So just like the 360, then?

Sent from my phone somehow.

Ironclad wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23613754

Key features of Microsoft's Xbox One console, which is expected to go on sale in November, will only be available with an annual subscription.

The requirement covers recording and sharing of gameplay videos, making Skype video calls and using a service that finds gaming opponents.

An Xbox Live Gold account that currently costs $60 (£40) will be needed for all these features.

Isn't this exactly what it is for the 360 now?

I'm sorry but I am just not feeling enuff shock & outrage here

I don't feel like finding the link but did read today that MS has decided to include a headset and a 4k HDMI cable.

The one is finally good enough, they should reveal it to the public.

purplerat wrote:I don't feel like finding the link but did read today that MS has decided to include a headset and a 4k HDMI cable.

The headset is nice, but HDMI cables should be obligatory for HD playing consoles. If the One did not include an HDMI cable, Nintendo's WiiU would have had it beat in such a trivial area. I would also hope Sony follows suit.

willhud9 wrote:

purplerat wrote:I don't feel like finding the link but did read today that MS has decided to include a headset and a 4k HDMI cable.

The headset is nice, but HDMI cables should be obligatory for HD playing consoles. If the One did not include an HDMI cable, Nintendo's WiiU would have had it beat in such a trivial area. I would also hope Sony follows suit.

I think the important takeaway on the HDMI cable is that they are specifying it as 4k HDMI which indicates the One will support higher resolutions, even if the 4k cable is not really necessary over a standard HDMI cable. I don't know if the 4k support had previously been announced but it's the first I've heard of it and I'm glad to here so seeing as I've started to look at such screens. What would be really nice would be some sort of Eyefinity support.

willhud9 wrote:

purplerat wrote:I don't feel like finding the link but did read today that MS has decided to include a headset and a 4k HDMI cable.

The headset is nice, but HDMI cables should be obligatory for HD playing consoles. If the One did not include an HDMI cable, Nintendo's WiiU would have had it beat in such a trivial area. I would also hope Sony follows suit.

The Playstation already has a headset and HDMI cable. And you don't have to pay for the features, including recording and sharing. Only online multiplayer needs a subscription.

EDIT: It also has 4K support.

Nice to see XBOX are learning from the best

Animavore wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

purplerat wrote:I don't feel like finding the link but did read today that MS has decided to include a headset and a 4k HDMI cable.

The headset is nice, but HDMI cables should be obligatory for HD playing consoles. If the One did not include an HDMI cable, Nintendo's WiiU would have had it beat in such a trivial area. I would also hope Sony follows suit.

The Playstation already has a headset and HDMI cable. And you don't have to pay for the features, including recording and sharing. Only online multiplayer needs a subscription.

EDIT: It also has 4K support.

Nice to see XBOX are learning from the best

I'm guessing the PS3 came with an HDMI by default due to the inclusion of the blu ray player. It is somewhat ironic that people get so up in arms about MS forcing certain expansive, yet unnecessary for the core gaming experience, add-ons and features, saying they should learn from Sony when you consider the inclusion of blu ray on the PS3.

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

purplerat wrote:I don't feel like finding the link but did read today that MS has decided to include a headset and a 4k HDMI cable.

The headset is nice, but HDMI cables should be obligatory for HD playing consoles. If the One did not include an HDMI cable, Nintendo's WiiU would have had it beat in such a trivial area. I would also hope Sony follows suit.

The Playstation already has a headset and HDMI cable. And you don't have to pay for the features, including recording and sharing. Only online multiplayer needs a subscription.

EDIT: It also has 4K support.

Nice to see XBOX are learning from the best

I'm guessing the PS3 came with an HDMI by default due to the inclusion of the blu ray player. It is somewhat ironic that people get so up in arms about MS forcing certain expansive, yet unnecessary for the core gaming experience, add-ons and features, saying they should learn from Sony when you consider the inclusion of blu ray on the PS3.

I'm not following you. The blu-ray player meant that in-house developers could make larger, exclusive games. Ones the XBox wouldn't be able to have without multiple CDs.
And no, it didn't come with HDMi by default. It came with a SCART lead. There just weren't as many people with HDTVs then.

