Just how badly does Microsoft want the Xbox One to fail

[Fragony]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...ts-us-to-smile

Seriously, why do they think people want a spybox. This is absolutily rediculous. This thing has massive fail written all over it.

Sony underestimated themselves when they released the powerfull but unwieldy ps3, but the ps4 looks like a really good piece of hardware but Microsoft perfected stupidity.

[rickinator9]

I think Microsoft are trying to increase profits through game sales. They know people aren't going to like it, but, hey, it's better than no Xbox at all right?

Everyone says the PC market is dying, but I think the console market is dying. Sony and Microsoft only started getting profits after the consoles being out for 3 years after which, according to Moore's law, PC hardware has gotten much better.

[Papewaio]

Aren't the PS4 and XBOX one the same sub standard PC chip in a different shaped box?

[TinCow]

There are four basic aspects of that list, and I don't think it's quite as hysterical a situation as people are making it out to be, though one aspect raises my eyebrows.

• You do not own the games you buy. You license them.
• Discs are only used to install and then license games and do not imply ownership.

That's not unusual at all, in fact that's the way games have always worked. Every single game disc you have in your home right now is the exact same way. You own the actual disc itself (meaning the plastic and other components), but you have NEVER owned the game code on the disc or on your computer. That has always been a license, the above is just the same way the industry has always worked.

• People can play games installed on your console whether you're logged in or not.
• 10 people can be authorised to play these games on a different Xbox One via the cloud, but not at the same time, similar to iTunes authorised devices.
• Your account allows you to play the games you license on any console.

So basically Steam. Big deal, we love Steam. Welcome to the digital age, console users.

• Publishers decide whether you can trade in your games and may charge for this.
• Publishers decide whether you can give a game you own to someone for free, and this only works if they have been on your friends list for 30 days.
• Loaning and renting games will not be possible at launch, but Microsoft is "exploring the possibilities".

This is a bigger deal, but the used game market has been a major problem for publishers/developers for a very long time. They're getting outright exploited by companies like Gamestop, and something needs to be done to fix the situation. I'm not sure whether this is the answer, but something has got to be done and maybe this is it. Whether it works or not and whether it's bad for the industry will depend on how the publishers respond and it's too early to know that.

• Your Xbox One must connect to the internet every 24 hours to keep playing games.
• When playing on another Xbox One with your account, this is reduced to one hour.

This is the biggest deal, and it could be a major one. I saw some statistics somewhere that about 75-80% of the XBox userbase is currently connected to the internet. That means that Microsoft is risking losing 20-25% of their customer base with this move. At the same time, the above features wouldn't work well without an internet connection at all. Every 24 hours does seem a bit extreme, a Steam method (offline/online mode) would probably be better. The reality is that this is an aspect that is not going to have any impact at all on the vast majority of owners, but a massive impact on a minority of owners. It'll take some time to see whether the decision to alienate that minority was smart or not.

[Fragony]

You are probably right that the console market has the most to worry about. The ps4 will be ahead for two years or so, but casual PC's will have cought up by then. I also get the feeling everbody is kinda satisfied with the current gen, I am at least. I was absolutely awed when I saw Battlefield running on a friend's pc on extreme, but I don't really care that much to actually pay for it. It's good enough as it is, for now at least

[drone]

That's not unusual at all, in fact that's the way games have always worked. Every single game disc you have in your home right now is the exact same way. You own the actual disc itself (meaning the plastic and other components), but you have NEVER owned the game code on the disc or on your computer. That has always been a license, the above is just the same way the industry has always worked.

You have never owned the game code in the copyright sense, but you were free to do with your licence what you wished after purchase. First-sale doctrine.

Aren't the PS4 and XBOX one the same sub standard PC chip in a different shaped box?

Yup. Consoles have never been top of the line compared to PCs, and the next gen will be no exception. It's nice that they are consolodating the architectures, should make porting games easier, but the new specs aren't much better than what you will be able to get for a PC at nearly the same price. I've said before that the next gen would be weak, since the video specs are maxed at 1080p for the foreseeable future.

The biggest issue I have with the XBone is the kinect/microphone. Microsoft has a weak reputation when it comes to secure software, plus they apparently are more than willing to bend over for the government. Sticking a camera/microphone, connected to the internet 24/7, in a living room or bedroom is something you just shouldn't do. Smart TVs also fall into this category.

