Talk:Xbox One/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Contradiction

"This console will be unveiled during the June 2013 Electronic Entertainment Expo"... and "Microsoft is [...] planning to make the first official announcements about Xbox 720 at the January 2012 Consumer Electronics Show". If one of these is correct, the other one cannot be. Simple as that, right? Not quite.

If the first is correct, a release during late 2013 would be utterly unfeasible. You simply cannot announce a console so shortly before its release- it would be akin to business suicide. More importantly, if it is unveiled during 2013, there's no reason for this article to exist yet, since it's not going to be officially announced for another year and a half.

If the second is correct, then the first is obviously incorrect, and then contradicts itself beautifully... but also, keep in mind that it says 'rumored'. I know a girl named WP:CRYSTAL, and she doesn't like rumors. Speaking of, the following sentence states that there are other 'rumored' names... going on to say that all three are correct in the infobox, despite the fact that we don't even have one (including the one in title) confirmed name.

In other words, the article contradicts itself in two places: the unveiling date, and the name of the system. Au revoir. Emmy Altava 07:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't think we even need this article at this point. DarthBotto _talk•cont 09:04, 08 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no contradiction here about the dates. Releasing a few teaser infos in 2012 won't mean that MS will release the entire system to the market. De728631 (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

But it doesn't say it will be released in 2013 (actually, it does, but that's another sentence). It says it will be unveiled in June 2013. Unveiled literally means 'to make visible'; in other words, to announce the system or show off its first teasers. If the system is shown at CES- and it's not looking like it's going to be- that would lie in direct contradiction with that statement.Emmy Altava 03:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

On merging

A user has proposed a merge of this article to Xbox 360 with reasoning "per WP:CRYSTAL there's no information about the article's title". I think it is possible the subject meets GNG at this point, especially since it is no longer rumor that the device will be launched next year. At the very least we should wait to see what Microsoft says at this year's Consumer Electronics Show (which began today and runs for just three days). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Day one has revealed nothing, and neither has MS's keynote. It's possible for it to be a surprise, but I'm heavily doubting it. Sony and Microsoft don't really do much about their gaming systems at CES. In any case, are you sure it's official? Upcoming and reliable sources are reporting rumors that might actually released this year to combat Wii U. (Which itself did not get an article until the system was actually named. This is actually that part that has me curious; in its current state, this article is basically one for Project Cafe, which was deleted once or twice.)

If one can't tell, I fully support the article being merged until it has an official name.Emmy Altava 03:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The most definite confirmation of a launch is here. I think in certain cases, if significant reliable sourcing exists, it is okay to individually cover a topic which does not yet have an official name, as long as its "codenames" are very well sourced (see Windows 8's introduction sentence from a couple weeks ago, for example). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps another alternative we may consider would be to create an article for the Xbox series? What I mean by that, by the way, is that it would be suitable for the hardware line, as well as a place for future consoles, being the Xbox 720, or whatever may accommodate it. DarthBotto _talk•cont 10:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

An Xbox line of consoles article would be a good idea. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm also aware that for series, we generally need at least three subject pieces, but I think the Xbox franchise is expansive enough that it would warrant it at this point. DarthBotto _talk•cont 07:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles are now referring to the to the next xbox as the 720, such as IGN. And so this is now an appropriate article, however it should be made clear in the article that this name has been dubbed by the press and is not official. --Drumncars1996 (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The source above has been brought up on the AFD as well, which you should check out. It was considered Crystal ball as well, as it is still rumor and speculation. -- ferret (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Two sections should be own section

The references and external links sections should be in their own sections, not part of the New features section. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. There was a typo in a prior section heading: this has now been fixed. Captain Conundrum (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Main page

Is this major enough news to be put on the front page? Billybobjoe997 (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

yes 86.168.53.89 (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Did Playstation 4 go there? Samwalton9 (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it didn't. See Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2013#Sony_announces_release_of_PlayStation_4_console. --Kusunose 02:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Add website link

Hi please addit is the official Xbox one console website [1] for the website 86.168.53.89 (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Destiny

Game by Bungie being developed for the new Xbox. Can't edit it myself. 216.246.130.20 (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Its already in there under the game list. Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

We need an Xbox One controller page.

Wasn't there when I edited this page, obviously.216.246.130.20 (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Kinect

The Kinect throughput is only 2Gb/s not 2 GB/s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.171.196 (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed that, thanks. Captain Conundrum (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Siri... seriously

Why do they refer to Apple's Siri when Windows has voice recognition built-in since Vista, and there is also the more popular Google Now, I really don't see a reason to compare it to Siri when Windows itself has something similar for far longer. --86.81.201.94 (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Because lots of people know what Siri is. Its something people will instantly recognise and associate, which is what you want to do when writing a descriptive article. :)

There shouldn't be a reference to an unrelated product if it's not contextually necessary. In this case it certainly is not. 216.246.130.20 (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you familiar with an example with better recognize-ability? Sergecross73 msg me 21:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to craft parallels in everything on an article. Assuming the reader speaks English, they should understand the what speech recognition is. 216.246.130.20 (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I would concur with this ... Kinect added speech recognition to the Xbox 360, and since Xbox One also has Kinect, I don't believe there's a need to expand upon it with a parallel from a competing company, especially if it is original analysis that determines the two are similar. --McDoobAU93 23:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

And the Kinect doesn't even talk back, which is a huge discrepancy between the two. That's three to one. I'd edit it myself but I don't have a wikipedia profile.216.246.130.20 (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur, there doesn't seem to be a need to reference it. Dark Scary Bear (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Halo TV series

The announcement included Steven Spielberg announcing a live-action Halo TV series for Xbox One. Not sure where to put this sort of information — Preceding unsigned comment added by War (talk • contribs) 20:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The presentation was so heavily focused on TV/Video streaming, I'm sure it would be warranted to make a "Video" subsection under the features, and this could be a part of that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Clearly the XB1 will have a heavy emphasis on watching television, movies, and other video interactions.War (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hardware

There's a source ( http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/21/xbox-one-hardware-and-specs/ ) that provides information about the current hardware specs.

- 8 GB DDR3 RAM.
- 8-core AMD APU (CPU/GPU combo) using a 28nm process.
- 500 GB HDD.
- HDMI 1.4 output and pass-through.
etc...

This page is protected so I cannot add this information. The source, Engadget, is reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.20.226 (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 May 2013

Change GDDR3 to DDR3. The citation says DDR3, not GDDR3. They are different technologies. Chuyayala (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The infobox currently indicates 8GB DDR3 memory. Unless there is another reference to memory that I'm not seeing, this appears resolved to me. --McDoobAU93 00:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protect

This needs to be semi-protected. Too much vandalism going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.39.3 (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Aleady done. Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Needs to be redone. --Cheesemeister (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. I don't want to wheel war, so I've asked the other Admin to re-apply it. Lets see if he responds. At the very least there seems to be a consensus forming here saying its necessary... Sergecross73 msg me 18:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I would agree, even if not just for the vandalism but because there are more than enough registered users contributing and it's hard for us to do so with so many edits happening. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've restored it, and instructed the other Admin to discuss here before removing again. Sergecross73 msg me 18:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism is running rampant again. We really need this protected for at least 30 days right off the bat, similar to what was done for other tech articles like the iPhone 5. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know what happened. Yesterday I set it for 3 days, and for whatever reason now its gone already. No change in the protection log either. I set it for a week for now, and will reinstate it if its bad again after that. Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated! --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Gamerscore transferring

Gamerscore will transfer over. [2] Didn't know where to add it, if at all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this is more related to the Xbox Live service. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't sure. That's why I added it here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I bet we'll end up needing a chart that summarizes the differences between XB1 and XB360.War (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There's one at Xbox already for Xbox/360, makes sense to include One if/when specs are around. Samwalton9 (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Remember that Gamerscore is NOT just xbox 360 - Windows Phone 7/8 and Games for Windows Live/windows 8 has it as well. SYSS Mouse (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Xbox 3

Xbox 3 should redirect here, since it's the third Xbox. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Redirects are for common typos or other names, I haven't seen anyone call it Xbox 3 yet. - X201 (talk) 08:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Scrub that, I'll added it. Google search has turned up sources using it as a descriptive name prior to Durango name. - X201 (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Page history loose ends

It seems that due to some complicated history merging, several patent nonsense and attack page precursors of this article were accidentally restored (see earliest revisions). For attribution reasons I was about to re-delete these few versions, but wanted to briefly check if any thought otherwise. Best regards all, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I just started helping with the article yesterday, when I saw how bad it was post-announcement, so I'm not that familiar with its past, but I'd say go for it and delete them. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been here since the early days. The bulk of the content was cut and paste stuff the rest was Copyvio material and rumour and speculation. After yesterday I doubt that there is any of the C&P stuff left here. Press the big red button. - X201 (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I re-deleted all of the vandalism articles from far back. It begins with some edits I made with 2012, and then follows a convoluted move log. However, the present version will have a nice linear attribution history starting with the edits yesterday. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Official site

Unfortunately the link to Xbox.com doesn't work at this time for me.
To create a working link use http://www.xbox.com/en-US

On the Xbox Website they have made an official area for the Xbox One where people can find out information, look at screenshots and watch trailers you can visit it here http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xboxone/meet-xbox-one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.44.115 (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

4K resolution and 7.1 surround sound

Neither of these features have been confirmed anywhere (and none of the sources mention them).

Could we remove this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.228.33.193 (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Major Nelson in a Live Chat on Yahoo yesterday has confirmed 4K Resolution Support and 3D support for the console — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.44.115 (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

One reference listed those features and I have added two additional references. Forbes interviewed a Microsoft vice president who states that there is no hardware restriction that would prevent games from running at 4K resolution. --GrandDrake (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Gaming?

