Xbox One - General Discussion (NO DISCUSSION REGARDING PS4 - MOD WARNING Post 6903)

Pushtrak

It's official.

http://kotaku.com/don-mattrick-has-just-been-announced-as-ceo-of-zynga-h-637880464?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Facebook&utm_source=Kotaku_Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow

Edit: http://kotaku.com/the-new-xbox-boss-is-steve-ballmer-638364468

FlyingIrishMan

Steve Ballmer isn't much better really ..

ShiverinEskimo

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

Steve Ballmer isn't much better really ..

The only thing I'd say is that despite being a ridiculously rich corporate behemoth, Steve Ballmer is a large child and might actually be interested in putting a bit of fun back into the Xbox.

The Xbox division was his baby in the first place.

FlyingIrishMan

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

The only thing I'd say is that despite being a ridiculously rich corporate behemoth, Steve Ballmer is a large child and might actually be interested in putting a bit of fun back into the Xbox.

The Xbox division was his baby in the first place.

Maybe, but he tends to put his foot in his mouth pretty often too.

ShiverinEskimo

Yea but he also considers it his division. He won't let it get side-swept by the PS4 as easily as some might have.

He built a successful competitor to the Playstation once, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now that he can continue it.

TNT2k_

What I worry about is Microsoft's unhealthy obsession with Apple and how they're trying to beat them into the living room before the inevitable Apple TV. They seem to be favouring the high value market of the casuals, much the same as how Nintendo caught them with the Wii.

Over the last 3 years I've noticed a change in the Xbox's direction where it was all kinect and apps that got the most emphasis while the bare minimum was done to keep the hardcore happy with a few exclusives, but mostly timed DLC. I thought that was just short sighted and not good enough given what a great start it had. It was like a new direction completely and not about the core games anymore.

From what we've seen of the X1 and it's DRM policies and anti-consumer attitude, they're all in on this vision of maximising profit at the expense of what a games machine is first and foremost. I think they'll push gimmicks and social integration in hopes of targeting the people who like all those things and the odd game here and there.

That just leads to the bare minimum being done in regards to games and lead to the exclusives dropping down to the usual Halo, Gears and forza year in, year out with no drive for new things.

I think this sums up that they want the jack of all trades console which is a cable box with games, but is master of none. This is where the big money is if they can strike it right, but that doesn't suit people like me who want a plain and simple gaming machine first and features like Netflix after.

I was an Xbox man once and loved it, but I'm cautios of their new direction. They don't seem in-tune with it the way Sony and Nintendo are, and you see them speak passionately about gaming, Microsoft just seem to see it all as a big money making scheme no matter what the cost to the gamer -if they can get away with it.

Don't get me wrong, all three want their money, but MS comes across as calculating with no true interest for games and pushing the medium, just finding ways to catch consumers wallets with the least amount of effort. They just seem to come across as having no soul or passion.

Time will tell, but I do not think Steve Ballmer will change the X1's direction, they have been clear on their intentions and they all came together on deciding it, not just Don Mattrick on his own.

I hope they will get back to what they were at the start of the gen with the 360 and give up on the gimmicks, but I don't see that happening. Everything is going mobile and MS has no foothold on that so they'll use the X1 in hopes of gaining some relevency there with W8, apps, and all that.

But after E3 and the major PR blow up they recieved they just don't seem to have any sort of direction in mind at the minute with back tracking and vague, sweeping statements -that's a bad sign and I'd be cautious, especially if the head of the Xbox division is now gone and the console is coming out in a few months. It must be chaos over there.

B.A._Baracus

What do you guys think the impact of modding on next generation consoles will be?

I say impact because Mircosoft have seemingly 'soured' alot of gamers with the DRM thing. Which, imo, leads me to believe alot of people out there with skills will be looking to crack the xbox one more so just to spite Mircosoft's new anti-piracy measures (of course plus the obvious benefits of cracking the console )

But, at the same time, if the PS4 does prove more successful. Then more people would be looking to crack that too and with no DRM it could hurt Sony more. As the fact that since the xbox 360 got hacked months after it's release surely made MS pursue a more anti-piracy option with Xbox One.

