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.