Talk:Xbox One/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Aka Xbone

There is currently disagreement over whether or not the term "Xbone" should be included in the AKA field in the infobox. [This is the reference that was used to support the inclusion; Zero Serenity noted that "the reference says Microsoft will NOT be using that name." Comments on whether or not the nickname should be included? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It was a degrogatory term used back on the unit's introduction for how bad its specs were, but not a term used today in professional circles. --MASEM (t) 03:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It should definitely not be included in the article. As noted above, it was a very childish word used to describe the console, and it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, and that is coming from a lifelong PlayStation fan. Rilech (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Note: I did add X1, however. It belongs there. It is the most commonly used abb of the Xbox One I have seen. Rilech (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Despite whether or not Microsoft likes the term, the 'Xbone' nickname is known to the same, if not more people than Xone or X1. Here is supporting link: http://au.ign.com/articles/2013/10/04/microsoft-resigns-itself-to-xbone-nickname . In the IGN reference it says "Microsoft has acknowledged that the Xbox One's "Xbone" nickname is probably here to stay. Microsoft Studios head Phil Spencer admitted that while he didn't think the company would be embracing the moniker for advertising campaigns and the like, he's accepted it isn't going anywhere." Microsoft also bought the domain name xbone.com. Markpb91 (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

My position is obvious. But let me say that it's use has dropped off not only in professional but non-professional circles. Most people I know tend to just use it's full name anyway with folks at my local game store tend to call it X One. Zero Serenity (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely not. There was a clear consensus against this the last time it was brought up, and there clearly is now as well. Not every "nickname" needs to be listed in the lead or infobox, especially unofficial ones. The identification just isn't practical, it's not like there's a single person who would be confused because they didn't know what a "Xbox One" was until someone explained its the same thing as a "Xbone". (Opposed to the PS4, which is such a common abbreviation of the PlayStation 4 that the listing is actually helpful to the reader. Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Remove AKA names or include Xbone - Don't just exclude it because you don't like it. It's the only nickname to receive any official response, you can reference it.[1][2] The current AKA names are as unofficial and have less to back it up. Including those and excluding Xbone smacks of paternalistic censorship or supine corporate service. - hahnchen 01:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not a nickname used in professional sources. If there was a different name that the Xbox One was known by in professional sources akin to how the PS4 is a professional standard for the PlayStation 4, then we'd used that as the AKA. But if the nick is not a professionally established, commonly used nick, then it shouldn't be included, though in this unique case, it is mentioned down below. Let's put it this way - no one uses the Xbone moniker to refer to the console any more in reliable sources, so it's not an AKA. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Since when does AKA specify professional sources only? Have you just invented this standard for this instance? Because I posted professional sources saying "The Xbox One is also known as the Xbone". If you do a Google News search for X1, Xone or Xbone, you get the same kind of response. Articles such as Everton F.C. and other sports teams contain non-professional nicknames, Template:Infobox information appliance just states for the AKA field "device nickname", which Xbone undoubtedly is. I don't mind if no AKAs are listed, but this smacks of hypocrisy. - hahnchen 03:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, here's what I'm seeing. "XBOne" is used in RS, but not "Xbone" or "XBone" (which is more used by non-RS sites or in forums). Note the difference in spelling. I would support "XBOne" to be included, but not any other spelling. --MASEM (t) 03:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no difference in spelling, just your weird capitalisation. All the sources I've linked just refer to it as Xbone. As recently as March, Techcrunch still referred to it as Xbone.[3] But my argument isn't even a synthesis of passing mentions, it's that "Xbone", not "XBOne" is the subject of reliable sources. - hahnchen 13:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
"XBOne" is clearly an acronym of "XBox One", while "Xbone" is emphasizing "X Bone(r)", the degratory name. Particularly in this case, we would definitely want to see a wider usage of "Xbone" (with that casing) in a professional, non-derogatory manner across multiple sources. We can show that for X1 or XOne, but not "Xbone", and barely for "XBOne". --MASEM (t) 13:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Why does it matter at all what the reasons for the nickname are, and who are you to police it? I've shown numerous reliable sources, some which actually make "Xbone" the subject of the article. And you are placing your own arbitrary ILIKEIT criteria ahead of those. - hahnchen 15:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Not a single person so far has cited "not liking it" as a reason for removing it... Sergecross73 msg me 02:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
