http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in … 33643.html

" A redesigned Kinect camera -- one comes packed with every console -- lets users control their television with verbal and gesture commands, including the ability to start up the system simply by saying ‘Xbox On.’ A built-in guide will display local TV listings and can also be navigated with voice commands."

Meh. An interesting idea. Might work well, but certainly not a selling point for me.

"The system boasts plenty of potent tech under the hood, including an 8-core CPU, 8GB of system memory, and a 500GB hard drive. That hard drive will also function as a game DVR to save and upload game video and content, though it’s unclear if it will also be used to record television."

Not different than anything today, save more sophisticated.

"The Xbox One will NOT be backwards compatible with the current console, Microsoft's Marc Whitten told The Verge."

Unfortunate.

"Of course, the system will also play video games. "

Really? You don't say... a video game system that plays video games! What will they think of next.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/ga … patibility

"Apparently, you will need to be able to hook your console up to the net, but it won't have to be always online."

Sounds crappy. Basically, sounds like they are installing DRM so that every game has to be verified online.

"Microsoft then confirmed that users of a pre-owned game will have to pay a fee to gain access to the title if it had already been installed on another console so they could use it on their own account."

And that, is the straw that broke the camel's back. Screw that crap! If Sony follows suit and requires the same shite, then I will not be purchasing a PS4. On the other hand, if Sony doesn't pull the same stunt that these idiots are doing, then I will likely purchase a PS4. Otherwise, I will stick to the Wii U, PC, and other devices that are not managed by greedy bastards.

So the Xbox One was announced today, and the media briefing did as much as possible to alienate gamers. You would think they'd save all the TV and sports junk for mainstream outlets and know their audience, but I guess not. It's fine that the system has all these gimmicky TV and Skype features, but I'm pretty annoyed about the mandatory Kinect. How many stupid sensors do I have to have stuck to my TV? I already have the Wii/U sensor bar, and now I'm going to need both Microsoft and Sony's required cameras? Ugh. I hope talking to my machines is at least optional.

Here are my main take aways:

Good
-Simple, rectangular design
-Improved controller (especially the d-pad)
-OS very fast at switching apps
-Ability to suspend and resume gameplay
-Gamerscore and achievements can be brought over from 360
-Kinect is much improved
-Game can be improved with cloud processing
-Seamless updating
-Expanded friend list

Bad
-Requires Kinect
-Requires online connection to register games before you can play them
-All games must be installed to play, but the hard drive is not very big for HD games (only 500GB)
-No backwards compatibility due to vastly different architecture
-You can no longer own physical games. The disc is now just an alternate delivery mechanism.

Unanswered
-What's the deal with used games and lending to a friend? MSFT first told Wired there would be a fee and now says there's no fee for a friend to play. Lots of confusion around this issue.
-How many games with require Cloud processing in order to work (read: always online)?
-How will the system be sold (normal retail, bundled with cable services, etc)?
-Future of Xbox Live subscription models and pricing? Will paywalls for non-gaming contest still exist?

To me, it just sounds like a PC that is designed as an entertainment hub and has more restrictions than a normal PC. In other words, kind of a waste. I mean, they give Blu Ray players away now. It's not a selling point.

Screw Kinect. Screw paying an "installation donation" for used games. No backwards compatibility, I understand...I bet 360 would be a pain to emulate. I wonder what the deal is with Live Arcade games I've downloaded though.

I think Microsoft might have tipped their hand too early here. This is far from impressive.

As expected, they have literally NOTHING interesting to offer, and on top of that, the console comes with too many handicaps.

Funny thing is, this has only made me more interested in the PS4.

Did MS tell if they're using DVD's or Blu-rays as media? Because if they're using Blu-rays, that 500GB won't be much anything to gamers, especially if you need to install every game on the HDD, plus the other media saving that the Xbox One can apparently do. Oh well, thankfully one console I don't have to buy. :D

They've confirmed that they're using Blu-Rays, yes.
Which means they're paying Sony, I guess?

Sony and few other companies. But damn, especially if they're using dual layer discs, 50gb there. Fun to install. But all depends how much the games actually require and so on.

Well even if the ISO sizes are 50GB that doesn't mean the actual installs are going to be that big.
Though the extra space does mean devs can be lazy and not use the space optimally and bloat things that way.

