Console Discussion/E3/Tokyo Game Show Thread

[MizzouRah]

Very cool...

This is How Xbox One's Game and Gold Sharing Works - IGN

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Not sure how many more u-turns they're going to make. It's pretty obvious at this point what they're doing. They're adding extras in the hope of justifying the price difference. They're probably giving away $1.50-2.00 a unit for the headset and $0.50-1.00 or so for the HDMI cable, so it's only taking away a couple of bucks a unit to do this. It can't hurt at all, that's for sure.

So what? Less crap I have to buy.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Very cool...

This is How Xbox One's Game and Gold Sharing Works - IGN

I still think they're going to roll out the digital sharing as originally envisioned at some point, and I'm okay with that. If they want to require a 24 hour check-in in order to share your digital library with your friends, that's reasonable, assuming they allow users to opt out (no check-in, no loaning/borrowing of digital titles).

Just leave the retail stuff alone. I think that's a solid compromise.

Sounds like they're ditching the "Xbox Live Gold Family" stuff, but I'm wondering how it'll work if your children, say, play online on Xbox Live when your account isn't signed in. Do they show up as JimBob-guest when they go online, or do they sign up for an Xbox Live silver account and just piggyback on the Gold account's login protocol?

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I still think they're going to roll out the digital sharing as originally envisioned at some point, and I'm okay with that. If they want to require a 24 hour check-in in order to share your digital library with your friends, that's reasonable, assuming they allow users to opt out (no check-in, no loaning/borrowing of digital titles).

Just leave the retail stuff alone. I think that's a solid compromise.

Sounds like they're ditching the "Xbox Live Gold Family" stuff, but I'm wondering how it'll work if your children, say, play online on Xbox Live when your account isn't signed in. Do they show up as JimBob-guest when they go online, or do they sign up for an Xbox Live silver account and just piggyback on the Gold account's login protocol?

Agreed with the top part. As for how that works with your children, sounds like they just use their GT and get to use the XGold features.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Very cool...

This is How Xbox One's Game and Gold Sharing Works - IGN

I'm obviously going to need a chart here at this point. Trying to figure out how this differs from the PS4. Obviously the PS4 policy is a bit simplified in comparison (play any digital games anywhere, play any physical games on any PS4), but not sure which one offers the best benefit.

PS4 Gamers Can Play All Their Digital Games From Anyone's PS4 - Forbes

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm obviously going to need a chart here at this point. Trying to figure out how this differs from the PS4. Obviously the PS4 policy is a bit simplified in comparison (play any digital games anywhere, play any physical games on any PS4), but not sure which one offers the best benefit.

PS4 Gamers Can Play All Their Digital Games From Anyone's PS4 - Forbes

Well, two things I'd point out.

1) "Play As You Download" is a pretty big deal, especially if the digital games are AAA titles and not smaller indie titles. If Xbox One doesn't have something similar, than that's a pretty obvious tilt in favor of PS4.

2) That article doesn't talk about things like what happens if someone uses the 'home' console at the same time as the account holder is playing a digital game elsewhere. Microsoft is saying the 'home' console will have full play rights to its digital library even if the account owner is playing the game on another 360 while logged in to Live. Will that be the case on PS4?

[SackAttack]

http://kotaku.com/xbox-one-wont-actu...oso-1113142909

Lulz. Okay. So can we start for real now?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

http://kotaku.com/xbox-one-wont-actu...oso-1113142909

Lulz. Okay. So can we start for real now?

Does Microsoft actually think this wave of changes is a good thing? MS laid out all the things they wanted to do with the system, designed a system architecture around those things and then changed everything to the point where the architecture and business plan don't even resemble what they're going to release.

They would have been better off sticking with the original plans and fighting for those as opposed to changing it all.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Does Microsoft actually think this wave of changes is a good thing? MS laid out all the things they wanted to do with the system, designed a system architecture around those things and then changed everything to the point where the architecture and business plan don't even resemble what they're going to release.

They would have been better off sticking with the original plans and fighting for those as opposed to changing it all.

I would disagree. It's only after they started changing their policies that I decided I would consider getting one. They were trying to turn Xbox into a Devices and Services business as is their new policy and the customers did not like that idea, so they backed off. Sure it's going that way eventually, but to try and force us into this would be to lose this generation of the console war.

