Reminds me a bit of HAL9000. But seriously, is it necessary to have kinect always on? If the implementation of the tech proves to be well done, and feels great to use then I'll take my hat off to them. If it's really as easy as putting a rag over the Kinect then people can do that, but I feel that it's not going to be possible for some reason or another, like the unit turns itself on when it detects a human presence, which is fucking creepy.
I get the whole "people get squirrely when they think they're being watched" thing, but I think there is one key difference between 1984 and xbox3, you aren't forced to buy a xbox3.
If you don't want a mic and a camera watching you scratch your ass, then don't put one in your living room. Or do, but don't plug it in unless you're using it.
It's kind of weird that some of you guys think you lead these super spy lives when in reality 80% of the time a kinect will be starring at an empty room and the other 20% it will staring at you, stare at it. It would be like a convenience store owner sitting in the back room constantly watching his employee, stare at the cash register, after 5 min you probably want a plane to crash into the place.
Now before you get all spun out and tinfoil hattery, I do think there is some weight behind some of the claims that they could use it to spy on you. But they are probably way more likely to spy on you using traditional methods if there is in fact probable cause to spy on you. Those methods are probably way more effective at catching you than a kinect will be. Also they would probably warrantlessly tap your home monitoring system before they go after the kinect.
is it? There's been plenty of cases of cameras being remotely turned on and recording people without their knowledge - it happened with school provided laptops recently.
When my PC is off, so is my webcam. It can not be turned on remotely. Sure, when I'm using my laptop (the only thing I have with a webcam), someone could remotely access it, but it's not on 24/7. Plus, many people put tape over their laptop webcams, and I suspect the xbox will nag at you if you have the camera covered (when the console is on).
Anyway, there is definitely a difference. One is always watching you, the other is only potentially watching you when your PC is on.
Also, since the kinect is always on, I can easily see an error popping up if something is blocking the sensor.
Currently, you recalibrate the Kinect by covering it up totally then uncovering it. That's how the software works. So if you just cover it, it just idles until it's uncovered.
Besides, how many of you still use Skype with no regards to this?
I always laugh when I see someone with tape over their laptop webcam as if they expect it to be hacked at any second. just seems super insecure and paranoid. if someone miraculously managed to turn on my laptops webcam, they would see me blankly staring at the screen, a wall of an empty room or me furiously wanking. in that case they would need a wide angle lens enhancement.
personally I wouldnt really give a shit, the likley hood of it happening at all is so unlikely, to waste time and energy worrying about people peering into the average persons boring life is pretty pathetic when I would be far more concerend about the amount of daily advertising/brainwashing we are bombarded with. I know I cant even watch cable TV any more its just painful.
I would be far more worried about attacks on your iphone/smartphone where people can activate cameras, steal banking info etc on a much larger scale than the percentage of people who own an xb. I would guess that the number of smartphone owners outweighs console owners probably around 10 or 20 to one.
plus for those people worried about people seeing them nekkid through their webcam magically being hacked at the right moment and right angle, i would imagine hacking someones phone and having access to all their photo library would be far more efficient way of seeing some boobies/wang.
I can understand why some people don't like the idea of MS reserving the right to collect all data from Kinect. I'm guessing the majority of data will be used to force certain advertisement and products to the user, among other things. Its like you consent to be part of their ongoing survey by purchasing their system.
I know we all don't live glamorous super secret lives, but I don't think anybody likes the idea of being watched, especially when a company openly states 'We will be watching'.
@PixelMasher- There are underground forums of hackers dedicated to "Digital Slaves". These Digital Slaves are people whose laptops have been hacked. The hackers keep the webcams running whenever the laptop is on. Of course mostly everyone's life is nothing glamours but these group of hackers take enjoyment in the act, plus they now have access to anything private on the laptop.
I use to laugh at the idea of covering up webcams; after researching it though, that paranoia is justified.
disclaimer; I've only read the first 8 pages or so, maybe I've missed some important info over the latter pages
For the lulz, I made a specwise comparable PC build to see what kind of price we'd need to compete. (although, woops, I've put in a DVD burner instead of bluray-reader) It's actually amazingly close to the 599 the PS3 launched at.
Not that I'm assuming the xbox3/PS4 will launch at that price; I'm expecting them both to retail around 450, the xbox sacrificing some hardware performance for the inclusion of kinect at the same price point. But given that MS doesn't have to pay 80 for the OS, and they have a strong haggling position...
It's remarkably similar to a PC build. I reckon that if Valve would be interested in launching their own branded console, they would have no issues competing.
Personally I'm sticking with PC for now, if only because the extra $150 I would spend is counteracted by the 50/60 PC/console price different with just 15 launch-day-games. And even faster if you take in to consideration PC price skimming dynamics, Steam Sales, Humble Bundles and so on.
man. people be acting like they can't just turn the Kinect around or put a piece of cloth over it...
i am going to pay 500$ for a device that i do not want so i can throw a towel over it? companies have to design products that people actually want to buy. every new aspect of this device (excluding the games) is an abusive anti consumer measure designed to limit peoples choices, restrict usage and harvest private information. the sole purpose of all this is to extract more profits at the expense of consumers privacy and choice.
there is literally nothing there but Microsofts wish list of mischievous things to do to fuck over its customers. i am not going to buy a product that was designed to suit the wishes of that corporation that produced it. if they were to offer a new version of the xbox360 on new hardware with the same feature set as the xbox360 my guess is that 99% of the gamers would rather buy that device then the xbone.
on a side note:
this is not about growing the pot for studio revenues. this is microsoft shifting away from games and investing its resources and time into funding and promoting tv and movie content. what they presented was designed to appeal to there new target market. that is where they are going to focus. games are not going to be on a pedestal anymore and get all the attention. the exclusion of indie games is a reflection of that. games will be kicked into a 'channel' next to movies, music, tv etc. and most of there promotion will be focused on growing tv and movie viewers at the expense of promoting games.