Should it really be described as a gaming console? It's a home entertainment system with gaming options, based on the revealing presentation. --PrimEviL 10:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point actually, some references specifically mention it being "not simply a games console, but “The ultimate all-in-one home entertainment system”.", "an "all in one system" for games, entertainment, and television.", and "an "all-in-one" system offering games, live TV, movies and music.". Would be interested in seeing others opinions on this, but I'm seeing your point. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Its a good point, and worthy of discussion. If they describe it as a home entertainment system rather than an out and out games console, the description of it may need tweaking. Probably best to let it settle for a week though. MS seems to be providing "clarification" on a lot of "potential scenarios", so waiting for them to sort out their story may be an option. - X201 (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This could be said about the current generation of consoles as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philrichjr (talk • contribs) 16:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That is correct. According to Netflix, the most popular device to use Netflix with is the PlayStation 3, I believe. --McDoobAU93 16:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I could be remembering wrong, but it even seems like the ps2 was sometimes marketed as an "entertainment device" or whatever, since it was one of the first to focus on DVD playback. Also, there will surely be more clarifications on it at E3 2013, which is coming shortly. We should at least wait until then. (I'm pretty certain Microsoft has stated e3 will be more game-based too.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, the issue may not be resolve even then. E3 is a gaming conference so it's likely MS will emphasize the gaming aspect of the EB1. I think it more likely we won't know until their marketing engine kicks in for the holiday season. Even then, marketing will be all about what sells or what they think will sell, not necessarily what it is. There were many announcements over the last couple years about how the XB360 was used more for watching movies that it was for playing games. I think it's clear that the XB1 is geared toward this usage also. To me, it's very clear cut. It's an entertainment system, not just a game console. What I don't know is the acceptable term to describe these system.War (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't disagree, but at the same time, with it having the capability to play some of the very same games the PS 4 has, (CoD, Destiny, etc), it seems calling it a "game console" certainly isn't wrong though, just possibly only "part of the picture"... Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not our job to decide for everyone what should or should not enter the social lexicon. When a phrase becomes sufficiently well known, the article can change to reflect this use. However, MS calls it "The all-in-one entertainment system.". Perhaps the article should mention this moto somewhere.War (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Video games may not be the device's primary focus anymore, but until secondary sources start referring to it as something other than an eighth-generation video game console, then we shouldn't either. Microsoft may market it as something else, but secondary sources take precedence over primary. My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Will block used games

Unless you are willing to pay a fee, the Xbox One will block used games. This info is easy to come across in reliable sources so why isn't it in the article?--85.211.123.85 (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The story has been changing, MS have released yet another clarification on it. When we actually work out what is going on someone will add it. - X201 (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding pre-owned games, the information is sparse and seems to change from site to site. Even from primary sources, such as this are open to misinterpretation; my understanding is that so long as the original owner of the title is logged-in to the system, you won't need to pay a fee. However, "[...]we have only confirmed that we designed Xbox One to enable our customers to trade in and resell games at retail.", does this mean you'll be able to un-assign the title from your account so that the next owner won't need to pay a fee? It's purely speculation on our part until we get more information from Microsoft. Crashdoom ^Talk 12:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NORUSH Wait for the dust to settle before making statements like that on the main page; Microsoft can't seem to agree with themselves on that one yet.--ERAGON (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not making it clear, but that was the sum of my point. It's far to early and information that we've received seems to be mainly speculation or unclarified statements. Crashdoom ^Talk 08:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It seams most of the details are still in flux (Most likely because of the consumer backlash) Referring to what Larry Hyrb says

>[UPDATE] Retail sources claim Microsoft and publishers will take a percentage of every used game; Microsoft says reports are "inaccurate and incomplete"; new report says no secondhand fees at all. [UPDATE] Following the publication of this story, Microsoft director of Xbox Live programming Larry "Major Nelson" Hryb provided a new statement on Xbox One and used games. "The ability to trade in and resell games is important to gamers and to Xbox," he said. "Xbox One is designed to support the trade in and resale of games. Reports about our policies for trade in and resale are inaccurate and incomplete. We will disclose more information in the near future." [UPDATE 2] Sources have told Polygon that the Xbox One will not require gamers pay an activation fee to play used games, but will mandate regular checks to verify the authenticity of games. Microsoft is also reportedly mulling over the idea of special "exemption codes" that could be provided to those in Internet-free scenarios, like active-duty soldiers.<— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthcheeto (talk • contribs) 03:25, 25 May 2013‎

Xbox 720

Maybe there could be some mentioning of the "720" dubbing, since it redirects here? --Diblidabliduu (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it since Xbox 720 was never something acknowledged by Microsoft or any of its employees; it was a community created name that, honestly, lasted far longer than it should have. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 20:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Not necessary. Before long, the official name will really be the only one that is every used anyways, but once someone adds one alias like that, then people keep adding them, and all of a sudden there's ten and half of them were never seriously ever used. Its a vandalism/misinformation magnet basically. Sergecross73 msg me

It was more than just a community name. its been used for years by everyone and there were even XBOX 720 banners shown in that robot movie with hugh jackman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.97.209 (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 5-24-13 (DVD playback)

DVD playback should be mentioned either under media (such as the PS4 article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ps4)) or at least somewhere in the body.

Source (which is also sourced): http://www.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/Xbox_One_Hardware_Specs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.51.198 (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hardware resources

Kotaku.com reports that games will have access to the following resources. I think it would be worth adding, given that this is the first genreation of consoles with significant multitasking/splitting of resources.

http://kotaku.com/the-five-possible-states-of-xbox-one-games-are-strangel-509597078

1) Running: The game is loaded in memory and is fully running. The game has full access to the reserved system resources, which are six CPU cores, 90 percent of GPU processing power, and 5 GB of memory. The game is rendering full-screen and the user can interact with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.114.130 (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

More info about the cloud features

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/05/how-the-xbox-one-draws-more-processing-power-from-cloud-computing/

It is pretty interesting technology and i think it should be added to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.36.181 (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"Xbox OS" and "XboxOS"

Where has it been confirmed that either of these are the official name of the OS? In the preview video I believe they just said "Xbox operating system". 5ives (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Indirectly competes with other consoles?

I know the Xbox One isn't the most popular console right now. And has a significant bandwagon of hate following it. But lets not have bias get in the way of facts. Until Microsoft themselves mention that it directly competes with Apple TV and Google TV then these sentences should be removed. Everyone expects this console to compete with the Wii U and PS4. Its still a gaming console first and foremost. (Microsoft mentioned this many times) It just also happens to be able to receive TV broadcasts now. Did the PS3 stop competing with the Wii and Xbox 360 when Sony marketed it as "it only does everything" ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.36.181 (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is the Reception section you are referring to. Typically, this section contains opinions and analysis from third party sources. Perhaps it can be worded better, but I don't see a reason to remove it at this point. Check the "Gaming?" section above. I actually agree that it is a video game console first until the consensus in secondary sources proves otherwise. The three references there now may or may not reflect that consensus. I'll do some digging. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Its is pretty easy to also find references to Microsoft claiming it is also a gaming console. Yes they are marketing it as an "all in one home entertainment system" But i really do not see how it directly competes to Apple TV or with Google. And from what Microsoft has said. The reveal was pretty much to showcase the hardware and the features it has. And E3 will be all about games. I can get some references by Microsoft executives to show this if you like. But i agree. Maybe it should not be removed. I think a more accurate description though would be that it directly competes with the PS4 and WiiU and indirectly competes with Apple TV and Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.36.181 (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There we go. That is a much clearer edit.31.51.36.181 (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Function of the new buttons that have replaced the start and back

Function of the *New buttons have replaced the start and back* Source:IGN IGNs Source:Microsoft Rep

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/24/microsoft-explains-xbox-one-controllers-new-buttons

Microsoft has explained the names and functionality of those mysterious new buttons on Xbox One’s controller where Start and Back appeared on Xbox 360. According to a Microsoft representative, these buttons are named “Menu” and View.”

“The Menu button (on the right) will bring up context-specific menus which game and app developers can design to enhance the user experience,” Microsoft told IGN. “The Menu button could be used in scenarios such as bringing up in-game menus, showing video playback options, and accessing commands on the console’s user interface.”

The View button, meanwhile, “will change views or provide more information in games and apps. The function of the View button will be driven by developers. Possible uses of the View button include viewing a map during a role playing game, displaying a leaderboard in a first person shooter, and enhancing the navigation of the console’s user interface.” Darthcheeto (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Done - Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 17:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection expired

This article says it should be semi-protected until May 24, 2013. It is currently passed that time and is still semi-protected. Can somebody remove the semi-protection thing? 71.251.162.109 (talk)

It's actually protected until May 29. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I've just updated the notification template. - X201 (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

New games heading for Xbox One

--NEED FOR SPEED-- EA has revealed that their will be a New Need for Speed Game for the Current Generation and the Next Generation Platforms called Need for Speed Rivals which will be releasing on November 19th 2013 for current gen and later in the year for next gen http://www.joystiq.com/2013/05/23/need-for-speed-rivals-speeds-to-xbox-one-ps4-and-current-gen-this-november/

--DYING LIGHT-- Warner Bros. to publish first-person survival horror game from Techland; boasts day-night cycle, open-world; launching in 2014 for Xbox One, PS4, Xbox 360, PS3, and PC. http://uk.gamespot.com/news/dead-island-dev-reveals-next-gen-open-world-game-dying-light-6408779 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.44.115 (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

--Zumba Fitness World Party-- Probably a Kinect Game Majesco has announced Zumba Fitness World Party will be released on Xbox One later this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.44.115 (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

New games

I've found Cyberpunk 2077 and Dying Light to be Xbox One titles. 216.246.130.20 (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Wolfenstein: The New Order and The Evil Within

Both games have been confirmed for Xbox One. Sources: The Evil Within Polygon Preview, Wolfenstein: The New Order Polygon Preview. 2.217.214.88 (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Used games

Microsoft has made another statement relating to the Used Games on Xbox One saying "“The ability to trade in and resell games is important to gamers and to Xbox,” the company said. “Xbox One is designed to support the trade in and resale of games. Reports about our policies for trade in and resale are inaccurate and incomplete. We will disclose more information in the near future.