I'm sorry if I am rabbling :P I am just curious to see what the modding scene holds for the next gen consoles.

TNT2k_

Steve Ballmer is taking the helm of the xbox decision, for the minute at least, and released a statement in which one part stood out to me;

most importantly, we expanded Xbox to go beyond great gaming to deliver all the entertainment people want — sports, music, movies, live television and much more.

Ugh, no! :mad:

If there's any indication of where the xbox brand is going, it's TV, sports and COD. I hope they cop on and get back to the games because if this takes off, and it could do in America as that's their main focus, they won't care about abandoning what made the xbox successful in the first place and will just half-ass it on the gaming side with timed exclusives and Halo.

Disappointed to say the least, it's quickly becoming the more casual gaming box before it's even released.

Pushtrak

People really need to get over this thing of them doing more than just games. They have to impress on the grounds of gaming, but them doing other stuff isn't a negative. To some, it's a positive. To me, it's just nothing. Neither system is doing wonders with exclusive games (yet) as I see it. Wii U is the only of the three that has my attention in terms of exclusives.

TNT2k_

Pushtrak wrote: »

People really need to get over this thing of them doing more than just games. They have to impress on the grounds of gaming, but them doing other stuff isn't a negative. To some, it's a positive. To me, it's just nothing. Neither system is doing wonders with exclusive games (yet) as I see it. Wii U is the only of the three that has my attention in terms of exclusives.

I do see it as a negative if all that distracts from what the gaming system actually is -a gaming system. Why can't they just play it more like Sony and have all that but that it's an afterthought to the games? They're nice extras, and welcomed, but you can't go making extras your main focus point when it's exclusive games people are buying it for. That's my only opposition to what they're doing.

As for the Wii U, to me personally none of them interest me. The problem with Nintendo consoles since the Wii was that I was left waiting months and months for good 1st party games because the 3rd party supprt was so poor and because of the weaker hardware the multiplatform ports didn't come. That turned me off my Wii and I won't get a Wii U as it's the same case. That's just my view on it, though. To each their own.

Pushtrak

TNT2k_ wrote: »

I do see it as a negative if all that distracts from what the gaming system actually is -a gaming system.

How does it do so, though? Surely if you just use it to play games, then it isn't doing any such thing? What exactly is going to be done here that is going to be so distracting from games? Are you saying that if they didn't have this stuff they'd have more games?

TNT2k_

Pushtrak wrote: »

How does it do so, though? Surely if you just use it to play games, then it isn't doing any such thing? What exactly is going to be done here that is going to be so distracting from games? Are you saying that if they didn't have this stuff they'd have more games?

Look at how they were at the start, loads of new and different games and they were pushing new IPs and doing really well with them. They were always improving and trying new ideas, but then as things progressed that all began to subside. Kinect was their big thing and their resources went into promoting that and money spent on exclusives for it. So after that, the new IPs dried up and Halo became an annual thing with Gears and Forza joining biannually as well. There was no new drive to try new things out anymore.
It was a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude, expect an over dependance on the same franchises only tires them out.

It was a whole attitude of knowing they had a following with the xbox and doing the bare minimum to keep the core audience's interest with Halo and timed exclusive COD DLC, and that was it, while they eyed the new market aimed at casual gamers. There was no more drive, they wanted new and more lucrative markets that the Kinect could bring. It was them wanting their "Wii moment".

You can't deny that they really did slow down on the exclusives towards the end of the generation and it just became the same thing, Halo, Gears and Forza. Honestly, I blame the Kinect and their wanting new, more valuable markets and holding them dearer.
They want a jack of all trades console that keeps the casuals happy and the hardcore, but you're going to have trade offs and that came in less of a drive to bring out new IPs and investing in game studios.