If you believe that "It was a degrogatory term" matters in the slightest, I might jump at a conclusion. Serge, in the original discussion, you claimed that it had nothing to do with whether you liked it, but then immediately followed up with a value judgement, "We don't need disparaging unofficial nicknames like this". Nothing to do with sources, nothing to do with it actually being a nickname. - hahnchen 03:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Would you reel yourself back into reality here? It's a fan-coined term based off the concept of an erection. How the hell do you reconcile that with "encyclopedic"? Sergecross73 msg me 03:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that Xbone is derogatory and is meant to make fun of the X1. That ALONE disenchants its value in an encyclopedia article, which should remain objective. At its very heart, using Xbone would violate WP:NPOV as it is a derogatory term used to diminish the X1. For instance, Macintosh computers are referred to as Macintrash by a lot of Windows users, but do you want to go into the Macintosh article and try and add that term? NO, because it is childish and does not belong in an article used to provide MEANINGFUL information to a subject. Rilech (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
NPOV is reporting what our sources say, not excluding them based on value judgements. Being encyclopedic is reporting what our sources say, not excluding them based on value judgements. I can come up with multiple reliable sources, including from Microsoft that accept the Xbone is a nickname for Xbox One, [4][5][6]. All these sources came after the June 2013 discussion, which was then used to shut down further debate. You can accept or reject the AKA field, but your arbitrary criteria for keeping out a legitimate sourced nickname is kind of pathetic. - hahnchen 13:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
As Hahnchen said, with a reference from Micosoft themselves accepting the term, either the AKA field must go, or Xbone be accepted as a nickname. Markpb91 (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
There's a lot of terms we call the other consoles that we don't use as AKA terms. Even those articles note the name exists but they don't plan to use it as marketing, which is what our AKA should be reserved for, how the company markets the units. And reserving "xbone.com" could mean they're preparing to use "XBOne" as a name (since domain names are case insensitive). --MASEM (t) 16:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I have to disagree. WP:NPOV says very specifically, articles should not take sides, it doesn't say "unless it is backed by reliable sources". There are reliable sources that say a lot of criticisms about a lot of subjects, but they don't belong in the main infobox of an article. Like I said, articles must NOT take sides, especially in infoboxes and lead sections. Rilech (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, I don't want you thinking I disagree with the fact that Xbone is a nickname for the Xbox One. It is, your sources prove that. I just don't think it belongs in an infobox or lead section for the same reason things like "Macintrash", "IndieStation", and others aren't. It is just unprofessional and unencyclopedic. They are derogatory and in my opinion they violate WP:NPOV, not to mention how childish of names they are. Rilech (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
At the same time, we're not supposed to give a specific fringe view any undue weight. We also do need to be careful of name-calling when it is inappropriate. We don't regularly call MS "Micro$oft", since that's derogatory despite the fact that's easily sourced; but the term is described in the criticism of the company, just like we use "Xbone" in the criticism of this unit. And the lack of a good number of RS using "Xbone" (that casing) is another reason to stay away from it as an "official" AKA term. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no "AKA" field for Microsoft. There is no AKA field where you've entered less well-sourced alternative nicknames for Microsoft, yet hold one that could be construed as derogatory to an arbitrary higher standard. Unlike the Macintrash or IndieStation, I can point to reliable sources which discuss Xbone as the primary subject; http://macintrash.com is for sale, http://xone.com is for sale, http://xbone.com is owned my Microsoft. Censoring the only nickname which has this kind of referencing, because Wikipedians feel that they are better qualified than reliable secondary sources (and even primary sources - Microsoft itself) is hubris. It's not about regularly calling it the Xbone, but placing it alongside the other nicknames. Is it a nickname? Yes. Can we provide reliable secondary sources stating so? Yes. Do we need any kind of Wikipedian synthesis? No. - hahnchen 01:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Under the WP:NPOV there is a section that says 'aviod stating facts as opinions' you have agreed that Xbone is a nickname for the Xbox one, but it is your opinion not to include it. I just feel that it's a double stardard, but don't care enough to argue further. Markpb91 (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