Animavore wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

The headset is nice, but HDMI cables should be obligatory for HD playing consoles. If the One did not include an HDMI cable, Nintendo's WiiU would have had it beat in such a trivial area. I would also hope Sony follows suit.

The Playstation already has a headset and HDMI cable. And you don't have to pay for the features, including recording and sharing. Only online multiplayer needs a subscription.

EDIT: It also has 4K support.

Nice to see XBOX are learning from the best

I'm guessing the PS3 came with an HDMI by default due to the inclusion of the blu ray player. It is somewhat ironic that people get so up in arms about MS forcing certain expansive, yet unnecessary for the core gaming experience, add-ons and features, saying they should learn from Sony when you consider the inclusion of blu ray on the PS3.

I'm not following you. The blu-ray player meant that in-house developers could make larger, exclusive games. Ones the XBox wouldn't be able to have without multiple CDs.
And no, it didn't come with HDMi by default. It came with a SCART lead. There just weren't as many people with HDTVs then.

LOL, you really believe the purpose of the blu-ray player in the PS3 was to allow for larger games w/o multiple DVDs?

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:

The Playstation already has a headset and HDMI cable. And you don't have to pay for the features, including recording and sharing. Only online multiplayer needs a subscription.

EDIT: It also has 4K support.

Nice to see XBOX are learning from the best

I'm guessing the PS3 came with an HDMI by default due to the inclusion of the blu ray player. It is somewhat ironic that people get so up in arms about MS forcing certain expansive, yet unnecessary for the core gaming experience, add-ons and features, saying they should learn from Sony when you consider the inclusion of blu ray on the PS3.

I'm not following you. The blu-ray player meant that in-house developers could make larger, exclusive games. Ones the XBox wouldn't be able to have without multiple CDs.
And no, it didn't come with HDMi by default. It came with a SCART lead. There just weren't as many people with HDTVs then.

LOL, you really believe the purpose of the blu-ray player in the PS3 was to allow for larger games w/o multiple DVDs?

No. There were other reasons. All of them good http://ie.ign.com/articles/2010/03/05/w ... ray-player

Animavore wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:

purplerat wrote:
I'm guessing the PS3 came with an HDMI by default due to the inclusion of the blu ray player. It is somewhat ironic that people get so up in arms about MS forcing certain expansive, yet unnecessary for the core gaming experience, add-ons and features, saying they should learn from Sony when you consider the inclusion of blu ray on the PS3.

I'm not following you. The blu-ray player meant that in-house developers could make larger, exclusive games. Ones the XBox wouldn't be able to have without multiple CDs.
And no, it didn't come with HDMi by default. It came with a SCART lead. There just weren't as many people with HDTVs then.

LOL, you really believe the purpose of the blu-ray player in the PS3 was to allow for larger games w/o multiple DVDs?

No. There were other reasons. All of them good http://ie.ign.com/articles/2010/03/05/w ... ray-player

uh, that's an article for why the PS3 is good as a blu ray player, not why blu ray is good for gaming. Sure now that blu ray is dirt cheap it's a no brainier to add it to consoles. But when it was adding hundreds of dollars to the cost of the console and otherwise was virtually useless to most consumers as another other than a way to read game discs (which DVD already did at a fraction of the cost) not so much.

Come on, take the fanboy hat off for a moment. If consumers had the option to buy a XBox One with no Kinnect at a cheaper price obviously they would and that's what people are upset about. Similarly if people could have bought the PS3 w/o blu ray at launch when it cost $600 for say $100 less of course they would, even if it meant having to change discs on a few games. It's 6 in 1, half in the other.

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:

I'm not following you. The blu-ray player meant that in-house developers could make larger, exclusive games. Ones the XBox wouldn't be able to have without multiple CDs.
And no, it didn't come with HDMi by default. It came with a SCART lead. There just weren't as many people with HDTVs then.

LOL, you really believe the purpose of the blu-ray player in the PS3 was to allow for larger games w/o multiple DVDs?

