To elaborate on my previous point, it is a pretty silly name still, not just because people are very liable to get confused and end up giving or receiving the very first Xbox from near 10 years ago, and consumers won't exactly be likely to buy something that sounds less like the one they just had.
I suppose it's also trying to suggest that this is a big, bold, fresh new start rather than a simple continuation.
For the same reason the Xbox 360 was called what it was: MS didn't want the Xbox 2 to go up against the Playstation 3. The Xbox 720 probably would have been better, though.
If the Xbox One will be an all-in-one entertainment centre, but the Xbox is known for initially being a games console, why was so little focus put on the actual games? First impressions are big, right? So why did they choose to reserve everything but the sports and Call of Duty games until E3? Surely it would've made more sense to drop tiny hints of the big guns at the reveal at least?
People have complained so much in the past that games were pushed to the background at E3 in order to talk about console features so they made a separate event to talk about features in order to focus on the games themselves at E3. In theory they could have done that later, but having an understanding of the machine itself and what it offers to developers is necessary to appreciate what the games will bring. They just talked up the popular franchises to give a small taste of what it was capable of.
Still doesn't explain why they wouldn't go all-out in order to at least make a bleeding attempt at competing with Sony.
This was never about video games for Microsoft. Xbox One is a "multimedia entertainment center," not a gaming platform. Gaming is secondary. They want you to be using Microsoft products for everything: internet, TV, computer operating systems. Microsoft is trying to one-up Google and Apple with this, they don't care about Sony or Nintendo. Xbox was just a preexisting brand name they could hitch the idea on and gain success with.
The problem here, of course, is that the product they've hitched the idea on comes with it's own existing consumer base with a specific purpose for the product in question — namely, gamers and gaming. So many if not most of them don't care about using Microsoft products for everything; they just want it for this one main purpose. Competing with Google and Apple is all very well, but a fairly large percentage of the existing consumer base they have for this product doesn't care about Google or Apple, because Google and Apple aren't even offering them anything for this purpose anyway; they specifically want a reason why they should buy this over Sony or Nintendo.
Yes, but gamers know Xbox One exists and will probably buy one anyways after Halo 5 or Forza 5 or whatever comes out-they're used to a certain level of bullshit from console manufacturers and aren't averse to buying multiple consoles. Just because it's being sold as a multimedia platform doesn't mean it's underpowered or can't attract solid games. Meanwhile, the people who are looking into just getting a multimedia platform don't necessarily know that Xbox One exists or has all these TV/sports capabilities, and people who buy it won't buy the competing Google and Apple products (or vice-versa) so convincing them to buy an Xbox One requires a lot more effort and focused marketing. TL, DR: Treating gamers like meat with money and selling the console as a multimedia platform might result in a net gain in Xbox One sales.
It doesn't appear to have worked very well so far. Just sayin'.
So, here's another headscratcher for y'all: The Xbox One uses an X86-64 CPU, which is the successor of the X86 CPU used by the original Xbox. It also uses the NT 6.3 kernel, which is a successor of the NT 5.0 Kernel that is supposedly used by the original Xbox. So why can't it run games meant for the original Xbox? Even if the original Xbox doesn't run NT 5.0, the HyperV technology included would make virtualizing an original Xbox very trivial- all Microsoft has to do is include a slightly tweaked version of the original Xbox OS in an image along with the NT6.3 image needed for running native games. For comparison: An X86-64 PC can still natively boot Windows 2000 and run Windows 2000 games.
It's likely a strategy to make more money with Xbox Live Arcade or something similar. They'll likely re-sell all the old games at something like a $10 price tag in a bid to make more money off of people who want to play their 360 games again. Just a theory, mind you. Lack of backwards compatibility + re-selling of old games + people who want to play their old games again that have no Xbox 360 anymore = Profit.
Confirmed. Xbox Live Gold now comes with free 360 games.
Xbox used an Intel processor with Nvidia graphics, X360 uses IBM and ATI, and Xbox One uses AMD for CPU and GPU-maybe the hardware is too different? Not sure about Xbox One, but I know that for X360 the change in chip manufacturers caused licensing issues that killed regular back compatibility. If you're asking why no emulation for Xbox One, that's a good question and I don't know either.