However some websites such as Polygon say that that there will be no used game fee but still and online verification check every 24 hours

82.19.44.115 (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)KillerByte

Right now, everyone is speculating on what's going on, and Microsoft inadvertently started it by not being very clear at first and issuing conflicting statements to different media outlets afterwards. I'm wondering if we need to put the entire article on hold until things shake out and people stop saying "we think", "we believe" and "we assume" and instead start saying "confirmed". It's just inviting too many trolls and rival fan-boys to come in and push their POV. --McDoobAU93 19:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Microsoft them selves don't even know their own policy on used games is yet. I believe we will get a much clearer picture once they have done their E3 press conference on June 10thLightlamp4 (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It should be included what they've claimed about the product, it just needs to have information with it noting the contradictory statements.RocketLauncher2 (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Has Microsoft made any contradictory statements about the used game fee? Both Larry Hryb and Phil Harrison have mentioned it and no one from Microsoft has said they were wrong. While official information on how the system will work has not yet been released if the used game fee didn't exist than Microsoft could have simply denied it. --GrandDrake (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft didn't issue any conflicting statements until after the initial backlash started. They were vague but not self-contradicting; the "conflicting statements" came later, when they started backpedaling. Joe routt (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The sources referenced in the article contain quoted statements from Microsoft. These should take precedence over third-party analysis. Unless other quoted statements contradict these, I don't see a reason to remove or modify what's in the article now. If you have an example of the contradiction, please post it here. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed -Kai445 (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Indie games support

Microsoft might be allowing Indie Game Developers to make games for the Xbox One, According to Don Mattrick says that they are going to have an independent creators program which by providing tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.44.115 (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The angle that concerns the article isn't developers being able to make games for the Xbox One, their beef with it is Microsoft's refusal to allow them to self-publish. As it stands there is no change from the Xbox 360. - X201 (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection too long

Is really going from May 29th to June 30th just enough time? I feel like it could be shortened a bit and then if necessary put it back. buffbills (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The page was protected for a week, and vandalism resumed almost as soon as it was lifted. The Xbox One will be in news headlines for quite some time especially following E3 in June. iPhone 5 needed protection for several months, as did PlayStation 4 which is still in effect. Personally, I don't see a reason to shorten it. Unconfirmed users can still edit the talk page and make requests. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Its been absolutely terrible as soon as its protection ever runs out, and things will only get crazier with E3. It needs to at least last through hen. I see no problem with the current set up. Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Xbox IGN poll

In a "Xbox One vs. PS4" poll by IGN on May 30th 2013 with over 310,000 votes, Xbox One lost in every category and the PS4 received IGN's People's Choice Award. http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/31/xbox-one-vs-ps4-you-decide%7Cpublisher=IGN%7Cdate=2013-05-30%7Caccessdate=2013-05-3 http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/05/31/xbox-one-vs-ps4-the-results-ign-versus

Shrine Maiden keeps adding this in and someone keeps reverting it. How is this not allowed? Masem says "Reverted good faith edits by Shrine Maiden (talk): The way this is presently is purposely biased. You are now at 3RR". It doesn't sound biased, it just sounds like the Xbox One lost a poll. Can we discuss this here?RocketLauncher2 (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Gladly ... the voting numbers were based on views of videos for each console. A view of the PS4 video was a vote for the PS4, and same for Xbox One. This is an unscientific poll and one where it is very easy to stuff the ballot box. As such, it is neither reliable nor appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Further, opinions of fans at large, especially on internet forums and web-polls, are not encyclopedic. This is the same basic methodology for video game reviews, film reviews, music reviews, etc., where notable critics' opinions far outweigh those of a bunch of fan-boys and fan-girls. --McDoobAU93 16:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

For one, it was a poll based on video view counts - ballot stuffing was completely possible. But let's assume that the poll was scientific. The way that the wording is put gives no reason to put it in the Xbox One article, because it basically says "a bunch of IGN users put the PS4 over the Xbox one". That doesn't help. Now, I recognize that the Xbox One has had a lot of negative reaction, and this is an example of it, but it is better to use secondary and third-party sources that discuss the overall negative perception of the Xbox One after its initial announcement as a whole. This poll basically is a unencyclopedic source. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Masem and McDoob here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Fee to play used games

Microsoft has confirmed that while Xbox One won't require an always-on connection, there will be a fee to play used games. http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/news/a483473/xbox-one-will-not-require-always-on-connection.html Anyone want to add this? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This is already in the article. Look at the Used games section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

But not in the section where it talks about always on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_One#Required_internet_connection RocketLauncher2 (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I made some changes just now to the entire section. Hopefully that resolves the concerns you had. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I reverted most of the changes made to that section. The changes had removed the sentence about online verification every 24 hours for single player games and had removed details on where the information came from. I did keep the sentence that was added about the Xbox One not needing an internet connection at all times which resolves the request for more information. --GrandDrake (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

There are a few issues with the way it's worded. First of all, clarifying "The Xbox website, Xbox Live programming director Larry Hryb, and Microsoft corporate vice president Phil Harrison" in the opening line is a mouthful, to say the least, but also cherry picks where the information is coming from. In this cited source, Don Mattrick is also involved, yet he's not mentioned in the opening line. Does it really make sense to have a long list of names here? Not to me. One of the changes I made was to leave this portion out of the opening line altogether for simplicity's sake, and really because it's unnecessary.

Microsoft also backpedaled in their statements about the amount of time that can elapse before online verification is required. 24 hours slipped from Phil Harrison in that interview, but Microsoft's stance later was that the amount of time has yet to be determined (as indicated in other cited sources). I think this section would be better off without specifying who said what, and instead, have its contents summarized in encyclopedic form. I disagree with the comment in an earlier edit summary that it was "better written" before, which by the way was also written by me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

After consideration I have changed the opening statement that listed the sources of that information though I wouldn't have any problem with it being added back if anyone thinks the additional detail is needed. As for the statement about required online verification every 24 hours I see no reason to remove it from the article. The statement from Phil Harrison is reliably sourced and no one from Microsoft has denied it. Polygon has said that a Microsoft employee has sent them an email saying that details on the specific time period for online verification would not be confirmed today but that is not a denial. --GrandDrake (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Pre-orders

ASDA and Blockbuster have both announced that pre-orders is breaking pre-order records even with no price nor release date.

http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/consoles/xbox-one-pre-orders-a-record-breaking-hit-for-blockbuster-1155219

http://metro.co.uk/2013/06/03/asda-xbox-one-is-our-fastest-selling-pre-order-console-3826800/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.44.115 (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Does Asda or Blockbuster UK give numbers? Even with numbers I would not consider pre-order records for individual retailers to be notable and such information has not been added to articles on the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Wii, or Wii U. --GrandDrake (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Privacy concerns

Some more info on the privacy issues surrounding Kinect. So you CAN turn it off so it is not always listening http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/124447-Xbox-Ones-Kinect-Can-Actually-Be-Turned-OffLightlamp4 (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft has said that users will retain the software capability to turn off all Kinect functions. Microsoft has also said that the game console can be completely turned off. The privacy concern is that you can't completely turn off the Kinect while still being able to use the game console. --GrandDrake (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Major Nelson talks about the New Controller

In one of his latest blogs on his website he has explained some of the new features of the New Xbox One Controller by talking about some features like the brand new d-pad revamped thumbsticks, connectivity, angled triggers and bumpers and the low power state.

http://majornelson.com/2013/06/06/more-details-about-xbox-one-controller/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.44.115 (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

New "Reception" addition

Unresolved

 – There is no Consensus. Explosiveoxygen (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)EXOExplosiveoxygen (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

--McDoobAU93 22:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Explosiveoxygen (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)EXOExplosiveoxygen (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Xbox One gets to know you. It learns what you like and what you don’t. And brings it all together on your own personal home screen. And because every Xbox One comes with Kinect, it responds naturally to your voice, movements, and gestures. The Xbox one kinect can scan through clothes to gain information about your muscle tension and reflexes for a seamless gaming experience. The kinect sensor detects when you are smiling, crying, angry, or bored. Every detail of your face is recorded to gain an insight into your likely mood. Even your heartbeat is measured. Your motions can be seen in the dark.

This is now the new addition being put into the reception section.

Why is this being removed now?

Is microsoft lying about it's own Xbox One + Kinect?

How is this not part of reception?

Reception- c : response, reaction 'the play met with a mixed reception'

I will start a new "Encyclopedic" Page and you will not be deleting it, you may have a discussion and question it in the Talk

1-2 people is not a consensus

Consensus- a : general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border — John Hersey>

b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

Now sir, you better cite your reasons properly.

Your biased view is showing. Privacy concerns were neither in the second edits (before you got me blocked from editing) Nor are they in the final version.

See you on the new page or major section to an existing article, I will make sure to link it in your talk once it is completed.

Explosiveoxygen (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)EXOExplosiveoxygen (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

---

This section definitely has problems. The first source appears to be a fan-site, which raises reliability issues. The second source, Mashable.com, is certainly reliable, but upon reviewing the source article, it's not critical of the unit's capabilities. The editor adding the information appears to be criticizing the unit themselves and using the article to back up their complaints, which would violate WP:OR. --McDoobAU93 19:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Just exclude it entirely. Criticisms from reliable sources go under Reception to maintain a neutral presentation. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the editor added it right back ... by the by, that would be a 3RR violation. --McDoobAU93 19:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The entire criticism section is completely false. It needs to be removed31.51.36.181 (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This section is completely biased and should be removed. The features it mentions, however, should be integrated into the rest of the article. First off, the section uses the word "you," which is discouraged. Let's look at each claim in this section:

• Critics argue that the Xbox One Kinect sensor will be able to scan your room including your heartbeat 24 hours of the day.

The second source states that the Kinect can detect pulse, but there is no criticism implied.

• Due to the requirement of updates every 24 hours, most active gamers won't disconnnect their Kinect due to the hassle of manually updating if the Xbox One is not connected to the internet for several days.

Neither source mentions this inconvenience.

• The Xbox One can scan through clothes to gain information about your muscle tension and reflexes regardless of a bulky sweater you might be wearing, just like airport security scanners.

The second source does mention that the Kinect can detect skeleton and muscle movements under clothes. Neither source mentions "bulky sweater" or "airport security scanners," which is obviously a NPOV claim.

• The Kinect sensor knows when you are smiling, crying, angry, or bored. Every detail of your face is recorded to gain an insight into your likely mood.

Mashable source mentions "smiling" and "bored" but not "crying" or "angry."

--ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

AgreedLightlamp4 (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If the second source is reliable, maybe that information can be included under 'Reception'. Worries about privacy is a legitimate concern. That section (which is now removed) was mostly garbage though. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section

Considering how much controversy and criticism this console is getting, I believe a section for that information is suitable. Jørgen88 (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fairly well covered in the Reception section.212.225.119.226 (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That section can be further split up in subsections like criticism, sales and redesigns etc. Jørgen88 (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering it isn't out for another five/six months, it's a bit premature to separate them; right now, the reception section covers basically everything that has been announced. 212.225.119.226 (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be careful about doing too much of one. They just put out that policy yesterday and it will likely be subject to change as we get closer to release. I do think it is fair to outline that the used games and internet connectivity aspects as initially released were criticized, but that's about 2-3 sentences, not a whole para. Unless those policies stick into release, it's far too early to expand more on that. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I would support the creation of a criticism section since there are now plenty of reliable references to support it. I don't know if a criticism section would survive though since a lot of people seem strongly opposed to having any detailed criticism of the Xbox One. --GrandDrake (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this article really handles the criticism of the Xbox One with kid gloves, compared with how harsh the criticism is in reliable sources. Neutral point of view means treating a subject in a way similar to how it is treated by reliable sources.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

