Xbox One – One machine to change your living room forever?

Posted by Tiberius Jonez
email @ tiberiusjonez@gmail.com
Twitter: TiberiusJonez@GameJonez

Still a box, but a pretty one.

Depending on your point of view, Microsoft's big reveal yesterday meant different things to different people. Early opinions and impressions from around the net seem to range from “Holy Cow, that thing is bad-a$$!!”, to “Big deal!?” to “Where were the games?” and an occasional “Nintendo is dead either way!”. Regardless of your overall opinion of the presentation though, there is no denying, parts of it were pretty darn impressive while other parts were a bit underwhelming. Oh, and while they didn't reveal pricing or an exact release date beyond "later this year", they did show an actual final-design console and controller! Wink, wink.

On Sunday, prior to the big show, I speculated on what to expect from the big reveal and, as is par for the course, I was right about a couple things, and wrong on a couple others.

The name: Virtually everyone, including myself, seemed to think the name was surely going to be Xbox Infinity, but in what I considered to be somewhat of a surprising turn, Microsoft chose to go with the name Xbox One; the stated implication being that their new box is a one-stop-shop for all things games, TV and entertainment.

I found this interesting because prior to the Xbox 360 being released, several game journalists at the time suggested that, even though the console would be only the second offered by Microsoft, the company might find themselves at a competitive disadvantage if they named their pending console without alluding to the number "3" in the name, simply because Sony would surely be following them with their own third-generation console which everyone assumed (correctly) would be named the PS3. Surely, it was suggested, if MS named their console the Xbox2 instead of something akin to the eventual actual name, Xbox 360, the uninitiated (specifically parents purchasing for their kids) might mistakenly assume the MS machine were inferior to the competition simply because the name suggested being a generation behind.

While reflecting on the name Xbox One, it occurred to me the name suggests a couple things; first, that Team Xbox is now self-assured enough in their ability to compete with, and differentiate themselves from, Sony, that they are comfortable allowing their newest offering to be judged solely on its own merits, name be damned. Secondly, they are going ahead with their assertion that the name should be suggestive of the console's feature set, rather than what it may or may not suggest console-generation wise. Judging by the roar of applause from the audience in attendance, the console's name and physical appearance, which were revealed simultaneously, were both a hit.

Regarding the look of the console... I thought the Xbox One's physical design was simple, elegant and functional. However, I was more pleased by the 40 plus improvements they've reportedly made to the Xbox One controller, most notable of which are, 15% quicker responsiveness overall, and triggers that feature programmable levels of feedback. Whether this simply refers to force feedback, or, as many have assumed, something much deeper, such as different levels of resistance (say, for different gas and brake pedals of different cars) was not exactly spelled out. Point being, if they've managed to make significant improvements to what many already consider to be the most functional and comfortable controller on the market, then kudos to them!

Always on required or not: Confirming my expectation, the Xbox One does not require an always-on internet connect to function. However, you certainly reap the machine's greatest rewards by being connected. So, was this point a moot one from the outset? Certainly not. If Microsoft had “forced” consumers to have an always-on internet connection to function, the backlash would likely have been swift and severe, especially in the U.S., where consumers simply don't like being told what they can or can't or should or shouldn't do.

I thought MS demonstrated a keen understanding of the marketplace; by not requiring always-on internet they appeal to the “games only” crowd, while making it clear to those looking for a much more robust experience that if you are always online, then this thing has the potential to truly revolutionize the way you interact with all of your entertainment experiences.

A quick note about the new Kinect-centric Xbox One interface: what was most impressive to me and, judging by the applause, those in attendance, was just how intuitive and responsive it is in action. When Xbox Design Exec, Don Mattrick, in real time and using only his voice, switched between different functions of the Xbox One, going from playing the new Forza, to live TV, to a movie, to music, then to Internet Explorer and back to the Home page, the transitions were seamless and virtually instantaneous. This part of the demonstration made it clear that the Xbox One does indeed have some serious horse power under the hood. It was very slick and impressive.

The final two points I speculated about are so intertwined that it makes more sense to address them in tandem, rather than separately. Entertainment vs Games and Differentiating the Xbox One from the PS4: If you go back and look at much of the pre-reveal speculation around the net, the single biggest question for most people seemed to revolve around whether or not MS would take an approach focused on games and gamers or one focused more on overall entertainment possibilities. Additionally, I speculated that if it were true, as rumored, that MS intended to include a cable box in the Xbox One's hardware, depending on what features it made possible, that it alone could be a real differentiator for MS and possibly an instant game changer with the potential to tilt the field in their favor vs Sony, at least early on.

As it turns out, MS is indeed taking a decidedly entertainment focused approach with the Xbox One. That's not in any way to say it will be inferior to the PS4 as a gaming console, as some have suggested, we simply don't have enough information at this point to make a determination either way. It didn't help that at the reveal, very little actual game play footage was shown, clearly disappointing the crowd in attendance.

When they did show footage, which was clearly not in-game, but more likely replay footage, of the four new Xbox One sports offerings from Electronic Arts (Microsoft exclusives, by the way), the crowd's underwhelmed reaction was evidenced by a palpable moment of silence which hung in the air for a good three seconds. Game-play footage shown from a few other games, including the new Forza and even Activision's Call of Duty: Ghosts, was so brief that, again, it was nearly impossible to come to any conclusions regarding the Xbox One's gaming-only potential.

