Weekend Confirmed 166 - Xbox One

Xbox always on!!

Loved the show and the discussions on Xbox being always on and watching/listening..
I was listening to a UK podcast directly after the announcement and they brought up a subject which others seem to have missed for now.
One of the reporters stated that they had just moved out of their parents and that the xbox was in the bedroom.
So you want to have the new xbox one always on. Always watching the listening in your kids bedrooms? They finished by calling this a child watching machine.
Where do you think the press will go if this becomes a wider issue with tech that is always watching your children sleep?
I appreciate this is an extreme point but has Microsoft in its rush for the living room forgotten most kids play in their bedroom while mum and dad relax alone downstairs?

Andrea's comments comparing the game industry to the film industry (at 74:00) are really perceptive, but I think the point to take away from film is actually financing not distribution. Withholding used game sales for a period of time might help publishers' profits to some degree, but to Jeff's point, that won't help design innovation.

The way game developers are structured forces them to put out games to sustain themselves, rather than make a game because of a creative idea. This is basically the film industry's "studio system" from the "Golden Age" of Hollywood, ie---(a) producing movies primarily on their own film making lots with creative personnel under often long-term contract, and (b) dominating exhibition through vertical integration

This business model is A. inefficient, because it forces a film studio to constantly keep itself afloat with regular content output. And B. it undermines individual talents that really make content shine. Auteurs like Quentin Tarantino and even Stephen Spielberg could not exist in the studio system. That also goes to the idea of games not being able to have their own "Academy Awards" and so forth because every developer is part of a unit.

That said, look at someone like Hideo Kojima. He cultivated a fan base based on his individual vision. He's probably the only professional in the industry who can say that, and still has credibility with the audience. However, in recent years he's been hampered with basically the total fiscal survival of Konami, because they can't output shit as a developer anymore.

If he doesn't keep making Metal Gear games, arbitrarily adding to the lore, making it ever more convoluted and wearing out his favor with gamers, Konami will essentially stop making console titles and/or go bankrupt. Compare him to a Quentin Tarantino in the film industry. Harvey Weinstein is Tarantino's regular collaborator, but Weinstein doesn't depend on Tarantino to make money. Tarantino's vision is the horse of a film, and its making is the cart of the film.

So as is game developers pump out a game products solely to continue paying their employees' salaries. If they adopted the film industry's production methods, artistic vision and commercial viability could convene much more. You know, Paramount doesn't have an in house costume designer. The film industry does have unions, and lots of tightly wound networks, but because films are so expensive to make, they learned to divorce production from ownership as it were.

One point I want to make about this whole DRM discussion is that we now have so many models for sharing digital media in a pro-business way. Netflix now has a "Family Streaming Plan" where multiple people can use one account simultaneously. Steam has its whole gifting service, where you can buy like 3 or 5 licenses for one game, and split them between your friends. Like Valve has the common sense to look at a multiplayer game and acknowledge that the more players they have the better.

So I think part of the reaction to Microsoft is not just the policy itself, but its the lack of these kinds of innovations that make DRM not seem so obtrusive. You know everyone loves Gabe Newell. But Phil Harrison looks like Lord Voldremort, talking about how he's going to cast a Horcrux on our foreheads through the Kinect if we're trying to watch a movie with too many people on our couch. He's like "I shalst grant you permissions for the games you buy, if you cooperate. Otherwise I will have Nagini eat your parents!"

So Kinect is always going to be on, watching and listening to you. Kind of creepy right? Yes, probably so. But what if someone came out with an app that could let Kinect send you text when it detected someone in your house it didn't recognize? What if Kinect noticed your heart stopped beating and called 911 for you? What if Kinect noticed your burglar alarm went off and started to record and store the audio/video in the cloud? You guys keep thinking about big brother watching over you. As someone who recently got his house broken in to I wish Kinect could do something like this. Having a big brother is not necessarily a bad thing. Like a friend of mine told me, if something happens to me I want the police to be able to know where I am, what I was doing, and maybe get there in time to save my life.

Re: Used game sales.

The discussion this week was great, and I think you did a nice job covering the issue from the point of view of the consumer.

I wanted to bring up the perspective of the retailer (Garnett, I'd love your insight on this in particular).