[Xiahou]

Smart TVs also fall into this category.

In Soviet Russia, your TV watches you!

So basically Steam. Big deal, we love Steam. Welcome to the digital age, console users.

That applies to pretty much every feature you outline doesn't it? Unless I'm mistaken, Steam doesn't let you sell your old games or buy used ones. And while it doesn't require you to phone home every 24hrs an Internet connection is required before you can play any games.

I think it's crap, but as he points out- Steam fans shouldn't mind at all.

[TinCow]

You have never owned the game code in the copyright sense, but you were free to do with your licence what you wished after purchase. First-sale doctrine.

True, but that's impossible with digital copies. PC gamers (me included) kvetched about this for a while after the switch to digital distribution started many years ago, but we long ago not only stopped complaining but actively embraced the system. If you asked PC gamers whether they'd prefer to keep the current system or return to the old disc-based economy, with its freedom to trade games, I would guess that the vast majority of gamers would prefer to stay where we are now. For most of us, the convenience (and lower prices) outweigh the loss of that ability. I think console gamers will follow the exact same trend in sentiment regarding this issue.

There's also a reality that these kinds of restrictions are designed to help the developers and publishers themselves and to fight piracy. I know plenty of game developers. They get paid peanuts and their jobs are constantly at risk due to being in a heavily volatile industry. If the consumer has to take a few knocks here and there to give a less-brutal existence to the very people who create the games we love to play, I think that's a fair trade-off.

[drone]

True, but that's impossible with digital copies. PC gamers (me included) kvetched about this for a while after the switch to digital distribution started many years ago, but we long ago not only stopped complaining but actively embraced the system. If you asked PC gamers whether they'd prefer to keep the current system or return to the old disc-based economy, with its freedom to trade games, I would guess that the vast majority of gamers would prefer to stay where we are now. For most of us, the convenience (and lower prices) outweigh the loss of that ability. I think console gamers will follow the exact same trend in sentiment regarding this issue.

You like Steam, and I will admit that it is the best of the bunch. But Valve is a privately owned company that is currently run by a benevolent dictator, it is an anomoly which fortuantely controls a large share of the market. However, the day will come when Valve is subject to the whims of shareholders, and we will be stuck with crap like Origin which will get worse without the benevolent Steam alternative to counter the anti-consumer policies these companies engage in.

There's also a reality that these kinds of restrictions are designed to help the developers and publishers themselves and to fight piracy. I know plenty of game developers. They get paid peanuts and their jobs are constantly at risk due to being in a heavily volatile industry. If the consumer has to take a few knocks here and there to give a less-brutal existence to the very people who create the games we love to play, I think that's a fair trade-off.

Nothing a company does will successfully eliminate piracy and still give a positive user experience.

[TinCow]

You like Steam, and I will admit that it is the best of the bunch. But Valve is a privately owned company that is currently run by a benevolent dictator, it is an anomoly which fortuantely controls a large share of the market. However, the day will come when Valve is subject to the whims of shareholders, and we will be stuck with crap like Origin which will get worse without the benevolent Steam alternative to counter the anti-consumer policies these companies engage in.

Absolutely true, but I really don't see the alternative. Physical media is obsolete, period. It's unnecessary, expensive, and will vanish completely in the near future. That's reality and, whether you like it or not, there's nothing you can do about it. We need to adapt to a digital world because that's the world we're going to be living in until the zombie/robot/alien/nuclear apocalypse makes us go back to steam technology (and maybe not even then). The best we can do is support those companies which do things well (like Valve) and shun those that do things poorly (like EA). If a day comes when you feel like there is no company that gives you good service, you can also choose to simply stop buying the product. These companies need to make money to survive and if they alienate enough people to impact their revenue stream, then they will change or fail. If people continue to pay for their products despite the restrictions, that's essentially proof that the restrictions themselves are considered an acceptable cost for the services they provide.

Nothing a company does will successfully eliminate piracy and still give a positive user experience.

That's a bit of an overstatement. Certainly nothing a company does will successfully eliminate piracy and still give the user as positive an experience as they had without those measures. However that doesn't mean that the experience has to be negative overall. There is a middle ground where piracy is effectively fought while the consumer is still happy, even if they're not as happy as they could be.

[Xiahou]

That's a bit of an overstatement. Certainly nothing a company does will successfully eliminate piracy and still give the user as positive an experience as they had without those measures. However that doesn't mean that the experience has to be negative overall. There is a middle ground where piracy is effectively fought while the consumer is still happy, even if they're not as happy as they could be.