Well, you have to figure, at least in relation to the GPUs, neither manufacturer is going to provide Sony or MS a GPU that they won't also make available for PCs. It's not as though they are going to develop some amazing GPU, then intentionally reserve it for consoles.
What games even use the Kinect apart from dance games and mini games?
Its never going to be of any use in a triple AAA game(only as a gimmick that doesnt work right). At least not if they just leave it up to developers whom havent the time or money to spend figuring out how to use it.
And they dont want indies on their console so its just going to be a paper weight always watching and listening(because you cant even turn some of the functions off on the current version).
i am going to pay 500$ for a device that i do not want so i can throw a towel over it?
Ummm, what? So you're going to pay for something you don't want? Who is making you do such a thing, is it Microsoft? Are they holding a gun to your head? Do we need to call the cops? I'm sure if you decided not to buy the XB:ONE the rest of us that will probably be picking it up won't mind if you sit this one out.
sbip:
I would be far more worried about attacks on your iphone/smartphone where people can activate cameras, steal banking info etc on a much larger scale than the percentage of people who own an xb.
not that i want to single this comment out but is seems to be representative of the "they would not do that there good guys" hypothesis.
this sort understanding is about 7 years behind the reality of business and the capability of the networks. this is about surveillance. surveillance is a business model. it's worth hundreds of billions of dollars every year. tracking, monitoring and recording are a revenue stream. perhaps the biggest revenue stream. this data is correlated and used for prediction. some of this is relatively harmless. some of it is extremely dangerous. most of this surveillance is done because people are a bit behind the sophistication of business and its methods. most smart people are taking precautions and making choices that takes pieces of there analytic data out of the hands of companies who will engage in this business. anyone can buy this data from governments, banks, anyone. the main motivation is to increase the sophistication of surveillance which increases the price they can demand for the analytic data. there is simply no benefit to allow this data to be collected and huge risks that it will be used to your disadvantage.
sorry i didnt clarify. I totally agree, and think most major corporations are greedy, manipulative cunts. my point was if they want to do it there is nothing you can really do about it if you want to live in a world filled with gadgets and gizmos. if someone really wants your data they will get it. most of your personal info can already be mined off your computer or phone, probably far more damaging that anything the xb can do.
I dont think they are nice/good guys at all, i think its just reality. the only way to avoid it is to not buy their stuff, which is up to you as a consumer. if other people dig it and want it, im not going to stop them or sit there spouting about how they are the devil or whining/trying to convice people of your argument, which in the average gamer audience there is no logic or rational, just babies screaming with little tantrums and slapping each other over whats better sony or ms, cod or bf etc...
Ummm, what? So you're going to pay for something you don't want? Who is making you do such a thing, is it Microsoft? Are they holding a gun to your head? Do we need to call the cops? I'm sure if you decided not to buy the XB:ONE the rest of us that will probably be picking it up won't mind if you sit this one out.
if thats the sales strategy judging by the response i have seen microsoft will be hugely successful. shrinking your customer base is quite innovative.
i propose an xbone butplug that periodically connects to microsofts servers to update your sphincter stats... it will be another big winner i predict.
sorry i didnt clarify. I totally agree, and think most major corporations are greedy, manipulative cunts. my point was if they want to do it there is nothing you can really do about it if you want to live in a world filled with gadgets and gizmos. if someone really wants your data they will get it. most of your personal info can already be mined off your computer or phone, probably far more damaging that anything the xb can do.
I dont think they are nice/good guys at all, i think its just reality. the only way to avoid it is to not buy their stuff, which is up to you as a consumer. if other people dig it and want it, im not going to stop them or sit there spouting about how they are the devil or whining/trying to convice people of your argument, which in the average gamer audience there is no logic or rational, just babies screaming with little tantrums and slapping each other over whats better sony or ms, cod or bf etc...
actually there is a hell of a lot you can do about it. there are laws in place to keep companies from tapping your phone and accessing your data without your permission. business would be impossible if there was not a legal framework to protect privacy and data. both windows and osx have all these restrictions. as do most devices. the only way in most cases that they can get any data is by you waving your rights to prosecute them for violating the laws, but even in these cases if they cause some sort of damage by there actions they can be sued and you can collect damages. there is a huge list of restrictions from randomly calling people on there phones to sell you junk to accessing medical records, data retention and sale etc. the whole reason why the economy can work in the first place is that you have the ability to maintain confidential information. both in private life and in public business. this is just another attempt to push the envelope. i don't think its going to be any real benefit and push away a lot of potential customers. not a very bright move imo.