I work in a guitar shop. Like most guitar stores, we sell both new and used instruments. But from a business point of view, we always focus on selling new instruments. Why? Because we make more money from them. Of course, when I'm helping someone look for a guitar, I want them to find a guitar they are happy with. But all other elements being equal, if the choice comes down to a new guitar and a used guitar, I'll suggest the new one because it is better for our business.

As many of us know, videogame retailers like GameStop push used games so hard because they make more money off them. But I think most people don't realize how little money retailers make from new games.

I ordered a Halo 4 edition 360 console from my local store in Toronto last fall. I've been going there for years, and am familiar with the owner, so he is pretty comfortable chatting with me. I made some joke about all the money I was dropping on Halo 4, and the owner the shop said "yep, and we make a whopping $4 on this".

"No Way..." I said.

"Yep... $4" said the owner.

$4 profit. On a $400 unit.

As a purchaser for my shop, if a distributor came to me and said "Hey we've got this great product, it sells for $400, you get a 1% profit margin!" I would tell them to fuck right off.

If publishers want to win the support of the retailers, maybe they should try a pricing model that allows retailers to make enough profit to survive.

Hey, everyone!

Garnett, Andrea, and Alex Albrecht were on the most recent episode of Bonus Round, breaking down the Xbox One. Enjoy the show!

http://www.gametrailers.com/full-episodes/qas7id/bonus-round-dissecting-the-microsoft-press-conference

I did not agree with a lot of the group during the television discussion. Millions and millions of people still watch live tv everyday. In fact the number of people who watch live tv still dwarfs the over top stop by a lot. It not even close. So Garnett talking going after the vanguard is what Google tried and it is an absolute failure. You have to meet the industry where it is now, and have a box that can morph into something in the future. That is the box Microsoft currently has offered to us.

I do agree the One needs some sort of DVR add-on even if it is only for the America.

I agree with Garnett that Microsoft's approach to tv content is backwards, but I think everything about their approach to Xbox One is backwards. And it actually relates to my critique of "SteamBox," and relates to Garnett's comments about PC gaming being in flux.

The first point is that the "mono computer" is dead. This doesn't mean that the "personal computer" is dead. It means that "personal computer" is no longer a semantically useful category. Every device you own now is more personal than actual "PCs" so its a pointless term to use.

That said, the whole idea of Xbox being "All in One" for everything you do, is totally antithetical to the trajectory of consumer electronics. Sony more intelligently stated at PS Meeting that they would follow gamers in and out of the living room.

The third point is that Microsoft has a totally warped understanding of the cloud, or is trying to compensate for a lack of specs and/or is selling gamers a Ken Kutaragi pipe dreams of "infinite power" so that they won't get pissed off about "always online" bullshit.

Microsoft's counter argument to this has been that they will use the cloud for aspects of games at are not "latency sensitive." But aside from bandwidth issues galore, that is not the only problem with cloud gaming. As Gabe Newell said:

Newell said "cloud gaming works until it starts to be successful — at which point, it falls over." Newell says that there's a growing network cost that comes with maintaining the backend as the platform explodes, instead of an individual cost per console, or PC, or Steam Box.
http://www.dvice.com/2013-2-11/valves-gabe-newell-skeptical-cloud-gaming-future

So the whole problem with cloud gaming as a service is that you end up consumers have to lease a console on a 1 to 1 basis. Its an inherently inefficient model for actual gameplay. That said Gabe Newell has the opposite problem in that the "mono computer" includes every device that Steam runs on.

Look at the fact that Adobe recently adapted its Creative Suite software into a Cloud Service and its incredibly successful. If you can subscribe to Photoshop for $80, you can conceivably run it on a $200 tablet with a "retina display" thanks to the cloud, and you can buy a game console for like $300, why in the fuck would you buy a $1000-3000 inefficient nightmare of a computer to go alongside it?

I agree with Newell that local streaming will have future relevance for video games, but we will stream our games from video game consoles not from these current "desktop" monstrosities. You know one of my questions about the PS4 is "why would Sony run OS off of DDR5 memory" its actually inefficient for small computational tasks.