Now their job is to implement a lot of this stuff with the digital downloads and tell their customers why it's better, and then hopefully the customers will embrace the new technology and make that step away from physical discs.

Today on Xbox, I still like my discs. I brought my copy of Halo Reach and NHL 13 to my friend's house and we played all night, that wouldn't have happened with the proposed changes.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Does Microsoft actually think this wave of changes is a good thing? MS laid out all the things they wanted to do with the system, designed a system architecture around those things and then changed everything to the point where the architecture and business plan don't even resemble what they're going to release.

They would have been better off sticking with the original plans and fighting for those as opposed to changing it all.

ROFL. I guess Microsoft keeps revolutionizing the ways you won't buy an Xbox.

[SackAttack]

I just...look, all of the changes/reversals have taken me from "it'll be a cold day etc" to "yeah, eventually." I mean, I still can't geek $500 right now, so it's gonna be a while, but eventually.

I'm sorry, though. This entire thing has been a case of ready, fire, aim for Microsoft. You've got to be more disciplined than this. They've got to be profoundly grateful that Wii U hasn't had the same impact on the market so far that Wii had. If it had, they'd be in a much tighter spot heading into the launch.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by cartman

ROFL. I guess Microsoft keeps revolutionizing the ways you won't buy an Xbox.

He makes me want to buy 2 Xbox one's.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I just...look, all of the changes/reversals have taken me from "it'll be a cold day etc" to "yeah, eventually." I mean, I still can't geek $500 right now, so it's gonna be a while, but eventually.

I'm sorry, though. This entire thing has been a case of ready, fire, aim for Microsoft. You've got to be more disciplined than this. They've got to be profoundly grateful that Wii U hasn't had the same impact on the market so far that Wii had. If it had, they'd be in a much tighter spot heading into the launch.

I get that this is a loyalty thing at this point. But I'm shocked at how similar the MS situation this generation is to the PS3 situation a generation ago. MS isn't exactly on solid ground to begin with. The latest iterations of their operating system have left people scratching their head. Now, they do something similar with their console and people are giving WTF reactions.

I'm not saying that keeping their original policy was a good option, but now they're looking like a company who has no plan whatsoever. Sure, there going to get purchases from people like MizzouRah and cartman, but they're lining themselves up for some real issues 3-6 months out from the launch when they've got a $500 console on their hands that can't be differentiated from its cheaper competitor due to all the 180s.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I get that this is a loyalty thing at this point. But I'm shocked at how similar the MS situation this generation is to the PS3 situation a generation ago.

Then they must be in FANTASTIC shape based on your PS3 posts from this same time last time.

[MizzouRah]

This should rile up your feathers some more MBBF.. Could this lead to an XB1 without a kinect and match the ps4 price?

Kinect Is No Longer Mandatory For Xbox One

Another backflip? Back in May, Microsoft said that you'll need have the motion-sensing Kinect plugged in at all times in order for your Xbox One to function, but now they're reversing course once again.

We already knew that you could turn off the Kinect, but now Microsoft says it doesn't have to be plugged in at all. Speaking to IGN, Microsoft's Marc Whitten shared the news that the Xbox One will indeed work without Kinect.

"That said, like online, the console will still function if Kinect isn’t plugged in, although you won’t be able to use any feature or experience that explicitly uses the sensor," he said.

Asked just how "off" the Kinect can be, Whitten answered totally off.

"You have the ability to completely turn the sensor off in your settings. When in this mode, the sensor is not collecting any information. Any functionality that relies on voice, video, gesture or more won’t work. We still support using it for IR blasting in this mode. You can turn the sensor back on at any time through settings, and if you enter into a required Kinect experience (like Kinect Sports Rivals for instance), you’ll get a message asking if you want to turn the sensor back on in order to continue."

This is yet another entry to add to the list of stunning reversals in Xbox One policy made by Microsoft over the past few months. In June, Microsoft switched course on Xbox DRM, and they've flipped on all sorts of other policies since then.

http://kotaku.com/xbox-one-wont-actuall ... 1113142909

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

This should rile up your feathers some more MBBF.. Could this lead to an XB1 without a kinect and match the ps4 price?

I suspect that completely ditching the Kinect is not an option as developers will have been working on the assumption that an active Kinect device will be available on every Xbox One.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

I suspect that completely ditching the Kinect is not an option as developers will have been working on the assumption that an active Kinect device will be available on every Xbox One.

