Frequently Asked Forum Questions | ||||
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
I felt like Microsoft was spreading themselves thin by making the Xbox One an all-in-one set-top-box. That it's a game console seemed almost ancillary. However, I have to wonder if this is a good strategy. Given the rise of set-top boxes (e.g., Roku, Apple TV) and smart TVs and the fact just about every home that has internet also has a computer, the idea that the average consumer will spend another several hundred bucks on basically a fancier set-top box just to watch TV and movie or engage in social networking.
The 360 was originally just a gaming machine and only years after its launch did it evolve into a general media box. When the now-venerable current generation was conceived, nobody even fathomed that anybody would use a game console for anything other than gaming. When the 360 debuted in 2005, Facebook wasn't massively popular yet (according to an AP news article from last October, it had less than 6 million users by the end of 2005), Youtube had only been around for 9 months, and neither Hulu nor Netflix's streaming service existed (they didn't debut until 2007). By time such things became commonplace, the 360 already had a sizable install base, and all MS had to do was incorporate the functionality needed to use those services into the 360. But even today, around a third of all 360 owners don't have XBL, so they obviously don't use their system for anything other than playing video games. There is a very good case to be made that the 360's primarily appeal as a gaming machine, and I think that's also the primary reason most people will buy an XBO
As for me, I have only used my 360 to play games, never for streaming video or social networking or even for watching movies (I have a standalone Blu-ray player). Not only do I have a PC, but my Panasonic plasma TV can do Netflix, Hulu, Facebook, etc., etc. I don't need yet another device to utilize these services. I don't mind having to use my TV remote to switch AV channels and looking through the channel guide isn't a hassle. It's just the way I've always watched TV, and I never felt like "Wow, this is inconvenient. I need voice and gesture activation functionality." I just don't see myself ever using the XBO for all these additional features that formed the focus of today's presentation. I don't even have a Skype account, and even if I did, I wouldn't want to be running my mouth to friend in video chat while watching a movie or playing a game. And why would I bother running my Xbox all day in addition to my DirecTV DVR just to watch TV? Maybe they're expecting I'll turn my DVR box in to avoid having to pay the monthly device fee? I dunno. While the XBO's features do elicit a "Neato!" response, I fail to see much in the way of any practical advantage over how I already do things. I'm not interested in the "future" of watching TV and movies. I'm interested in the future of games. And I know I'm not the only one who feels like it.
I know MS said there will be 15 exclusive titles (but how many of those are retail titles?), but I can't shake the feeling that they're not going to focus as much on games as Nintendo and Sony do. Over the last several years they've pared down their major exclusive retail titles to pretty much just Halo, Gears, Forza, and Fable, and they've essentially let their other properties collect dust. I'm honestly not expecting much from MS this generation, but maybe they'll surprise me at E3 and make it all about games, and today's conference was simply to get the non-gaming applications out of the way. I'm not going to hold my breath, though. I was hoping they'd show enough off today for me to make a decision on whether I'd get the XBO or PS4 first, but E3 isn't too far away, and I'll be making my final decision then.