No. There were other reasons. All of them good http://ie.ign.com/articles/2010/03/05/w ... ray-player

uh, that's an article for why the PS3 is good as a blu ray player, not why blu ray is good for gaming. Sure now that blu ray is dirt cheap it's a no brainier to add it to consoles. But when it was adding hundreds of dollars to the cost of the console and otherwise was virtually useless to most consumers as another other than a way to read game discs (which DVD already did at a fraction of the cost) not so much.

Come on, take the fanboy hat off for a moment. If consumers had the option to buy a XBox One with no Kinnect at a cheaper price obviously they would and that's what people are upset about. Similarly if people could have bought the PS3 w/o blu ray at launch when it cost $600 for say $100 less of course they would, even if it meant having to change discs on a few games. It's 6 in 1, half in the other.

Sorry, but this makes no sense. Metal Gear Solid 4 didn't even come out on XBox because it's not cost productive to have multiple discs. How the heck would PS3 have been able to have God of War, Uncharted, Resistance, Killzone and Gran Turismo without blu-ray.

EDIT: And even less practical to have a blu-ray version and a DVD version because now you have to make one disc and multi-disc versions!

There is no fanboi hat on me. My earlier jibe at XBox following PS4 was just that, a jibe.

Animavore wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:

purplerat wrote:
LOL, you really believe the purpose of the blu-ray player in the PS3 was to allow for larger games w/o multiple DVDs?

No. There were other reasons. All of them good http://ie.ign.com/articles/2010/03/05/w ... ray-player

uh, that's an article for why the PS3 is good as a blu ray player, not why blu ray is good for gaming. Sure now that blu ray is dirt cheap it's a no brainier to add it to consoles. But when it was adding hundreds of dollars to the cost of the console and otherwise was virtually useless to most consumers as another other than a way to read game discs (which DVD already did at a fraction of the cost) not so much.

Come on, take the fanboy hat off for a moment. If consumers had the option to buy a XBox One with no Kinnect at a cheaper price obviously they would and that's what people are upset about. Similarly if people could have bought the PS3 w/o blu ray at launch when it cost $600 for say $100 less of course they would, even if it meant having to change discs on a few games. It's 6 in 1, half in the other.

Sorry, but this makes no sense. Metal Gear Solid 4 didn't even come out on XBox because it's not cost productive to have multiple discs. How the heck would PS3 of been able to have God of War, Uncharted, Resistance, Killzone and Gran Turismo without blu-ray.

There is no fanboi hat on me. My earlier jibe at XBox following PS4 was just that, a jibe.

There are exclusives on every system and their always justified as "only being possible on ___ system". Sometimes that's just marketing and sometimes it's because the game was designed specifically to take advantage of a certain feature.

The bottom line is that if Sony hadn't had a massive stake in making blu ray the HD standard there's no way it would have been included in the PS3 at the additional cost required at that time. Even then it was a huge risk that nearly knocked them out of the console market. I'd go as far as saying that if blu ray had not become the HD standard we wouldn't even be talking about PS4.

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:
No. There were other reasons. All of them good http://ie.ign.com/articles/2010/03/05/w ... ray-player

uh, that's an article for why the PS3 is good as a blu ray player, not why blu ray is good for gaming. Sure now that blu ray is dirt cheap it's a no brainier to add it to consoles. But when it was adding hundreds of dollars to the cost of the console and otherwise was virtually useless to most consumers as another other than a way to read game discs (which DVD already did at a fraction of the cost) not so much.

Come on, take the fanboy hat off for a moment. If consumers had the option to buy a XBox One with no Kinnect at a cheaper price obviously they would and that's what people are upset about. Similarly if people could have bought the PS3 w/o blu ray at launch when it cost $600 for say $100 less of course they would, even if it meant having to change discs on a few games. It's 6 in 1, half in the other.

Sorry, but this makes no sense. Metal Gear Solid 4 didn't even come out on XBox because it's not cost productive to have multiple discs. How the heck would PS3 of been able to have God of War, Uncharted, Resistance, Killzone and Gran Turismo without blu-ray.

There is no fanboi hat on me. My earlier jibe at XBox following PS4 was just that, a jibe.

There are exclusives on every system and their always justified as "only being possible on ___ system". Sometimes that's just marketing and sometimes it's because the game was designed specifically to take advantage of a certain feature.