Intel and IBM is understandable- IBM uses the Power architecture while Intel uses x86. However, the new AMD CPU that Xbox One uses is x86-64, which is fully backwards compatible with x86 instructions (again, we turn to the modern PC and it's ability to boot Windows 2000 despite having a x86-64 CPU). As for Nvidia and ATI graphics, since the games uses DirectX, the graphics would be handled by DirectX APIs, which abstracts the instructions sent to the GPU- meaning that in the NT-based kernel there are drivers for the Nvidia GPU- which in the case, a minor tweak to the OS image (substitute Nvidia drivers for ATI) will allow the old game will run. The only thing that'd make this impractical is that each original Xbox games comes with the entire OS and drivers on disc (which will necessitate emulating the Nvidia GPU). Now, since the Xbox One will use hardware emulation anyway (that's what a hypervisor is for) to sandbox the games, one would think that with just a little more work (program the Hypervisor to create a 32-bit instance and load up the original Xbox OS, then load the game, if an original Xbox game disc is inserted), the Xbox One will be able to flawlessly run original Xbox games as well.
TL;DR: The Xbox One has a lot more in common with an original Xbox compared to the 360, and has all the facilities to run original Xbox games, and yet a 360 could run original Xbox games but not the Xbox One. I agree with the speculation that MS is planning to resell the original and 360 games in the form of remakes to cash in on nostalgia tho...
IIRC, Nvidia's contract for the original Xbox gave them IP rights to parts of the graphics chip, so Microsoft can't legally replicate or emulate the original Xbox without Nvidia's permission. It's not a question of hardware compatibility, it's a question of Nvidia suing for infringement and winning. The emulation profiles were part of a compromise between Microsoft and Nvidia and were written specifically for 360; Nvidia still gets veto authority over further emulation. FWIW, the 360 can be emulated legally on Xbox One, since Microsoft was sure to get rights to the ATI graphics chip. TL, DR: Legal issues make Xbox emulation impossible.
Microsoft doesn't need to emulate the NV 2 A chip used in the Xbox since it's highly likely that the Xbox used DirectX. Since DirectX is hardware agnostic, all they really have to do is make sure the drivers are fine with it, which it probably is. Also, all the feature sets of the Pentium III based processor were in AMD's lineup since the Athlon 64. So really, there's no real reason why the Xbox One can't natively run Xbox games.
Is is really going to make a major difference in the market whether Microsoft's new console runs decade-old games from a console that a.) can be found on Ebay for about 40 bucks, and b.) nearly everyone owning those games already has? The original variant of the PS3 was backwards compatible with the most successful game console ever, and that meant fuckall for sales.
Just forty bucks? Hardly. My brother spent the past month on the web trying to find someone to buy a used 360 from, and all the people charged at least $160, plus games and controllers. Secondly, it's not just about the decade old ones, but the more recent ones like Halo: Reach or such.
The orignal entry mentions the Xbox, not the 360 (based on an incompatible platform and all). And again, anyone wanting to play 360 games probably already owns a 360.
Kinect, always on? Seriously this is a bad idea. Read up on RATs (Remote Administration Tools) and the creeps who abuse them, know that the XBOX family utilizes a variant of DirectX made to be convertible to Windows-compatible DX code, and it's only a matter of time before the blackhats hack their way into your Kinect 2.0. Why would they even try this?
So laptops with webcams don't bother you? Same situation. Besides, "on" doesn't mean "pointed at you". Put it camera down behind the TV. It's still on.
Which completely negates the "advantage" they were trying to push. So it's either put the webcam behind the X Bone to protect your privacy or leave it there and "enjoy" having all the TV options.
Laptops won't halt unrelated operations to request reactivation of the webcam, and you can manually disable the camera via Device Manager (in Windows), or just cover the lens with some tape or something. Kinect 2.0 is a required component of the XBO and the system will stop gameplay to request you reactivate or reconnect it.
And now, the latest frustration: only 21 countries? Seriously Microsoft? Region locking is bad enough, but not launching the Xbox outside of Oceania, Europe and The Americas? You must be crazy to not want Asian people's money.
Its probably because the 360 turned out not to be so good in Japan. Microsoft are probably trying to be careful. At a time like this though...
One of the games coming to Xbox One is The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, developed by Polish studio CD Projekt Red. Xbox One won't be available in Poland. Seriously, what the hell?
Here's another one: The Xbox One's CPU is fabricated in Malaysia . Given the history of the 360, it is expected that the Xbox One will not be available in Malaysia until 5 years after Singapore, and will lack online play (due to the absence of Xbox Live Gold), and lack the entertainment aspects (due to the lack of Zune). WTH Microsoft!?!