The one piece of game-centric news that did produce an instant and genuine show of appreciation from the crowd (and myself) was the fact that, of the 15 Microsoft-exclusive titles scheduled to be released within the first year of the Xbox One's launch, 8 of them are brand-new IP's. From the research I was able to do, no other console in any previous generation has debuted so many new, exclusive IP's in it's first year. The fact that the new next-generation Forza would be available at launch was also met with clear approval.

Converse to the underwhelming reaction to what little was shown of the console's games, when it came to overall entertainment, the functionality of the new Kinect-centric Xbox One interface combined with many new functions and features, including a new exclusive partnership with the NFL and real-time integration of fantasy league stats from all the major sports during live TV broadcasts, while providing just a glimpse of this new technology's potential, were impressive and well received.

So, what does all this mean in the early battle for market supremacy between Microsoft and Sony? Is it all just a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing? It's too early to answer that question. According to Team Xbox, we'll have a much better idea in just under three weeks when at E3, much more will be revealed about the Xbox One, specifically, a lot more exciting game-play footage and game related news and information.

Assuming Sony is prepared to show more of the PS4's features and functionality at E3, as well as an actual console, everyone should be in a much better position to start forming some concrete impressions and opinions of both console's relative positioning prior to their respective launches later this Fall.

For now, I would say the only clear winner is E3. With a bit of fan-fatigue setting in recently for the industry's annual blowout, anticipation of what Microsoft and Sony will show there now has gamers around the world once again pumped up for what could be one helluva show, and showdown.

So, what did you think of Microsoft's big reveal? Comment below and let us know. As always, thanks for visiting GameJonez and Game On!!

 

A salty Brit's take on E3

by Brendan Rose

With E3 wrapping up, I thought I'd talk about some of the new games I think looked cool, as well as the games I think seem crap or that I'm indifferent towards as well as the new motion controls for the PS3 and Xbox.

Okay first up, Mass Effect 2, now I think this looks really cool. You can bring your old character over to the new game, and if you die you don't get to bring them over into the third game. It's supposed to be darker than the first Mass Effect, which is cool because it was kind of lame. I just sat around waiting the entire game for the lesbian sex scene with the blue alien girl, but it was a lot of fun, and I really liked the psychic powers. They've revamped the graphics and the combat, and you can now wound and cripple the enemy. It looks cool

Alright next we've got Bioshock 2, it seems really neat from the footage I've seen. Everybody knows this time around you get to play as a big daddy, with the proper drill. Slower this time, more lumbering, more powerful, and they've got the big sisters there to set up some good dynamics. It looks ok.

Heavy Rain, seems really cool. It's got the branching plot lines. If you die as one character you just switch to one of the others and the plot adjusts, and it just looks like it's got a lot of potential. I'm not a fan of those stupid quick-time events where you have to press a certain button fast enough to keep the scene going. I hate that. But it seems interesting enough for that not to matter.

Dead Rising 2 is going to be awesome. God of War III seems pretty good from the footage I saw. Everyone's pretty hyped about that game. I never played the God of War games, but I'll definitely try it out. Then there's Final Fantasy XIII and now XIV which will be online. Not much to say about that. I like the look of the new game, and VS sounds awesome.

Flashpoint 2 seems to be rolling along well and looks cool, if they ever release it. Left 4 Dead 2, looks exactly like the first game, which isn't exactly bad, I'll buy it, and some new maps would be fun. Then there's Halo ODST, I'd like to play another Halo. Looks ok.

Assassin's creed 2 seems neat with some new features, better assassinations. It looks like it could be fun. Brutal Legend seems kind of funny. Jack Black... Probably a stupid game, but I'll buy it just to have a look. New AVP, could be fun, if they get it right. Batman Archam Asylum is something I will take a look at later along with Crackdown 2.

Now moving onto the intermediate games there's MAG which seems interesting with 250 or so players. Dark Void just keeps floating around. Some Knights of the old republic game, others liked the earlier one. And then Lost Planet 2 which has fancy graphics and lots of neat action and open areas and big scary monsters to fight but I just look at it and I feel nothing. I feel dead inside.

Then the games that just look like festering shit. First, Uncharted 2. My god, can someone please kill the hype surrounding this miserable looking tomb raider thing. It looks so boring and stupid it makes me want to barf on a child. Modern Warfare 2, I have no interest in...none. I understand people love the first Modern Warfare, but I've never understood it. So, go ahead and let the flaming begin.

The Beatles Rockband will probably sell a lot of copies, but not to me. No way in Hell. And then there's some fucking Metal Gear thing going on... Some stupid shit... Looks like Metal Gear on Xbox. I really don't care

Then finally, these new motion controls, which I hope will strangle the last gulps of life out of the Wii like a boa constrictor on a stray duckling. First the PS3 has a motion controller set for 2010 release that looks at least as good as the Wii motion plus. And then the Xbox has this.... Magic thing....Project Natal. They just showed a weird trailer. If it lives up to the trailer it could be cool. No controller required. It scans your body with two cameras and tracks your movements in 3D, and it responds to voice commands. Could be cool if it works I guess. So the Wii has no power and no games at all, and whatever the Wii control once offered, is now available on a better system with real graphics, If they get it right.

So anyway that's what I thought of E3. Kind of cool. Like a nerd mecca.