Yeah, that appears to be the case. Which just aggravates me because they're so against splitting the base when it comes to Kinect, but they completely neglected that line of thought when they decided they had to have a cheaper, HDD-free unit to accompany their $400 console with Xbox 360. They split the base, and instead of developers being able to count on a hard drive in every box...

So now? This? Kinect is what they're willing to put their foot down on? That's the bright line to which they'll say "this far; no further"?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Yeah, that appears to be the case. Which just aggravates me because they're so against splitting the base when it comes to Kinect, but they completely neglected that line of thought when they decided they had to have a cheaper, HDD-free unit to accompany their $400 console with Xbox 360. They split the base, and instead of developers being able to count on a hard drive in every box...

So now? This? Kinect is what they're willing to put their foot down on? That's the bright line to which they'll say "this far; no further"?

The HDD/no HDD is a 7+ year old decision. And is your second question rhetorical, because yes, that appears to be their decision to not split the base on the Kinect.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by cartman

The HDD/no HDD is a 7+ year old decision. And is your second question rhetorical, because yes, that appears to be their decision to not split the base on the Kinect.

Yes, the second question is rhetorical. But it annoys me because the Kinect decision is based on "developers won't spend resources on a feature that a significant portion of the user base may never use unless the camera is packed in with every console."

As opposed to "the inclusion of a hard drive in every unit" (which they've thankfully gone back to) allows developers to, for example, do things with loading times that benefit every single person playing, even if a significant chunk of the user base isn't going to acquire DLC or otherwise 'use' the space allocated.

That's the issue I have. They split the base at launch last time over a much more critical feature than a camera. Now they're drawing the bright line over the camera, and charging an extra $100 because of it.

[sterlingice]

It would be like the Wii not including a Wiimote in every console but making it cost $20 extra. Instead you just got the "classic" remote. It changed the entire structure of the console base.

The Wii U has been less successful with this.

SI

[cartman]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Yes, the second question is rhetorical. But it annoys me because the Kinect decision is based on "developers won't spend resources on a feature that a significant portion of the user base may never use unless the camera is packed in with every console."

As opposed to "the inclusion of a hard drive in every unit" (which they've thankfully gone back to) allows developers to, for example, do things with loading times that benefit every single person playing, even if a significant chunk of the user base isn't going to acquire DLC or otherwise 'use' the space allocated.

That's the issue I have. They split the base at launch last time over a much more critical feature than a camera. Now they're drawing the bright line over the camera, and charging an extra $100 because of it.

If it were just a camera, you might have a point. But otherwise, it sounds like MBBF logic, where because they made a decision to split the base last time and that upset you, you are upset this time because they decided to not split the base.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by cartman

If it were just a camera, you might have a point. But otherwise, it sounds like MBBF logic, where because they made a decision to split the base last time and that upset you, you are upset this time because they decided to not split the base.

Nah, you've got it backwards. I'm more upset with the decision last time than with the decision this time. It just frustrates me that they chose to split the base over the more critical feature while, in the face of all the reversals, the one they're clinging to is the one that's not universally embraced by the install base.

If they'd been consistent about it - not split the base last time, not split the base this time - you'd not hear a peep out of me. I understand the logic behind not splitting the base. If you do that with a peripheral, you doom the peripheral.

The problem is, they treated the hard drive as a peripheral last time instead of a critical element of the console. I guess what I'm saying is I don't understand their priorities these last 7-8 years. I don't understand the reasoning behind which battles they're picking.

It doesn't change anything in the long term. The Kinect, especially with the decision to make it usage-optional after all, isn't a dealbreaker for me the way the always-on connection requirement was.

In the short term, it's headdesk-level frustrating.

[cartman]

I'm still confused. If you think they they made right decision this time for the next generation, why is it frustrating based on a decision they made at the start of last generation? Seems like wasted frustration.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by cartman

I'm still confused. If you think they they made right decision this time for the next generation, why is it frustrating based on a decision they made at the start of last generation? Seems like wasted frustration.

They made the right decision for the peripheral. Not necessarily for the console. It's the right decision if they want Kinect to gain any long-term traction with the developers, and so in that context I can understand it.

But I don't see Kinect as being as core to the system experience as Microsoft apparently does. On the other hand, I thought they hit it out of the park by including a hard drive in every console on the original Xbox, and then they promptly turned and ran in the opposite direction with 360.

I don't understand the willingness to discard things that unquestionably benefit the console and the user base while clinging more tightly to something that might bear fruit, but then again, might not.

An analogy: you have a son, whom you dearly love. That son talks about wanting to be an astronaut. As he enters high school he displays an aptitude for math and science above that of his peers. At the end of his sophomore year, he makes the decision to take only the minimum necessary math and science courses to graduate high school, and turns his focus instead to the varsity football team, declaring that the NFL is his future.

He shows some promise as a football player, but nothing that would lead you to believe that the NFL is a certainty. You'd probably be frustrated with the decision to jettison the math and science classes and pin his hopes of future success on football, wouldn't you? Then he discovers that, oh, if he wants to gain admission to the school he wants to play football for, he's going to need to take an additional math course, so his senior year, he goes back to math.

Taking it for granted that you would still love and support your son, wouldn't you be baffled as fuck by his decision making process? Wouldn't you be a little frustrated that he'd be making decisions that impact his future on the basis of what he thinks he might be able to do well rather than what he actually does well?

[cartman]

But that is one son, which would be one console. The Xbox is now about to release the 3rd console, which would be a 3rd son. You learned from how you raised the first two, and made decisions based on what you learned from those two for how to raise the 3rd. If their decision to tie tightly to the Kinect ends up not working out, then that would be a decision they would have to revisit when the 4th version comes out, since it couldn't be undone from the 3rd version.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

It's clear from the decision-making process that they were looking to integrate the system into all their other products. The problem is that no one likes any of their other products, so why would they make the decision to go in that direction? Stick with what got you a lead in the States.

Also, don't weaken the general appearance of your management by bailing on your architecture design at all levels. As this article states, you almost have to wonder what they'll change next. It seems to be never-ending.

Microsoft Stares Down Its Last Xbox One Hurdle: $499 - Forbes

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's clear from the decision-making process that they were looking to integrate the system into all their other products. The problem is that no one likes any of their other products, so why would they make the decision to go in that direction? Stick with what got you a lead in the States.

Couldn't the same thing be said for Sony and their mandate that games support the Vita?

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's clear from the decision-making process that they were looking to integrate the system into all their other products. The problem is that no one likes any of their other products, so why would they make the decision to go in that direction? Stick with what got you a lead in the States.

Also, don't weaken the general appearance of your management by bailing on your architecture design at all levels. As this article states, you almost have to wonder what they'll change next. It seems to be never-ending.

Microsoft Stares Down Its Last Xbox One Hurdle: $499 - Forbes

So change = bad?

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

They were wrong for putting it out as they did and now they are wrong for changing.

It's the usual modus operandi. Apply liberally to politics, sports, or the console wars.

[Neon_Chaos]

Basically, 4 years of planning and vision down the drain because MS didn't have its finger on the consumer's pulse.

If they split the fanbase on the Kinect, they effectively kill off the peripheral. Similar to the PSEye.

If they remove kinect and sell at the same price point as Sony, The XBone is relegated to being a slightly less powerful PS4 with exclusives that you can get on the PC.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3

They were wrong for putting it out as they did and now they are wrong for changing.

It's the usual modus operandi. Apply liberally to politics, sports, or the console wars.

I'm not sure this is wrong, though you obviously meant it to be sarcasm. Initially, it was a disaster. By caving so drastically from their vision, it's a different form of a disaster, but it's honestly still a disaster. Perhaps a different mess if you're looking for a different phrasing of the situation.

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Basically, 4 years of planning and vision down the drain because MS didn't have its finger on the consumer's pulse.

If they split the fanbase on the Kinect, they effectively kill off the peripheral. Similar to the PSEye.

If they remove kinect and sell at the same price point as Sony, The XBone is relegated to being a slightly less powerful PS4 with exclusives that you can get on the PC.

Pretty accurately stated.

[Neon_Chaos]

In terms of game quality, I am pumped up for the next gen.

Devs never took full advantage of the PS3 hardware,
Since it was dificult to develop on the proprietary hardware Sony had on it. As a result, most cross-platforms were developed on the 360 and ported to the PS3. You could see the difference on graphics/peformance of most crossplatform games. GTA and the 2K games looked and played better on the 360.

This gen, I think, we're going to have more parity in terms of gameplay/graphics/performance.

MS will need the Kinect to stand out after their E3 snafu.

Sony will need to take care of the goodwill they collected since E3.

All in all, it should be great for gamers all around that we now have two companies who are being forced to listen to us now that we're a multi-billion dollar industry. Sony had to be anti-microsoft at E3 to catch up in marketshare. MS had to do their 180s due to consumers speaking via their wallets.

Can't wait for 2014 to roll along and see where we are at then.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Interesting indicator by MS. Not sure yet what it might mean. Would guess that there's either a release supply issue or they feel they have to move all available units into the bigger markets to maximize the impact at launch.

Xbox One scales back launch to 13 markets this November | Joystiq

[SackAttack]

Eh. I think it's a case of sanity knocking overambition upside the head and stashing it in a closet.

Xbox 360, over a three week span, released in "North America, Europe and Japan." In terms of actual press releases and news sites, that's specific as I can find, anywhere - no mention of what constituted Europe for the purposes of launch day.

Wikipedia says the European launch consisted of the "Eurozone", Norway, Sweden, the UK, Latvia, Finland, Ireland and Portugal. The Eurozone, OTOH, has 17 countries in it as of right now (not sure what their membership was in 2005). So that's, like...23 countries alone for the European launch if those were the territories involved. I mean, at minimum we're talking about France, Germany, Italy and Spain. That would be 14 total territories in a 3 week span.

The PS3 only launched in 5 countries between November 2006 and March 2007, for comparison's sake - Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, the US and Canada.

Unless Wikipedia is right and Microsoft literally launched in the entire Eurozone in 2005, 21 territories would have been an ambitious undertaking, and 13 still represents a comparable effort to 2005.

What's the difference? They're realizing that going after Japan is a little bit like a second trumpet in the band going after the captain of the cheer squad. Sure, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take, but realistically you should probably set your sights elsewhere; Microsoft is replacing Japan in the launch lineup with a few countries that, normally, wouldn't sniff the launch until closer to a year after the US and the major European countries got it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Eh. I think it's a case of sanity knocking overambition upside the head and stashing it in a closet.

Xbox 360, over a three week span, released in "North America, Europe and Japan." In terms of actual press releases and news sites, that's specific as I can find, anywhere - no mention of what constituted Europe for the purposes of launch day.

Wikipedia says the European launch consisted of the "Eurozone", Norway, Sweden, the UK, Latvia, Finland, Ireland and Portugal. The Eurozone, OTOH, has 17 countries in it as of right now (not sure what their membership was in 2005). So that's, like...23 countries alone for the European launch if those were the territories involved. I mean, at minimum we're talking about France, Germany, Italy and Spain. That would be 14 total territories in a 3 week span.

The PS3 only launched in 5 countries between November 2006 and March 2007, for comparison's sake - Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, the US and Canada.

Unless Wikipedia is right and Microsoft literally launched in the entire Eurozone in 2005, 21 territories would have been an ambitious undertaking, and 13 still represents a comparable effort to 2005.

What's the difference? They're realizing that going after Japan is a little bit like a second trumpet in the band going after the captain of the cheer squad. Sure, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take, but realistically you should probably set your sights elsewhere; Microsoft is replacing Japan in the launch lineup with a few countries that, normally, wouldn't sniff the launch until closer to a year after the US and the major European countries got it.

I'd agree in general, as you basically said what I said (maximize impact where they need to do so), but at the same time, how many times is this management team going to announce one thing and then roll back their statement before the launch happens? Is there anything that resembles the initial offering outside of it plays games, Netflix and Hulu and comes with a Kinect?

[SackAttack]

No, what you said was:

Would guess that there's either a release supply issue or they feel they have to move all available units into the bigger markets to maximize the impact at launch.

Russia is a much larger potential market than, say, Austria. Or New Zealand. Or, I'd wager, even Australia. If they were going for the bigger markets to maximize launch impact, they wouldn't be dropping Russia from the launch window.

If you look at the markets they're backing off on, what you're looking at is effectively 8 nations that use a different language (or even alphabet) from the rest of the nations they're launching in. Considering how important they think Kinect is to the experience, that's not a nontrivial consideration.

It's an ambition thing. They thought they could release in all those territories with a more complex product, and somebody stepped up and said to them "Uh, maybe not so much." Why is Australia getting it at the same time as the US (something that doesn't usually happen with console launches)? Because they speak English. Not because Australia is a sleeping giant, market-wise.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

No, what you said was:

Russia is a much larger potential market than, say, Austria. Or New Zealand. Or, I'd wager, even Australia. If they were going for the bigger markets to maximize launch impact, they wouldn't be dropping Russia from the launch window.