A stand-alone criticism section is undesirable. Much better to incorporate information in the section detailing its reception. I would also advise holding back until E3 has passed for a broader perspective. — TPX 19:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, this is MS's initial policy. If it sticks , then yes, every single RS critical commentary on the policy can be included. But if MS does an about face on any of the points, that makes the related articles irrelevant beyond a line or two. Basically, any commentary on future features that haven't been demonstrated in action is far too early to be talking about. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I still think the reaction to the initially revealed information about the system has been of such a magnitude, that it seems almost inevitable it will be relevant enough to warrant some degree of treatment in this article, even in the long run. I mean, articles can't be written with any and all possible future eventuality in mind, but it seems highly likely that this initial criticism will have a persistent relevance.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft has released details on their policy, the details have been added to the article, and they are reliably referenced. If policy details are reliable enough that they can be added to an article than I think the reception to that policy should also be added. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's consider this like the SimCity situation. Its initial review before the servers were overwhelmed was good, but as soon as the bulk of players had problems, many outlets did an about face. It has now stablized. My caution is here is because we are months from a final console release (we don't even have date or price) that going into a lot of detail on preliminary policies may be material we dump if MS changes those significantly. I think it is fair to say that on release of these policies, several journalists were critical of the choices MS has made, but I'd go no more than a 3-4 sentence paragraph on that with sourcing. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think WP:CRYSTALBALL would apply since saying that the policy might change is speculation. Also by not allowing criticism of the policy to be added it would make the article biased since that would mean that most of the critical reception to the Xbox One would not be allowed in the article. I think it makes sense to wait until after E3 but the idea of not allowing detailed criticism of the policy until hardware is released would mean that this article would be biased for several months. --GrandDrake (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I second this. I believe there is no reason to assume that Microsoft is going to change their policies, and criticisms by reliable third party sources should not be tempered unnecessarily. -Kai445 (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It's CRYSTALBALL to say these will be issues at release, because there's no console in mass use yet. That's the problem - specs can change as there's nothing officially set in stone yet. --MASEM (t) 03:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Potential copyright violations

I was running a copyright check of the article as part of the DYK process for Template:Did you know nominations/Xbox One‎... the copyright check has found 44.1% of the article to be directly copied.

This article has been so frequently edited and reverted that I cant tell when the information was added, and thus I can't tell whether the information has been copied and pasted onto wikipedia from the website it suggests, or whether the website has copied it from the wikipedia article; but large sections are word for word.

If someone more experienced in dealing with copyright matters could take a look please.

http://toolserver.org/~earwig/copyvios?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Xbox_One&url=#cv-result-detail

Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up ... going to take a look at it now. --McDoobAU93 02:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

First glance looks like a reverse copy from WP to that blog. It's using citations that all point back to WP's cites. --MASEM (t) 02:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I'm pretty confident it is. This article on June 1st. Clearly copied to the blog, so we're clear. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

{{edit cconflict}} Update: I think Rushton may have misread what the tool was saying. It said it did notice one article where things might have been copied, but it was only 44.1% sure. I'm looking at the linked article now, and honestly it looks to me like the copying is the other way around (the WordPress page copied the Wikipedia article). Anyone else wanna check this out, too? Masem already has ... --McDoobAU93 02:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No criticism section?

There has been extensive criticism of the console in the legitimate gaming press yet I see no 'criticism' section, what concerns me even more is that a previous attempt at creating a criticism section was stamped on using lack of cites as an excuse; however, when researching the product I found numerous criticisms, concerns and outright negativity within minutes, with that in mind I think we need to create a section that is neutral yet clarifies and reflects the deep concerns and criticisms of both the press and the wider community to various policies being introduced by Microsoft. Twobells (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Please review the discussion two above yours.212.225.119.226 (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Criticism sections are discouraged as not presenting a neutral point-of-view. The "Reception" section can cover both positive and negative criticism of a subject without poisoning the well, so to speak. --McDoobAU93 18:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

McDoob is correct. Criticisms go in a reception section. If there are a lot of criticisms, so be it, but they're still part of "Reception". Sergecross73 msg me 22:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Then why do other Wikipedia articles have Criticism sections? Also, if you're not going to make a criticism section, at least elaborate on the "reception" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Diala (talk • contribs) 00:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an appropriate argument. There are some cases where a criticism section may be appropriate as a standout section, but really they should be part of a complete reception section (pros and cons). Further, as I said above, with the console yet released and the details not yet finalized, a lot of the complaints are far too early to be considered encyclopedic. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean "make sure that there are an equal number of positive and negative things at all times". Nor does it even mean "make sure that there are a bunch of positive things, too." If there has been proportionally more negative publicity and reaction, then the reception section should be a reflection of the reception it has gotten. Not "well, I don't think it will necessarily be that bad, so lets make sure there's equal good and bad stuff, okay guys?" Because that is certainly not NPOV. -Kai445 (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Explosiveoxygen (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)EXOExplosiveoxygen (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I have added such a section and have since added the stats in a "more neutral" edit in the kinect section of the article (which is clearly still not "neutral" enough)

My edit as follows

Xbox One gets to know you. It learns what you like and what you don’t. And brings it all together on your own personal home screen. And because every Xbox One comes with Kinect, it responds naturally to your voice, movements, and gestures. The Xbox one kinect can scan through clothes to gain information about your muscle tension and reflexes for a seamless gaming experience. The kinect sensor detects when you are smiling, crying, angry, or bored. Every detail of your face is recorded to gain an insight into your likely mood. Even your heartbeat is measured. Your motions can be seen in the dark.

I've worked on several versions of this, and our self titled "Edit Dictator" has been telling me it is not neutral or that I am implying something. Then he changes his argument to saying that I am duplicating information; How is information duplicated when what I add is not there in the first place?

You my friend are well advised to spread the word about the bias and censorship here that is especially prevalent in the Xbox one article

Spread the word; Bias is used to remove pertinent information, Dissent/Criticism is silenced, And you are told that you are the one not being neutral when adding to the article.

Last time I checked, almost every major article on Wikipedia has not just links to it's subtopics but either short clips or brief summaries from the subtopic article pages added into the main article.

Apparently here in Xbox One it is different.

Double standards continue to be enforced and trust me, this information is neutral. These are facts.

Explosiveoxygen (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)EXOExplosiveoxygen (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Reading through both sources, these are exaggerated claims or marketspeak that has little purpose in an encyclopedia. For example, the Mashable article never says anything about being able to sense in the dark. Additionally, the details that are correct are already mentioned in the article. Ergo, this has no purpose to be added here. --MASEM (t) 00:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Interjecting: The thing has an infrared sensor. IR doesn't rely on visible light. IR works in an absence of visible light. Saying it "sees in the dark" is pointing out the obvious. -Kai445 (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Explosiveoxygen (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)EXOExplosiveoxygen (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

All the statements are well referenced. Show me sentence by sentence where [ALL] the information is in the rest of the article?

Explosiveoxygen (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)EXOExplosiveoxygen (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That's all fine and good (potentially), ExplosiveOxygen, but where's the criticism? All you've typed up is a list of Kinect One's potential capabilities. Are you attempting to criticize it because it is capable of such sensitivity? If so, that's WP:SYNTH and not allowed. (Also, a personal request: please do not sign your posts at the top and bottom of them. We can figure out who wrote what without that.) --McDoobAU93 00:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Explosiveoxygen (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)EXOExplosiveoxygen (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You may have noticed I have not called it criticism and have added constantly updated versions to the reception section.

The rest of that little bit is entirely your conjecture and you are yet again proving your bias and trying to say I said something I have not.

My posts are signed so that there is no confusion, will you try to ban me for this too "Edit Dictator" ?

Explosiveoxygen (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)EXOExplosiveoxygen (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

While there have been genuine concerns, how the editor presented them were very biased and POV-pushing. I did write a new paragraph conveying these concerns in a more neutral manner under the Reception section. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The new paragraphs Viper added are a great plus. Most appreciated and well done! --McDoobAU93 02:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

They work, but we need a positive reception section (which shouldn't be hard, I have seen positive press on the new features) but we need the balance. --MASEM (t) 04:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What policy dictates that we need a positive reception section? NPOV doesn't dictate artificial contructs of "balance" for the sake of an image of neutrality. If 80% of the articles are panning the thing, and 20% are praising... then the article should strike a similar balance. And I feel like I might have been generous with that ratio... -Kai445 (talk)

But there's things that the Xbox One have been praised for (and no, I'm not an MS-apologist. I don't like the direction the console takes). The stuff with Television integration, multitasking, etc., from the first media reveal have received a fair deal of praise. The problem is that the majority of recent articles are about the policy doc that dropped a few days ago, and while that's reasonable to include to a small degree, it is completely ignoring the former praise that it was getting. --MASEM (t) 05:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Price and Launch Date revealed

The Xbox One has got a November 2013 release date with a £429 price tag which is 500 US Dollars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.44.115 (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The release date needs to be changed on the sidebar of the article. No date has been confirmed beyond November 2013. The source referenced for it is from the Reveal Event back in May and doesn't mention that date or any other date beyond 2013. Also the price should be changed to either all words or all symbols to be consistent. The Euro symbol (€) is ALT + 0128. The Pounds symbol (£) is ALT + 0163. Destructor2012 (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Twitch.TV Support & Built in game recorder

During Microsoft's E3 event during the Killer Instinct showing they demonstrated the ability to go live on Twitch.TV on the game you are playing. Users have also have the ablitiy to use a app called Upload studio where people can add skins to automatically make a montage of the game and trim the gameplay and share it to the cloud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.44.115 (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's some reliable sources talking about "Xbone".