If they know people will still play their system if they get COD DLC and Halo every year, while they centre their aim on causal apps and Kinect, then they won't bother with investing in new games because they think Halo will always sell their system and they can rely on it. Not a great attitude at all and that's what happened towards the end of this gen. I think they may bank on that thinking again this gen.

What I wonder though is the hardcore games made the 360 so popular in the first place. It was only at the end when their attention shifted from that to the causal market, I wonder if it can have that success again if they don't seem to have that dedicated to the games approach like they used to? Will that cause the system to be less appealing than a rival which is totally gunning for the gamers? After all, it's gamers who will be buying these consoles first.

MS seems to think they can also compete with the likes who will buy cable boxes. I just think they might be falling between two markets where the ample audience they expect to find just isn't there to that degree. Many of those people who do take interest in the sport and TV features of the X1 may just want a set top box, or that their cheap mobile games suffice for them. They might look at the €500 price and not see the worth in it for them as they are not core gamers.

So ultimately the way I see it, if they go after that causal market and succeed, it'll be the bare minimum again, but if they fail, I believe they'll have to go back to their roots and get back into proper gaming and really step their game up. In a way, that'd be a great outcome for people who want the games first and foremost.

bk

I agree that it looks like MS are aiming at casuals with the X1 and I think it is an incredibly bad strategy.

Casuals don't buy €500 consoles, it is the hard core gamers who are early adopters and are willing to buy a console at €400 to €500

The casuals then get their first exposure to the new consoles at their hard core friends homes. The casuals usually then buy whatever their early adopter friends have when the price hits €200 to €300.

It is looking increasingly like all the early adopter hard core gamers will be getting the PS4. That will make it far more likely the casuals will also end up buying the PS4 too. Also the cheaper price point of the PS4 makes it more likely to hit the €200 to €300 price point that casuals like faster.

The whole TV integration thing is purely a gimmick, that I don't think even casuals will be impressed by. They still need to use their Sky remote to access DVR content anyway, so it would just be any extra layer to confuse them.

And the thing is, PS4 will also have a variety of other "entertainment" apps for casuals too. The PS3 is already the number one device for Netflix, the real future of TV. The PS3 also has Facebook, Hulu, Vudu, Amazon VOD, NFL Ticket, RTE Player, BBC Player, Pandora, TV, Music Unlimited, Movie services, etc.

And that is on the PS3, I'm sure all the same and even more services will come to the PS4. All very attractive to casuals.

It is just that Sony aren't blathering on about their non gaming features at the moment, knowing that they need to focus on gaming first and win over the early adopter gamers first and can sell the non gaming features to casuals when the price drops.

If anything, if Sony are clever they could end up having far more functionality that interests causals then the x1 will have.

Sony can partner with all the major social services creating apps and integration with Facebook (including video chat), Twitter, Google (search, gmail, google+, Hangouts video chat), Youtube, Flikr, Vimeo, Spotify, Pandora, etc.

MS won't want to do this, as they have their own competing services to all of these, so they will want to keep to their own, much less popular services (Xbox Music, Bing, etc.)

If Sony play their cards right, they could end up becoming the "Apple" of the living room.

ShiverinEskimo

bk wrote: »

And the thing is, PS4 will also have a variety of other "entertainment" apps for casuals too. The PS3 is already the number one device for Netflix, the real future of TV. The PS3 also has Facebook, Hulu, Vudu, Amazon VOD, NFL Ticket, RTE Player, BBC Player, Pandora, TV, Music Unlimited, Movie services, etc.

And that is on the PS3, I'm sure all the same and even more services will come to the PS4. All very attractive to casuals.

Can you explain why you think the PS3 is the number one device for Netflix?

bk wrote: »

Sony can partner with all the major social services creating apps and integration with Facebook (including video chat), Twitter, Google (search, gmail, google+, Hangouts video chat), Youtube, Flikr, Vimeo, Spotify, Pandora, etc.