The bottom line is that if Sony hadn't had a massive stake in making blu ray the HD standard there's no way it would have been included in the PS3 at the additional cost required at that time. Even then it was a huge risk that nearly knocked them out of the console market. I'd go as far as saying that if blu ray had not become the HD standard we wouldn't even be talking about PS4.

Red herring. You asked initially why PS3 couldn't of sold a DVD version for a hundred cheaper. It's just not practical to do so because you have to make different versions of games. The Kinnect simply doesn't fall into this category. It's a device which will only be used on a limited amount of niche games adequately and tacked on to anything else.
It could easily do without it. The PS3 could not of had two different versions quite so easily.

Animavore wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:

purplerat wrote:
uh, that's an article for why the PS3 is good as a blu ray player, not why blu ray is good for gaming. Sure now that blu ray is dirt cheap it's a no brainier to add it to consoles. But when it was adding hundreds of dollars to the cost of the console and otherwise was virtually useless to most consumers as another other than a way to read game discs (which DVD already did at a fraction of the cost) not so much.

Come on, take the fanboy hat off for a moment. If consumers had the option to buy a XBox One with no Kinnect at a cheaper price obviously they would and that's what people are upset about. Similarly if people could have bought the PS3 w/o blu ray at launch when it cost $600 for say $100 less of course they would, even if it meant having to change discs on a few games. It's 6 in 1, half in the other.

Sorry, but this makes no sense. Metal Gear Solid 4 didn't even come out on XBox because it's not cost productive to have multiple discs. How the heck would PS3 of been able to have God of War, Uncharted, Resistance, Killzone and Gran Turismo without blu-ray.

There is no fanboi hat on me. My earlier jibe at XBox following PS4 was just that, a jibe.

There are exclusives on every system and their always justified as "only being possible on ___ system". Sometimes that's just marketing and sometimes it's because the game was designed specifically to take advantage of a certain feature.

The bottom line is that if Sony hadn't had a massive stake in making blu ray the HD standard there's no way it would have been included in the PS3 at the additional cost required at that time. Even then it was a huge risk that nearly knocked them out of the console market. I'd go as far as saying that if blu ray had not become the HD standard we wouldn't even be talking about PS4.

Red herring. You asked initially why PS3 couldn't of sold a DVD version for a hundred cheaper. It's just not practical to do so because you have to make different versions of games. The Kinnect simply doesn't fall into this category. It's a device which will only be used on a limited amount of niche games adequately and tacked on to anything else.
It could easily do without it. The PS3 could not of had two different versions quite so easily.

The games that 'need' blu ray were made in response to the PS3 forcing the inclusion of the HD format. If Sony had not included blu ray by default then those games would not have been made to require it. You could argue that the number of games that actually require blu ray amount to a handful of niche games or games that would still have been made without it.

MS is including the Kinect for the same reason Sony included the blu ray on the PS3; not because it's what gamers want or because it will make a significant impact on the quality of games but rather because they want to get their foot in the door with a home entertainment standard. The kinect as a home entertainment device, never mind a standard, is certainly more of a stretch than a movie playback format, but it's the same concept.

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Sorry, but this makes no sense. Metal Gear Solid 4 didn't even come out on XBox because it's not cost productive to have multiple discs. How the heck would PS3 of been able to have God of War, Uncharted, Resistance, Killzone and Gran Turismo without blu-ray.

There is no fanboi hat on me. My earlier jibe at XBox following PS4 was just that, a jibe.

There are exclusives on every system and their always justified as "only being possible on ___ system". Sometimes that's just marketing and sometimes it's because the game was designed specifically to take advantage of a certain feature.

The bottom line is that if Sony hadn't had a massive stake in making blu ray the HD standard there's no way it would have been included in the PS3 at the additional cost required at that time. Even then it was a huge risk that nearly knocked them out of the console market. I'd go as far as saying that if blu ray had not become the HD standard we wouldn't even be talking about PS4.

Red herring. You asked initially why PS3 couldn't of sold a DVD version for a hundred cheaper. It's just not practical to do so because you have to make different versions of games. The Kinnect simply doesn't fall into this category. It's a device which will only be used on a limited amount of niche games adequately and tacked on to anything else.
It could easily do without it. The PS3 could not of had two different versions quite so easily.