EA CTO: Xbox One architecture is a generation ahead of the highest end PC on the market
i highly doubt the xbox one or the ps4 are a generation ahead of the current highest spec pc
Well. Technically... I could make the argument that the GPU's in there are probably chips from the Radeon 8**** series rather than the currently available 7**** series. But that will only be a 'generation gap' for a few months, and it says fuckall about performance.
if thats the sales strategy judging by the response i have seen microsoft will be hugely successful. shrinking your customer base is quite innovative.
i propose an xbone butplug that periodically connects to microsofts servers to update your sphincter stats... it will be a another big winner i predict.
Did I say that was their strategy? Is anyone saying that? Many people are assuming Microsoft doesn't care about games anymore, which is so absurd it barely deserves conversation. The reveal conference was focused on what? Television, All-in one entertainment, EA, COD, and Sports. Guess who cares about those things? The people with the REAL money, the investors, that's what they want to see. Whether or not you, the gamer, thinks you deserve the spotlight in the press conference is irrelevant. Anyways, they came right out and said E3 is where we will show the games, so to say it's not about games anymore, is as I've said, ridiculous.
That still doesn't change the fact that you're all worked up about a system you don't appear to have any intention of buying. I'm not exactly in love with the PS4 so far, but that's no reason for me to badmouth it, I simply won't buy it if I don't feel it's worth it.
The reveal conference was focused on what? Television, All-in one entertainment, EA, COD, and Sports. Guess who cares about those things? The people with the REAL money, the investors, that's what they want to see. Whether or not you, the gamer, thinks you deserve the spotlight in the press conference is irrelevant. Anyways, they came right out and said E3 is where we will show the games, so to say it's not about games anymore, is as I've said, ridiculous.
Appealing to the general investors isn't a bad idea, and announcing an NFL content partnership probably will set their minds at ease. And the dip to Microsoft's stock after the press conference was actually quite small, so clearly there wasn't too much of a negative reaction from investors. And a lot of the major news outlets seemed to have a positive reaction to this reveal. (while the internet's reaction was negative) At least part of their supposed strategy did work. The man on the street is suitably impressed by Microsoft's upcoming TV/Sports/Media box.
But was this really wise? This device isn't going to be cheap. And the broad audience that they are talking about appealing to isn't going to be early adopters. The early crowd are all going to be game enthusiasts who are already invested in Microsoft's first-party software. Trotting out EA and Activision to show off their latest offerings was also a suspect decision. ALL of those games are going to be on the PS4, PS3, 360, and PC. (and quite possibly the Wii U) They aren't going to win over any of that crowd with the media functionality. A little less on cable channeling switching and a little more on XBox Live upgrades would have been in order.
Also, Microsoft's reveal didn't exist in a vacuum. They had the misfortune to reveal their system after Sony's reveal. Whether they wanted it or not, comparisons were innevitable. And Sony very strongly emphasized game development.
if you want to start another point of discussion then do so.
but don't think that other people should stop discussing the kinetic or any other point just because you don't want to discuss it. obviously there are a large number of issues and a good chunk of those most think are regressions not features.
- Microsoft spent a lot of money on the Kinetic R&D.
- The Kinetic isn't something that wouldn't work well on PCs, so it seperates PC and console gaming.
- The Kinetic will not have a chance to be sucessful if it is optional for the Xbox One. They don't want the user base to be fragmented.
These are all respectable, solid reasons.
What I worry about is that modern cross-platform development is going to marginalize the advantage of having the Kinect as a default control option. When you have major titles targeting all the major platforms, those games aren't going to use the Kinect as it ought to be implemented. And those titles count for a lot of the modern market, and specifically a lot of the market that Microsoft is clearly targeting.
With this being the case, I am concerned that Microsoft's first-party development just isn't strong enough to push the Kinect by itself. Sony and Nintendo are both stronger when it comes to exclusive development houses. And both of them will also have a much more significant indie presence. This leaves the Kinect out in the cold when it comes to development support.
@Richard Was it wise? Depends on who you ask really, as you pointed out via the reaction of the gaming community vs. the average joe. The point of gamers generally being the early adopters is a valid point though. I feel like MSFT fell victim to a lack of identity in the press conference, as well as being generally unclear. If they had said from the get-go this was hardware/services only, and kept it at that, I think we'd be seeing a different reaction. As far as winning over people with the functionality, I was impressed, as I do use my 360 as my media center currently, so the apparent fluidity of the transitions from one form of media to the other was something that interested me, obviously I'm just one person, but you get what I'm saying.
@gray I don't really know what else to say other than you're making mountains out of non-existant molehills, that's why it isn't worth discussing. I'm more than happy to discuss ACTUAL concerns, as many others have put forth, but from what you've posted so far, such as claiming the Xbox isn't about games anymore, and the paranoia about the Kinect, I don't see why you'd bother with that discussion until E3 is over.
@J0NNYquid
so your contribution to the discussion is to tell other people to stop discussing things?
if you want to discuss something else then do it. but telling people there discussion is ACTUALLY not important is a bit of a cop-out from bringing up some other interesting point that changes the discussion.
i am going to pay 500$ for a device that i do not want so i can throw a towel over it?
No, why would you do that? I'm pretty sure you aren't their target audience. Just judging from your first post in this thread you made it pretty clear you would prefer a PC/steam box over a console.