What opinion are you referring to? I have only said that Xbone is a nickname which has been proven by those sources and that it is a derogatory term which is not simply my opinion but the general consensus of everyone, including MS in those sources. A derogatory nickname does not belong in the official AKA field and IS in violation of NPOV. Rilech (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
NPOV means reporting what our sources say, which in this case are reliable secondary sources which you agree with. Rebecca Black's Friday is described as "the worst song ever" in her lead, as it should be. Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing is described as "one of the worst video games of all time" in its lead. Wikipedia follows sourcing, NPOV is not Major Nelson's company line. - hahnchen 01:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Now THAT is a sold argument, sir. Rilech (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
My primary argument would still be it being derogatory and a bit vulgar for the AKA field. That being said I am not completely against axing the whole field. Good point though, Hahnchen. Rilech (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
(side comment) I don't really care about the Xbox One or the inclusion of an AKA field. My motivation here is the same reason as expressed at Template_talk:Mario_franchise/Archive_1#Unofficial_games - there I argued for the inclusion of Super Hornio Brothers as part of the unofficial spinoffs at Template:Mario_franchise, which was omitted despite the inclusion of every other piece of unlicensed media. It was to call out hypocritical standards. - hahnchen 02:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
In both examples were those works "intended" to be the worst? No - and as such we don't officially call them the "worst". But we do, in the appropriate reception sections, discuss how others called these. Similarly, MS has not set any official policy that "Xbone" is an intended name compared to Xbox One, X1, or XOne, but we are fair to call out that the initial problems with the unit's reveal made "Xbone" a bad name it was given. The info box should be left to what is official and/or near universe, not just any name that happens to come along. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
See that is my main problem. Like I said I don't mind it in the article. Just not in the infobox. Rilech (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with this as well. Keep the infobox to the official nicknames and abbreviations. Sergecross73 msg me 02:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
"Official policy" is a hurdle you've just invented. XOne or X1 are just as unofficial as the Xbone, here are Microsoft's brand guidelines[7]. Out of all three, only one has reliable secondary sources which directly address it as the subject. Out of all three, only one does not require your Wikipedian synthesis of passing mentions and amateur statistical analysis. Yet out of all three, it is the only one which you argue vehemently against. - hahnchen 02:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I don't oppose removing all of them. I don't find the other ones especially helpful to the reader either. Sergecross73 msg me 02:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I support removing the entire field as well. Markpb91 (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
i agree and neither the WiiU nor PS4 have that field. I think it is best to just axe it. Rilech (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

China release

Apparently Xbox One will be the first Xbox console to be officially and legally released in China. Prior to this year, all videogame consoles were banned under an "anti-gaming addiction" law, and most consoles had to be imported on the black market at overvalued prices from Hong Kong and Japan.

Hopefully there are more sources out there on this. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

And...done. Tell me if I got anything wrong. Zero Serenity (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks good from here. --benlisquareT•C•E 13:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"First console released in China"

Earlier today, Sony announced their intent to bring the PS4 to China. I have changed the sentence in the lead reading "First international console to release in China" to "First Xbox console to release in China" because this is simply no longer known (WP:CRYSTAL). Feel free to give any input, but until official dates are announced for both of these releases, we do not know which will release there first. While MSFT is still preparing the TV features before their release in China, Sony could really launch in China next week if they wanted to, as the announcement sounded very urgent. Chambr (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

External Hard Drive Support

I'm suprised that there is still no mention in this article of support for external HDDs on Xbox One. The update that went live on June 3, 2014 makes this possible. This explains how on Xbox.com. Since I can't edit the article, I'm just going to leave this here. I also made a mention on this page as well since that needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.52.125 (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Taken care of. I need a reference for it but it's been changed. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 12:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance, but how is the link I provided not enough? The page flat out explains how to set up an external hard drive on the Xbox One, therefore that does say that it does support external drives. So I do fail to see how that isn't enough. However, here's something else from Xbox.com that flat out describes the Xbox One's support for external storage beginning with the June 3, 2014 update. I'm not sure why the first link wasn't enough though.
We tend to shy away from using primary sources and help articles. For more information, have a read at WP:PS. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
SERIOUSLY? You won't take a direct source? Wow, that seems to be highly hypocritical since I see it all over the place. Two references here go straight to Xbox.com and another goes to Major Nelson's personal blog. So if those two work, then why not mine?
Since that isn't enough, here are FIVE articles, one from IGN, two from Kotaku, and two from GameSpot telling about the external hard drive support. Pick whichever one you feel is the most appropriate then since apparently nothing provided is good enough.
IGN
Kotaku 1
Kotaku 2
GameSpot 1
GameSpot 2
The things you get for trying to help... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.52.125 (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2014

