Microsoft Revealed the Xbox One

Microsoft revealed its successor to the Xbox 360, dubbed the 'Xbox One'. Unlike Sony's somewhat cagey event, Microsoft showed the hardware that everyone craves to see. The exterior design of the box itself is somewhat uninspired, but no one really cares if their console's case won't win design awards so long as the console provides entertainment.

The Xbox One is going to be bundled with a new and improved Kinect. That was a wise decision to drive adoption of the device by developers. While the Kinect was a successful product, the history of console add-ons shows that it can be difficult for developers to spend precious resources supporting a peripheral that not everyone has. Bundling the Kinect with the Xbox One means that developers won't have to worry about user fragmentation driving their design decisions. It seems as though there is already some backlash due to the fact that the new Kinect is ​always listening, but honestly folks, 'always listening' is how the Enterprise's computer must have worked. 'Magic' always has a cost.

A new controller was revealed as well, but honestly there isn't much to talk about. It's a refinement of an already fine controller.​

By the way, the 'requires an always-on Internet connection' rumors weren't true, strictly speaking.​ With that said, the system for handling used games is sort of wonky. From some reports, the Xbox One installs the game disk's contents to the internal hard drive. The same disk can be used to install the game onto another user's Xbox One, but apparently this would require activating the content online by paying a fee that is pretty much the at-that-time current retail price.

Games were also talked about, but just like Sony's event there isn't much to mention here. Sequels, folks.​

In all, Microsoft did a capable job with its announcement and it looks like the Xbox One will be competitive with the PlayStation 4.​

Common Sense When Talking About Used Games in the New Console Generation

Dave Thier for Forbes.com:

An outright restriction on used games is just so clearly unpalatable to the core gamer demographic that I can’t imagine either company would want to risk losing hoards of valuable customers over a policy that has not clearly demonstrated any benefit. Both of these companies have done dumber things, but this just seems like a no-brainer.

​I've written about this topic before, and the same conclusion applies. The 'Durango' news has caused a lot of sites to jump to the conclusion that Microsoft will prevent users from using previously owned games with the new Xbox. Time will tell if this is the case, but it seems highly unlikely.

The Nintendo WiiU is Selling Very Poorly

Frank Cifaldi, writing for Gamasutra:

All eyes are on Nintendo's Wii U, which saw an incredibly rough January that may have seen sales as low as 57,000. This month, the NPD Group says that sales on a weekly average increased around 40 percent, meaning that monthly sales for the console were in the neighborhood of 64,000.

Ouch. This is bad. Very, very, very bad. By comparison, the 7-year-old Xbox 360 sold 302,000 units in the same period. Brand new consoles should easily outsell consoles from the previous generation, barring supply chain constraints (which does not appear to apply in this case). Nintendo desperately needs a good Mario game or a new entry in the Zelda series.

Will Traditional Video Game Consoles Thrive in the Future?

Tricia Duryee, in a post for AllThingsD.com:

In January, Nintendo slashed its sales outlook after holiday sales of the Wii U failed to hit expectations. The poor turnout does not provide a lot of support for the theory that consumers were just holding back spending for the release of the new hardware. The Japanese game company was hoping to rekindle consumer excitement by launching the Wii U with a controller that had a six-inch touchscreen display and acted much like Apple’s iPad. It also enabled consumers to interact with their TVs, by allowing owners to comment on programming within a closed social network. But the console was mostly trying to extend the life of the traditional videogame business, which relies on selling packaged software at $60 apiece.

There has been quite a bit written about the supposed impending demise of the traditional video game console typified by the products available from Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft. There are pundits that point to the rise of mobile gaming on smartphones and tablets and the freemium culture as the major culprits in accelerating this demise. Likewise, there are other pundits pointing to new console competitors such as the OUYA that will be encroaching on the incumbents' retail space. To the pundits, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are dinosaurs that have not kept up with the changes in the market. Does this analysis hold up? In a word, no.

Let's start with the premise that consoles are declining. The problem with that view of the world is that it fails to take into account the fact that this console generation has gotten long in the tooth. Very, very, very long in the tooth. The fact of the matter is that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have let this console generation extend beyond the traditional 5 years of life before introducing successor consoles. Gamers eventually want to see something new, no matter how much they love their current console. Some have pointed to the Nintendo WiiU's struggles as portending a rough future for new consoles from Sony and Microsoft. The WiiU should not be seen as the standard bearer for the next console generation. According to those who have analyzed the hardware, including a developer for a WiiU launch title, the WiiU is a system that is underpowered compared to what should be expected for a new console. Remember, the Wii/PS3/Xbox 360 group are six years old in terms of technology. Nintendo made a terrible mistake in making the WiiU only 'somewhat better' than current consoles. The technological leap just isn't there. Nintendo also exacerbated the problem by releasing the console without ensuring that a premier title such as a new Mario game accompanied the launch. New Super Mario Bros. U, which could have been released on the Nintendo 3DS, just doesn't cut it as a launch title.

What then, of the rise of mobile gaming? To those who say the console is in trouble, the success of devices like the iPhone and iPad as well as the success of titles such as Angry Birds point to a future where consoles aren't relevant. This is a narrow view of the world that doesn't take into account what is happening in the industry. Mobile gaming isn't taking gamers away from traditional consoles...it is expanding the term 'gamer' beyond its traditional form. Just as the Nintendo Wii helped to bring games into the mainstream by making games more accessible to non-traditional gamers (e.g. the elderly), mobile games have further expanded the gaming market. And that's what it is, an expansion of the overall gaming market, not a reduction of the market for consoles.

How will non-traditional consoles such as the OUYA impact traditional consoles? Probably not much, in all honesty. Despite what some are saying about consoles needing to provide an inexpensive outlet for indie game devs (including, famously, one of the founders of the Xbox project), it doesn't seem at all as though this is an issue holding back traditional consoles. As a developer and a gamer, I am of course interested in the possibilities that more 'open' consoles such as the OUYA offer. I'm just not deluding myself into believing that this is going to take over the industry. Gamers don't really care if those games come from major dev shops or indie dev shops, they want good games, period. The challenge for indie devs will be for them to push Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft into understanding that there is enough benefit to be gained by offering an outlet for indie games.

In short, we should expect that the release of new consoles from Sony and Microsoft will stir interest from gamers. Assuming that they hold up their end of the bargain by releasing much more powerful consoles with decent launch title lineups, Sony and Microsoft will revitalize the sagging console industry.

The Next Xbox Will Not Disable Used Games

The staff at Edge wrote this particularly juicy tidbit:

Sources with first-hand experience of Microsoft’s next generation console have told us that although the next Xbox will be absolutely committed to online functionality, games will still be made available to purchase in physical form. Next Xbox games will be manufactured on 50GB-capacity Blu-ray discs, Microsoft having conceded defeat to Sony following its ill-fated backing of the HD-DVD format. It is believed that games purchased on disc will ship with activation codes, and will have no value beyond the initial user.

This same tired rumor keeps coming back year after year, console generation after console generation. This particular iteration caused a lot of concern around the web (such as the post by John Biggs for TechCrunch). The story even prompted electronics retailer GameStop to make an official comment after the retailer's stock price was rocked by this supposed 'news':

“We know the desire to purchase a next-generation console would be significantly diminished if new consoles were to prohibit playing pre-owned games, limit portability or not play new physical games,” Hodges said in an e-mail.

GameStop, of course, makes quite a nice profit on its used video game sales so the stock market's investors reacted negatively to what they believed to be a significant threat to the company's business strategy. The problem is that this story doesn't pass the 'sniff test' once a person takes a moment to really think about the likelihood of its claims coming to pass.

First, we have to consider what Microsoft would gain by eliminating the used game market. Hypothetically, Microsoft could bring in more revenue by removing a source of game content that doesn't directly send money their way. Although that sounds fine on paper, in practice it is absurd to think that gamers will simply decide to funnel their cash into buying new games. It's not as if someone who would have purchased one to two used games at $20 apiece is going to purchase those games at $60 apiece; that person is just going to purchase fewer games or find alternative means of acquiring games (i.e. piracy).

Second, we have to consider what Microsoft's competitors would do in reaction to this move. The only possible way that Microsoft could escape unscathed is if Sony and Nintendo both decided to follow suit. However, this is highly unlikely to occur. What is more likely to happen is that Sony and Nintendo would take the opportunity to rake Microsoft over the coals for making such a move. The PR would be terrible for Microsoft while simultaneously being great for its competitors. This would likely drive gamers into the waiting arms of Sony and Nintendo, thereby decreasing Microsoft's revenue.

Folks, don't buy into this nonsense. This sort of story is published for the sole purpose of generating page views.