The Xbox One

So it's official - the NextBox shall be called Xbox One.

Thoughts on the new console guys?

My take on it is that this push away from being a gaming-centric console to a multimedia console will harm Microsoft. Sony is still focusing on games with things like Netflix supplementing it and Nintendo is all about the games. With the Xbox One, that isn't really apparent to me. Pretty unimpressed.

I've been at work all night so all I've seen is the trailer where it shows off what the console and controller look like. It looks like it's from the 90s. Bizarre.

Not looked at this and probably won't but does it play old Xbox games? Would be quite ironic if the Xbox One didn't play Xbox one games.

@Rum: It looks like my Sky box. Which I suppose is appropriate, given the shift towards multimedia.

@Smurf: I'd doubt it, backwards compatibility seems to be a thing of the past.

I thought it sounded awful, it's just being a media hub and assuming it is like the 360 you'll have to pay for live to then use each of these individual services that you'll also have to pay for.
If they announce some decent exclusives I might still be tempted though.

I was down the pub with a group of eight of us, and we started talking about this. I was the only one who thought it sounded cool. The machine looks smart, Kinect is still a belter of an idea and the controller is an ergonomic classic. That said, I feel that the OS/"XBox on" sounds a bit too good to be true, and most of these anti-consumer policies (repay for pre-owned stuff, no backwards compatibility, always online, can't transfer XBLA stuff, etc.) sounds like they could knacker the whole thing.

I have posted my own feelings in a thread already, but it comes down to the fact they will restict you, the consumer and you never 'own' the game, but rather lease it for as long as you care to play it, which bothers me most. I am likely to skip it altogether and focus on the Wii U and the PS4, assuming they aslo don't do the same thing as the Xbox One.

As for the name, don't care. Silly people worry about silly things like a name. As for the look, it's okay, boring, but it looks heaps better than the other, real Xbox One.

JayMoyles wrote:

@Rum: It looks like my Sky box. Which I suppose is appropriate, given the shift towards multimedia.

@Smurf: I'd doubt it, backwards compatibility seems to be a thing of the past.

Ironic because old games are a thing of the past...

I still think Kinect is the biggest pile of arse in the universe, it serves no useful function to gaming and unless they've significantly improved it (and I mean really significantly) it's barely usable to aid media.

andyman949 wrote:

I still think Kinect is the biggest pile of arse in the universe, it serves no useful function to gaming and unless they've significantly improved it (and I mean really significantly) it's barely usable to aid media.

I am pretty much open-minded to anything associated with gaming, yet I just can't see a single reason to buy Kinect. I have trialled it at retail stores and I thought it was stupid. All I could think, other than I looked idiotic, was that my protracted movement to do stuff could have been completed in a microsecond by just pushing a button. It takes me longer to say something than to push a button. Terriific if you can do something a button can't do, but otherwise, a huge waste of time.

What is worse is there is not a single game that I want which has Kinect required. I am certainy not about to play Forza 4 with the damn thing. What makes it clear that it isnt for me, is that despite the retail price of $200 (which is horrendously expensive imo), I have seen a multitude of 2nd hand units for $50 and I still don't care. Exactly the same can be said for Move. The games that they seem to have are exactly the same games I already don't want on the Wii.

Can anyone give me a compelling argument, for games, that I should want Kinect, or Move for that matter? I don't want to dance or exercise, or play games with 5 year olds (my kids are grown up).

I thought it seemed cool, but it was never something I could warrant dropping a load of money on. The fact that it's required for Xbox One doesn't sound good to me. I'd feel like a total plonker talking to my TV, and I don't think I'm alone in that.

Speaking of TV... have a gander at this.

Seems like I was beaten to posting the above video about the newest Microsoft entertainment machine...

No backwards compatibility as yet they will think about it at a later date.
Then there is the whole fee thing if you take a game to another console and don't use your XBLA account or something.

To be honest I'm not sure about the next gen PS and XB at all

I had a giggle at that video. Almost as good as the abridged PS4 reveal Jay posted up.

Right, I have a question for you techy types: what does "8GB of RAM" mean? Both PS4 and One will have it now, compared to the Wii U's 2GB. And I'd have dismissed it as more graphics-type willy-waving, but for enthusiastic endorsement from Extra Credits. So, what does it mean, and how much will the Wii U suffer from having less? I presumed we'd see Wii U ports being cut-down anyway, just like Wii ones were, but how much?

Is the talk of it requiring online connectivity for everything true and discs are basically just glorified digital games true? Because if so they're basically emphasizing everything bad about internet distribution, and while I'm more inclined to go Sony over Microsoft to begin with I think such a choice would be foolish. I also think they've missed the point of a game console by going for the multimedia (read: glorified television box) deal, people already have these services and have had them for a long while, they need to be distinguishing their product not making it one of an already overcrowded market and they are supposed to be making a gaming device first and foremost.


Well, at least this is one system I can cross off my list without more information. Now lets just wait and see if Sony fall in to either this trap or the same trap they fell in to with the PS3 last generation.