MS won't want to do this, as they have their own competing services to all of these, so they will want to keep to their own, much less popular services (Xbox Music, Bing, etc.)

Also you left out a couple of key features of the current Xbox - Sky Go and Youtube.

SkyGo speaks for itself and I know plenty of mates who use it to watch Sky using their parents or non-techy family's sky accounts. It's a great feature.

Also, saying Sony could partner with Youtube services in the context of getting one over MS when MS already do is a tad misleading.

Captain Chaos

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Can you explain why you think the PS3 is the number one device for Netflix?
.

Because Netflix themselves have stated this. Netflix is most popular per user ownership on PS3 than any other device.

ShiverinEskimo

It was a genuine question - what are the advantages? Netflix saying that is interesting - but did they say why? Because more PS3 users use Netflix? Is that it?

I'd put it down to cinephiles buying PS3s for bluray playback and therefore automatically creating a good chunk of people who want high-quality streaming of TV and film.

Are there functionality differences?

Captain Chaos

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

It was a genuine question - what are the advantages? Netflix saying that is interesting - but did they say why? Because more PS3 users use Netflix? Is that it?

I'd put it down to cinephiles buying PS3s for bluray playback and therefore automatically creating a good chunk of people who want high-quality streaming of TV and film.

Are there functionality differences?

He just said PS3 is the number 1 platform for Netflix, not that it works any better on it. Relax. Netflix is Netflix at the end of the day. There is also the fact that you don't need a PSN sub to use Netflix on PS3 like you need Gold Live for the 360. Any PS3 or PS4 user can watch Netflix without an additional sub.

TNT2k_

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Can you explain why you think the PS3 is the number one device for Netflix?

More people stream Netflix content to their televisions via PS3 than any other device worldwide

Also you left out a couple of key features of the current Xbox - Sky Go and Youtube.

SkyGo speaks for itself and I know plenty of mates who use it to watch Sky using their parents or non-techy family's sky accounts. It's a great feature.

Also, saying Sony could partner with Youtube services in the context of getting one over MS when MS already do is a tad misleading.

I wouldn't call them key features, but sky go is a great feature none the less. Youtube is already on the PS3 in app form even and it's great for streaming your phone videos on the big screen.

Sky go is on so many devices now, I'd imagine it won't be long before the apps sees itself on the PS4 eventually too. I see no reason why it wouldn't.

ShiverinEskimo

TNT2k_ wrote: »

More people stream Netflix content to their televisions via PS3 than any other device worldwide

See above - there's what I would consider a very good reason for that. Just because it's the most popular doesn't mean it's the best and shouldn't be used to contrast Sony to MS IMO.

Unless someone can tell me the PS4 will be 'better at doing netflix' than the Xbox One it is a moot point. The PS3 being the most popular netflix device will not automatically make the PS4 the most popular or 'better' netflix device. Especially when you conisder that 'Smart TV' will easily replace the PS3 and all others as the most popular Netflix device.

TNT2k_ wrote: »

I wouldn't call them key features, but sky go is a great feature none the less. Youtube is already on the PS3 in app form even and it's great for streaming your phone videos on the big screen.

Sky go is on so many devices now, I'd imagine it won't be long before the apps sees itself on the PS4 eventually too. I see no reason why it wouldn't.

I agree. Currently though it's a major plus for MS over Sony and he omitted it.

gizmo

bk wrote: »

If anything, if Sony are clever they could end up having far more functionality that interests causals then the x1 will have.

Sony can partner with all the major social services creating apps and integration with Facebook (including video chat), Twitter, Google (search, gmail, google+, Hangouts video chat), Youtube, Flikr, Vimeo, Spotify, Pandora, etc.

MS won't want to do this, as they have their own competing services to all of these, so they will want to keep to their own, much less popular services (Xbox Music, Bing, etc.)