I completely reject the "think of the poor developers" argument. Can anyone think of a game that hasn't been pirated? Usually what happens is honest purchasers get saddled with obtrusive DRM and days later, the pirated version comes out without any DRM. The result is that often times, paying customers get an inferior product than the pirates do...

Speaking personally, many times I've almost bought games on an impulse, only to put it back on the shelf and walk away after seeing the DRM used. There's no quantifiable cost that can be pointed to for people pirating a game. Some pirates might have bought the game, some might not have ever bought it. What is a quantifiable cost is developing and licensing DRM schemes. Publishers waste time and money adding DRM to games that only serve to annoy paying customers. In what world does that make sense?

EDIT: I'll just link a post from the developer of Super Meat Boy. He makes the point better than I do. (quoted below for those too lazy to click the link)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I think I can safely say that Super Meat Boy has been pirated at least 200,000 times. We are closing in on 2 million sales and assuming a 10% piracy to sales ratio does not seem unreasonable. As a forward thinking developer who exists in the present, I realize and accept that a pirated copy of a digital game does not equate to money being taken out of my pocket. Team Meat shows no loss in our year end totals due to piracy and neither should any other developer.

For the sake of argument, some of those people that did pirate Super Meat Boy could have bought the game if piracy didn’t exist but there is no actual way to calculate that lost revenue. It is impossible to know with certainty the intentions of people. With the SimCity fiasco and several companies trying to find new ways to combat piracy and stating piracy has negatively affected their bottom line I wonder if they’ve taken the time to accurately try to determine what their losses are due to piracy.

My first job outside my parents cabinet shop was at KMart. KMart, like countless other retailers, calculates loss by counting purchased inventory and matching it to sales. Loss is always built into the budget because it is inevitable. Loss could come from items breaking, being stolen, or being defective. If someone broke a light bulb, that was a calculable loss. If someone returned a blender for being defective, it wasn’t a loss to KMart, but a calculable loss to the manufacturer. If someone steals a copy of BattleToads, it’s a loss to KMart. All loss in a retail setting is calculable because items to be sold are physical objects that come from manufacturers that have to be placed on shelves by employees. You have a chain of inventory numbers, money spent and labor spent that goes from the consumer all the way to the manufacturer. A stolen, broken, or lost item is an item that you cannot sell. In the retail world your stock is worth money.

In the digital world, you don’t have a set inventory. Your game is infinitely replicable at a negligible or zero cost (the cost bandwidth off your own site or nothing if you're on a portal like Steam, eShop, etc). Digital inventory has no value. Your company isn’t worth an infinite amount because you have infinite copies of your game. As such, calculating worth and loss based on infinite inventory is impossible. If you have infinite stock, and someone steals one unit from that stock, you still have infinite stock. If you have infinite stock and someone steals 1 trillion units from that stock , you still have infinite stock. There is no loss of stock when you have an infinite amount.

Because of this, in the digital world, there is no loss when someone steals a game because it isn't one less copy you can sell, it is potentially one less sale but that is irrelevant. Everyone in the world with an internet connection and a form of online payment is a potential buyer for your game but that doesn’t mean everyone in the world will buy your game.

Loss due to piracy is an implied loss because it is not a calculable loss. You cannot, with any accuracy, state that because your game was pirated 300 times you lost 300 sales. You cannot prove even one lost sale because there is no evidence to state that any one person who pirated your game would have bought your game if piracy did not exist. From an accounting perspective it’s speculative and a company cannot accurately determine loss or gain based on speculative accounting. You can’t rely on revenue due to speculation, you can’t build a company off of what will “probably” happen. Watch “The Smartest Guys in the Room” and see how that worked out for Enron.

Companies try to combat piracy of their software with DRM but if loss due to pirated software is not calculable to an accurate amount does the implementation of DRM provide a return on investment? It is impossible to say yes to this statement. Look at it as numbers spent in a set budget. You spend $X on research for your new DRM method that will prevent people from stealing your game. That $X is a line item in accounting that can be quantified. Can you then say “This $X we put into research for our DRM gained us back $Y in sales”? There is no way to calculate this because it is not possible to quantify the intentions of a person. Also, there’s no way of accurately determining which customers would have stolen the game had there not been DRM.