Although, I do find it funny that people are getting so upset with Microsoft for making the xb1 more like a pc/not innovating. Microsoft adds instant-on/resume, multitasking, automatic background update installation, increased app support, built-in support for interacting with everything from phones to tablets, laptops, and desktop PCs, improved Kinect that can finally interact with controllers, live tv support, and hell whether you like the feature or not even the required installation (meaning no cd required) and authorization of games is a very PC/Steamish thing to do. They did all this and still improved the hardware to provide for increased quality of games/performance.
I personally haven't followed the PS4 information very much (can't stand the controllers/UI), so correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I have gathered so far it is basically a PS3+. They have improved the hardware's power and performance, as well as improved the difficulty of developing for the console. The xb1 did the first, albeit not quite to the same extent, and the xbox 360 has had the latter for the past 7-8 years and that will continue with the xb1. Assuming the prices are relatively close, why wouldn't I want a console with all of the extra features that the xb1 offers?
Now that doesn't mean I don't think there aren't any issues with the xb1. The whole used games issue and the privacy issues with Kinect are just a few of them. The biggest issue I had with the xb1 reveal was that Microsoft left far too many major questions half or completely unanswered. This has led to wild speculations that are based on incomplete or flat out wrong information. These issues should have been addressed fully at the reveal so as to minimize any negative backlash. I plan to reserve my final judgment of the xb1 until after Microsoft has released more complete information.
@J0NNYquid
so your contribution to the discussion is to tell other people to stop discussing things?
if you want to discuss something else then do it. but telling people there discussion is ACTUALLY not important is a bit of a cop-out from bringing up some other interesting point that changes the discussion.
likening the new console to a butt-plug with crude photoshops is much more productive to the discussion :poly124:
what i see is a slow creep of some of the features from pc gaming onto consoles. and the hardware, even tho there might be special models for the consoles are essentially the same commodity pc hardware. so when i look at what the console has to offer as a platform it just seems to be a locked down pc at this point that you cannot upgrade the hardware or os to your liking. i guess its still a bit easier to pull it out of the box and plug it into your tv. but i spend most of my time in front of the monitor on the pc or the tablet. so thats where i want my games. maybe there are some advantages that the xbone or ps4 have that make the loss of upgrades and os freedom worth it but i can't really think of any.
edit:
i would be more likely to buy if the current gen actually was more like a pc and offered some sort of upgrades and more freedom to use the os more like a general purpose system. all those things are totally possible. but it seems there going in the opposite direction as far as user choice is concerned.
I think the main thing you are forgetting is for every super nerd gamer out there who gives a shit about things like this, there is 20 more people who only buy call of duty, madden and fifa, probably spark a fat joint and sit on their couch playing video games after work or a long day and don't give a shit about any of the things you guys are arguing about, which is the reason its more attractive for ms or any company that wants to make money off their products to shoot for that exponentially bigger audience.
I know plenty of people who wouldn't consider themselves gamers and call people who play games all the time nerds or deny they are gamers, but only buy 2 games a year. madden and COD. pretty much its a publisher going after a major demographic with their unveiling, and while all the super nerds are freaking out, joe average "i don't give a shit" is saying, hm that's cool, i like those things ill buy into it.
i spend most of my time in front of the monitor on the pc or the tablet. so thats where i want my games.
I'm totally opposite. I use my pc for work mostly and I don't want games to distract me from it so I prefer to separate my gaming and working machines.
I'm totally opposite. I use my pc for work mostly and I don't want games to distract me from it so I prefer to separate my gaming and working machines.
i do something similar in that i have a workstation and its totally offline with just software. an entertainment pc for games, net and other junk. i have a tablet that can mooch content off of the games pc. i just looked at my media habits and realized they are no longer passive. if i watch movies i will keep other stuff going in the background. and i read a lot of digital documentation on the tablet also. the wall tv has no use case for me anymore.
im not against buying an appliance to replace the gaming pc. even one from microsoft. but it has to play nice with my network. share files, install custom binaries etc. if the steam box can nail this i think thats the middle ground i can accept. but the tv/cable thing is a distant memory for me at this point.
I'm totally opposite. I use my pc for work mostly and I don't want games to distract me from it so I prefer to separate my gaming and working machines.
I heard this helps immensely, having two physically different locations, one to work and one to play. There are games that I play on the PC because they're either not on the consoles or just don't work (like flight sims). I'd like to have a different PC in another location, where I can do actual work. Buying another PC would be spendy though
I think the main thing you are forgetting is for every super nerd gamer out there who gives a shit about things like this, there is 20 more people who only buy call of duty, madden and fifa, probably spark a fat joint and sit on their couch playing video games after work or a long day and don't give a shit about any of the things you guys are arguing about, which is the reason its more attractive for ms or any company that wants to make money off their products to shoot for that exponentially bigger audience.
Fair enough. But Microsoft didn't announce one of the most important factors for the crowd you're talking about. And that's the price.
What they did announce is that they're going to be bundling a sizable accessory with the system. Even if the PS4 turns out to be more expensive to produce (GDDR5 vs. DDR3) the Kinect's production costs even out that equation.
The Call of Duty and Madden crowd will be more price conscious than the "nerd" enthusiasts. All else being equal, they will likely gravitate to the cheaper alternative. What's the cheaper alternative for an annual franchise gamer? The console that will let them sell their yearly sports and shooting games to GameStop, or the one that doesn't?