If Sony play their cards right, they could end up becoming the "Apple" of the living room.

Microsoft already have apps for many of the above services on the 360 so I see no reason why they wouldn't want to carry them onto the XBox One. They've already announced integration with Twitch for the latter and don't forget, they're the only one of the two to own a stake in Facebook. As for Sony, they too have their own competing services in the music and video realms so they'll be just as unlikely to fully embrace multiple platforms as Microsoft. Funny that you'd mention Sony becoming the Apple of the living room though, given that they're known as one of the finest purveyors of walled gardens in the tech industry.

Not that I disagree with general point of the above mind you, I just feel people are giving Sony far too much credit for their overall strategy compared to MS and that their long term intentions aren't really that much different. With regard to this focus on games, the main area this comes into play is with Sony's first party studios who almost single handedly provided the PS3 with its best games. There's nothing stopping MS doing something similar with the XBox One though (the founding of Black Tusk is certainly a step in the right direction), since the change needs to come at a corporate level rather than a particular hardware one. On a similar level, the indie strategy is something that could be completely reversed too and is definitely something that needs to happen imo. It should be very interesting to see if either of these things change with Mattrick being replaced.

TNT2k_

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

See above - there's what I would consider a very good reason for that. Just because it's the most popular doesn't mean it's the best and shouldn't be used to contrast Sony to MS IMO.

Unless someone can tell me the PS4 will be 'better at doing netflix' than the Xbox One it is a moot point. The PS3 being the most popular netflix device will not automatically make the PS4 the most popular or 'better' netflix device. Especially when you conisder that 'Smart TV' will easily replace the PS3 and all others as the most popular Netflix device.

Well as said above, netflix is netflix. They'll both be the same on consoles. But you could argue it will be more popular because it's not locked behind a pay wall. Not having to buy a PS+ sub and your sub to netflix on top of that will always be more appealing.

I agree. Currently though it's a major plus for MS over Sony and he omitted it.

Again, hardly. I have the option of SkyGo on my phone, tablet and laptop, yet I don't use it. It's more suited to mobile devices because you could have a sky box right next to your xbox which makes the whole thing redundant.

It's a handy feature, but you're definitely not going to buy a console just for it, so I hardly see it as a major plus, more a nice added extra if you want it.

Otacon

Not sure this has anything to do with anything, but I find the Netflix app on the 360 to be atrocious. The streaming and all is fine, but the layout is messy IMO. The PS3 version is a lot more like the web version, which is better IMO.

Anyway, I honestly do not see either console holding a monopoly on online streaming content next gen. Both will have all the major content providers on their systems so the difference will be negligible. We will have to wait and see how the HDMI In functionality will work before we can tell if it's worth it.

bk

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Can you explain why you think the PS3 is the number one device for Netflix?

Netflix announced it themselves:
http://blog.netflix.com/2012/12/playstation-3-leads-living-room-netflix.html

A big reason for this is that on the Xbox you need to have a Xbox Gold subscription to use Netflix and other such services, no need for that on PS3 and they have already announced no need for that on PS4.

The point I was trying to make and which seems to have gone right over your head, is that MS goes on and on about it's "entertainment" features. Sony barely mentions them, but it has them all too and they are used more then on the 360. It is just that Sony doesn't hype them up, instead they focus on the gaming.

However I do think the PS4 could end up being a better platform for casuals interested in social and "entertainment" features:

1) No subscription required to use these features on the PS4

2) Sony more likely to partner with other companies as they don't have any competing web and social services.

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

Also you left out a couple of key features of the current Xbox - Sky Go and Youtube.

Youtube is on the PS3 too.

Sky Go is a good one for the 360, but that is only important in the UK and Ireland, it means nothing on the global stage.

On the other hand, the RTE Player is only on the PS3.