Well I think the answer is maybe they won't. Maybe they'll be smart an use Gaikai to supplement all the PS4's OS with the multitasking and social features. And they'll realize everyone and their dog has some kind of tablet or smartphone anyway. What I see emerging from the whole computing sector in general is that video game processing has to become more specialized. I mean rather than anchoring people in the living room, you should be able to put your console in your bedroom, and plug your screen into it---be it a tablet, a monitor, or a full blown tv---rather than the other way around.

Great show guys! I do wish Jeff Cannata was in for this episode though. The HDMI pass-through solves his problem of having to switch inputs on the television. He had a whole rant about this a couple episodes ago I think he would be pleased with at least this aspect.

*raises hand*

The problem with Andrea's idea is that is doesn't provide any benefit to the consumer. The only real positive is that it's not as bad as the alternatives.

As for the "discount", we already get that now. Most games drop in price 30-90 days after release and the ones that don't wouldn't be subject to the artificial window anyway. Do you think activision is really going to sell COD 5 for $40 when people are still buying it at $60.

It also limits the ability of people to trade/ borrow games with/from friends. (and yes I realize this is somewhat archaic)

Finally, this would be very hard to implement as it would have to be on a game by game basis and you would never really have any price security on the games you want to buy.

But in lieu of the other means of dealing with used games, heck yeah I'd take it.

p.s. I really see this going the other way. Publishers charging for early access for preorders, etc.

I am really interested in the effect of the new consoles on the PC market. I thought it was interesting to hear that MS was downplaying PC gaming on windows 8 - presumably to pimp Xbox as the gaming hub to come. With that aside, I've had great experiences on the PC of grabbing new releases roughly 1-4 months old for a fraction of that $60 price tag that consoles charge (Tomb Raider for $15 anyone?). Will this be able to continue in the new PS4/Xbox One world? Will we see games be released on PS4/Xbox One and PC since all three are essentially the same now?

Also, my thoughts on the Xbox One thing since everyone's sharing:

As of right now, I don't think the Xbox One is for me. I give them an F for not showing any games and the TV stuff was pure crap...focusing on what I saw versus what I think Xbox One will be or MS will deliver on in the future.

Yo Original G-man, Garnett, thanks for the plug. I was listening the 1up show...i mean weekend confirmed as I driving 4mph traffic through Moore, Oklahoma as they are currently cleaning up the tornado ridden destruction. I've been listening since the good ol'days of 1up show with luke, shane and mr. davidson and this is the first time i've been plugged.

as regards to my post, you guys hit it right on the bullseye. xbox is being targeted for mass market with locking in the big blockbusters in the US: NFL, Call of Duty and user friendly UI for all in one stop shop entertainment center in the living room. The only market next gen that they have an opportunity to penetrate is Europe and they are doubling down on the FIFA exclusive DLC.

if you take a look as a regular consumer, with constrained expendable income, you will buy the box that offers the most bang for the buck, has the big blockbuster exclusive partnerships and that plays next gen games. Microsoft is doing a great job positioning Xbox One as the system of choice for majority of consumers. They will have games that gamers want: Next Gears, Respawns exclusive FPS MMO, Bungie's MMO, Phantasy Star Online 2, Halo 5, Next Mass Effect, Red Dead Redemption 2, Half Life, Final Fantasy, and 8 new IPs.

Its going to have next gen games...now what else can it do? that is the question Xbox One is doing well to answer for MASS MARKET APPEAL.

Oh wow. I was totally wrong when I said Call of Jaurez Gunslinger used a version of CryEngine. It uses Chrome Engine 5, which Techland developed. Which makes a lot more sense.

The game still looks solid tho and I still think it is lots of fun.

Question for the sports watchers: do you still watch it live?

For me, any kind of Twitter/fantasy league interaction is going to have to wait until after the game, as I'm watching on a delay and don't want anything spoiled. But maybe I'm in the minority?

So here are the points I think are most relevant to this weeks discussion:

1) That the XBox (this is how I will refer to it from now on) is the one that will most likely continue to the lead development platform. This was a huge advantage for XBox in this generation. It should not be as big an advantage this time around with such similar architecture in both systems, but I feel that is a very calculated move on the part of MS.