To add to that, the reality of our current software age is the internet is more efficient at breaking things than companies are at creating them. A company will spend massive amounts of money on DRM and the internet will break it in a matter of days in most cases. When the DRM is broken is it worth the money spent to implement it? Did the week of unbroken DRM for your game gain you any sales from potential pirates due to the inability to pirate at launch? Again, there is no way of telling and as such cannot be used as an accurate justification for spending money.

So what should developers do to make sure people don’t steal games? Unfortunately there is nothing anyone can do to actively stop their game from being pirated. I do believe people are less likely to pirate your software if the software is easy to buy, easy to run, and does what is advertised. You can’t force a person to buy your software no more than you can prevent a person from stealing it. People have to WANT to buy your software, people have to WANT to support you. People need to care about your employees and your company’s well being. There is no better way to achieve that than making sure what you put out there is the best you can do and you treat your customers with respect.

Lets loop back to what’s going on with SimCity. I bought SimCity day one, I played it and experienced the same frustrations that countless others are experiencing. For total fairness, I know the always on DRM isn’t the main issue, but I can’t help but think that the server side calculations are a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” version of DRM. I won’t claim to know the inner workings of SimCity and this isn’t a Captain Hindsight article because that is irrelevant. EA and Maxis are currently facing a bigger problem than piracy: A growing number of their customers no longer trust them and this has and will cost them money.

After the frustrations with SimCity I asked Origin for a refund and received one. This was money they had and then lost a few days later. Applying our earlier conversation about calculable loss, there is a loss that is quantifiable, that will show up in accounting spreadsheets and does take away from profit. That loss is the return, and it is much more dangerous than someone stealing your game.

In the retail world, you could potentially put a return back on the shelf, you could find another customer that wants it, sell it to them and there would be virtually no loss. In the digital world, because there is no set amount of goods, you gain nothing back (one plus infinity is still infinity). It’s only a negative experience. A negative frustrating experience for a customer should be considered more damaging than a torrent of your game.

Speaking from my experience with SMB, I know for a fact we have lost a lot of trust from Mac users due to the Mac port of SMB being poor quality. I could go into the circumstances of why it is the way it is but that is irrelevant...it’s a broken product that is out in the public. We disappointed a good portion of our Mac customers with SMB and as a result several former customers have requested and received refunds. I’d take any amount of pirates over one return due to disappointment any day.

Disappointment leads to apathy which is the swan song for any developer. If people don’t care about your game, why would people ever buy it? When MewGenics comes out, I doubt many Mac users are going to be excited about our launch. When EA/Maxis create their next new game how many people are going to be excited about it and talking positively about it? I imagine that the poison of their current SimCity launch is going to seep into potential customers thoughts and be a point of speculation as to “Is it going to be another SimCity launch?”.

This is not a quantifiable loss of course, but people are more likely to buy from distributors they trust rather than ones they’ve felt slighted by before. Consumer confidence plays a very important role in how customers spend money. I think its safe to say that EA and Maxis do not have a lot of consumer confidence at this point. I think its also safe to say that the next EA/Maxis game is going to be a tough sell to people who experienced or were turned away by talk of frustration regarding SimCity.

As a result of piracy developers feel their hand is forced to implement measures to stop piracy. Often, these efforts to combat piracy only result in frustration for paying customers. I challenge a developer to show evidence that accurately shows implementation of DRM is a return on investment and that losses due to piracy can be calculated. I do not believe this is possible.

The reality is the fight against piracy equates to spending time and money combating a loss that cannot be quantified. Everyone needs to accept that piracy cannot be stopped and loss prevention is not a concept that can be applied to the digital world. Developers should focus on their paying customers and stop wasting time and money on non-paying customers. Respect your customers and they may in turn respect your efforts enough to purchase your game instead of pirating it.

[TinCow]

I completely reject the "think of the poor developers" argument. Can anyone think of a game that hasn't been pirated? Usually what happens is honest purchasers get saddled with obtrusive DRM and days later, the pirated version comes out without any DRM. The result is that often times, paying customers get an inferior product than the pirates do...

Well, that's you. I personally know developers, so I do think of it. Game devs are just as heavily abused by their industry as musicians. These people are devoting their lives, often upwards of 60-80 hours a week, to creating our entertainment, but they get paid crap and have horrible job security. Certainly the publishers themselves are partially responsible for this, just as in the music industry, but piracy sure doesn't help the situation.