Several testers have revealed that Xbox ONE gets additional 10% performance boost if the kinect is disconected or removed.[1] Mon.mukherjee (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

This I believe is effectively covered in the announcement about the kinect-less SKUs, that even MS said the extra power can go to games now. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this is covered. I'll close this up. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I added clarification that the 10% performance gain is not garnered from simply disconnecting or removing Kinect. Rather, it is available to developers who do not need support for Kinect skeletal tracking in their titles, and works on systems with and without Kinect. Mojoworker (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

nowegian release date is missing

it was released in norway a few days ago but exact date is unknown to me. i dont however know why norway got it so much later than the rest of europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.53.253 (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section doesn't include criticism

The reception and criticism sections only give positive feedback from two sources - some Fran who I never heard about and Microsoft itself. However, a little known publication called Forbes disgrees with both. Maybe their insignificant opinion should be included in at least one of those sections? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Both sources provide mixed feedback. If you want to add some more criticism from a RS, go ahead. Chambr (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
There is an expansion tag there for a reason, it means the section is incomplete, but don't say it lacks criticism already, because both sources already given provide plenty of criticism of the console. Chambr (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Article Change Request

The 1TB version should be mentioned under hard drive space or somewhere in the article.

Source: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00MMTKXTA?pc_redir=1410687103&robot_redir=1

66.249.83.51 (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I read what you're saying, but we cannot use something like Amazon as a source. Have any gaming sites (Kotaku, IGN, etc.) Co-Oped this terabyte drive? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@Zero Serenity: Just found this: 1TB Call of Duty Xbox One is exclusive to GAME in the UK. Stickee (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
That'll work. I'm investigating how I would like to write this in though. I'm looking over how Xbox 360 is doing it, which comes out as List of Xbox 360 retail configurations which is a bit on the clunky side. Hold on to something. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Not completely pleased with what I wrote, but it's something. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 14:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

it isnt all versions that includes the new kinect

in norway for example kinect is only sold separately from the main console so the article needs to be changed to take that into account.84.208.53.253 (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want us to change here since Norway isn't specifically mentioned. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 16:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
this for example: The console includes a newly upgraded Kinect motion sensing peripheral. as not all consoles includes it it is somewhat incorrect.84.213.46.153 (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Let me see what I can do with this. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Estimated Sales

ArsTechnica. This just came across my feed. Reliable by WP:VG/RS, but I want to pose if its number is worth including in the article. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I almost wonder if we should start a discussion at the talk page of WP:VG on this. The same problem has been occurring with the Vita, where Sony combines the figures of the Vita and the PSP. Because of this, estimates are around 10 million sold, while the last official number by itself, given a while back, was only like 4 million. Its difficult; ones official, but obviously outdated, while the other is only an estimate, but probably closer to the truth. We may want to set a precedent, especially if companies keep doing this as a tactic to show that a system is selling less than its competitors... Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The initial price of the Xbox One in China should be 4,299 RMB

Even though there is also a bundle version available for price at 3,699 RMB, but this version has no Kinect with it. Considering the one day version released in the USA and other countries the world was at price at $499, in which it comes with Kinect.

It is unfair to use a price for which the Kinect was dropped to compare with the price with Kinect. Zhwghl (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "unfair"? Unfair to who, exactly? The base console is launching at the price listed in the article. We never use "bundles" as a base price and the X1 with Kinect is a "bundle". The introductory price is for the base console. Chambr (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The launching price of the Xbox One was US$499 in USA, in which there was a Kinect included. If as you said that the introductory price is for the base console only, not for a "bundle", and X1 with Kinect is a "bundle". Then why don't you change the price in the US to be 399 dollars, which is just for a base console not the bundle???????????Zhwghl (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The Xbox One launched with the Kinect included in the base product; it has only recently changed so that you can buy the console without the Kinect unit. As such, the article is correct in stating that the US launch price for the base product was $499, since it was not a "bundle" at the time of launch. When the console launches in China, the base product will, presumably, not include the Kinect, so those consoles sold with the Kinect will be a bundle, and not the base product.
In fact, it could be argued that the X1 with Kinect is still the base product, and that the Kinect-less release is a variation thereof. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Windows 10 Presentation

Here's some highlights that will need integration.