I think the main thing you are forgetting is for every super nerd gamer out there who gives a shit about things like this, there is 20 more people who only buy call of duty, madden and fifa, probably spark a fat joint and sit on their couch playing video games after work or a long day and don't give a shit about any of the things you guys are arguing about, which is the reason its more attractive for ms or any company that wants to make money off their products to shoot for that exponentially bigger audience.
I know plenty of people who wouldn't consider themselves gamers and call people who play games all the time nerds or deny they are gamers, but only buy 2 games a year. madden and COD. pretty much its a publisher going after a major demographic with their unveiling, and while all the super nerds are freaking out, joe average "i don't give a shit" is saying, hm that's cool, i like those things ill buy into it.
Pretty much this. Depending on which group you fall into, I'd assume most on polycount wouldn't necessarily fall into the COD/Madden only group, so the frustration in them being the focus is somewhat justified, though premature.
@Richard raises a valid argument though, I really do think one of, if not the biggest factors is going to be price. With more and more titles being cross-platform, and the capabilities of both machines being similar, it's going to come down to dollars and cents, and where you can get the most bang for your buck.
@Marine, yeah, I was exhausted last night, typing half asleep. I should have had that in there, as that's been my point from the beginning at least as far as the games themselves go, they said it in their closing statements, so the no-games! hatewagon is funny to me.
They're obviously waiting last second to announce price. They're probably waiting to see if Sony announces it first.
If they are launching in 2013 (and everyone claims this will be the case) than they will have to announce price at E3. And it doesn't really matter who announces first. It only matters who announces lowest at this point. Moreover, they aren't going to have the option of reacting to Sony's announcement. Whatever price they've decided on at this point, that's what its going to be.
They showed of the physical console. The design is finished, and they are probably collecting production quotes right now. They aren't going to have any wiggle room on the price.
I am actually quite excited for E3 now. It seems we have a real competition on our hands. We can all look forward to another long console cycle marked by fierce competition between three relatively evenly matched rivals. The one-console future is going to have to wait a while longer.
I don't know about the Xbox One.. Feels like all the "features" were to bone the gamers..
Funny thing how Xbox One feels like a PS3+ but you can't resell your games, use the internet properly without paying monthly, need the big kinect thingy, and be occationally online.
Let's say I want to go on holiday to my internetless cottage in the woods? I need to drag the big kinect lump with me for starters. And then I need to occationally be online so.. I can't play certain games? Or it's just when I want to install games? What a hassle.
I don't know about the Xbox One.. Feels like all the "features" were to bone the gamers..
Funny thing how Xbox One feels like a PS3+ but you can't resell your games, use the internet properly without paying monthly, need the big kinect thingy, and be occationally online.
Let's say I want to go on holiday to my internetless cottage in the woods? I need to drag the big kinect lump with me for starters. And then I need to occationally be online so.. I can't play certain games? Or it's just when I want to install games? What a hassle.
I am dissapoint!
from what i have been reading i'm not sure you will be able to play 'any' games unless your connected to there servers and can validate your keys. they keep a record of every game you have purchased. if you sell that game your key is revoked to play that game. at some point your box has to connect to the server to see if you have a valid key. if that was not the case then you could buy games install them and activate them. then unplug your box and sell your games but still have them on your box and play them.
so yes, you are correct all the new 'features' are always connected DRM. :thumbdown:
Replies
If you don't want a mic and a camera watching you scratch your ass, then don't put one in your living room. Or do, but don't plug it in unless you're using it.
It's kind of weird that some of you guys think you lead these super spy lives when in reality 80% of the time a kinect will be starring at an empty room and the other 20% it will staring at you, stare at it. It would be like a convenience store owner sitting in the back room constantly watching his employee, stare at the cash register, after 5 min you probably want a plane to crash into the place.
Now before you get all spun out and tinfoil hattery, I do think there is some weight behind some of the claims that they could use it to spy on you. But they are probably way more likely to spy on you using traditional methods if there is in fact probable cause to spy on you. Those methods are probably way more effective at catching you than a kinect will be. Also they would probably warrantlessly tap your home monitoring system before they go after the kinect.
Because, you know that's mandatory also...
[ame="
When my PC is off, so is my webcam. It can not be turned on remotely. Sure, when I'm using my laptop (the only thing I have with a webcam), someone could remotely access it, but it's not on 24/7. Plus, many people put tape over their laptop webcams, and I suspect the xbox will nag at you if you have the camera covered (when the console is on).
Anyway, there is definitely a difference. One is always watching you, the other is only potentially watching you when your PC is on.
This is all speculation until actual specs are officially release from both companies (part of my disappointment of the MS presentation).
Just excellent ;D
Currently, you recalibrate the Kinect by covering it up totally then uncovering it. That's how the software works. So if you just cover it, it just idles until it's uncovered.
Besides, how many of you still use Skype with no regards to this?
http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/20/busted-microsoft-intercepts-decrypts-and-reads-your-skype-messages/
personally I wouldnt really give a shit, the likley hood of it happening at all is so unlikely, to waste time and energy worrying about people peering into the average persons boring life is pretty pathetic when I would be far more concerend about the amount of daily advertising/brainwashing we are bombarded with. I know I cant even watch cable TV any more its just painful.
plus for those people worried about people seeing them nekkid through their webcam magically being hacked at the right moment and right angle, i would imagine hacking someones phone and having access to all their photo library would be far more efficient way of seeing some boobies/wang.