Publishers waste time and money adding DRM to games that only serve to annoy paying customers. In what world does that make sense?

In a world where they make more money by adding it than by not adding it. I don't understand why gamers have this mental block on the idea that a capitalist economic system doesn't apply to the games industry. It's just one of many options in the entertainment sector. The time you spend playing games is time you cannot spend in other areas of the entertainment sector, such as television, cinema, sporting events, etc. Industry profits depending on being competitive internally amongst other game companies, and also externally against other forms of entertainment. If their profits are rising, then the consumers are saying that they are providing a competitive service. If their profits are falling, then the consumers are saying that they are not providing a competitive service. Why do you expect the games industry to be altruistic in a manner that no other industry is?

In any case, the idea that the DRM "only serve[s] to annoy paying customers" is fundamentally false. There are many great things about a good DRM system that actively add things to the gaming experience. Look at all the extra stuff you get by using Steam as an example. I personally stopped pirating ALL games about 5-6 years ago because I felt that the benefits I got out of using digital distribution outweighed the costs. I actively prefer to pay for a game on Steam than to pirate one, even when you take my game-dev friends out of the picture. I am not the only person who feels this way, so clearly not all of us are annoyed by all DRM. There are plenty of DRM methods that truly DO annoy me. I've actively avoided EA, Ubisoft, and Microsoft products because of their DRM systems before, but the fact that some companies have created crappy DRM systems doesn't prove that all DRM is annoying everyone.

[drone]

What Super Meat Boy dude said.

Valve has done the rare thing and added value to their DRM system, this is why it's the best one out there. Again this is because Valve is an anomoly. Most large companies use their DRM to extract value, through egregious activation limits, planned obsolecense, forced ads, etc. If/when Valve gets bought out/goes public/Gabe dies, digital distribution is going to become a nightmare.

[TinCow]

What Super Meat Boy dude said.

Valve has done the rare thing and added value to their DRM system, this is why it's the best one out there. Again this is because Valve is an anomoly. Most large companies use their DRM to extract value, through egregious activation limits, planned obsolecense, forced ads, etc. If/when Valve gets bought out/goes public/Gabe dies, digital distribution is going to become a nightmare.

His statement is very good and I agree with what he says as well, particularly this bit:

I do believe people are less likely to pirate your software if the software is easy to buy, easy to run, and does what is advertised. You can’t force a person to buy your software no more than you can prevent a person from stealing it. People have to WANT to buy your software, people have to WANT to support you. People need to care about your employees and your company’s well being. There is no better way to achieve that than making sure what you put out there is the best you can do and you treat your customers with respect.

Valve provides a service at a level where I actively want to support them, and the developers whose games they distribute. If in some future day Valve turns to the dark side and becomes crap, then perhaps I shall no longer feel that way and perhaps I shall return to pirating games. However, that's kind of beyond the point. This is not like with a government where once power has been gained, it becomes very difficult to take it away. You're talking about a business that relies on income. If the business model becomes poor and the services they provide are poor, then the business model will change or the company will collapse. SimCity itself demonstrates what happens to a company when they provide a poor quality product. You really don't need to fear the amorphous Evil Valve future because if that time comes, there will be other options, legal or illegal, to get what the consumer wants in a way that is pleasing to them.

At the end of the day, Valve has proven that DRM can be done in a positive and constructive way. The problem isn't DRM itself, it's bad DRM. Bad DRM does exactly what Mr. Refenes says. Valve's DRM works because the actual DRM aspect of it is incidental to the service. Valve created a system that added massive amount of customer convenience in many areas. The fact that it also operates as DRM is a side-benefit for them. That wasn't its intention when it was created, it was only designed to address inconsistent patching issues for Valve's own games to improve multiplayer connectivity and to resolve bugs. Over time that turned into a general digital distribution system. That's why we love Steam: DRM wasn't the purpose, even if it's part of the result. This discussion is about the XBone and whether their connectivity system is rage-quit worthy or not. For some reason people are getting a bit hysterical because it has DRM features, and they're largely skipping over the conversation about whether the online connectivity system that Microsoft has added is good as a whole. I'm not saying that MS has done it right; quite the opposite, I think that the 24 hour check-in thing is extreme and likely a very poor decision. However, I feel like I'm one of the few people actually analyzing the system as a whole instead of just going OMG DRM ALT F4.