  • Xbox One and Windows 10 cross-platform multiplayer (Fable Legends was demoed, I expect more).
  • Xbox One to Windows 10 (includes PC, Tablet and Phones) Streaming
  • Windows 10 for Xbox One (Sorta. Apps and whatnot flow over to windows 10.)

There are a couple more windows related items.

  • DirectX12 (which I think will be for Xbox One too).
  • Xbox for Windows 10, including a dashboard very similar to Xbox One's home screen.
  • Xbox DVR for Windows 10 (as in record the last 30 seconds or just keep a running record).

I think that covers the major pieces. Will need sources of course. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Windows streaming is only for PC/tablet version (not the totally not Windows Phone 10 I promise OS), we've had attempts at cross-play before, and it sort of IS cloud gaming (or Off-TV Play). Either way its a variant of the concept, streaming games as video over a network. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Xbox 180?

This seems very unencyclopedic for a section title. Don't we have a better name to use? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 07:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest something along the lines of "Response from Microsoft" or "Reversal of policies and system requirements". --ThomasO1989 (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I strongly dislike the word "panned" as well: "the interface was panned", "Xbox Live was panned", "but panned its game library", "the console was also panned for" etc. It's such a harsh word. Unnecessarily so. It's better to be specific and attribute positives and negatives to individual reviewers, such as "[reviewer's name] thought the interface needed lots more work." — TPX 11:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well. Unencyclopedic, and it wasn't that widely called that. I vastly prefer either of Thomas's suggestions. Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The Display Section should be updated.

VGHJon (talk) The Xbox One is not capable of 4K or 1080p video output. The Xbox One is Only capable of 900p and lower with the ability to upscale to 1080p.

NeonGreenPandas (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)It can only do 4k if the video supports it. Even the 1080p only applies to a few games that have optimized quite well.

@NeonGreenPandas: And that's exactly what it says. It could do with some rewording and maybe removal of the giant quote box but alas its fairly NPOV right now. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 04:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Grammar

"prior the console's eventual launch" should be "prior to the console's eventual launch". 86.164.23.31 (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Changed. Thanks! --ThomasO1989 (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Xbox One PlayStation 4 graphics comparison.jpg

What message is this picture intended to convey? (diff) The caption reads "Some critics dislike most game companies' strategy of making their games seem sleeker for the PlayStation 4 than for the Xbox One", but the image quality falls well below the resolution it purports to display. It doesn't really improve our article, if anything it may confuse some people. — TPX 21:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

(In his best Halo Announcer Voice) Yoink. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 22:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
What is your point? I see some use of it, and I see not why not. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Would it be better were I to say "Although barely noticeable" because there really are some differences? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus

Because we have a discordance, I will begin to try to reach a consensus. Is the image somewhat confusing, or does it really show differences in graphics? I assume that it have some use. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