2) The cloud computing thing obviously scares people. I understand why. I think that MS saw what a long life cycle the 360 had, and how much money they stand to make by the end of it, and thought how about we try to make this next thing last longer. Sure the tech is only to a point now where we may be able to offload certain computations and functions, but it a technology that will undoubtedly get better and as it does the abilities of the console will grow with it. Hopefully making this a box with a longer life cycle. I should say here that if you think Sony is thinking anything different after the acquisition of GaiKai you are nuts. Lets not forget that the expansion of servers for streaming was talked about at that conference as well.

3) Garnetts statement about what he wanted. Basically a search and sort feature for all your entertainment apps and programming. This one would be amazing. I think that it may already be in there for the most part. What is the one phrase we didn't see used in the conference that was a huge push in the final stages of the 360? "Xbox Bing" , sure bing was on the screen when they showed internet explorer, but not in the fashion it was on the 360. I don't think the DVR will be there because MS wanted the integrated TV functionality and to do that they need deals with providers and you don't get those by taking money out of their pockets. The rest of it could be as easy as "Xbox Bing Friends the with the free porn" and it shows you local listing of when it will be on or where you can purchase it or stream it. That I think is a no brainer and I have a feeling it may already be there.

Great show as always. Keep up the great work!

What's presumptuous is the re-affirmation that Xbox is gonna show games at E3. OBVIOUSLY they will. That's undermining the fact that Sony is ALSO going to show games on E3. "oh oh oh don't fret we're gonna see games at E3!" Well no shit. Will I also see basketball players at the NBA All Star game? The fact that the excuse is the EXISTENCE of the games at E3 rather than talk about the quality of the games that we'll see is SO TELLING.

Also, how fat and lazy can anyone be to not bother moving a muscle to use a remote control? Are you kidding me, Microsoft?

Is there any sane person here who would sit down to watch a movie and then would have the desire or urge to play a game? What the hell are these unnecessary, stupid features? Oh look you can Skype while watching a movie. REALLY? Who uses Skype here while the movie is playing? We pause the movie, then call someone. Is this how lazy Microsoft thinks Americans are? (Btw, I'm not American).

It's basically a glorified remote controller. The only real neat feature is pulling up the "internet explorer" (YUCK) to find info while playing a game. That's it. All the other crap like "Instantly switch" between watching sports to driving a car in Forza to watching Star Trek to listening to wub-wub dubstep are just too stupid.

Then we have the used game space, which I can't believe some people actually are for. If Microsoft+Gamestop have any control to the used game space, that would eliminate the free market "standard" of the prices. It'll be a freaking monopoly. Imagine you can't sell or buy games using private transactions (eBay, Kijiji). You're left with Gamestop. What's stopping them to offer you $5 for that used game? NOTHING. It's either their $5 or your game goes to the garbage bin since you can't sell it anywhere. They need to deactivate your license through their computers, you can't do it. Now that would also mean you can't buy used games elsewhere, so what's stopping them to charge you $50 for any used games?

I read in a forum that X-Men Origins Wolverine The Game is selling for $29 digitally on Xbox Live. A game so low in demand it can't even sell itself out of the bargain bin in the free market is selling for $29 on Xbox Marketplace. MS can pretty much set any price floor or ceiling on games, these greedy bastards.

Once we become "okay" with this system, it'll be game over. It's harder to get out of a system in place than to prevent one from materializing.

Never understood the hate of Jeff M for Nintendo...

It's so shocking to see that a dev like High Moon, SO talented, has been close down while Call of Duty is making gazillion of money outhere...

I have to agree with Andrea here, you would think a huge games like that you pay for smaller project, but NO. Activision will just invest in bug projects and that's it.

TERRIBLE.

THEY'RE DESTROYING THE INDUSTRY.

Garnett, I know you have a little history with Gamestop, (a while ago I know, so I understand if your insight isn't current) but I'd really like your perspective on Gamestop's possible reaction/retaliation to the proposed xbox used games thing.

Whether the One allows them or not it seems certain they're going to try to cut Gamestop out of the loop. So lets assume that the profit margin will drop to 10% on the actual disk at maximum.

American based presentation or not, Gamestop is the primary video game retailer in america, if they make it corporate policy to give a spoken warning of "This will not work without a daily internet connection, this will not allow you to sell used games" then I could see that shoving people towards a PS4.