Please discuss the rationale behind using "Xbone" above, here: Talk:Xbox One#Also known as "XBone"

In case anyone wants to add it in the future, here's an easy place to start:

(commonly abbreviated as '''XBone'''<ref>{{cite web|last=Lewis|first=Helen|title=With Xbox One, what's yours is theirs|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/11/xbox-one-microsoft|publisher=The Guardian|accessdate=11 June 2013|quote="The "Xbone", as it has quickly been nicknamed..."}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Why ‘XBone’ has stuck as a nickname for Microsoft’s new console|url=http://business.financialpost.com/2013/05/24/why-xbone-has-stuck-for-microsofts-new-console/|publisher=Financial Post|accessdate=11 June 2013}}</ref>)

Since RS's support it, inclusion is merited. -Kai445 (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Why did you start another section on this? Also, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV are other determining factors in inclusion, and there are people that oppose on those grounds. So no, inclusion isn't necessary warranted yet anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 15:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, I see no mention of "XBone" in those (doing a cntr-F find) --MASEM (t) 15:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see it either. Are you just trying to provide general sources for the article? If so, that's a really weird section title... (and probably not necessary? Who would be having a hard time finding sources on such a popular, mainstream thing?) Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The popular, mainstream abbreviation of the Xbox One. Point noted. ;) This section was not intended for discussion. And originally an (edit conflict) messed me up and I copied the wrong block of text. Fixed. -Kai445 (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The Financial Post article - while a good one to explain the name - shows that it is meant derogatorily, and not something MS likely had planned. It does not state that the nicknamed has gelled as the simple way to call out the console, only that it has only proven popular (not the same as common). It is not a strong enough argument to stick in the lead sentence, though certainly fine within the reception section. Maybe a month from now we can review that and see if the name sticks better then without being a harsh term (eg like using "PayStation" or "GayStation" for the PS units. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

My edits

Sorry if I commited mistakes, just tried to document drawbacks of the console comparing with it's predecessor Xbox 360 and it's competitor PS4. No more edits from me. --Ragnarok Addict (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Drawbacks" should really only be documented in the "Reception" section, and only if they're being cited by reliable sources. Your edits, with subtitles with words like "bloated", violate WP:NPOV, for starters. I think Masem had further concerns as well... Sergecross73 msg me 16:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

To expand- you're giving us tech spec sources (which are good), but because you're adding headers under the negative "reception' section that are clearly biased, we can't just go off the tech specs. I'm sure we all recognize that if the base OS uses 3 of 5 gigs of memory that doesn't leave a lot of games, but we can't make that step that is a problem as WP editors. We need a source that says, effectively, the Xbox One is woefully short on memory. Similarly with the un-upgradable hard drive. We all likely recognize these as problems, but weren't not allowed as editors to say that in an article but instead must fine reliable sources that make that a problem. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the console

Does there exist a free image yet that shows the console and the controller and the camera/sensor included with it? Because it's still being considered for deletion, after E3, and consensus says they want it to stay. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Always-on internet

According to officials at Microsoft they today(6/6/13) released information on some new things. I think we should begin to add stuff about what Microsoft has said: “Xbox One is designed to run in a low-powered, connected state. This means your system, games and apps are always current and ready to play—no more waiting for updates. While a persistent connection is not required, Xbox One is designed to verify if system, application or game updates are needed and to see if you have acquired new games, or resold, traded in, or given your game to a friend. Games that are designed to take advantage of the cloud may require a connection.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Playaway 1 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Should the page include reference to the lack of support for the US military? In an interview with GameTrailers.com, Don Mattrick said "“I’ve got to imagine that it’s not easy to get an internet connection. Hey, I can empathize. If I was on a sub, I’d be disappointed.” That's been interpreted as saying that MS won't support military personnel on deployment (there'd been speculation that they would). DpuTiger (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)DpuTiger, June 12, 2013

8GB DDR## Ram

Can we get a real source for the type of ram? The current "source" doesn't state where it gets its info, and I've found a lot of other places citing wiki as their reasoning for saying the X1 has "DDR3". Microsoft hasn't officially stated what type of ram they're going with, that I can find. http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xboxone/what-it-is http://www.technobuffalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Xbox-Next-Gen-2013-Xbox-One-Specs-630x354.jpg Are there any real sources that state actual type of ram? 68.13.160.163 (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Is a high-resolution photo of the guts of an Xbone good enough? http://images.anandtech.com/doci/6972/20130514-XBOX-ONE-TEARDOWN-015.jpg Anandtech is a reliable source. It is Micron DDR3-2133 DRAM. Here's a link to the spec sheet for the D9PZN chips: http://www.micron.com/parts/dram/ddr3-sdram/mt41j256m16ha-093 -Kai445 (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 June 2013

Please show information about the controversy and criticism. This looks like it was written by Microsoft. 65.128.118.48 (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion. If you can provide some well sourced (see WP:RS) and notable criticism to include in the article, editors here would be glad to discuss it, as balance is very important. Thanks again for your interest in the article. Begoon ^talk 10:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Already covered by the reception section. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Also known as "XBone"

The article should include the new console's de facto abbreviation, "XBone".

Source: http://business.financialpost.com/2013/05/24/why-xbone-has-stuck-for-microsofts-new-console/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.214.222 (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Not an official name and actually somewhat condescending of the unit. It might be part of a criticism section to mention that name but it woudl be inappropriate to treat it as any official name. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Added it to the Criticism section. buffbills (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Not an official name, I'm with Masem, I don't believe this really belongs either... Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Sergecross, when I put it up there, I tried to make it as clear as possible that it wasn't the real name. I think having it is fine, just not stating that it's the actual name. buffbills (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at both sources. The first source, from Financial Post, does use the "XBone" name, but it makes no statement that the reason for the name came from any derision towards the console's features. If anything, it was saying that "XBone" was a shorter hashtag than "XboxOne". As to the second source, this would give the name some notability (as does the first name) and it does reference the displeasure with the feature set, but it is also based on early speculation about those features. A number of these complaints have already been addressed by Microsoft publicly and officially, and the main E3 presser is still 24 hours away (as of this post).

I believe the name merits inclusion, and that Buffbills was making a good-faith effort indicating it was a nickname, not the console's real name or anything other than a nickname. Further, this is a more appropriate place for it than what was originally planned (in the lead sentence). That said, making edits during a content discussion isn't the best way to win consensus. --McDoobAU93 16:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, full disclosure, Ive never owned a Xbox console, so its not like I'm a fanboy protectin my company or anything, but I feel like stuff like this doesn't add anything. It just seems like content like this doesn't add anything to the article, and conversely, just seems to ruffle other people's feathers and be a magnet for vandalism. Unless its a big, notable campaign, like the old "Sega does what Nintendon't" it doesn't strike me as a very encyclopedic thing to include. (I'd have the same reaction if people stared using "Wii Useless" or "PS Fail" or that sort of nonsense too...) Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Gah, my apologies, I probably should have checked the talk page for discussions before making that edit. Nevertheless, I do think it is a noteworthy addition to the article considering that the term 'Xbone' actually redirects to this article, readers deserve at-least a sentence of explanation as to why it redirects here. The term has been used by reliable sources (Financial Post, Escapist Magazine etc) and anecdotally, I've seen it used a heck of a lot by fans and critics across the net. I definitely think it's notable as part of the reception to the console, despite not being an official name. Pieism (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The #xbone hashtag is commnoly used to refer to the new Xbox, and it is not like it isn't used by reliable sources.
"...courtesy of in-game footage presented in last night’s Xbone and EA conferences..." - http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/06/11/titanfall-e3-conference-trailers-show-in-game-mechs-explosions-and-mech-explosions/
"Redbox Asks For Feedback on XBone, PS4 Rentals" - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/124758-Redbox-Asks-For-Feedback-on-XBone-PS4-Rentals
"Microsoft denies claims of false opinion rigging for the XBone" - http://vr-zone.com/articles/microsoft-denies-claims-of-false-opinion-rigging-for-the-xbone/35808.html
"The "Xbone", as it has quickly been nicknamed..." - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/11/xbox-one-microsoft
This is not a one-off thing that trolls are using, this is something reliable sources are using. This is a common thing that normal people are using (#xbone). If you don't like it, maybe you shouldn't be emotionally invested in a video game console. -Kai445 (talk)

Don't try to boil it down to me "not liking it" or being "emotionally invested", especially because that goes directly against what I just wrote a few comments above. We don't need disparaging unofficial nicknames like this, its just going to flare up silly "fanboy/console wars". Its just going to flare up vandalism (and probably spur people to add ridiculous ones to the other console articles as retaliation... Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If Xbone is in common usage and supported by reliable sources, it does. not. matter. Your strawman argument "well what if they call the Wii U the Wii U poopbox! Then what! You'll be sorry!" is complete and utter nonsense. -Kai445 (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

So that's what we're doing? Getting dramatic and misinterpreting minor parts of arguments? My stance is that it doesn't contribute anything of use of the article, is a magnet for vandalism bad faith among editors,, and quite frankly has neutrality issues. We don't need to bring the "argumentative teenage child" mentality to an encyclopedic article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, when the player base adopted "XBone", it was a play on the word "boner" in the blooper sense, not because that was an official or easy acronym. Now, could that stick as a neutral term? Perhaps, but we're far too soon to make that distinction over the negative term. As to your sources, the first three are from ... journalists, yes, but let's say they're less refined in their writing, particularly over at the Escapist. The Guardian article is the one that would be useful to point out where the name came from (among others). Basically, it is far too soon to assume that "XBone" will stick as a common way to refer to the platform. If we're a month later and people commonly use XBone without a hint of sarcasm, then hey, there we go. Right now, however, it's difficult to split the line between XBone used neutrally or to pan the device, and per NPOV we should avoid that issue until we can be sure. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If Xbone is in common usage and supported by reliable sources, it does. not. matter. Your baseless argument "It is a play on the word boner!" is complete and utter nonsense. -Kai445 (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it's not common yet, nor only 2 weeks out from reveal can we make that distinction. And because it has a derogatory meaning (even if that meaning gets diluted eventually if the term becomes the more common shorthand name), we should avoid it as a neutral third party source. Note - I'm only saying this for inclusion where you are trying to stick it, as the first sentence in the lead. I do believe there's merit to mention how the term is used negatively to name the console in the reception section, but we need NPOV balance there first before we can add it. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it way too early to say whether or not it is "commonly known" as XBOne (I've never heard or seen it called that in mainstream media) after the console has been released it could be known as that but personally I doubt it. The XBox 360 is 'commonly referred' to as the 360 but the page doesn't refer to it as such. I suggest waiting until the release before adding it in, it may become clear by then. Spudgfsh (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If you google XBOne you only get one page of relevant results before it returns results for other things. It can't be commonSpudgfsh (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It may be semi-common over at Neogaf or Gamefaqs, with random messageboard goers, but its much more like "used sparingly" amongst the actual media and journalists and reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Weighing up what has been said, I agree 'Xbone' clearly shouldn't be in the article lead, if it has sticking power though I think would be a suitable addition for the 'Reception' section, given that it's common enough that the term actually redirects to this page. In regards to NPOV, using Xbone randomly in the article instead of Xbox One would be extremely NPOV, however I personally can't see a problem with noting in the appropriate section that the term exists along with the fact it is used mainly by critics, as long as the opposite POV is also represented. Rather than attracting vandalism or bad faith editors, I would hope a short mention would help contain the term to that section and save us from having to repeatedly revert users editing it into the article when they realise it isn't mentioned anywhere. Is this a consensus everyone could agree on, what does everyone else think? Pieism (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Okay, it's been a couple of days since anyone commented, so I've drawn up a proposal for the text of the addition, to go in the Reception section:

As a result of concerns about the console and the absence of an official abbreviation, Xbox One has been humorously abbreviated variously as either 'Xbone' or 'XBone' by many critics.