"Some use" is not a solid argument for inclusion of a fair-use image. The argument can be made for virtually anything else. I could argue that we add an image of the Wii as it might have "some use" in this article. A better question to answer is "what does this image in its current form offer that text alone cannot provide?" In my opinion, you don't need an image to state that the versions look alike if multiple sources claim they do. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, USE then. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
And I assume that you be not taking your own time to look at them closely because I promise that there are differences between these two because I have looked at them closely, and I like the one on the right better, so I still find that it be okay to use. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Besides, 720p and 1080p are not entirely noticeable even though they are barely, and everyone knows that. Because of my argument, I am closed-minded. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
My point is that, if IGN (my image's source) wanted to compare such graphics, then, why would they display the same graphics for both images? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion. This image is pointless without being at full resolution. Any image purporting to show differences between 720p and 1080p, yet is compressed to a total resolution of slightly less than WVGA, simply cannot illustrate the claimed statement. Any differences between the two halves of the image cannot be attributed to the original resolutions with such a severe amount of artifacts from compression. -- ferret (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry for not reading all of your argument, for I thought that you said that I did not need to add that image when they say that they DO NOT. Well, it can still be illustrated well. I do not know. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure that I understand the meaning of your response. I'll expand on my argument though, perhaps you'll read it? The image must have a use in the article, to illustrate a point that cannot be shown in the prose. Even if both sides of this image purport to be 1080p, the image that has been uploaded to Wikipedia has become so compressed that immediate differences can be spotted between the two sides. Without the image being full resolution (That is, 3840x1080), it cannot illustrate to the reader that both consoles have the same image quality at 1080p. -- ferret (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per ferret's argument. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Then, why did IGN do it? I can see why, but why would IGN do such a thing? Also, I tried to make use of this image, so I had a point. but, because of that, why would they do that? The topic is different now. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
IGN made a video that was recorded at full 1080p resolution, which does allow their viewers to compare and come to a conclusion. As noted above, this image is not at a high enough resolution to allow for this comparison. -- ferret (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, would it be better if I were to find a better picture or take again that picture but at a higher resolution? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
If you can get a full side by side image at 3840x1080, that might possibly work. However, any compression to the image will potentially make the image unusable for the point that you are trying to illustrate. I'd oppose it's inclusion if I can tell any difference between the two halves. That said, I do not know what issue you may run into with trying to make a full resolution non-free fair-use image, as far as policy goes. -- ferret (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
If the image is too low-resolution to serve its alleged purpose, it fails NFCC 8 because it does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic. But a high resolution image would violate NFCC 3b. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, it did say not to use it too many times, and it did say not to have a file larger than necessary, but it is not that I would ever use it again elsewhere, so, at least, I am being minimal about it. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a higher resolution now, but it is probably not high enough yet (1680 x 945), but I still try to be minimal and understanding. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

To add to this, there's two GIFs on the IGN Wiki page for this subject, which includes the video this screen cap has been taken from. The GIFs show a pretty obvious difference between the two consoles, at least for Ghosts. -- ferret (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I did not notice that part. Will it do any good? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
In what way? Unless I have really misunderstood you, you want to illustrate that the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 have the same graphics. Those GIFs do not support that position. -- ferret (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope...? -- ferret (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

We also need to look at this description of the file, which was also the caption used when it was added to the article: Although it is seldom noticed, some critics complained about how some companies' strategy is to make their own games look sleeker for the PlayStation 4 than for the Xbox One.

What critics? IGN does not make this complaint, and specifically notes that the Xbox One has "a more constrained ability to process game data as compared to the PS4, forcing developers to run their games with less graphical fidelity on Xbox One." -- ferret (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: This serves no purpose in adding to anything. The article should not be a list of comparisons to the PS4 as that would be a waste of our and the readers' time. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 05:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Maybe, you are right. My only point is to show why people would complain about this. I know that the article is to stay on-topic, and I do see how, even if rejected, it can be useful, BUT, if others do not want to see it at all, then, I would be glad to omit it. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
May I remove this section? I do not want to see this anymore as a reminder. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Do not delete, though feel free to WP:ARCHIVE it. Sergecross73 msg me 02:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: Xbone nickname

In the 'response from Microsoft' section, it is stated "... and "Xbone", suggesting that the company was "throwing a bone" to consumers by making these changes.[135][136][137][138]", this is the first time I've ever heard that as the explanation for the name. Most people, myself included, called it Xbone because of the DRM policy. Bone, as in erection and getting nailed in the ass, if you pardon my French :)

For those still not getting it, XBOX One = XB One = Xbone because Microsoft was going to bone everyone with their shitty DRM and anti-consumer practices.

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Xbone-Nickname-Disrespectful-Xbox-One-Says-Major-Nelson-58934.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelX (talk • contribs) 19:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, but we get that. But Wikipedia only covers what reliable sources state on things - see WP:V. The only thing the sources cover is basically what's in the article. They don't cover penis jokes from randos on message boards, and Wikipedia doesn't really recognize CinemaBlend as a reliable source...(and they largely source neogaf, a messageboard. Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

E3 Notepad

  • Backwards Compatibility to Xbox 360.
  • New Controller design with paddles and extra customization.
  • Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare 2
  • Dark Souls III
  • Early Access (called "Xbox Game Preview"), comes with a free trial of games in this program. Included Elite Dangerous and DayZ.
  • Ion (I think that's what its called)
  • Rare Collection (30 games for $30)
  • Partnerships with Oculus VR and Valve VR.
  • Hololens with Minecraft (not sure what I'd write about this that hasn't been said)
  • HD Remaster of Gears of War
  • New Gear of War title is named "Gears 4"

And we're done here. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Criticism Removal/Sanitization

This is a discussion, not a forum. Any off topic or derogatory comments will be removed. Please try and stay civil when talking to other uses and always assume good faith.