What would be likely? Shelf space manipulation? Would they actually willingly press the PS4 forwards wtihout Sony sweetening the deal at all? Seeing it as a matter of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend?'

Or are the stores too removed from each other for any corporate mandate to have much effect?

Whatcha think Garnett Lee?

While Microsoft has definitely blundered in this announcement, I am hoping that they can bring it back to game at E3. But it's hard to get excited for either console, till we see what the exclusives are, as I'm going to play watchdogs on PC and pretty much any other game that isn't exclusive on the PC. I am however excited for the NFL stuff and would like to see how that pans out.

As for the issues with Bandwidth in Canada I don't know what part of the country the person whose comment you read out is. But I'm with Shaw and as any caps as far as I can tell are soft caps. As my roommate and I are constantly downloading games on steam which are ~8GB's or so and haven't received any complaintes from our provider.

So as far as I can tell both companies need some platform specific titles to really sell me on them.

I believe that the message of the revelation of the Sony PS4 and similar to what they have done in the last six years. They invested a greater variety of types of games and new IPs. Not always successful sales more successfully in the Intent, which has shown much more to offer for every type of gamer. I do not believe that this was the message that Microsoft has in the reveal of Xbox One and is not the message that they have spent over 3 years.

I feel like I am the type of gamer that Microsoft is going after with their used game policy. I play between 20-30 games a year. I play most of the AAA releases, then fill my year out with the specific games that I am interested in. In 2012 I purchased one game new and it wasn't even an xbox title, it was Xenoblade Chronicles and I still own it because it is "rare". In general I am about 3-9 months behind everybody else in the games I am playing. The reason for this is that I wait until I can get the game I wanit on Craigslist or Ebay for about $20-30. I pick it up and burn through it and resell it for nearly the same cost. I spent about $100 on games in 2012.

With that said I understand why Microsoft would want to take this away from me but what do they think the endgame is? That I am going to spend $1800 a year on games? Not going to happen, I'm also not going to opt for a console that I can only afford to play 5-6 games a year on. I'm not that type of gamer. If I play the latest Call of Duty I burn through the campaign and move on, it provides a week of entertainment if I am lucky.

I don't really have the solution to this "problem", but I do know this, when games that I am extremely excited about are released I buy them day one. The games that have gotten me excited in the past are Enslaved, Dead Space 2, Prince of Persia(cell shaded), Alan Wake. If Microsoft creates games that push the boundaries of innovation then I will be there when it comes out. I'm not going to pay you for AAA blockbuster games that follow the same formula year over year.

hmm is it true that it can be said most outlets assume Microsoft was selling a new gaming console or is it generally understood that the new xbox one is not a gaming console but an all in one box as said almost first thing in the reveal? I mean all the articles are coming at it as if they have been saying and will say it's a gaming console when I don't think that is true. so who is that fault on, the reporters assuming and writing based on that assumption about disappointment, or Microsoft for having a bad message al la Nintendo with the wii-wii u.

second my vizeo TV can do yahoo fantasy sports, which I use for NFL as a little bar, Netflix ect. so I am not sure why I need another device to do what my TV does just fine.

now the reason I am upset by this is because the way they position the xbox one is that is a semi-huge feature and will come in to the machine regarding price. as the gamer who wanted the new gaming machine, I don't want to pay the what 50-200 bucks extra for those features they put in the xbox one because it's not a gaming machine anymore but an all in one.

I have not done much with playstation this generation, but I really am questioning the purchase of a PS4 over the xbox one at start. I will of course wait for E3 and to see which system will be better at running things like Witcher 3, Destiny, who has RPG's and things of this nature, more now then ever before as I have gotten older I am looking to see which will b more favorable to software over what it's hardware can do. The reason I feel this way is because the way things are now and going ot be, almost every device can do what an all in one device can do. I am sure 2 years from now, even tablets could run games just as well and do everything else, while also being hdmi'd to my TV with a controller. it makes me wonder why the first impression from Microsoft was about features almost all gamers have elsewhere, while sony made sure to let you know the first impression is games, all types of games, and ways to share them with your friends.