[Xiahou]

At the end of the day, Valve has proven that DRM can be done in a positive and constructive way. The problem isn't DRM itself, it's bad DRM. Bad DRM does exactly what Mr. Refenes says. Valve's DRM works because the actual DRM aspect of it is incidental to the service. Valve created a system that added massive amount of customer convenience in many areas. The fact that it also operates as DRM is a side-benefit for them.

Bingo. Your last post sounded like you were saying you buy from Steam because of DRM. But, you're really buying from Steam because it's a convenient distribution method that includes other useful features. If it didn't have DRM- if you could play single-player games without having to launch Steam first -I don't think you'd find any gamers boycotting Steam. It's not the DRM you want- it's the features and convenience that Steam offers. I don't know of anyone who would refuse to buy a game because it didn't have DRM. But I know of lots of people who refuse to buy certain games because they do have DRM.

That's the point Refenes was making. DRM itself is always going to be a bad investment. You (the publisher) are spending money on something that will bring you no tangible returns and will likely alienate customers. Don't worry about the DRM and instead worry about taking care of your customers and making them want to buy from you.

[TinCow]

DRM itself is always going to be a bad investment.

This is wrong. Refenes is correct that it is, at least right now, impossible to quantify the amount of money lost due to piracy. However, that does not mean that money is not lost. Some certainly is, and he admits as much. The problem is that, since the amount lost cannot be known, companies take a risk when they pay to add DRM to a game. That risk is that the amount they are paying to add the DRM will be greater than the amount they will gain from fighting piracy. While it may be risky though, there's still a dollar value on both sides of it, and thus it's entirely possible for a DRM to be less expansive than the amount of money it recoups. I'd accept the argument that DRM is usually a bad investment, particularly the massive glossy UI overlay, constantly server-managed types like Origin and Windows Live. However, usually is not always. I'd point to Minecraft as an example of DRM that is likely profit-positive. Its DRM is very minimal, amounts to nothing more than a single login check, and basically does not get noticed beyond the rare situation when the login server is down for a short period. There are, of course, no ways for us to estimate the amount of money that Mojang has saved with that method, but due to the relatively low cost of the system and their massive sales, I'd be willing to bet that they're in a net positive. So, no, DRM is not ALWAYS a bad investment.

[drone]

This discussion is about the XBone and whether their connectivity system is rage-quit worthy or not. For some reason people are getting a bit hysterical because it has DRM features, and they're largely skipping over the conversation about whether the online connectivity system that Microsoft has added is good as a whole. I'm not saying that MS has done it right; quite the opposite, I think that the 24 hour check-in thing is extreme and likely a very poor decision. However, I feel like I'm one of the few people actually analyzing the system as a whole instead of just going OMG DRM ALT F4.

From a business standpoint, Microsoft is trying to do the following things with the XBone and the necessary internet connectivity:

• Place DRM control on games to prevent casual piracy.
• Sell games through their marketplace.
• Sell more games through reselling and sharing restrictions, as well as planned obsolecense.
• Push ads to the consumers (probably by uploading to MS your habits and then downloading targeted ads back).
• Boil frogs. Eventually connectivity will be required fulltime, and no sharing allowed.

The plan all along has been to control the living room by being the set top box. DVD/Blueray player, DVR, streaming movies, games, internet, just one central entertainment device. Most of that requires internet access for proper usability, if they can attempt to solve content-related control problems with fulltime connectivity they will. The built-in survellience tool is just an added bonus.

[Fragony]

Aren't the PS4 and XBOX one the same sub standard PC chip in a different shaped box?

Ps4 is a monstr it has 8 gb of ram and a superfast processor. It wont't outclass a VERY expensive pc of course

[TinCow]

The plan all along has been to control the living room by being the set top box. DVD/Blueray player, DVR, streaming movies, games, internet, just one central entertainment device. Most of that requires internet access for proper usability, if they can attempt to solve content-related control problems with fulltime connectivity they will. The built-in survellience tool is just an added bonus.