Why has the section regarding Microsoft using PCs to demonstrate Xbox One games been removed, citing the reason as a lack of relevance and questionable sources? It is very relevant considering this indicates that Microsoft has been misleading in the marketing of their product, and the sources provided are perfectly usable. Puddleduck97 (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a short comment here, but a quick glance at that diff showed me that most if not all were unreliable sources, some of which have even been reviewed by WP:VG/RS already. -- ferret (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Only one of the sources has been found by WP:VG/RS to be questionably unreliable (CinemaBlend), and another has been noted not has been found to be neither reliable or reliable. (DualShockers.com) Plenty of other more reputable sources can be provided (Such as Hexus.net & Kotaku (Kotaku is considered a reliable source and has been formally reviewed as such)), the original contributor just chose a few non-ideal sources. Puddleduck97 (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Partially because many are an considered unreliable (cinema blend, dual shockers, etc) and partially because it's sort of a WP:FRINGE theory. Outside these random small-time blogger types, no one really cared. I support the removal as well. Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
While I agree that it needed better sourcing, it was hardly fringe theory, seeing as how those displays were extremely prominent and the fact that they were not honest in their showcasing of the XBox One there is reason enough for it to be relevant. Whether or not people care does not necessarily change how important something is. Sagacity159 (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Many titles are developed on PC, or PC-equivalent development kits, before being ported to console. And such is the nature of publicizing your game before release day, they are buggy and do on occasion crash. Big deal. There's no real controversy here. — TPX 00:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that was my other objection - the use of words like "controversy" and "caught" are rather sensationalist and melodramatic for something that isn't that out of the ordinary... Sergecross73 msg me 00:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
While I agree the use of the word "caught" is overboard, this topic is definitely a controversial one. It spiked much hate towards Microsoft for using computers that could potentially be more powerful than the XBox Ones to render and play the games. The fact that some are heatedly against the practice and others perfectly fine with it is exactly what makes it controversial. Sagacity159 (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you people kidding me......... It's false advertisement. It's against the law. They're advertising the Xbone as a much more powerful machine than it really is. And FYI, Kotaku articles are NOT a reliable source. 10:58 AM 20 June 2015 (AEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.147.168.50 (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Kotaku has been deemed a reliable source by the powers that be. I don't necessarily agree with that, but if they want to say it's a valid source, then they can deal with the content they produced being proposed for citation. Puddleduck97 (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Putting the reliability of the sources aside for a second...
Most are reporting on the same incident; a single event that occurred at E3 2013. In two of the sources, Microsoft acknowledged that they were using dev kits to showcase demos, which is hardly surprising considering the demo has to be prepared weeks in advance, and the finalized hardware design for the Xbox One wasn't likely released to production yet. Therefore, it wouldn't have been possible to demo games on anything else. I wouldn't call that getting "caught". Despite the flawed analysis, the bigger concern is that this really has no place in the article. One or two sources, or even three or four isn't usually enough to show significance, which is definitely lacking here. A few gamers blogging about something they don't fully understand is not sufficient. Now if there are better sources that discuss it with detailed, expert analysis, it might deserve a second look. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Ethics and debates aside from the previous ideas presented but the events and coverage are at least significant enough for notiation, however the entry for the section is poorly worded and seemingly bias in nature. Wikipedia articles need to remain neutral and well written. The new content does neither of those. While it is significant by its occurrence in sourcing, the entry is poorly written, and appears biased. Requesting that the information be rewritten to appear unbiased, and to a higher standard. The quality of the information is simple and is more akin to a comment, rather than wiki quality information. Edit reverted, but quality and unbiased wording is necessary.Franbunnyffxii (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please present any proposed rewording and sources here on the talk page, and only add them to the article if there is consensus to do so. Right now, there is no consensus for inclusion, and repeatedly adding content without consensus could lead to a block. This is how we handle content disputes on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 01:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I propose as a re-writing of the section the following: "During many demos of XBox One gameplay, Microsoft had appeared to have been using PCs to showcase the demos instead of the XBox Ones. Fans and critics believed this to be an attempt to disguise PCs as XBox Ones since Microsoft made little effort to disclose this detail to people attending the showcase." Similarly, user Wikinium provides many sources to be used in absence of the previous ones. This sort of thing I believe needs to be disclosed on the wiki page since it is regarding fraud-like behavior.Sagacity159 (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Completely agree with Sergecross. It has been explained above why the information is not significant. Please explain why you think it is, and keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a collection of everything that is true. There are additional conditions that need to be met. Also per WP:DUE, the "views of tiny minorities" shouldn't generally be included. At this point, editors supporting the content need to gain a consensus here first before attempting to reinstate it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This happened with the Xbox 360 as well, as Microsoft admitted its use of a competitor's product that just so happens to use similar hardware to demonstrate games at E3 2005. But in this case, it was an isolated incident, specific to one studio's game at E3. If we do mention it at all, it would probably be under the E3 2013 reception section with a line such as "During E3 itself, a photo emerged showing a demo booth for LocoCycle having crashed to a Windows 7 desktop—running on a HP PC with a Nvidia graphics card instead of Xbox One hardware. In response to allegations that all of Microsoft's E3 demos were running on such hardware, a spokesperson for its developer Twisted Pixel Games denied this was the case, and stated that it was an isolated situation specific to Twisted Pixel and LocoCycle."