Oh and the name dumb as heck!!! And ABSOULTELY the best name of the generation! Remember how dumb the "Wii" was remember all the jokes. So now xbone, xone, haha Neo, matrix haha, x1 what is it 2001 haha... It's called mindshare everyone will know about the console just through having a laugh walk into a store and say I've heard of that... Brilliant.

I can't believe Garnett is really complaining about how they showed the Price is Right.

I never buy used games. I prefer an unopened and uncontaminated copy. I don’t buy music CD(s) or DVD(s) at garage sales either. I understand why people do, but I don’t. I prefer my money go to the people who created the product. The reality of software or any intellectual property is that you never own it. You only purchase the ability to use it. Software is licensed to a PC or particular user and is usually not transferable. Because we have the game disk, we think we can do whatever we want with it. We can loan it out or sell it. People do this with CD(s) and DVD(s) all the time. But you can’t do this with games, music or movies purchased through digital distribution and this is the real answer to the secondary market. I buy movies on VUDU knowing that I can’t resell them. I do the same thing with ITunes music and Steam games. I like the idea that I can move my libraries from PC to PC or from one device to another. I think Microsoft and Sony have every right to be able to do what Steam does. But if they’re smart they will follow Steam’s example and put the software on sale often enough and make it cheap enough that the thought of piracy or secondary markets is just not an issue.
One last thought on entertainment and life. Nothing really belongs to anyone. You can’t take it with you when you die. Your life, your consciousness is a collection of memories. You spend money on games to entertain yourself. If you enjoyed the game and it created some good times and good memories with friends and family then that was money well spent. If you spent money like we all have on a movie, music or a game that sucked, that too is a memory, and often a great conversation. We should appreciate the great experiences and understand that the bad ones make the good ones even better and stop complaining about everything as if the world owes us something.

I don't really play console games. I don't own any current gen consoles. So I really doubt I will buy either an xbox one or a ps4.
That being said, I really don't get the hate for xbox one.
Of course I also don't get the hate for Windows 8, so what do I know?

Denis Dyack is going to be on the show in two weeks. Awesome.

I wonder if he has any new insight on reciprocity.

While I wasn't in love with what I saw from MS on the Xbox One, the real meat comes from the games. That's where my real concern is.

Lets look at the known/likely MS-published releases for the Xbox One:

Quantum Break*
Ryse*
Forza 5
Halo 5
Dance Central 4
Kinect Sports 3
Kinect Adventures 2^
Kinectimals 2^
Crackdown 3
Kinect game by Twisted Pixel*
Fable 4
Dead Rising 3^

Now, MS claims to have 15 exclusive titles for launch year, with 8 being new franchises, so I put a star next to those. I put an arrow next to the ones I think MS might just reconceptualize into a "new" franchises.

I'd love to be wrong about this, but even if I'm wrong on a few of these, I just don't know if they'll really have the guns to sell this system to the initial purchaser.

Kinect was a great way to get more buyers in on the 360. Not truly a great product, but it sold. Is it really a great way to sell a new system?

I don't think so.

I'm still hoping to be converted, but I'm not feeling great about the Xbox One's chances.

Chrisitan
"THA govurnment wants to take our guns bluhbluhbluh --- this isn't CSPAN."
"Its this weird world where the cable companies still have a lot of power."
Garnett
"Or persevered power!"

So, A. Chrisitan you're clearly ignorant on this topic. B. Garnett, their power isn't "perceived" it is 100% real. This is the exact thing I commented about WEEKS ago when we were speculating over an "obviously false" rumor. The United States infrastructure for cable and internet is stratified by WEALTH, and it is vertically integrated with content controlled by basically 2 corporations for the entire United States.

You guys talked about how Xbox One's integration with NFL games makes it a cool proposition. Well what network airs NFL games? NBC. What network did the Comcast just purchase earlier this year? NBC. Hmm now if Comcast controls both the pipeline through which you access content, and the content you really want to see, do you think they have any interest in making deals with third parties to access that content?

Microsoft had to pay the NFL like $400 million supposedly just for "exclusive NFL content" through Xbox Live. Gee, maybe you football fans will get some Kinect smello-vision to your favorite team's locker room!
How much of that $400 million dollars do you think comes out of Gold subscribers pockets? How about all of it. That is not "perceived power" Garnett. That is shit loads of money going to waste, whether or not the people buying it even like football.