The whole thing sounds like a disaster. The backlash has at least been amusing to observe.

15 exclusives and 8 all-new franchises in the first year.  I'm interested what all of those will be. 

But I'm going to reserve my judgement until things are made a little bit more clear about the Xbox One and also until E3.

I am boycotting this product.

https://www.facebook.com/BoycottTheXboxOne

http://forums.xbox.com/xbox_forums/gene … 13998.aspx

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/boy … games.html

You're not the only one!

I find it fascinating that Sony, long a pioneer in establishing DRM and crippling user functionality in efforts to thwart piracy, is being held up as a model of propriety for the next generation system.

Well I tend to agree with the current speculation that Sony simply wanted to see what Microsoft did first, the reaction, and then tweak its own scheme. People tend to forget lately that the PS4 is still pushing streaming from the cloud with its Gaikai service. We may not yet know to what degree that will chain down the system.

And the PS4 has only made me more interested in the WiiU, which has only made me more interested in... sitting this console generation out?

Does it really count as a boycott if the product in question is undesirable?

companies no longer fear boycotts,,, bad social media publicity is far more devastating to stock prices nowadays

the companies should all combine to release the Awesome Super System.
then all gamers would have to play on a console with a Cloud Streaming from their ASS

So far, my question for this upcoming generation is which console will the fighting game scene support? If Microsoft pisses off the majority of people (and they have), I see it being primarily PS4. Also, Sony supported Evo. So that makes my decision if/when to support this generation for me.

My decision for this generation was easy...I wanted Rock Band and both PS3 and 360 had it. And 360 was cheaper. Likewise, nearly all the fighters have been on both consoles, so my decision paid off. Come to think of it...I've never used my 360 controller. It's always been an instrument controller or an arcade stick.

But it's like watching a disaster film...Nintendo launches their system too early and it's bombing in sales and support. Microsoft counters with their announcement, to lukewarm reception. Sony, as stated, is hardly the voice of reason, but they somehow seem like the most viable option on the console front.

I hope Cave and Qute keep making shmups and continue on with the X1.  The 360 has been a gem of a console for these, a damn power house of shmups.

Same as any other 360 game: not compatible with Xbox One.

There's also whatever Valve's Steam Box turns out to be. I realize it's more a series of fixed-spec PCs than a true console, but it could be an interesting alternative.

I've heard about the Steam Box. To say they have a window of opportunity would be an understatement.

First I've hard of this. Looked up some stuff. As far as I can tell, it's a PCish system that is optimized for Steam. So, why would someone purchase this? Can't you get steam for free? Why pay extra? Also, since steam is entirely digital, this isn't really a console and there is no real reason to have it (as far as I'm concerned).

If both Xbox One and the PS4 end up being restrictive DRM systems, I will skip both and stick to the Wii U (which will be worth getting once they have some decent games). Also, I've said this before, but Kickstarter is awesome. Usually there's at least one or two games that are worth a look, and more often than not there will be an amazing game being funded.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11934844 … -wars.html

2 sentences scream stay the F away!!

"neither is backward-compatible with previous boxes, there's no new compelling interface and they're both heavily focused on Digital Rights Management.
This means that players have to sign-in to an online screen in order to play games they thought they bought at a store"

"This means that players have to sign-in to an online screen in order to play games they thought they bought at a store. It's a trend that open-source legend Eric Raymond called "cloud cuckoo land" at his own blog when done in office products, and it's the same here. "

cloud cuckoo land... couldn't have said it better!

The more I read, the more the Wii U sounds better and better...

ill stick with my regular wii,,, since my brother softmodded it and added every 8, 16, & 64 bit nintendo game to my menu

You know, I've always actually kind of liked the variety of having multiple consoles, and I fully expected to want to pick up one of the newcomers to accompany my Wii U.  Now that we know more about both, I'm really not interested at all in either.  Maybe a Vita will be the next thing I spring for.

On the subject of Kickstarter, I'd actually forgotten about the Ouya... although its pre-order release doesn't seem to have impressed anyone, it still seems an interesting concept with its ability to function as a dev kit.

The focus on digital distribution doesn't bode well for game shops... who seem poised to fade out as some sort of spurned lover to the games industry.

Yup, same here. I bought a Wii just for that purpose, plus the newer classic controller. I used Letterbomb. It was ridiculously easy. I have a really primitive version of MAME too, also Atari 2600 and 7800 and Genesis/SMS. I can't quite figure out the N64 emulator, but oh well. I'm more than set to weather the console storm out.