If you look at the markets they're backing off on, what you're looking at is effectively 8 nations that use a different language (or even alphabet) from the rest of the nations they're launching in. Considering how important they think Kinect is to the experience, that's not a nontrivial consideration.

It's an ambition thing. They thought they could release in all those territories with a more complex product, and somebody stepped up and said to them "Uh, maybe not so much." Why is Australia getting it at the same time as the US (something that doesn't usually happen with console launches)? Because they speak English. Not because Australia is a sleeping giant, market-wise.

Potentially a larger market? Yes. Better bet than the others you listed? No way.

[SackAttack]

You do realize that as of four years after the 360 launched in Australia/New Zealand, Microsoft had sold a combined 1 million units between those two countries, right?

We're not talking about, say, the difference between China and the United States, where one market is huge but the other is potentially game-changing.

We're talking about Australia/New Zealand, with a combined population of 26 million and an install base so low that the most current figures available are from 2010 - a million units combined after 47 months on the market there.

Russia doesn't have to do much to be a 'better bet' than AUS/NZ sales-wise. A 1% adoption rate between 2013-17 would put Russia on par with what AUS/NZ has meant to Microsoft's business.

Which is why I say this move isn't about "shifting units to the larger markets for maximized impact."

It's about language and alphabet, mostly, with a little bit of "no, I don't think we can be ready in all of these countries at launch; we need more time in the North Sea and Russia."

Belgium is the outlier as a bilingual country - they speak both Dutch and French there; since Dutch is the primary language spoken in Belgium and the Netherlands got shifted to 'wait' status, that probably explains why Belgium is getting moved also, even though 40% of the country does speak French and could piggyback on the French launch.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

You do realize that as of four years after the 360 launched in Australia/New Zealand, Microsoft had sold a combined 1 million units between those two countries, right?

We're not talking about, say, the difference between China and the United States, where one market is huge but the other is potentially game-changing.

We're talking about Australia/New Zealand, with a combined population of 26 million and an install base so low that the most current figures available are from 2010 - a million units combined after 47 months on the market there.

Russia doesn't have to do much to be a 'better bet' than AUS/NZ sales-wise. A 1% adoption rate between 2013-17 would put Russia on par with what AUS/NZ has meant to Microsoft's business.

Which is why I say this move isn't about "shifting units to the larger markets for maximized impact."

It's about language and alphabet, mostly, with a little bit of "no, I don't think we can be ready in all of these countries at launch; we need more time in the North Sea and Russia."

Belgium is the outlier as a bilingual country - they speak both Dutch and French there; since Dutch is the primary language spoken in Belgium and the Netherlands got shifted to 'wait' status, that probably explains why Belgium is getting moved also, even though 40% of the country does speak French and could piggyback on the French launch.

Assuming you're correct, then my question remains. Why the hell announce it? It's another situation where their management continues to promise one thing and deliver another when they realize their original plan didn't make sense for whatever reason. I'm not saying by any means that MS is the only company to be that stupid, but they're obviously in the limelight right now for that very reason. It's baffling and that's honestly being kind.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Details on some of the PS4 media offerings:

Report: Sony to launch online TV service on PS4 by end of year | Joystiq

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Assuming you're correct, then my question remains. Why the hell announce it? It's another situation where their management continues to promise one thing and deliver another when they realize their original plan didn't make sense for whatever reason. I'm not saying by any means that MS is the only company to be that stupid, but they're obviously in the limelight right now for that very reason. It's baffling and that's honestly being kind.

Because they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. When they announced it in the first place, at E3, they were still in a place where they thought the masses would be receptive to everything they had to say.

If they had realized how much backwalk was coming, I think they would have been much more vague on which territories were going to get the product and released actual details closer to launch.

Instead, they've got this product they think is kickass, that people are going to want, and they're getting out in front and saying "this is when it's going to happen."

Then rocks fall. Everybody dies. The rescue crew goes through the rubble to see if there are any survivors.

Microsoft realizes, for *whatever* reason, that they can't meet their original goal for launch regions. They've got two choices at that point - they can wait until launch is nearly there, announce the change, and leave their retail partners to deal with the pissed off hordes going "you've had my preorder money for three months and now this? what the hell?"