I know we all don't live glamorous super secret lives, but I don't think anybody likes the idea of being watched, especially when a company openly states 'We will be watching'.
@PixelMasher- There are underground forums of hackers dedicated to "Digital Slaves". These Digital Slaves are people whose laptops have been hacked. The hackers keep the webcams running whenever the laptop is on. Of course mostly everyone's life is nothing glamours but these group of hackers take enjoyment in the act, plus they now have access to anything private on the laptop.
I use to laugh at the idea of covering up webcams; after researching it though, that paranoia is justified.
For the lulz, I made a specwise comparable PC build to see what kind of price we'd need to compete. (although, woops, I've put in a DVD burner instead of bluray-reader) It's actually amazingly close to the 599 the PS3 launched at.
Not that I'm assuming the xbox3/PS4 will launch at that price; I'm expecting them both to retail around 450, the xbox sacrificing some hardware performance for the inclusion of kinect at the same price point. But given that MS doesn't have to pay 80 for the OS, and they have a strong haggling position...
It's remarkably similar to a PC build. I reckon that if Valve would be interested in launching their own branded console, they would have no issues competing.
Personally I'm sticking with PC for now, if only because the extra $150 I would spend is counteracted by the 50/60 PC/console price different with just 15 launch-day-games. And even faster if you take in to consideration PC price skimming dynamics, Steam Sales, Humble Bundles and so on.
i am going to pay 500$ for a device that i do not want so i can throw a towel over it? companies have to design products that people actually want to buy. every new aspect of this device (excluding the games) is an abusive anti consumer measure designed to limit peoples choices, restrict usage and harvest private information. the sole purpose of all this is to extract more profits at the expense of consumers privacy and choice.
there is literally nothing there but Microsofts wish list of mischievous things to do to fuck over its customers. i am not going to buy a product that was designed to suit the wishes of that corporation that produced it. if they were to offer a new version of the xbox360 on new hardware with the same feature set as the xbox360 my guess is that 99% of the gamers would rather buy that device then the xbone.
on a side note:
this is not about growing the pot for studio revenues. this is microsoft shifting away from games and investing its resources and time into funding and promoting tv and movie content. what they presented was designed to appeal to there new target market. that is where they are going to focus. games are not going to be on a pedestal anymore and get all the attention. the exclusion of indie games is a reflection of that. games will be kicked into a 'channel' next to movies, music, tv etc. and most of there promotion will be focused on growing tv and movie viewers at the expense of promoting games.
EA CTO: Xbox One architecture is “a generation ahead of the highest end PC on the market”
i highly doubt the xbox one or the ps4 are a generation ahead of the current highest spec pc
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/brain-fargo-and-mark-rein-call-bullshit-on-eas-latest-claims-about-next-gen-consoles-and-pc/
Its never going to be of any use in a triple AAA game(only as a gimmick that doesnt work right). At least not if they just leave it up to developers whom havent the time or money to spend figuring out how to use it.
And they dont want indies on their console so its just going to be a paper weight always watching and listening(because you cant even turn some of the functions off on the current version).
Ummm, what? So you're going to pay for something you don't want? Who is making you do such a thing, is it Microsoft? Are they holding a gun to your head? Do we need to call the cops? I'm sure if you decided not to buy the XB:ONE the rest of us that will probably be picking it up won't mind if you sit this one out.
not that i want to single this comment out but is seems to be representative of the "they would not do that there good guys" hypothesis.
this sort understanding is about 7 years behind the reality of business and the capability of the networks. this is about surveillance. surveillance is a business model. it's worth hundreds of billions of dollars every year. tracking, monitoring and recording are a revenue stream. perhaps the biggest revenue stream. this data is correlated and used for prediction. some of this is relatively harmless. some of it is extremely dangerous. most of this surveillance is done because people are a bit behind the sophistication of business and its methods. most smart people are taking precautions and making choices that takes pieces of there analytic data out of the hands of companies who will engage in this business. anyone can buy this data from governments, banks, anyone. the main motivation is to increase the sophistication of surveillance which increases the price they can demand for the analytic data. there is simply no benefit to allow this data to be collected and huge risks that it will be used to your disadvantage.
I dont think they are nice/good guys at all, i think its just reality. the only way to avoid it is to not buy their stuff, which is up to you as a consumer. if other people dig it and want it, im not going to stop them or sit there spouting about how they are the devil or whining/trying to convice people of your argument, which in the average gamer audience there is no logic or rational, just babies screaming with little tantrums and slapping each other over whats better sony or ms, cod or bf etc...
if thats the sales strategy judging by the response i have seen microsoft will be hugely successful. shrinking your customer base is quite innovative.
i propose an xbone butplug that periodically connects to microsofts servers to update your sphincter stats... it will be another big winner i predict.
actually there is a hell of a lot you can do about it. there are laws in place to keep companies from tapping your phone and accessing your data without your permission. business would be impossible if there was not a legal framework to protect privacy and data. both windows and osx have all these restrictions. as do most devices. the only way in most cases that they can get any data is by you waving your rights to prosecute them for violating the laws, but even in these cases if they cause some sort of damage by there actions they can be sued and you can collect damages. there is a huge list of restrictions from randomly calling people on there phones to sell you junk to accessing medical records, data retention and sale etc. the whole reason why the economy can work in the first place is that you have the ability to maintain confidential information. both in private life and in public business. this is just another attempt to push the envelope. i don't think its going to be any real benefit and push away a lot of potential customers. not a very bright move imo.
