Mr. GOH!

Dual cards are rarely a solution for folks who don't want to have mutliple and/or huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge monitors. It may have changed in the last year or so, but multiple GPUs have historically had weird issues running certain games.

I meant the inflated Gamestop price is the only option for buying used on the Xbone. Their current used prices are ridiculous.

I agree; the cable companies are not necessarily long-term rational. However, in order to adapt to the new realities as content providers, the cable companies would still need to provide content. MS is squarely a competitor in this regard, as are Hulu and Netflix. Allowing MS to have so much control on the end-user interface re: cable companies' content would hinder establishing a strong brand.

ThursdayNext: I don't think you have a firm grasp on just how bitterly cable TV providers are fighting against other distributors or packagers of cable television content and any move towards a la carte streaming video entertainment. Cable companies want to make money packaging content, not merely being operators of a data utility, largely because they'd lose a shitload of revenue. So they fight back against other entities looking to distribute TV-like content and seek to establish that they are the gatekeepers of TV programming. Allowing MS to change the essential experience of using television and blend it with streaming entertainment threatens the perception that they're the gatekeepers. I know it seems petty, but the cable companies are running scared. I think that the television industries in other countries are far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far more likely to use a console as a set-top box than cable companies in the USA, at least as long as USA cable companies continue to operate as they do currently. Edit: The restrictions on resales won't really affect me personally, as long as the prices for old games aren't radically different than they are now. But that will piss off a lot gamers. Now everyone will have to pay an inflated price for GameStop used games.

That must be it.

Thursday: look upthread for a fuller discussion. The long and the short of it is that US cable providers are quasi-monopolies and will not allow MS to function as their front-end, controlling the user experience, unless MS pays a huge amount of money. They make a lot of money from cable box rental fees. They fear the impact of streaming entertainment and don't want to help along their own irrelevance. they are leery of giving third parties information on how to decrypt their digital cable signals. Maybe next generation, if cable TV companies have finally been disrupted by streaming on-demand entertainment. Edit: Just looked at the picture. There's no connector for coaxial cables, which run from the wall to the cable box/TV in the USA. Just the HDMI out and that weird in/out (probably audio of some sort), apparently The lack of any out except HDMI means the Xbone won't work with analog TVs without a weird converter. Makes sense for a console released in this day and age, but I'm sure there are a few people out there who will be upset at this.

Why do you say that? Legitimately curious. Based on my experience with the current Xbox and Kinect, having it connected while watching media does make the experience worse. It frequently interprets gestures as inputs and fucks with your viewing experience when you were just talking with your hands to another viewer. That's ignoring the creepiness of having a microphone always listening. I think that because it's what happened the past two generations. I think there are a number of contributing factors. For example, as development costs decrease for the new generation's hardware, developers can put more time into porting; median PC graphics capability in the PC gaming marketplace increases to the point where the market is justified to port from the more powerful new generation consoles (8GB RAM is a lot for most folks still); and there are fewer exclusivity deals with the console makers, or initial exclusivity deals expire. I completely agree with you about the Kinect. Well, I've never used one at a home, so I dunno about how easily it picks up accidental gestures or speech. The always-on camera and mic is cause for serious pause.

If some sort of awesome exclusive were to drop for it (or the PS4 or the Wii U), I'd get it. Most likely late 2014 or later. Most likely is that the current state of cross-plats being available for PS3, 360 and PC will end and there will only be console cross-plats, so I might end up getting an Xbone or PS4 sooner rather than later. I didn't jump on this console generation until Mass Effect and GTA IV dropped. Then again, both of those came to PC belatedly (though the ports were announced after I got the 360). But do you have something that does all that, TV, and games? MS is hoping folks want the all-in-one. Even budget gamers get a fantastic gaming machine, as you will see at the E3 presentation. The extra features you won't be using do not make the console any worse. At least that's what MS would say; I'm agnostic about the Xbone.

Because it's something over which folks in the top 10% to 20% of household incomes would "ooh" and "aah." They also want it to deliver other video entertainment content (Hulu, Netflix, exclusive shows like the Halo show, and content bought directly from the NFL), so the One would serve as a one-stop shop for video entertainment.

