking for any information about Live's operating costs and fail miserably*

I don't have enough information to make a valid comparison between Live's operating costs and game revenue. I concede defeat (for now.)

Ohuu, that guy.