Well. Technically... I could make the argument that the GPU's in there are probably chips from the Radeon 8**** series rather than the currently available 7**** series. But that will only be a 'generation gap' for a few months, and it says fuckall about performance.
Same for the CPUs.
Did I say that was their strategy? Is anyone saying that? Many people are assuming Microsoft doesn't care about games anymore, which is so absurd it barely deserves conversation. The reveal conference was focused on what? Television, All-in one entertainment, EA, COD, and Sports. Guess who cares about those things? The people with the REAL money, the investors, that's what they want to see. Whether or not you, the gamer, thinks you deserve the spotlight in the press conference is irrelevant. Anyways, they came right out and said E3 is where we will show the games, so to say it's not about games anymore, is as I've said, ridiculous.
That still doesn't change the fact that you're all worked up about a system you don't appear to have any intention of buying. I'm not exactly in love with the PS4 so far, but that's no reason for me to badmouth it, I simply won't buy it if I don't feel it's worth it.
Appealing to the general investors isn't a bad idea, and announcing an NFL content partnership probably will set their minds at ease. And the dip to Microsoft's stock after the press conference was actually quite small, so clearly there wasn't too much of a negative reaction from investors. And a lot of the major news outlets seemed to have a positive reaction to this reveal. (while the internet's reaction was negative) At least part of their supposed strategy did work. The man on the street is suitably impressed by Microsoft's upcoming TV/Sports/Media box.
But was this really wise? This device isn't going to be cheap. And the broad audience that they are talking about appealing to isn't going to be early adopters. The early crowd are all going to be game enthusiasts who are already invested in Microsoft's first-party software. Trotting out EA and Activision to show off their latest offerings was also a suspect decision. ALL of those games are going to be on the PS4, PS3, 360, and PC. (and quite possibly the Wii U) They aren't going to win over any of that crowd with the media functionality. A little less on cable channeling switching and a little more on XBox Live upgrades would have been in order.
Also, Microsoft's reveal didn't exist in a vacuum. They had the misfortune to reveal their system after Sony's reveal. Whether they wanted it or not, comparisons were innevitable. And Sony very strongly emphasized game development.
if you want to start another point of discussion then do so.
but don't think that other people should stop discussing the kinetic or any other point just because you don't want to discuss it. obviously there are a large number of issues and a good chunk of those most think are regressions not features.
- The Kinetic isn't something that wouldn't work well on PCs, so it seperates PC and console gaming.
- The Kinetic will not have a chance to be sucessful if it is optional for the Xbox One. They don't want the user base to be fragmented.
These are all respectable, solid reasons.
What I worry about is that modern cross-platform development is going to marginalize the advantage of having the Kinect as a default control option. When you have major titles targeting all the major platforms, those games aren't going to use the Kinect as it ought to be implemented. And those titles count for a lot of the modern market, and specifically a lot of the market that Microsoft is clearly targeting.
With this being the case, I am concerned that Microsoft's first-party development just isn't strong enough to push the Kinect by itself. Sony and Nintendo are both stronger when it comes to exclusive development houses. And both of them will also have a much more significant indie presence. This leaves the Kinect out in the cold when it comes to development support.
@gray I don't really know what else to say other than you're making mountains out of non-existant molehills, that's why it isn't worth discussing. I'm more than happy to discuss ACTUAL concerns, as many others have put forth, but from what you've posted so far, such as claiming the Xbox isn't about games anymore, and the paranoia about the Kinect, I don't see why you'd bother with that discussion until E3 is over.
so your contribution to the discussion is to tell other people to stop discussing things?
if you want to discuss something else then do it. but telling people there discussion is ACTUALLY not important is a bit of a cop-out from bringing up some other interesting point that changes the discussion.
You mean when they said they were going to be showing games at E3? People just want to bitch and moan
No, why would you do that? I'm pretty sure you aren't their target audience. Just judging from your first post in this thread you made it pretty clear you would prefer a PC/steam box over a console.
Although, I do find it funny that people are getting so upset with Microsoft for making the xb1 more like a pc/not innovating. Microsoft adds instant-on/resume, multitasking, automatic background update installation, increased app support, built-in support for interacting with everything from phones to tablets, laptops, and desktop PCs, improved Kinect that can finally interact with controllers, live tv support, and hell whether you like the feature or not even the required installation (meaning no cd required) and authorization of games is a very PC/Steamish thing to do. They did all this and still improved the hardware to provide for increased quality of games/performance.
I personally haven't followed the PS4 information very much (can't stand the controllers/UI), so correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I have gathered so far it is basically a PS3+. They have improved the hardware's power and performance, as well as improved the difficulty of developing for the console. The xb1 did the first, albeit not quite to the same extent, and the xbox 360 has had the latter for the past 7-8 years and that will continue with the xb1. Assuming the prices are relatively close, why wouldn't I want a console with all of the extra features that the xb1 offers?