It will not be a cable box in the USA, though. Cannot stress that enough.

Also that MS paid (or discounted licensing fees for) EA to implement Kinect and feedback trigger tech in EA's games.

I've worked in telecommunications law in law school, though it was a few years ago, and am very familiar with how telecom companies operate and make deals. Cable providers make a lot of their money on such fees and it would be very difficult for them to place a value on that for a deal with MS that MS would also be willing to pay. I mean, cable companies are monopolies and will not give an inch if they can help it. Pass-through is the best MS could do. Satellite TV providers might act differently, however. Does the one have HDMI pass-through with any satellite companies?

It'll be on sale eventually. Worth $10 to me, but I'm a fancy-pants big city type.

Reus. Was home sick yesterday and wanted something light to play while in bed. Great little game. http://www.reusgame.com/

But based on the way they've explained it so far even the HDMI pass-through only works with cable boxes from companies MS has a partnership with, it doesn't support all providers. Given that, I fail to see why negotiating a deal to have the Xbox be the cable box would have been any harder. Because the cable providers want to control the hardware that decodes their scrambling and presents their content; they also want to hang onto cable box rental fees and DVR fees. The technical costs would also be heavy. Although there are uniform standards, cable boxes are not all the same and MS would have to account for the different systems used by different providers, driving up the hardware costs for the One.

Very, very few content providers would be willing to face the wrath of cable TV companies by going above their heads and signing deals with MS so that LIVE subscribers could access their channels without a cable TV subscription. Pure fantasy at this point. Again, I'm not saying the One is any good, or that folks should buy it, just that some of the reactions seem overdramatic given what we already knew.

Hoping that the Next Xbox would be a real replacement for set-top cable boxes is on par with hoping that one would win the Powerball without buying a ticket. Just securing the agreements with every cable television operator would be a nightmare, let alone dealing with the technical details. We will have a la carte television standard before we have a third-party replacement cable box that works with every provider. The games will be at E3. Decrying the lack of games makes little sense. It may have been a dumb decision on the part of MS, but it was a marketing decisions to highlight non-gaming functions for the unveiling. And, given that the mainstream press, and even a good portion of the non-gaming tech press, has been very positive, it may have been a smart move. Bottom-line: it's not yet time to despair about there being no games for the One. The online check DRM and anti-used/sharing/trading are the real big issues for the One. It's anti-consumer and needlessly invasive. I say that as someone who loves Steam. I doubt MS will be as friendly to the pocketbook as Steam has been with older games going on sale all the time, and I think one of the strengths of consoles was the portability of media between different locations, even within a single household. That feature is gone. Interesting article, Ethan. I wonder if we'll see genuinely better-looking games for the PS4 than for the One. I wonder what the impact on MS will be if cross-platform games look far better on the PS4. I didn't see much difference between the PS3 and 360.

To those who were disappointed: what did you want or expect to see/hear that you didn't? I mean, the One is pretty much exactly what I expected.

Has Sony announced its DRM/required online connectivity yet? Just want a point-by-point comparison with what we know about DRM/restrictive online requirements between the PS4 and Xbox One.

I'd say that was about on-par with the PS4 intro. Not very excited about either box. Probably won'y buy either for a few years, unless some must-have game is exclusive to one or the other and the price is less than $400.

Most 3DS handhelds were sold outside of Japan. Not sure about how much revenue from 3DS game sales and license agreements comes from within Japan versus without. Also consider that a Japanese-centric system may mean more Japanese games of quality that will not be translated because the non-Japanese market for a particular Japanese game is too small.

I wonder two things: whether the Japanese home console market is still there in the face of the alleged massive shift to handhelds; and that Nintendo can compete with the PS4 in Japan. I think it's more likely that Nintendo thinks the Wii U can't succeed anywhere if it can't succeed in Japan. I also think success in the Japanese market alone in the next year or two will not be enough to support the Wii U.

Whoa, when did this become a Civ thread?

Just because a game sold a shitload does not mean people will pay $350-$400 on it and a new system on which to play it. Especially if they already have and enjoy Mario Kart Wii. Think of it this way; nobody, really, buys any platform to play Angry Birds, and I'm sure it's outsold Mario Kart.