The games that 'need' blu ray were made in response to the PS3 forcing the inclusion of the HD format. If Sony had not included blu ray by default then those games would not have been made to require it. You could argue that the number of games that actually require blu ray amount to a handful of niche games or games that would still have been made without it.

MS is including the Kinect for the same reason Sony included the blu ray on the PS3; not because it's what gamers want or because it will make a significant impact on the quality of games but rather because they want to get their foot in the door with a home entertainment standard. The kinect as a home entertainment device, never mind a standard, is certainly more of a stretch than a movie playback format, but it's the same concept.

How does any of that change the fact that it's far, far easier to sell two versions of XBox, one with Kinnect and one without, than it would've been to sell two versions of PS3, one with blu-ray and one without?
The Kinnect just sticks into the back with a lead and games can easily function without it. The blu-ray on a PS3 is integral to the machine.

If what you're asking is why didn't Sony just go with HD-DVD altogether for the sake of 100 bucks that would be a different question. And there might even be an argument for that, but in retrospect it's a good thing they did because they wouldn't have some of the awesome exclusives they do, because I doubt companies would bother with multi-disc games.

Animavore wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:

purplerat wrote:
There are exclusives on every system and their always justified as "only being possible on ___ system". Sometimes that's just marketing and sometimes it's because the game was designed specifically to take advantage of a certain feature.

The bottom line is that if Sony hadn't had a massive stake in making blu ray the HD standard there's no way it would have been included in the PS3 at the additional cost required at that time. Even then it was a huge risk that nearly knocked them out of the console market. I'd go as far as saying that if blu ray had not become the HD standard we wouldn't even be talking about PS4.

Red herring. You asked initially why PS3 couldn't of sold a DVD version for a hundred cheaper. It's just not practical to do so because you have to make different versions of games. The Kinnect simply doesn't fall into this category. It's a device which will only be used on a limited amount of niche games adequately and tacked on to anything else.
It could easily do without it. The PS3 could not of had two different versions quite so easily.

The games that 'need' blu ray were made in response to the PS3 forcing the inclusion of the HD format. If Sony had not included blu ray by default then those games would not have been made to require it. You could argue that the number of games that actually require blu ray amount to a handful of niche games or games that would still have been made without it.

MS is including the Kinect for the same reason Sony included the blu ray on the PS3; not because it's what gamers want or because it will make a significant impact on the quality of games but rather because they want to get their foot in the door with a home entertainment standard. The kinect as a home entertainment device, never mind a standard, is certainly more of a stretch than a movie playback format, but it's the same concept.

How does any of that change the fact that it's far, far easier to sell two versions of XBox, one with Kinnect and one without, than it would've been to sell two versions of PS3, one with blu-ray and one without?
The Kinnect just sticks into the back with a lead and games can easily function without it. The blu-ray on a PS3 is integral to the machine.

It's integral because that's the way Sony made it. MS had an external/add-on HD-DVD for the 360 but making it optional lead to nobody buying it and it failing miserably. Presumably the same would have happened to the PS3 blu ray had it been optional. The point is that was the way they wanted to make their console and gave consumers the choice to either have it that way (at an exceptionally higher price) or not have the console at all. Now you may feel the Kinect is not as valuable as blu ray (and I'd probably agree) but it's no more or less anti-consumerist than what Sony did in the last generation.

Animavore wrote:
If what you're asking is why didn't Sony just go with HD-DVD altogether for the sake of 100 bucks that would be a different question. And there might even be an argument for that, but in retrospect it's a good thing they did because they wouldn't have some of the awesome exclusives they do, because I doubt companies would bother with multi-disc games.

Multi-disc games are not unheard of plus the large HDD that's included in consoles (well it's optional in the 360, not so much so in the PS3) reduces the need for disc space.

Years ago, Apple started shipping macs with USB ports and no parallel ports. People got annoyed because everything connected with parallel. USB was the next stage in computer connections. Blu-Ray was the next stage in optical discs. Kinect is unnecessary.