There really are not any small game shops left, unfortunately. All that is left appears to be Gamestop, which has done more than it's fair share of hubris. Still, it doesn't bode well for consumers if GS closes doors.

Also, here's MS trying to reassure us that they won't actually be using Kinect to spy on us... all the time. This systems sounds more like garbage every passing day.

http://news.yahoo.com/microsoft-tries-t … 58366.html

"Only" £599.99... for something that doesn't let you purchase games. By purchase I mean actually own. You see, if I own a game, I can give it as a present, sell it, or reuse it however many times I want. Can't do that with Xbox One games, now can we? Also, I love how the first highlight they mention is

"TV on Xbox One. Navigate and watch live TV from your cable, telco or satellite set-top box through your Xbox One."

Because I just spent over $900 to be able to watch TV... yeah.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Microsoft-Xbox- … B00BE4OUBG

edit: OK, the price is a placeholder. However, the original price of the PS3 was £425 in 2007, so I would be surprised if the Xbox One is less than £500 which is still over $750.

I think you're missing the point entirely. The point of the Steam Box is to have a more or less fixed-PC standard (similar to a console) that developers agree to develop to because it guarantees them a large audience running the same set of specs. It also presents the the Steam environment in a form factor befitting a living room and not a giant, ugly PC box. Steam itself is of course free. The Steam Box isn't for PC gamers, it's for console gamers who want to play PC games without having to deal with all of the tinkering nonsense that plagues that hobby.

As for the digital vs. physical debate, it's still a console regardless of how the software is delivered. You just don't own the software (much like the Xbox One, iPhone, and all other digital platforms). I agree that not owning the software sucks, I really do, but the advantage of Steam from a consumer perspective is that games are MUCH cheaper than console games. PC versions of popular console titles generally start off at $10 less than the console version, and decline in price much faster. If you wait a few months after a hot new title comes out, you can usually get it for very cheap on Steam. While I would never want to pay $60 for a game I can't own, I don't mind paying $10 for a license. That's a fair deal. Steam also hosts lots of cool, cheap indie games that never make it to console. Falcom is hardly what I'd call indie, but I'd like to point out that Ys Origins is available in English on Steam and is not available on any console or portable.

Now, I don't know if Valve will be able to make this initiative a success or if developers will support it, but Valve is a very smart, well-liked company so I'm very curious to see if they can pull it off.

As for Nintendo, I currently see no scenario where the Wii U is anything but a box for Nintendo games and whatever third party exclusives they buy (see the recent Sonic announcement). As a Wii U owner, I'm totally fine with that because I bought one just so I could play Nintendo games, but I want to play major third party games, and outside of a few Ubisoft titles later this year, third parties aren't going to put their top tier stuff on Wii U. If you want to play those games in the future, you're going to have to get either Xbox One, PS4, or a gaming-quality PC/Steam Box, just like you did in the last generation with the Wii/PS3/360.

I see what you're saying, and I see your point about price as well. However, it seems to me that one of the "problems" with PC games is that they push the boundary of current machines. So your PC from a few years ago may not be powerful enough to play the latest PC game you own. I don't see how Steam Box will solve this? Unless games made for the PC will specifically be tailored for Steam Box, is that the case? In which case I can see why people would purchase this. Too bad it's only for steam though and not for physical games, but honestly consoles today can pretty much do everything PCs can. What they lack is a mouse and keyboard!

If the system works, Valve would create spec guidelines and then certify games as Steam Box compatible/optimized/whatever. If the Steam Box concept is successful, developers will have an incentive to keep games in lines with those specs in order to have access to that market (just like with consoles). Granted, that's a lot of ifs, and it might not ever work out, but I like the idea of it, and I'm curious to see what will happen.

Outside exceptions like the Crysis series that hasn't been an actual issue for quite some years (half a decade) anymore since starting with the past console generation most games are designed around the much weaker gaming consoles. Nowadays the only thing making higher end PCs sweat are higher than Full HD resolutions, emulation and bad ports. And if you have a weaker computer most PC games can still be made run reasonably well when reducing the resolution.

PS4 and Xbone will rise the level, but specs wise dedicated gaming PCs are still plenty ahead.