However one thing you need to understand there is no technical reason why Sky GO couldn't also be on the PS3. The only reason it isn't is because MS paid Sky a large amount of money for exclusivity.

With the expectation that the PS4 is going to outsell the X1 in the UK and Ireland (as all the pre-orders indicate) and with Netflix, Amazon VOD, etc. becoming so much more popular, I seriously doubt Sky will do such a deal again and I expect Sky Go to go multiplatform on both PS4 and X1, just like all the other services will do like Netflix, Amazon VoD, BBC Player, etc.

While it is nice to get extra money for exclusivity, you have to balance that with the lost revenue in not serving the other 50% or more of PS4 users and even worse having those users sign up to Netflix, Amazon, etc. instead, giving your competitors more money to invest in content deals to improve their own services.

Really I'd bet money on Sky Go also coming to PS4.

BTW I say all this not as a gamer, but as a watcher of the cable and satellite industry for many years (look at the forums I mod).

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

See above - there's what I would consider a very good reason for that. Just because it's the most popular doesn't mean it's the best and shouldn't be used to contrast Sony to MS IMO.

Unless someone can tell me the PS4 will be 'better at doing netflix' than the Xbox One it is a moot point. The PS3 being the most popular netflix device will not automatically make the PS4 the most popular or 'better' netflix device. Especially when you conisder that 'Smart TV' will easily replace the PS3 and all others as the most popular Netflix device.

The PS3 is better exactly because it doesn't require a subscription to use the service.

I have both a PS3 and 360, I've used Netflix on both. But I only use it on the PS3 now, because I no longer have a Gold subscription.

And the situation will be the same for PS4. For casual people who aren't big gamers, not needing a subscription to access these services makes it the better option for them.

ShiverinEskimo

TNT2k_ wrote: »

Again, hardly. I have the option of SkyGo on my phone, tablet and laptop, yet I don't use it. It's more suited to mobile devices because you could have a sky box right next to your xbox which makes the whole thing redundant.

It's a handy feature, but you're definitely not going to buy a console just for it, so I hardly see it as a major plus, more a nice added extra if you want it.

The 'I don't use it so it's worthless' argument is no argument at all.

At the very least it's free multiroom (and a backup if your dish/skybox goes on the blink) and at the most it's free sky for a second household (how I currently and will continue to use it).

It covers the Xbox Live Gold sub many times over given the saving I make on Sky. I find it a major feature. I'm sure many others do and while we're talking about additional features beyond gaming, I feel it's well worth at least a mention. As much a mention as Facebook, Twitter, BBC Player, RTE player and the like got above.

ShiverinEskimo

bk wrote: »

However one thing you need to understand there is no technical reason why Sky GO couldn't also be on the PS3.

And what technical reasons are there that none of the services you listed for PS4 couldn't be on Xbox One?

Every point you made about the services that might be available on PS4 apply to the Xbox One. Your own point above about Sky Go applies to RTE player, BBC player etc. etc.

They point you made about requiring a sub is a good point, but a seperate one and one that has been covered in detail. The rest is speculation, assumption and seemingly some strange kind of will.

I'm seeing the Xbox One being slated for focusing on entertainment and then here we have a bunch of lads arguing with me that the PS3 and 4 will be better for entertainment therefore is the better console? Right so.

Underpaid Mike

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

And what technical reasons are there that none of the services you listed for PS4 couldn't be on Xbox One?

Every point you made about the services that might be available on PS4 apply to the Xbox One. Your own point above about Sky Go applies to RTE player, BBC player etc. etc.

They point you made about requiring a sub is a good point, but a seperate one and one that has been covered in detail. The rest is speculation, assumption and seemingly some strange kind of will.

I'm seeing the Xbox One being slated for focusing on entertainment and then here we have a bunch of lads arguing with me that the PS3 and 4 will be better for entertainment therefore is the better console? Right so.