Now that doesn't mean I don't think there aren't any issues with the xb1. The whole used games issue and the privacy issues with Kinect are just a few of them. The biggest issue I had with the xb1 reveal was that Microsoft left far too many major questions half or completely unanswered. This has led to wild speculations that are based on incomplete or flat out wrong information. These issues should have been addressed fully at the reveal so as to minimize any negative backlash. I plan to reserve my final judgment of the xb1 until after Microsoft has released more complete information.
likening the new console to a butt-plug with crude photoshops is much more productive to the discussion :poly124:
you bring up some interesting points.
what i see is a slow creep of some of the features from pc gaming onto consoles. and the hardware, even tho there might be special models for the consoles are essentially the same commodity pc hardware. so when i look at what the console has to offer as a platform it just seems to be a locked down pc at this point that you cannot upgrade the hardware or os to your liking. i guess its still a bit easier to pull it out of the box and plug it into your tv. but i spend most of my time in front of the monitor on the pc or the tablet. so thats where i want my games. maybe there are some advantages that the xbone or ps4 have that make the loss of upgrades and os freedom worth it but i can't really think of any.
edit:
i would be more likely to buy if the current gen actually was more like a pc and offered some sort of upgrades and more freedom to use the os more like a general purpose system. all those things are totally possible. but it seems there going in the opposite direction as far as user choice is concerned.
@Sectaurs
is there any way to pull off (pardon the pun) a butplug in photoshop that is not crude?
I know plenty of people who wouldn't consider themselves gamers and call people who play games all the time nerds or deny they are gamers, but only buy 2 games a year. madden and COD. pretty much its a publisher going after a major demographic with their unveiling, and while all the super nerds are freaking out, joe average "i don't give a shit" is saying, hm that's cool, i like those things ill buy into it.
I'm totally opposite. I use my pc for work mostly and I don't want games to distract me from it so I prefer to separate my gaming and working machines.
i do something similar in that i have a workstation and its totally offline with just software. an entertainment pc for games, net and other junk. i have a tablet that can mooch content off of the games pc. i just looked at my media habits and realized they are no longer passive. if i watch movies i will keep other stuff going in the background. and i read a lot of digital documentation on the tablet also. the wall tv has no use case for me anymore.
im not against buying an appliance to replace the gaming pc. even one from microsoft. but it has to play nice with my network. share files, install custom binaries etc. if the steam box can nail this i think thats the middle ground i can accept. but the tv/cable thing is a distant memory for me at this point.
I heard this helps immensely, having two physically different locations, one to work and one to play. There are games that I play on the PC because they're either not on the consoles or just don't work (like flight sims). I'd like to have a different PC in another location, where I can do actual work. Buying another PC would be spendy though
Fair enough. But Microsoft didn't announce one of the most important factors for the crowd you're talking about. And that's the price.
What they did announce is that they're going to be bundling a sizable accessory with the system. Even if the PS4 turns out to be more expensive to produce (GDDR5 vs. DDR3) the Kinect's production costs even out that equation.
The Call of Duty and Madden crowd will be more price conscious than the "nerd" enthusiasts. All else being equal, they will likely gravitate to the cheaper alternative. What's the cheaper alternative for an annual franchise gamer? The console that will let them sell their yearly sports and shooting games to GameStop, or the one that doesn't?
Pretty much this. Depending on which group you fall into, I'd assume most on polycount wouldn't necessarily fall into the COD/Madden only group, so the frustration in them being the focus is somewhat justified, though premature.
@Richard raises a valid argument though, I really do think one of, if not the biggest factors is going to be price. With more and more titles being cross-platform, and the capabilities of both machines being similar, it's going to come down to dollars and cents, and where you can get the most bang for your buck.
@Marine, yeah, I was exhausted last night, typing half asleep. I should have had that in there, as that's been my point from the beginning at least as far as the games themselves go, they said it in their closing statements, so the no-games! hatewagon is funny to me.
If they are launching in 2013 (and everyone claims this will be the case) than they will have to announce price at E3. And it doesn't really matter who announces first. It only matters who announces lowest at this point. Moreover, they aren't going to have the option of reacting to Sony's announcement. Whatever price they've decided on at this point, that's what its going to be.
They showed of the physical console. The design is finished, and they are probably collecting production quotes right now. They aren't going to have any wiggle room on the price.
I am actually quite excited for E3 now. It seems we have a real competition on our hands. We can all look forward to another long console cycle marked by fierce competition between three relatively evenly matched rivals. The one-console future is going to have to wait a while longer.
Funny thing how Xbox One feels like a PS3+ but you can't resell your games, use the internet properly without paying monthly, need the big kinect thingy, and be occationally online.
Let's say I want to go on holiday to my internetless cottage in the woods? I need to drag the big kinect lump with me for starters. And then I need to occationally be online so.. I can't play certain games? Or it's just when I want to install games? What a hassle.
I am dissapoint!
from what i have been reading i'm not sure you will be able to play 'any' games unless your connected to there servers and can validate your keys. they keep a record of every game you have purchased. if you sell that game your key is revoked to play that game. at some point your box has to connect to the server to see if you have a valid key. if that was not the case then you could buy games install them and activate them. then unplug your box and sell your games but still have them on your box and play them.
so yes, you are correct all the new 'features' are always connected DRM. :thumbdown: