re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

Yeah, this is just about the worst possible thing they could leak, unless their goal is to piss of their fanbase.

If you're a hardcore Xbox guy who wants a system at launch but doesn't want Kinect, MS basically just told you "You will bend over and take that Kinect, and you'll pay us that extra $100 because you are our bitch."

I'm sure I'll get accused of trolling, or whatever, but honestly, if I were firmly in the MS camp and was averse to PS4, I'd probably just keep playing my 360 until they figure out how to treat people.

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

If true, I'm glad I am waiting. :)

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

When an actual, reputable source like Joystiq and Polygon... or hell, I'll even accept IGN, Kotaku, or VGLeaks... make a post regarding an Xbox One without Kinect in 2014, then I'll believe it.

Until then, this just sounds like a rumor piece to gain hit views.

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

Well, then, if they can release an XBone without a Kinect, then it can't be mandatory for the major games, can it?

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

We'll see some sort of "bundles" later on and maybe even around release but I'm not ure about a Kinectless offering considering it's pretty much the core of their "Voice & Motion" control. Would be nice...I'd get it.

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

I'm skeptical of $400 being true, and even more skeptical of a smaller HD, but if they are true, it's almost exactly the oppostite of what they should be doing. If they were going to make a Kinect-free version, the time to do that would be at launch, when they're trying to capture first adopters (core gamers).

There were folks telling me days ago that they might add RAM before launch, and that there was plenty of time to do it. If so, there's certainly time for a Kinectomy.

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

I'd buy the kinect version anyway, but I still think they'd be much better off adding a version without. If I were to add a 2nd console in my house, it would definitely by a kinect-free variant.

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

What's a hardcore gamer?

Most of CoD players are staying with Microsoft, just check the forums. Same with FIFA/Madden. That's a huge chunk that Microsoft has captive.

Most of the issue is with old school gamers, that are pretty vocal in the internet, that want Microsoft to have the games they have now, but include more games in the library that are similar to Nintendo/Sony/PC exclusives.

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

So you trust the CoD/Madden guys who are vocal on the internet but not the "old school gamers" who are vocal on the internet? I don't think either are really representative of anything, except that those vocal few are likely the ones who everybody else asks about gaming among their circle of friends.

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

I think that the console with the biggest user base is going to have more COD players on it. People on the forums represent a small fraction of the community.

Not that it matters for a game series this popular. I bought Call of Duty 4 for the PS3 nearly two years after it came out and had no problem finding online matches.

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

Anyone vocal on the internet is in a clear minority.

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

http://www.oxm.co.uk/58952/features/...-dvr-and-more/

A chat with Xbox Live's program manager about the future of meta-rewards

It's hard to understate the impact of Xbox Live Achievements. Launched in 2005, the system is effectively a giant, platform-spanning meta-game that binds together your endeavours into one, easily understood measure of prowess: the venerated Gamerscore.

The idea has proven staggeringly long-lived and influential, but eight years down the line there's a clear need for change - much as with Xbox One's reputation system, which has become a creature of sinister intelligence. Most Xbox games are now sinuously evolving online ecosystems, updated with new content and tweaks for as long as their players express an interest, making the concept of a finite list of Gamerscore-earning objectives a little stingy. We spoke to Chad Gibson, Xbox Live's principle group program manager, about how Microsoft has "super-charged" Achievements on Xbox One.

First, the broad strokes: developers can now add Achievements to games at weekly, monthly or quarterly intervals without releasing them via DLC add-ons, because the associated data is kept in the cloud rather than built inflexibly into the game itself. "We've found a pattern where a user will buy a game, they'll play the game, they'll max out the Achievements within three to four weeks, and they're still playing the game six months later," Gibson observed. "We really wanted to make all our Achievement systems fully embrace cloud power. Which is why in this generation it's all cloud Achievements."

"So, the general guidance we give to Achievements on how they're utilised - conceptually, that's the same, but the big decoupling we did is that on Xbox 360, your Achievement is actually a bunch of client code you write in your game, and that's still largely true on Xbox One, but the client code is instrumentation," he explains. "So you instrument your game with all these events and then you go to a web tool and say, 'oh OK, I want a new Achievement when this event crosses this threshold'. You can add an achievement without ever updating your game client."

This corresponds to a broader aim with Xbox One, which is to create a platform that grows over time in response to how people use it, calling on immense Xbox Live server resources to enhance games and services in all sorts of ways. Microsoft won't require developers to add Achievements post-release, but it sees a steady diet of additional Gamerscore as a crucial facet of the next generation Live experience - particularly, we imagine, for big-bottomed experiences like Elder Scrolls and Fallout titles.

"We want game developers to be able to offer Achievements and interesting opportunities throughout the life-cycle of a game," Gibson continued. "So, you know, 14 months after the game's shipped, you're still offering interesting Achievement opportunities, because users are still playing the game and the game is still evolving and growing."

There's no formal cap, either - players might ultimately earn "a couple of thousand Gamerscore" and up from a well-supported title. Completionists may find this troubling - what's to stop EA flooding a game with points to boost popularity ahead of a DLC release, cheating the dedicated of that coveted 100% Achievement rating? Answer: Microsoft will take action if it feels developers and publishers are abusing the system.