Quite right and, from a business standpoint, quite sensible. The 360/PS3 battle was fought as much for the media center as it was for the gaming console. When it came out, the PS3 was the cheapest Blu-ray player on the market, and many, many people use their 360/PS3 as their main media interface boxes. That's a increasingly significant market these days, and it's only going to grow more so. Cable and satellite companies provide basic boxes, but the reality is that they are pretty crappy. None of us want to have 3-4 different boxes sitting under our televisions. It's 2013 FFS, we want convergence in all electronics, and our entertainment centers are no exception. The only console I've owned since the NES is a Wii, and the Wii purchase was exclusively because of my wife. That said, I probably would have picked up a 360/PS3 to use as a media center if I hadn't become a TiVo addict years ago. My main TiVo is a very, very heavily used device. I would go bonkers if I didn't have a set top box that could stream Netflix, Amazon, Pandora, and music/video off my home network. If I somehow lost my TiVo and couldn't get another one, I would very seriously consider a console to fill that role.

[TinCow]

I also never buy used games anymore, but I sure did when I was younger and I think its quite unfair to push them out of the market. If not for used games, i'd have never had any games at all as a kid.

This is true, but also deceptive. The reality is that consoles have been devices for adults for many years now. When I was a kid, I saved up my allowance and gift money for a year and bought the most basic NES set at $100, and that was shortly after release. Games were still expensive then ($40 per, IIRC), but I could get a couple a year if I saved my money. Basic console sets now are priced well out of the child/teenager market. These things are purchased by adults and their features are targeted at adults. If children have access to consoles now, it is because their parents buy them. MS and Sony are not aiming at the market of people who want to save $20 on a game, they're aiming at the market of people who can pay $500+ for an electronics device and then $50+ for games. Those aren't kids. A device that is aiming at the lower cost market is the Ouya.

In any case, the days when the console was something for children only is long gone. It's an adult/family device now:
http://www.theesa.com/facts/

1. Consumers spent $24.75 billion on video games, hardware and accessories in 2011.
2. Purchases of digital content accounted for 31 percent of game sales in 2011, generating $7.3 billion in revenue.
3. The average U.S. household owns at least one dedicated game console, PC or smartphone.
4. The average game player is 30 years old and has been playing games for 12 years.
5. The average age of the most frequent game purchaser is 35 years old.
6. Forty-seven percent of all game players are women. In fact, women over the age of 18 represent a significantly greater portion of the game-playing population (30 percent) than boys age 17 or younger (18 percent).
7. Sixty-two percent of gamers play games with others, either in-person or online.
8. Thirty-three percent of gamers play games on their smartphones, and 25 percent play games on their handheld device.
9. Seventy-three percent of all games sold in 2011 were rated "E" for Everyone, "T" for Teen, or "E10+" for Everyone 10+.
10. Parents are present when games are purchased or rented 90 percent of the time

[Beskar]

I support TinCow on a lot of this stuff, especially Steam. I love the name XBone which reads as X-Bone, though it gives mental images of bowchickachicka version of the Xmen.

One thing that does grind my gears though, is that DRM prevents old-school coop. If I have two PC's at home and I use the game for both of them (let's say Laptop for travel and PC at home), I should be able to play co-op if TinCow came around to my house with the game. Whilst this is fine for some games like EU3, other games purposefully prevent you from doing this. Really frustrating as I don't want to pay for two-copies of the game and I am sure TinCow doesn't want to buy a game to use on my computer.

[Beskar]

Ps4 is a monstr it has 8 gb of ram and a superfast processor.

Being honest, 8gig isn't much. I had that since 6 years ago. I see basic gamer boxes with like 32gig now. Though 32gig is kind of pointless due to the fact programmes are limited to 3gig.

[TinCow]

One thing that does grind my gears though, is that DRM prevents old-school coop. If I have two PC's at home and I use the game for both of them (let's say Laptop for travel and PC at home), I should be able to play co-op if TinCow came around to my house with the game. Whilst this is fine for some games like EU3, other games purposefully prevent you from doing this. Really frustrating as I don't want to pay for two-copies of the game and I am sure TinCow doesn't want to buy a game to use on my computer.

This annoys me too, particularly since I spend a lot of time gaming with my wife. I have more money than sense though and gave up being angry with the situation several years ago and just started buying multiple copies. I think we spent something like $180 just on Borderlands 1. That said, for many single player games we simply share a Steam login account and make deals about who plays in online mode and who plays in offline mode. It's still annoying, but we can both play at the same time that way with a single purchase, though only in SP.

[Gregoshi]

In any case, the days when the console was something for children only is long gone. It's an adult/family device now...