So if you're going to bitch about how Microsoft's strategy here sucks, you should go through the trouble of educating yourself on the politics that drove them to this position. You can't just demagogue a corporation if you're not willing to think about the circumstances and causes of their actions.

If you want a good primer on this issue (anyone who is concerned about Microsoft's Xbone strategy), watch this interview with Susan Crawford on Bill Moyers.

Interview with Crawford:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xI847vQTto

One of the points Crawford often raises is that tech people think they can "geek around" cable duopolies power. Well I, and the executive at Microsoft, are here to tell you that you're being naive! Netflix and Hulu are nice, but the bottom line is that they deliver their video through the pipe that cable companies control. And here's a pro tip: Microsoft doesn't want to be a tv network no matter how many Halo tv shows they license. And they don't want to be like Google and run a fiber wire to your home either. They would rather make a deal with Comcast, and get in on scamming and gouging consumers.

Also, look at bandwidth caps for instance. A. For Comcast, the internet service they offer is only a small part of their pipeline. Most of that pipline goes to broadcast tv. There are 2 reasons for this. 1. Unlike fiber, the bundled copper wire they use has shitty upload speeds. It is designed for passive entertainment. 2. reason is they want to control how you consume video because they get higher profits that way.

B. on data caps: Data usage doesn't cost anything for companies. All the cost for running wire is upfront. But---surprise---private companies don't want to build more wire because that would mean less profits, which pisses off their share holders, who---another surprise---are more important to them than the actual consumers of their service.

That said they also don't want to provide the internet for poor people, because poor people can't pay $150 a month for a "value bundle." By that I mean, they don't just want to avoid selling it to poor people. Poor people don't even get the option to buy it, and when they do its actually more expensive. Again this is real power being wielded by only a few corporations, and you can't just brush it off.

*Rant complete.

So I really have a problem with Microsoft execs saying and game media people parroting that Xbox One is aimed at a "broad" audience. The person who watches the NFL, plays Call of Duty, and still likes live cable tv is at least theoretically the same person---namely, an older/middle aged white man.
Now you can parse that out, and argue that a little brat swearing on XBL probably is savvy enough to watch Netflix or what have you, but the assumptions are there. Jeff Gerstman brought up the term "mono culture." That is exactly right. So you know, Microsoft aligning different media properties does not equate broadness. Seeing a game that isn't another fps with "exciting" on rails sequences and lots of brown would be a step towards broadness.

There's still a lot to come out of both camps. It was a little funny to hear people picking which hardware they liked better when we haven't even seen the ps4 yet... :)

That said, come the holidays I'm ready and willing to plunk down cold hard cash for a new gaming system. To that end, so far the ps4 is looking a little better to me, even though I have loved my 360 for the past 6 years and have never owned a Sony console. But, E3 is just around the corner, and the games is what is going to make the difference for me.

The one point that I think the playstation has in its favor is a percieved greater interest in the indie space. Developers have described Microsoft as openly hostile, and it seems like Sony is trying their hardest to embrace that community.

It's not at all mental to cover the camera on your laptop when it's not in use. I've seen first hand a friend of mine spy on people unaware that he was watching them. I did express that I found that to be quite pervish, and since then I cover my camera with a sticker. Don't be so trusting when it comes to the tech that you find yourself depending on.

Interesting hardware stuff. I thought the only real differences would be that the PS4's RAM was supposed to be significantly faster (GDDR5vsGDDR3). Never thought about the GPU adv or the Xbox One's caching ability.

The TV stuff is a wash, essentially DOA. It's not a cable box, it's not a DVR, and it can't interface with the DVR aspects of your cable box. Still requires cable service. It's a glorified GoogleTV.

The always on Kinect stuff doesn't bother me. I don't think their voice stuff is as impressive as what Google showed at I/O, but its cool enough,

Can someone link me to the video they talked about at the beginning of the show that is just all the times they said "television" during the xbox press conference?

I know this gif has probably made the rounds already, but just in case it hasn't...

http://i.minus.com/iBzvb2JSpQNRM.gif

pure genius.

Is there a reason WC no longer does the pre-show video clips? I kinda liked those.