About Don Mattrick recently giving his solution to a lot of potential customers who won't have a steady internet connection or any internet at all, during an interview with Geoff Kieghley... why the hell would you think it would be a good idea to tell them that the solution was the Xbox 360, theoretically telling them to go fuck themselves? You just pissed off a lot of fans. Didn't he learn from that idiot Adam Orth?
If neither Orth nor Mattrick know how to deal with it, there's likely someone in a higher position than both of them who provides the protocol for possible backlash. Someone higher than them didn't learn fast enough.
I've heard that the transmission of that interview wasn't planned. Apparently, a cameraman saw Mattrick and the other guy talking and started to livecast the interview. That aside, this whole deal costed Don's job and had to move to Zynga.
So what happens when the servers for Xbox One go down, either due to something like the PSN hack or somewhere down the line they decided to cut off the servers like with City of Heroes? Will that mean that the Xbox One will now be just a hunk of plastic?
Unless they change it to work offline, pretty much.
Think about what happened with EA's recent Always Online SimCity, and extrapolate for the bigger reputation of Microsoft and the potentially bigger userbase.
A recent statement has said that years from now when the servers shut down, Xbox One will still be functional and can play single player games. Which is good, but then again, that just begs the question of "Why does Xbox One need to have online check-in anyway?".
So why did they reverse all the DRM and used game nonsense? Was it to please the fanbase? Or was it to merely secure the Xbox One's future, so it would stand a chance against the Wii U and PS 4?
Lots of people think it's probably to seduce the buyer, and then put all the DRM and restrictions after a decent Christmas.
Preorder numbers had just come in and they were VERY behind the PS 4. They're doing it just to try to boost sales, whether or not they try to reinstate the DRM after the consoles are in houses remains to be seen.
Either way it's impressive; they must have known this wasn't going to go over well, they must have predicted the backslash and they must have initially come to the conclusion the system would sell. What the hell made them suddenly change their mind? Personally I think they thought Sony was going to do the same thing and when they didn't their predictions were shot to hell.
I think Sony deliberately kept secret that they would allow used games (they gave ambiguous responses every time they were asked before E3) in the hope of trying to lure Microsoft to a trap. I also think its possible they thought developers would gave up on Sony if Sony didn't block used games and develop exclusively for Xbox Onw but after the backlash even the guys like EA who were the wants wanted used games ban in the first place were concerned about Xbox One sales.
I have to disagree; I think what happened is simply that the Xbox One's objectives were written by the people in the adminisphere who don't have any actual contact with either the design process or the customers. They assumed that they had enough locked-in customers, and enough cool features, that they'd be able to weather any shitstorms that the Internet kicked up (selling to the smart marks is for indie developers). Then the preorder numbers came in, Sony started to win back market share, and they realized that this particular brainstorm was actually going to lose them sales.
Actually, the Wii U was just about only marginally better than the Xbox One when the XB1's DRM was announced. Region Coding is still a big issue with Wii Us, as is the inability to be part of Club Nintendo and the unavailability of the eShop if you happen to live in one of the second and third world countries. The only thing that kept the Wii U going is 1. It doesn't commit harakiri if it's in the wrong region and will still play games on the console regardless of location so long as the game region and console region matches (comparatively, an Xbox One will supposedly perform an IP check on power up and hang itself with an error message if the IP does not belong to an ISP in the country it's designed for as part of it's DRM), and 2. Online play is free and unrestricted even if you're in a different region than that you got your Wii U from (an Xbox One requires an Xbox Live Gold account to play online, and that isn't available in many second or third world countries either).
I doubt that Sony was going to implement a similar DRM scheme anyway since the massive backlash against BD+ (or something simliar). This would register a game with the PS3, making it impossible to play that game on another PS3.
At some point didn't someone point out the "always online" thing was a bad idea? Sure it's been reversed, but surely they do realize some people (this troper included) want the console to play games and have no internet connection (either by choice, or circumstance or whatever have you). Did they factor in for countries whose internet can get wonky even at the best of times?
I guess anyone with enough power in any company to make a difference probably doesn't even KNOW anyone who wouldn't meet the conditions necessary for their game/console. They should know better though, specially if making a console, seeing as poorer people would probably favor consoles for their price. I once saw on local TV talking about internet connections that if they were roads, Japan's would be ultra-modern 6-lane highways, whereas here (Brazil), it would be a pothole-filled narrow one-lane road. Do these important people live here in Brazil? No. They have no idea how things work outside their fancy mansions' immediate vicinity.