I've tried to make it clear that the term isn't official and has been used mainly by critics, so hopefully that should satisfy NPOV. Two references from mainstream sources should cover the notability issue. Comments, suggestions, amendments, objections etc are all welcome as always. Pieism (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that it is used widely enough, you barely get two pages on google and even less on the other search engines. When looking at some of the news aggregators you don't get many results. It only seems to be twitter users that it are using the name. If it gets used more commonly I'd include it then but as it stands it's not worth it. -- Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 15:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your general point Spudgfsh but I'm getting very different results when I google the term 'Xbone', even on page 20 most of the results are still relevant to the Xbox One. Have you searched for the term recently? (Or maybe it varies by location? Don't know why there would be such a discrepancy between us.) Pieism (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Since no-one seems to care enough about the issue to argue the 'against' side of this debate and the majority of commenters were supportive of some inclusion of the term in the article, I'll add the proposed sentence to the article in 24 hours time if there aren't any further objections. Pieism (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As long as it is only that one line in the reception section (eg not in lead), I think that's reasonable to include at this point. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I still think its more trouble than its worth, but I'm in the minority, so go for it. (And as Masem said, it should be a sentence or two in the Reception section, not the lead.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, putting it in the lead would definitely be undue weight, unless Microsoft decides to make it official (unlikely but that would make my day :-) Pieism (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Buy a 360

How is it that when a senior Microsoft employee effectively marginalises a not insignificant section of the customer base for the XBox One it is not important to this article?? It also shows that the company has no plans on changing the internet connectivity. It is entirely significant to this article, if you think it could be worded better, fine

President of the Interactive Entertainment Business at Microsoft Don Mattrick "Fortunately, we have a product for people who aren't able to get some form of connectivity and it's called XBox 360" see here

-- Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't know if that's officially the company's stance, and even as it is, saying that it marginalizes the user base (while obvious) is synthesis. If that attitude from MS holds true, I am 100% sure that we'll have a lot of critical statements about it that we can then add, but right now, we can't. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I checked the dif, fully expecting there to be all sorts of editorializing and original research. There was none. The quote is correct, and correctly presented. Its from a high authority figure. As long as we're not using it to jump to any conclusions (in the actual edit, this does not happen) I don't see an issue with including it... Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Saying the quote, without any other context, is fine. But the implication that I can see its use is that it is disenfranchising a part of the userpase (which I agree with in that opinion), but we can't make that leap of logic. So including that quote in any type of section about the system's reception can be a problem if not careful. And again, as an off-the-cuff interview line, I'd rather wait to see if that's refuted. (Example yesterday, Jack Tretton said in a live interview that The Last Guardian was on hiatus, but Sony had to quickly react to say it was not.). --MASEM (t) 19:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be fine if it was a statement made by someone who was not directly responsible for the console but "Don Mattrick is responsible for the businesses that drive development and marketing of Xbox One, Xbox 360, Xbox Live, Kinect, Xbox Music and Xbox Video services; " official site

He has the responsibility to make that statement on behalf of Microsoft it's not like he is responsible for the colour of the controller X button-- Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Statements made in interviews can be refuted later, which is what we should wait for. If MS acts like this is the message they want to send, then we'll have something but it could simply be a random gaff that we, as an encyclopedia and not a journalistic, need to assume good faith on first. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This wasn't some ambush interview, it was a prearranged pre-recorded interview with a respected journalist. It does provide an insight into the way microsoft are going with this. It wasn't an obvious gaff he was prepared, had answers when challenged and didn't look like he had the oh $$$$ moment when he'd said it. view the whole thing here (about 1.5 minues in)-- Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As it stands you have to assume good faith, especially as MS are making a new 360 as well which they will want to sell some of past the XBoxOne launch-- Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Just noting that I'm surprised at the lack of any backpedaling from MS on this (and in fact, their press stuff seems to still point to a draconian approach). I would like to see that quote, if used, incorporated with journalists commenting on that quote so that the implication of what it means is not coming from implied WP inclusion. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

TBH so am I, I've read a few articles on the quote and they range from some that argue that he made a gaff to those that take it at face value via those that can't believe he said it. -- Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

REading what is there, and now that we're 24+ hrs from that statement without backtrack from MS, I think covering the range of reactions to that statement in the reception section is now fine. My caution, 2 days ago, was that no one from MS had a chance to retort if Mattick spoke out of line, and while most gamers knew what that statement implied, us adding it then would be very reactionary. But now that we're well past a point where if MS was going to counter that statement and they haven't , now its reasonably valid as long as we write neutrally around it. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've just read a couple of interesting articles here and here.

In the first 'Microsoft exec Yusuf Mehdi told Ars Technica, the negative reaction was "kind of as we expected."'

the second has other reaction from the writer "There isn't a vendor-neutral site out there where the reader reaction is entirely behind Sony and entirely against Microsoft. Mattrick's 'let them eat cake' comment was the final straw."

You could always go to the extreme with the reaction -- Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Image representation

Can someone please find a better image for the hardware itself? Ask a Microsoft directly for permission to use their PR images or make your own drawing or whatever - anything would be more useful than the current photo of some ambiguous black box, half of which is covered by mirror and another half appears to have some grass or green moss growing out of it.173.68.110.16 (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's image policy is quite strict, so this is the best there is that follows it for the time being. That will certainly change as we get closer to release. It can't be helped. Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No; someone falsely cried "0MG! C0PYVI0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" and got the image removed. PantherLeapord (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You clearly have yet to grasp the core of WP's non-free content policy. If free imagery is available we must use it over non-free. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If free imagery is a false representation (either intentionally or accidentally) of an actual product - it has no practical use. At all. Many people have seen the hardware on many non-free images and videos - there is no shiney mirror on it and Xbox One does not have a Chia pet function. Surely there must be an actually useful photo somewhere which would be compliant with Wikipedia's policies... 173.68.110.16 (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop with the dramatics. If Masem hadn't removed, someone else just would have. Masem is correct after all. Seems like your bogus ANI case would have taught you that... Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It only taught me that there is no point in even trying to get a good image that meets all of the WP:NFCC criteria to stay in the article. PantherLeapord (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. There was overwhelming support of the image, yet it was removed for some really terrible replacements. This is en.wiki, not the commons. Fair use is fair use. -Kai445 (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No, there isn't. The only "support" has come from a minority of people who are extremists against NFCC 1. Policy is policy. If you can get a free image of something at all, you cannot use a non-free image of it. Because its been displayed at an event that someone was able to get a free picture of it at, we can no longer use non-free images to illustrate this article. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Free image purism is a ridiculous endeavor, and overall a detriment to Wikipedia. -Kai445 (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Fully agreed! PantherLeapord (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Im not saying its good or bad, it is what it is. But as long as its the policy, we have to follow it. If you don't like it, try to change the policy. But the place to fight this certainly isn't the ps4/xb1 talk pages... Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Providing freely-redistributable content is the primary mission of the Foundation, and by extension, en.wiki. If you don't like that, you can start your own wikipedia with your own servers and bandwidth that has a much more permissive image use. But as long as we are developing content for the Foundation, we must follow their requirements. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Do said requirements include putting the betterment of the encyclopedia above all else per WP:IAR? PantherLeapord (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

NFC, BLP, and COPYVIO are the only cases where trying to argue IAR is not going to work, as all those are Foundation-mandated policies. --MASEM (t) 23:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying that the foundation does NOT want to put the betterment of the encyclopedia first correct? PantherLeapord (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. Wikipedia exists not to help the readers but to be a "playground" for certain individuals to stroke their own bureaucratic ego. The faster you'll understand this fact - the more personal time you will save. When someone asks for certain information in forums or e-mail - I do not direct them to Wikipedia, I just copy and paste helpful information from Wiki and elsewhere (such as an official images of Xbox One without green moss growing out of it) directly into my replies. If you want to actually help others - do as I do. No other way around it. 173.68.110.16 (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

^ This guy knows what's up. -Kai445 (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

 Like PantherLeapord (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Why would I enjoy telling someone "Hey, don't use that image!" Why is that fun? Not sure I follow... Sergecross73 msg me 01:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Because of the feeling of smug superiority you get when you falsely yell copyvio about something and get your way anyway! PantherLeapord (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea. All this time I thought I was irritated that people were using IAR to do whatever they want. Thanks for the revelation. Sergecross73 msg me 01:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, Sergecross did not nominate the image for the deletion process... though he did support it. "Well, you can't fight city hall." -Kai445 (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, no one said word, ever in this discussion, about copyvio, except you. We have every right under US law to use those images, but we have been told by the Foundation not to use them when free imagery is available instead, because they want us to make a free content encyclopedia. Ergo, while within US copyright law and fair use provisions, they clearly fail the Foundation's stricter requirements. They were not removed due to copy vios (Which is a very harsh claim to make). --MASEM (t) 01:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)(edit conflict)

"We have every right under US law to use those images" THEN WHY DO YOU INSIST ON US NOT USING THOSE IMAGES!? PantherLeapord (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Uh, did you even bother the read beyond that part? Pretty certain he covers that... Sergecross73 msg me 01:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

And to answer that, we have a higher bar than US law, as required by the Foundation (out of our hands). --MASEM (t) 01:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Look at the PlayStation 4 page; we actually managed to find good free images, and made a composite that is almost just as good as the official press images, but free. The Foundation's goal is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free content license" (emphasis mine), not "empower and engage people around the world to write encyclopedia articles and then steal images off the web they obviously didn't make to illustrate them." ViperSnake151  Talk  01:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, everyone calm down. Soon there will be better images available and this will be a non-issue. Sergecross73 msg me |

Special thanks to Masem for deleting my text during an edit conflict. Real awesome editing. [3] -Kai445 (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't intent to delete a comment and based on the timestamps and my own experience, that's a rare MediaWiki bug where our two edits conflicted without warning to the appropriate user and thus overwrites one. (Both occurred at the same time stamp). --MASEM (t) 02:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Amusing... You corrected the PS4's absolutely unusable image to slightly (it still has poor contrast which looks awful on mobile devices with automatic brightness adjustment function enabled) more tolerable. Almost as if you actually care about helping other readers. Yet you cannot hide your true intentions and have to gloat about this image correcting fact, then immediately follow with even more "...but, but policies! content licenses!" bureaucratic nonsense. Of course, I wouldn't expect any different from an editor (any editor, not just you, so do not take it personally) polluted by the whole culture of "bureaucratic superiority" to such extent as having the urge to display something like "I am an ancient editor with gazillion edits" barnstars or tables/userboxes with "I have created or improved lots of articles graciously deemed "Good" by the highest bureau! What have YOU done for the betterment of glorious Wikipedia, worthless gnat?" and other ego-stroking nonsense on your own User Page... Anyway, I am done here, I have said all that I've wanted in my previous and current posts. Enjoy whatever you imagine you're doing here. 173.68.110.16 (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Calm down and remember what we're talking about here. This isn't some massive atrocity. It's an image of a game console on a website. Youre giving speeches like lives are dependent on this or something. Yikes. Sergecross73 msg me 10:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The internet is serious business. -Kai445 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently in discussions with someone at Microsoft about the possibility of getting an image from them, but in the past I've found that policies regarding licensing from an organisation prevent them from releasing images with a compatible license. I'll also see if I can get access to a unit from another direction, as I teach Xbox programming, and I may be able to get the chance to photograph one from that. I'll need access to one at some point anyway, as we need to determine if we are to continue specifically targeting the Xbox next year. However, I'm not sure how that will go. - Bilby (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Just consider that by this November, when the unit is out, we'll certainly be able to get a highly detailed, professional looking and free image of the unit since it can certainly be in editors's hand and manipulated as needed. It would be great if we could get an CC-BY licensed one now, but I wouldn't expend a lot of excess effort towards that. --MASEM (t) 03:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Xbox One internet connection and used game policies