"We're mindful of it, and the corollary is that with a lot of games today, three updates later it's a nice evolution of that game - it's a different game that's been modified and adjusted, based on what people are enjoying and having fun with. And we think that Achievements should match that."

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

Cool idea for games you really love.

But some games I just like andwant to play for a month and move on from. So if they add a new single player achievement a month down the line that you could've earned a month ago if it were available, you'd have to go back and re-play the single player again to unlock it? I see what they're trying to do, but it will certainly make getting the 1000G a far more time consuming process, and I don't know I don't really see the issue with the current achievement system. I like the balance of achievements that come pre-installed on a game, and then daily/weekly challenges like Halo does for multiplayer levels.

Also this seems to be more about convincing people to not resell their games rather than 'taking advantage of the power of the cloud'.

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

You have to get out of the mindset that games have 1000G and that's it. Because they're ending that.

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/a...n-process.aspx

Microsoft To Announce Indie Self-Publishing, New Certification Process

Another unpopular Microsoft policy appears to be heading for the history books. Sources tell Game Informer that the company is reversing course on its publishing requirements. This will allow independent studios to access digital distribution without a publishing partner.

Independent publishing was a key platform in Sony's E3 2013 press conference, bringing a number of developers on stage. Supergiant Games' Transistor, Abe's Oddysee: New 'n' Tasty from Oddworld Inhabitants and Just Add Water, and Don't Starve from Mark of the Ninja studio Klei Entertainment were just some of the titles on display.

In contrast, criticism of Microsoft's curated approach to its marketplace has amplified in recent months, with several former partners saying they will never work with them again. Oddworld creator Lorne Lanning boldly said of Microsoft's indie policy, "There's one party that's making it very clear they're not interested."

The cacophony of naysayers drove Microsoft to rethink its position. Under the new directive, developers can set their own release dates and pricing, which should make the erratic nature of Xbox Live releases less problematic for creators who want to handle their own marketing.

Additionally, we have learned that Microsoft is drastically overhauling its certification process. The company will use a model similar to iTunes and is targeting a 14-day turnaround for an approvals. Instead of extensive code checking, the company will be looking for terms of service violations and significant bugs.

We've also been told, but cannot confirm, that every Xbox One unit can be converted to a debug console. Instead of specific hardware units, Microsoft can authorize a console ID to play pre-release code. This is in line with information we've received about a new process for beta tests. They will be run via hardware provisioning on Xbox One, with the process reportedly to be enabled for up to 25,000 users per test at launch. Given the ability to provision for beta testing, the ability to enable retail hardware for pre-release code seems feasible.

We've reached out to Microsoft for comment.

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

Achievement stuff is a double edged sword for me. It will be nice to have them added and changing to give me something to do, but will we ever be able to complete a game now? I think they are missing the point that achievement whores like myself don't just try to boost the irrelevant number, but try to 100% games and move on. By removing the ability to 100% games, they are seriously hurting the process. I guess I'm glad I mostly gave up once I hit 200k a long time ago, but I will still play some odds and ends to get easy points ;)

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

They're hurting a process they don't want you to be a part of anymore, yes.

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

The point you don't seem to be comprehending is many people like the process as it is, and still want to be a part of it.

It's about what the consumer wants, not MS.

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

I know they were saying there are "achievements" and there are "challenges". The "challenges" are the randomly added weekly goals etc and do not count towards the gamerscore points since it would be unfair to people who could not achieve them. Perhaps we can still 100%/1K a game normally, but then unlock additional "challenges" over time to add to the overall completion but not gamerscore? That would make more sense and still allow us to "finish" a game.

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

Surprising nobody, MS denies Kinect free version:

http://kotaku.com/microsoft-shoots-d...e-bu-897031441

Would have been a stupid move anyways. It would have pissed off their core fanbase who bought it early, and killed the Kinect sensor since devs can't guarantee the user has one.

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

I'm comprehending it just fine. Quit being insulting. I'm stating the same thing you are.

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

You seemed to want us to be complacent about it; I think it's both a good and bad thing like discostu said

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

I imagine achievements will work as such: New games will still default to 1000g based on the original achievements, on the day of release. Everyone who plays the game will be able to get those 1000g if they're online, offline, and/or dedicated enough. The "100%'ers" will get what they want. Win-win.
Down the road, devs can look at the data and add additional achievements so those gamers who keep playing will have some extra goals to reach. If a new achievement is added (say, 100 headshots), and you've already accomplished that, then you'd probably automatically get the points added to your GS (maybe only if you start up the game again... maybe not, though. I'm just speculating, as usual).

Challenges, on the other hand... MS has already said will not affect your GS. So, if you take part in the "1,000,000 headshots" weekend for BF4, then you get a Challenge Reward. If you don't, tough luck.

You're absolutely right. One might rephrase it as: They're taking advantage of the power of the cloud specifically to convince people not to resell their games. The longer they can keep a copy of their game in the hands of a single owner, the better their profit margin is. If that means analyzing some game data and determining that gamers would respond positively to new achievements and challenges, then that's what they'll do.

re: Xbox One: We said WHAT at E3??
 

Maybe the new achievements don't affect the initial percentage? Maybe you'll just get a number higher than 100% completion when they add new ones?