I've been working at Target in the electronics department for nearly three years and my personal experience, with no numbers to back me up, is contrary to some of the stats presented and TC's comment about adults and consoles. Most consoles sold at our store were parents buying them for their kids - school aged (5-6) and up for the Wii and pre-teen and up for Xbox/PS3. Similar experience with games - parents buying games for school-aged kids and most of the rest in the 18-25 year old range. Of course, I'm guessing ages, but in my particular situation (retail/department store), a 30 year old average gamer age seems high. Also, most parents are clueless about the consoles and are purchasing them under the direction of their teenager or with our (store employees) guidance for younger kids. As for female gamers, most of our games purchased by/for female gamers are fitness, dance or family oriented (to play with their young kids).

As for the XBone (like that name too) and the battle for the living room, I'm skeptical about the tactic. An all-in-one device for the living room isn't a bad idea, but this could lead to problems with family members competing for the TV. I have a PS3 hooked up to our TV in the family room, yet I rarely play with it (issue with using a controller aside) because the wife wants to watch TV or a DVD, my son, his girlfriend and her kid want to watch TV/DVD too and my son wants to play with his Xbox. Fortunately, my daughter has a TV in her room or things could be worse. Hence I rarely get TV time to watch/do what I want to unless it is very late at night after everyone else has gone to bed. I image the situation with the XBone will be similar - gaming dies or TV/video watching dies or everyone gets a small slice of time to do their thing on the shared device and no one is happy. And with an XBone in the living room, who is going to buy a second one for another room in the house if the price is too high? Perhaps Microsoft should be commended for their attempt to bring the family back together, but I'm not sure how that is going to fly in this day of everyone doing their own personal thing.

[Fragony]

Being honest, 8gig isn't much. I had that since 6 years ago. I see basic gamer boxes with like 32gig now. Though 32gig is kind of pointless due to the fact programmes are limited to 3gig.

For a console it's more than enough seems to be the concencus, the Killzone 3 demo looks better than anything I have seen on a pc, and uses only a fraction of the hardware. If developers are thrilled it can't be bad

[Fragony]

The ps4 won't restrict used games, won't have to be online, and costs only 399 euro, and is a significantly more powerfull machine. Game set match for Sony I'd reckon. The spybox seems to be coughing up blood trying to run it's flagship 'Destiny' and it doesn't even look all that next-gen compared to Sony's Killzone 4. The spybox is a turd

[Papewaio]

Ps4 is a monstr it has 8 gb of ram and a superfast processor. It wont't outclass a VERY expensive pc of course

RAM is well cheap as chips

My two year old PC was based on a budget PC with a few components upgraded. Video card is one of the upgraded parameters. It is less then a thousand (considering Aussies pay more for virtually all PC stuff) has 8 GB.

RAM is like desk space, it generally determines how many apps you can open or how large a table or database you can build in one go. GPUs determine how glossy those apps look.

RAM generally isn't the bottleneck anymore.

[Fragony]

Well I am no techie and I probably just failed trying to act like one, but developers really appear to like that extra space. As I understand the ps4 is a really powerfull. I don't really care about graphics but wouldn't more RAM be usefull to make bigger gameworlds and more refined AI, videocard handling the actual graphics?

[Beskar]

the Killzone 3 demo looks better than anything I have seen on a pc

Out of curiousity, how do you compare it to this ?

[TinCow]

Well I am no techie and I probably just failed trying to act like one, but developers really appear to like that extra space. As I understand the ps4 is a really powerfull. I don't really care about graphics but wouldn't more RAM be usefull to make bigger gameworlds and more refined AI, videocard handling the actual graphics?

Yes, but 8gb is still overkill. I've got a pretty beefy gaming PC and even I only run 8gb, and that's with vastly more programs running than the XBone/PS4 ever will have. That said, it's overkill I understand and I think it's a good decision. RAM was a major bottle-neck on the previous generation because it was woefully inadequate for the needs of the software by the end of the lifespan. The problem there was that the RAM situation was generally acceptable at the time the console was released, but quickly became obsolete after the console had been out for a few years. Add in the increasing online connectivity of the devices over their lifespan, and the RAM usage got even more dire in the 360/PS3. I think both Sony and MS have been very wise with going for 8gb on this generation. RAM is cheap, and including that much in the system right now probably doesn't increase the price very much. At the same time, it gives far better 'future-proofing' to the system and will help the systems keep up with game evolution for far longer than the previous generation did. So, it's a wise decision; not really necessary now, but it's designed for future expansion.