Or they can acknowledge that plans had to change. They are far from the first company, even in the console wars, to have that happen. Sometimes it's intentional, as when supplies were stupidly scarce in Japan for the Super Nintendo launch. Sometimes it's not as intentional, such as when Sony announced a million units for the PS2 launch in North America and delivered more like 500,000 because of component shortages.

Shit happens. Companies gotta roll with the punches. The difference between this case and the above is, Microsoft is able to step up and say "Hey, we goofed." If they waited until the last week of October to say anything, you'd be all over them for THAT, too.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Because they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. When they announced it in the first place, at E3, they were still in a place where they thought the masses would be receptive to everything they had to say.

If they had realized how much backwalk was coming, I think they would have been much more vague on which territories were going to get the product and released actual details closer to launch.

Instead, they've got this product they think is kickass, that people are going to want, and they're getting out in front and saying "this is when it's going to happen."

Then rocks fall. Everybody dies. The rescue crew goes through the rubble to see if there are any survivors.

Microsoft realizes, for *whatever* reason, that they can't meet their original goal for launch regions. They've got two choices at that point - they can wait until launch is nearly there, announce the change, and leave their retail partners to deal with the pissed off hordes going "you've had my preorder money for three months and now this? what the hell?"

Or they can acknowledge that plans had to change. They are far from the first company, even in the console wars, to have that happen. Sometimes it's intentional, as when supplies were stupidly scarce in Japan for the Super Nintendo launch. Sometimes it's not as intentional, such as when Sony announced a million units for the PS2 launch in North America and delivered more like 500,000 because of component shortages.

Shit happens. Companies gotta roll with the punches. The difference between this case and the above is, Microsoft is able to step up and say "Hey, we goofed." If they waited until the last week of October to say anything, you'd be all over them for THAT, too.

Exactly right. You were a bit verbose, but detailed basically what I've been saying. I guess it's OK to be a lousy leader if you apologize. In that case, I wish they would have let the head actually roll to prove their point rather than let him slide off to Zynga as though he actually thought that was a better position than his current one.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Exactly right. You were a bit verbose, but detailed basically what I've been saying. I guess it's OK to be a lousy leader if you apologize. In that case, I wish they would have let the head actually roll to prove their point rather than let him slide off to Zynga as though he actually thought that was a better position than his current one.

Yeah, because if you are Sony, and you blow a dominating market position, you get bumped up to CEO.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Yeah, because if you are Sony, and you blow a dominating market position, you get bumped up to CEO.

Good to see you agree. The corporate moves when mistakes are made are borderline mindblowing.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Good to see you agree. The corporate moves when mistakes are made are borderline mindblowing.

MBBF Logic:

Making a mistake and leaving the company is the same as making a mistake and being promoted to CEO.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

MBBF Logic:

Making a mistake and leaving the company is the same as making a mistake and being promoted to CEO.

I never set them as equal, but don't let that stop you. You're on a roll.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I never set them as equal, but don't let that stop you. You're on a roll.

Originally Posted by MBBF

In that case, I wish they would have let the head actually roll to prove their point rather than let him slide off to Zynga as though he actually thought that was a better position than his current one.

Oh, that's right. If it is a MS employee, set them up for public shaming. If it is a Sony employee, hey, it's cool to bump them up to CEO. My bad.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Details on some of the PS4 media offerings:

Report: Sony to launch online TV service on PS4 by end of year | Joystiq

/start MBBF mode

It is clear that Sony is trying to play catch-up to Microsoft in the non-gaming area. It is quite embarrassing that they announce such a paltry set of features that just barely challenges what Microsoft has already announced for TV integration. Just shaking my head as to why they are not sticking to their E3 statements of focusing on being a great gaming platform. Why are they being so muddled with their message?

/end MBBF mode

God, I feel dirty.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

/start MBBF mode

It is clear that Sony is trying to play catch-up to Microsoft in the non-gaming area. It is quite embarrassing that they announce such a paltry set of features that just barely challenges what Microsoft has already announced for TV integration. Just shaking my head as to why they are not sticking to their E3 statements of focusing on being a great gaming platform. Why are they being so muddled with their message?

/end MBBF mode

God, I feel dirty.

I can't disagree with any of this, though I'm sure you assumed otherwise. Having a few channels doesn't really do much for me. Bring the whole thing or nothing at all.

[Kodos]

cartman: Stop fighting MBBF and go do your recruiting!