The Xbox One internet connection and used game policies are significant changes in the history of video game consoles. I don't see how including details about them in the Xbox One article can be considered undue weight. Also several of the recent edits which removed this information also added some promotional language to the article which I think violate WP:NPOV. For example saying that games "will be able to take advantage of cloud computing" is rather promotional compared to saying that games "can use cloud computing". --GrandDrake (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

See the previous discussion on how much of the inclusion of this information is directly negative without balance (eg like MS' input). We think it's a massive change but that is something we can't say ourselves without sources to back it up. --MASEM (t) 03:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying that I removed them? I kept them, but with balanced wording. It is signifigant primarily because its something that a lot of people have been complaining about? ViperSnake151  Talk  04:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The sentence about Xbox Live Gold was removed and considering how everything was moved around I thought that others things had been removed. After carefully looking it over though it does seem that none of the referenced information was removed though the wording is a lot more promotional. The promotional language has been decreased a bit since the first time you revised the section though going from "verification" to "authentication" seems promotional since it isn't like Microsoft is doing it to protect gamers. Important information such as "An internet connection will be required for the Xbox One" has been put at the end of sentence and some of the phrases such as "inactive internet connection" are more confusing than what it replaced. The revision also removed citations and wikilinks for no apparent reason. --GrandDrake (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

We used to have even more references about those issues but people would remove them while claiming that the number of references were excessive. Despite that the article currently has a good number of references about the controversy these policies have caused so wouldn't the burden of proof be on the person who claims that the policy details shouldn't be in the article? WP:WEIGHT says that weight is based on the "viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources" and I think we already have more than enough references in the reception section. If you disagree though I have no problem adding more references to the article. --GrandDrake (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Controversy and dislike is outnumbering positive press significantly. The Wiki article seems slightly on the generous side towards the Xbox at this point. -Kai445 (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You have to be on a neutral point of view. Its hard to not be positive when you're explaining what the Xbox One actually does beyond being an anti-consumerist black box, and I admit it. Criticisms from third-parties go into the Reception section. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not that we can't include it, but MS is not a small company. It would be expected (And they have started putting things out there) that may not so much be counterpoints but "yes, we're doing it, but here's why". Again, as the product is not actually yet released, and thus these policies are not set in stone, we shouldn't be going overboard with the criticism if there's no balanced point from MS or another supportive side - that's what NPOV suggests. It's silly not to mention the issues identified out there by secondary sources, but we don't need more than two paragraphs to explain all that if there's no counterpoint to it. --MASEM (t) 06:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Well keeping anything that is less than positive in the article is difficult. Plenty of criticism was added to the Reception section in the first several weeks but almost all if it was removed. --GrandDrake (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I really don't care enough about the Xbone either way to keep detailed track of the changes, but if you can make a good case for the addition of critical information, I would support it. I think that there is fanboying under the guise of neutrality possibly going on. "Well, we have to see what Microsoft says." Sheesh. -Kai445 (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF Sergecross73 msg me 01:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

5GB RAM For Games Confirmed?

The source for the Memory specification has zero validity. I also looked around for any official source, and there does not appear to be one. I think the "(5 GB available to games)" comment should be removed until this is officially confirmed. HereticKiller6 (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Game Informer interview with Marc Whitten at the 10-minute mark is where the claim appears to be coming from. However, in the interview, it is the interviewer that makes the claim. Whitten doesn't actually confirm or deny it. I think you have a good point about questioning its validity. Until another source independently confirms the 5GB partition for games, we should probably drop it from the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a Kotaku article and an interview with a developer mentioning the 5GB usable limit, too (remember verifiability, not truth). 212.225.119.226 (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not very good "verifying" though. The Kotaku sources is about alleged documents floating around Microsoft early in 2013, and the Gamingbolt source, the info is mentioned by the interviewer, not the developer. The developer doesn't even acknowledge the point, and the interviewer ends the sentence with the word "reportedly". Not sure "Gamingbolt" is a WP:RS either. If that's all we've got, I agree with GoneIn60, it should go. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

System specifications including memory allocation comes from the documentation accompanying development kits. The same information is reported by numerous sources. Microsoft has yet to confirm the full specifications in any public forum. Most of our sources are third-party, which is exactly how it should be. — TPX 20:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

While true, this is one source which even advises that you take the accuracy lightly with a grain of salt. I would say we need at least one more reliable source before it meets concerns about inclusion based on due weight. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see a problem with the sources listed above. In addition to the Microsoft development documents, the question of memory allocation (3GB for operation systems) was to put directly to Marc Whitten and he answers that he happy with the balance they have struck, firmly believing that the best looking games will appear on Xbox One. PC Magazine also reports his answer the same way: "According to an interview between Game Informer and Microsoft's Marc Whitten, the Xbox One will use around 3GB of its RAM for its operating system and apps". [4] Because Marc Whitten did not answer the question in a manner to our personal satisfaction is not good enough reason to remove reliably sourced information. — TPX 22:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The "reportedly" is talking about the PS4's 7GB, which hasn't been confirmed. Regardless, as per WP:VNT what we think about the source is irrelevant, only that it is reported in reliable sources that are otherwise used elsewhere in game articles. 212.225.119.226 (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:V#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, consensus is also needed. Not everything that is verifiable is necessarily included in an article. My beef at this point is the number of sources which seems relatively low. There are hundreds of articles out there that do not mention these alleged facts. WP:DUE is a concern here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with using a third party source even, its just that the sources presented all have their shortcomings. Is there a source from WP:VG/S that states it a little more directly?

Kotaku states directly that games that are "Running, constrained or suspended" are limited to 5GB of memory. Per the table at WP:VG/S Kotaku can be used as a source for this. PantherLeapord (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding WP:DUE WP:V, it is a tiny piece of information. If 37% of the available memory is used up before a game is even loaded, I would say that is significant. -Kai445 (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Per the Kotaku article: "this Xbox One development info was circulated by Microsoft to its partners at the beginning of this year. It may have changed, but based on what we saw this week, probably not in any major way." Its based on old info that may have changed. That's not a certain verification. That's why I'm saying we need a better source. Sergecross73 msg me 12:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

We have the Game Informer interview and 2 perfectly good sources that published articles based on the same interview. — TPX 16:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

They're all based on a comment from an interviewer that wasn't confirmed or denied by the interview subject. Gamingbolt isn't reliable and Kotaku literally says the info isn't certain. Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus needed

We have two primary sources: the Kotaku article and the Game Informer interview. There are also a handful of secondary sources. Aside from the primary source issues pointed out above, the secondary sources are low-quality at best. The reason is that each one only relies on one primary source. High-quality secondary sources will typically use multiple primary sources to reach a conclusion. Another issue with the claim is the amount of coverage it has received. At this time, coverage in reliable sources is extremely low. The information may indeed turn out to be accurate, but until it has more coverage, I'm not convinced it should be included. The consensus right now seems split, and I'm hoping more editors will weigh in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Inclusion - Per my comments above. If its true, it should be much more clearly stated by reliable sources, not these "leaked documents that may have changed" or "ignored interview questions" intepretations. Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)::

Are you opposing strictly on the basis on a reliable source issue, and would you support inclusion if better sources were found? He seemed to also be raising a "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" point earlier. And the information is significant if true. -Kai445 (talk)

Yes, my main hang up is the source issue. Reliable sources are being provided, I'm not challenging the reliability of something like Game Informer, its more that the sources don't seem to be definitively verify it in their actual content. Sergecross73 msg me 19:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Inclusion - It has been reported by several different websites and Kotaku has stated that their information came from Microsoft. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• That source literally says that its based on an old document that they can't confirm whether or not it has changed. Not a good confirmation. Sergecross73 msg me 01:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Kotaku says that the information was circulated to Microsoft partners early this year. To me that would make it reliable enough to include in the article. As for WP:DUE and WP:V#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion I think that the information on RAM usage is important enough that it should be in the article. --GrandDrake (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• So what? They also say its old info and they can't confirm whether or not it is up to date or the finalized info. It's not useable. Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• The information was from early this year so I wouldn't consider it that old and no one from Microsoft has said that it is wrong. --GrandDrake (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• The absence of information to prove something is the very opposite of WP:V. Sergecross73 msg me 12:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• WP:DUE refers to the prevalence of the viewpoint in reliable sources. As of right now, the number of sources is extremely low in terms of the ratio to other articles that do NOT mention it. The sources that do exist are just recirculating the two primary sources, not bringing additional analysis or verification to the table. There are hundreds of articles, including ones that have surfaced in recent days, comparing the PS4 to the Xbox One. Why aren't these mentioning the 5GB limit to games? Given the argument that this is an significant piece of information, why aren't recent articles using it? To me, it's a red flag. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

*GoneIn60, you are using faulty logic. That argument is literally an argument from silence. "Why aren't they mentioning it?" is not a red flag. Nor is the ratio of one piece of information in one article about a subject versus those in others. There are probably a million articles about Barack Obama, but just because every single article doesn't mention his height (and the ratios of those that don't to those that do are probably extremely unfavorable), that doesn't mean that the articles that do are faulty. Nor does the fact that heights can change over time give us reason to exclude the information from an article. -Kai445 (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Look at it this way: If it were truly confirmed, we wouldn't have to argue over these sorts of questionable scenarios. For example, lets say someone was questioning the size of the hard drive. Google "Xbox One 500GB hard drive". There are tons of hits, clearly and unquestionably confirming this. Google the stat in question. Much different story, mostly forum posts and N4G articles that don't actually confirm it. There's a reason for such a difference; its not truly confirmed yet. Sergecross73 msg me 16:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• There is no reason to doubt the validity of information from both Kotaku and GameInformer as reported directly from information provided to developers by Microsoft. These are not forum posts. -Kai445 (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC

• Several reasons have been raised as to why to doubt those sources. Do you have any response to that, or are you just going to ignore it and keep repeating "No reason to doubt."? Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly, both give the impression "we asked, they didn't clarify, so we are assuming its true until they actually do". Meaning they themselves are throwing a huge amount of salt on that information as potentially unverified. It's too early to put it on there. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Gizmodo "But with the Xbox's split OS, it dedicates specific hardware resources to the two VM partitions (5GB to gaming, 3GB to apps and the "middle" OS), and they never share." So... Kotaku, GameInformer (in a table), and Gizmodo, plus the GameInformer interview where there was a non-confirmation confirmation, and another in an interview by GamingBolt with the Avalanche Studios CTO - http://gizmodo.com/xbox-one-all-the-nerdy-details-you-dont-know-yet-509381624 -Kai445 (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, Kai445. This actually puts to rest the concerns I had. Until this post, we didn't really have a good secondary source. Now we do. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• This isn't a workable source. It was published on May 22, while GI's interview (the one we can trace 5gb to) is on May 21. Since no one (not even on NeoGaf who would be looking for it) have been able to produce a document that affirms the memory split, and Gizmodo is not what I would consider to be high-up on priority for having MS console tech information compared to GI or other sites, I'm pretty much convinced that Gizmodo is using the GI interview to based the 5gb claim on. And as noted the GI interview is not reliable here due to the lack of an affirmative response to the question. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Gizmodo is used as a reliable source on Wikipedia, and I wasn't able to find any past discussions that have determined otherwise. If you feel it's not reliable, then I would suggest taking it up at WP:VG/S or the WP:RSN. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• I never said they weren't reliable, and I think in general include that whole set of sites from them. But RS's can be wrong and/or untrustworthy at times, and this is a time to question that. We cannot readily create a link between any of these sites that report the 5/3 split and Microsoft giving them information that explains that. Therefore it's presently untrustworthy on that. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Inclusion - A throwaway speculatory remark about how things may change later by Kotaku does not invalidate the information reported. They likely aren't using it because they want to push a narrative that "there isn't much of a difference". That doesn't make it any less true, or make it any less significant. -Kai445 (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• One or two reports that are recirculated several times is hardly enough to satisfy WP:DUE when taking all Xbox One articles into account. See my response a few posts above about these concerns. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• WP:DUE applies to opinions (especially where fringe theories are concerned), not facts. There are not multiple viewpoints regarding this topic. There is not a heliocentric vs. geocentric in the time before astronomy type of argument, where we must weigh the arguments properly. You are citing an incorrect Wikipedia policy to push an agenda. -Kai445 (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Please assume good faith. There's no reason to think GoneIn60 is pushing some sort of agenda. (I'm not even sure what this agenda would be. Its not like removing this would be a big thing for or against the xbox one...) Sergecross73 msg me 17:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I promise there is no conspiracy on my part! Actually if you read the first line in this section, it was another editor that started this discussion. Perhaps I am overstepping the bounds of WP:DUE, but as I see it, the term "viewpoint" can be used to describe Kotaku's stance on the "fact" they uncovered. Other sources reiterate this stance by carefully stating "based on a report from Kotaku...". Other sources are not going any further to verify it for themselves. All I'm saying is that if we had more sources that have independently verified this "fact", then I would be all for including it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, you are overstepping the bounds of WP:DUE. Viewpoints are, by definition, opinion-based. You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. -Kai445 (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Think of it this way. Kotaku is presenting a fact. We all agree there, but there is an interpretation of this fact going on. The interpretation is that it applies to the latest iteration of the Xbox One currently in production. It's a stretch given the document's date, even by Kotaku's own admission. So by definition, this is a viewpoint and thus WP:DUE would apply. Moot point now that we have the Gizmodo reference. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• "What's the big deal, lets just remove it." Yeah, alright. -Kai445 (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• That's not a direct quote, and even if it was, I'm not sure how exactly that conveys an agenda... Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Inclusion The sources produced above, taken together, are good enough to support inclusion. Microsoft development documents discuss system memory. During the Game Informer interview—in direct response to the 3GB memory partition—Xbox chief product officer Marc Whitten remarked that he is happy with the balance of the system. At no point did he inform the interviewer the information was incorrect. The interview was conducted in a cordial manner and there is no reason to believe his answer was edited to be misleading. We also have reliable sources that interpret his remarks the same way. Having said that, I'm not fussed if the information stays or goes. — TPX 17:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • What if the Xbox One actually took 4 GB and left 4 GB? If you were in Marc's position in that interview, and GI just asked if 3GB was used for the OS, would you correct him and say "no , it actually uses more", or stay silent? We can't take "no attempt to correct" as an affirmative answer. No one is saying it is misleading, but it is also marketing speak by not saying anything. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  Do you have reliable sources to support that there may be less ram available to games? -Kai445 (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not saying there's less RAM, I'm putting myself in his shoes in considering how he would answer. Knowing this number will impact gamers perception of the machine (and knowing at that time that the PS4 was affirmatively stating only 1 GB for system, 7 GB for games), I would be hugely careful about affirming anything that would be taken as a negative. So GI hits me with this number of 3GB for system:

  • If it's right, it's still a huge number compared to PS4, and I would be reluctant to affirm or not.
  • If it's wrong and actually less memory for system, I would probably consider correcting him (though even then, may be a question to avoid due to the lower system GB on the PS4).
  • If it's wrong and actually more memory, I definitely would skirt the issue.
  • And if MS really doesn't know yet as they are still working on the OS, I couldn't answer that.

  So in all cases, the most appropriate market-speak answer is to skirt around it, which is what his statement does perfectly. We basically have a lack of affirmation of the answer, making the interview an inappropriate source for this. --MASEM (t) 18:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You are complicating and over-interpreting a simple question and answer. The most plausible explanation is that Marc Whitten was asked an informed question, so there was no requirement for him to look down the camera lens and respond stoically "Yes, it is indeed true the system memory is partitioned in the manner you describe" or "No, these press reports are based upon phoney development documents" (as if he were aware of an inconsequential Internet dispute that needed to be settled). Rather, he understood and accepted the question perfectly well and proceeded straight to explain how the (balanced) system Microsoft have created will produce wonderful looking games. As I pointed out earlier, reliable sources have reached the same conclusion, so your alternative scenarios boarder on original research at this point. — TPX 21:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the transcript, it was a loaded question by GI (though probably not in malice). It was the equivalent of asking someone, point blank, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" A straightforward yes or no answer would have been worse than saying nothing. At this point, the only source of 5/3 gb is from GI, and they haven't revealed their source, ergo, right now we shouldn't be including it. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There are four different sources for this information. And what you are asking for is a chain of custody which is a high burden of proof. --GrandDrake (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Given the GI article appears first and the others did not seem to appear until later, it is very reasonable to expect that they all take the 5gigs from GI, since no one else is saying "microsoft says this". --MASEM (t) 06:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be speculation. Also the Kotaku article states that the "Xbox One development info was circulated by Microsoft to its partners at the beginning of this year". --GrandDrake (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Which we don't know if this applies to the model they plan to ship come November. It's possibly wrong information being out of date. (And this is all before the mass DRM reversal aspect which could change those numbers too). --MASEM (t) 14:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

We can calculate bare-minimums for the environment, because we know what Hyper V needs to run itself, and what Hyper V needs for sandboxing/virtualization, and that there are two OS's that are going to be virtualized (one for games with 5GB allegedly assigned to it, one for apps, right? Well let's assume for a moment the apps OS gets 1GB).
From MS: "300 MB for the Hypervisor plus 32 MB for the first GB of RAM allocated to each virtual machine plus another 8 MB for every additional GB of RAM allocated to each virtual machine plus 512 MB for the host operating system running on the root partition"
300MB (Hyper-V usage) + (VM for Apps: 512MB[for OS]+32MB[for 1st gig virtualization]+1024MB[1GB ram for Apps])+ (VM for Games:512MB[for OS]+32MB[for 1st gig virtualization]+(4*8MB [for virtualization of gigs 2-5])+5120MB [5 gig for Games])=8108MB of RAM. Tada.
Original research, but this is an educated guess, and I would not be surprised if it was nearly spot on (plus probably some misc allocation overhead here and there that will get lost). -Kai445 (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Which is fairly reasonably, and possibly where GI/Kotaku got 3GB, but it is original research without the connection made by others. But as I edited in the article, I've simply tagged who is stated 3gb (not MS) so that we're not the ones creating original research here, just in case. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Inclusion Support Inclusion - Based on the Gizmodo reference (see Kai445's post above) --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Inclusion - If the facts do change later (And that is a rather big 'if' with this particular one!) We can always update it when the sources do! Besides which This essay states that "The truth" is not always the whole truth which is why we have WP:V in the first place! PantherLeapord (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • We can't verify this is a fact. We can verify it is a fact that GI claims this, but that's all we can claim. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• That is really a stretch. If every article had to clear that kind of hurdle, Wikipedia would be half of what it is. -Kai445 (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• This is a unique situation. GI has stated uncertainty in their information and thus brings it into question. On the other hand, if GI simply published the 5/3 split and never gave any indication the information was unsure (eg asking Marc that question), we would take the information as valid with GI as a reliable source. But they themselves have casted doubt, and MS's lack of response doesn't clarify it. --MASEM (t) 04:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• There are four different sources for this information. As for GI they may not have gotten an answer to their question, which was about whether the RAM usage would put the Xbox One at a disadvantage, but they asked the question in the same way they asked about operating systems a minute earlier. This can be seen if you watch the GI video starting at 9:40. --GrandDrake (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have this as the question from the transcript: "Do you think that puts you at a technical disadvantage because there is [in the Xbox One] only 5GB of functioning RAM for games?" That's a loaded question, and Marc, rightly, avoids a straight "yes or no" response, so we have no confirmation. Further, as the Kotaku article (which came out 2 days later) states, they point to an MS document distributed much earlier in the year to its partners and are only speculating the information remains true. Meaning, no, we cannot factually state the Xbox One uses 5gb for games. I can argue that if we write it "Game Informer and Kotaku claim that the Xbox One uses 3 gb for OS and leaves 5 gb for games", we at least can state that as fact, but we cannot state with any authority that "the Xbox One uses 3 gb for OS and 5 fb for games". --MASEM (t) 06:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I consider the information to be well referenced. --GrandDrake (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• There's factual information but just not enough to say, without clarification that "The Xbox One uses 3 of its 8 gb of RAM for OS." I have kept this information in there, but put that claim on the onus of Kotaku and GI (both generally reliable sources) and noting it is based on earlier data sheets but nothing solid yet. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Only one of the references states the age of the information so it would be speculation to make that statement for all of them. The sentence now states where the information came from and is properly referenced. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)