I wish you had written that 15 pages ago so we could have missed out on the endless drivel about netflix being better on PS3 and sky go will surely appear on PS4.
I thought all console owners hated the media options of consoles? Isnt that the reason xbone will sell 13 consoles while the PS4 will outsell the iphone?

TNT2k_

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

The 'I don't use it so it's worthless' argument is no argument at all.

At the very least it's free multiroom (and a backup if your dish/skybox goes on the blink) and at the most it's free sky for a second household (how I currently and will continue to use it).

It covers the Xbox Live Gold sub many times over given the saving I make on Sky. I find it a major feature. I'm sure many others do and while we're talking about additional features beyond gaming, I feel it's well worth at least a mention. As much a mention as Facebook, Twitter, BBC Player, RTE player and the like got above.

I have my sky subscription, I'm not going to be giving it out to someone else in another household and my console is beside the sky box on the same TV, so it's all redundant to me. The only use I've gotten out of it was watching a few matches on my tablet, which was handy.

I never used a 'I don't use it so it's worthless' argument at all, but it works both ways, just because you get the use out of it and appreciate it doesn't make it massive selling point to the system. Majority of people won't be able to use their parents or somebody else's account, so what you get out of it won't be what many will. If I got a free sky sub off someome else I'd be telling you differently, but I don't, so it's a nice feature but not at all to make me want to pick up a system because of it, if my phone/tablet/laptop can do the same job and be more mobile.

ShiverinEskimo

TNT2k_ wrote: »

I have my sky subscription, I'm not going to be giving it out to someone else in another household and my console is beside the sky box on the same TV, so it's all redundant to me. The only use I've gotten out of it was watching a few matches on my tablet, which was handy.

I never used a 'I don't use it so it's worthless' argument at all, but it works both ways, just because you get the use out of it and appreciate it doesn't make it massive selling point to the system. Majority of people won't be able to use their parents or somebody else's account, so what you get out of it won't be what many will. If I got a free sky sub off someome else I'd be telling you differently, but I don't, so it's a nice feature but not at all to make me want to pick up a system because of it, if my phone/tablet/laptop can do the same job and be more mobile.

Again, in a conversation where services such as Hulu, Amazon VOD, RTÉ player and the like are being mentioned as positives for PS3, Sky Go most certainly deserves a mention as positives for Xbox.

Whether that particular feature of use to you or not is irrelevant in such a conversation.

bk

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

And what technical reasons are there that none of the services you listed for PS4 couldn't be on Xbox One?

Oh non, that is my point, given the way the market is going, I expect all video streaming and music services to be on both the PS4 and the X1.

But that is my point, it is MS who are trying to make out that the x1 will be the better option for "entertainment" services while in reality both will have almost exactly the same services.

However I do feel that Sony will be better for casuals as it won't require a subscription for these services, giving it a big advantage.

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

I'm seeing the Xbox One being slated for focusing on entertainment and then here we have a bunch of lads arguing with me that the PS3 and 4 will be better for entertainment therefore is the better console? Right so.

And rightfully so, MS have been focusing on entertainment features rather then games, making out that the entertainment features are something special when they really aren't.

We are just giving some balance pointing out that the PS4 will likely have all the same services too and have a significant advantage in not needing a sub to use them.

ShiverinEskimo

bk wrote: »

And rightfully so, MS have been focusing on entertainment features rather then games, making out that the entertainment features are something special when they really aren't.

We are just giving some balance pointing out that the PS4 will likely have all the same services too and have a significant advantage in not needing a sub to use them.

But why assume PS4 will be just as good at entertainment without assuming Xbox One will be just as good at games?

That is my point. After all is said and done it'll boil down to games. Xbox are focusing plenty on games, people just can't or won't see it because they were rightly blinded by the bad press. Which has been largely fixed.

Slate MS's PR department for sure. But so far there is far less between these consoles than anyone is willing to admit and the real positives and negatives are more about whether you see an extra hundred quid for a chance of some innovative kinect functionality is worth it or not.