I'm pretty sure the online rumors are true, I've seen everywhere that it needs to be connected once a day. As far as Kinect games go unless you're a dance enthusiast there is no game out there that uses it well. I prefer Move but I can't say I've used it all too much. I'm planning on playing Sorcery soon though so hopefully that'll use it well.

Nope, It only requires a "regular" internet connection once every 24 hours I'm not sure for how long or what happens if you go away for the weekend or on holiday but it sounds like a horrible idea.
Also, the worst idea ever: pre-owned fees, it has been confirmed that if you want to play a game thats preowned on the console you need to pay the RRP to install it so you're essentially buying it twice. However, installing games is free if it's completely new. They also seem to have borrowed sony's idea of recording and sharing gameplay. So those are the worst of the facts, on the bright side you can watch tv, switch inputs to your tv easily, watch movies, listen to music and look at the t.v guide. Oh and there's a lot of sports and FPS games on the horizon which is hardly surprising.
I'm beginning to think with all this talk of sports and their new partnership with something called the NLF they're trying very hard to cater for the North American market, perhaps they're not releasing this one in Japan after 360 failed so hard?

Civil War.







I'm with the action figure.

No contest.



Also, please can someone answer my RAM question five posts up? I have a Wii U and games to feed play!

I'm not a big knower of facts abut components but I beleve RAM is the memory set aside to actually run the game, the more there is the faster the load times and the better they run at higher graphics. That's only what I think I've heard so don't take it as gospel.

I'd say Sporkhead is the best person to explain technical stuff.

Another summing-up of the reveal...

Once every 24 hours eh. At once every 24 hours they might as well make it constant, it'll have the same effect. The thing will be a useless lump of plastic and metal if the internet goes down or you can't access the server for any reason. And then there's the fact that once they switch the servers off permanently the system is a brick effectively if it can't do checks to the servers.

I'm not completely against some form of online checking, but I'm not signing on for any system that requires more than a check to play online or a one time registration for online. It just seems draconian otherwise.

On the bright side this parody videos are hilarious.

Balladeer wrote:

Right, I have a question for you techy types: what does "8GB of RAM" mean? Both PS4 and One will have it now, compared to the Wii U's 2GB. And I'd have dismissed it as more graphics-type willy-waving, but for enthusiastic endorsement from Extra Credits. So, what does it mean, and how much will the Wii U suffer from having less? I presumed we'd see Wii U ports being cut-down anyway, just like Wii ones were, but how much?

Not entirely certain - paging Sporkhead - but I reckon it means that it has more processing power, meaning it can run faster, and have a lot more going on than a console with less RAM eg. an RTS could have more units on screen, the latest Call of Duty could have more men with guns and dogs you really care about on screen.

What it means for Wii U, probably not a lot, I'd imagine.

Brilliant video Dusty.

The more I look at the Xbox One the more it seems to be an Ameri-centric console. All this integration with ESPN and whatnot. What the real kick in the teeth is that those services will require Xbox Live to use, regardless if you're paying for a subscription already. That really irks me about Xbox - I shell out £6.99 a month for Netflix, yet I have to buy a Gold account subscription on Xbox to use it there? Pish.

Balladeer wrote:

Also, please can someone a.nswer my RAM question five posts up?

Andyman's got it closest.

RAM basically covers how much stuff's going on- when a game is 'loading' generally this means it's transferring data from the disc (where it stays fairly static and the console can't do much with it) into RAM (where it can modify it and get at it quicker).

By example, in an open-world game (Grand Theft Auto, Lego City, Minecraft) only part of the world is 'active' at any one time- a circle (or more generally a square) around the player character.

If you imagine the entire map as a tablecloth- RAM is the table. You can only play on the space that's on the table- if you want to head a long way in a particular direction, then you have to stop playing, move the tablecloth and start playing again. If you get a bigger table (more RAM) you can play for longer before you have to move the cloth.

(It's a bit more complex than that, but any more detail is essentially the same principle over and over)

What Wii U does with its two gigs of RAM is split it in two- one for the game, and one for the OS- think of this as having two tables, one for playing on and another for your drink and your phone. Yes, you could have one table that's twice as big but then you risk knocking your drink over and making your game less fun because you have to keep making sure that you keep moving your phone so you don't lose it under the tablecloth.

To an extent, this makes the act of making games easier- memory management is a complicated subject. However, modern computers have enough RAM (alongside other components) that for a lot of games you have the spare power to either not think about it, or leave all the admin to the computer.

Yes, like graphics, it can just be used for willy waving. But also like graphics, it can be utilized properly to make a better game.

Thanks beemoh! (Analogy tied my head in knots a bit, but I think I'm with you.) So essentially, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the size of the RAM corresponds to the size of a single Wind Waker island, or other continuous and quickly accessible environment, with loading going on as you sail from one to another. I know there are different types of RAM and all that, but is that the gist?