But I personally object to any mention of this. As indicated, it was a rumor debunked, and it would be undue to mention this as part of the E3 criticism because not as many reliable sources reported on it than other Xbox One controversies at E3 2013. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Debunked? They did it 3 different times, each time claiming the powerful gaming PCs were Xbox Ones. It's relevant, as it's false advertising directly related to the topic of the article.
Here are some more sources, since some people were hoping the ones that were used were all that existed and they would succeed in censoring the page:
Microsoft has been using high-end PCs to demo XBox One gameplay at gaming conventions consistently since its release. That's a fact. They not only did this, but they had XBox Ones sitting on the cabinet that were plugged into nothing, to make it look like they were running the games. They falsely advertised the Xbox on multiple occasions, and the media covered it well every time. Wikinium (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Then lets ask a different question: What does this say about the X1? Could these have been custom software to lockout the other operating systems (it runs three)? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 05:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wikinium: The E3 2013 incident was debunked. Even one of your sources above, MaximumPC, debunked it in an earlier article explaining that the developer, Twisted Pixel, made the decision to use a PC for the demo and not Microsoft. The source goes on to say, "let's be clear that it's not all that unusual for game developers to use PC hardware to show off future titles" and that Sony (and/or Sony's developers) have done the same thing. Because the practice isn't considered outside the norm, it doesn't get much press. When something really matters, you're going to see it reported on Polygon, ExtremeTech, Anandtech, Ars Technica, Tom's Hardware, The Verge, etc., and not just the "low-to-middle-tier quality" sources represented by your examples. I invite you to read this Forbes article which debunks multiple conspiracy theories about the practice and sums it up quite nicely as "much ado about nothing". Seriously, read it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@GoneIn60: That Forbes article is awful, and I am curious as to why you dismiss "low-middle-tier" review sites and then cite one yourself. The linked article has no sources, is contradictory, and generally messy. 2602:30A:2C3E:DFB0:690E:4AB4:6C6F:9331 (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
We may disagree on what a top-tier source is, but the difference here is that I'm not attempting to support a proposed change to the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This isn't really criticism of the Xbox One as much as it is criticism of certain developer's marketing efforts. So I think it's misplaced here. –xenotalk 13:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus

This is a discussion, not a forum. Any off topic or derogatory comments will be removed. Please try and stay civil when talking to other uses and always assume good faith.

Please leave your opinion on the matter here, after saying if you'd believe it would be a good idea for it to be readded into the article.

  • Include: The reliable sources shown above and the ones that were previously in the article prove that this is an actual occurense and should be stated in the article. Although, with this said, I believe it should not have its own section but instead included somewhere in the Critical reception area. --Anarchyte 07:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Exclude: Says nothing about the box itself. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 08:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Disclaimer was excluded. This user is a big fan of Microsoft and Xbox One. [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinium (talk • contribs)
The above does not matter. I can keep an objective head. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 04:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wikinium: Comment on content, not on the contributor. You should assume good faith at all times, especially in heated debates. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Include: It is an indisputable fact that the Xbox One's hardware is significantly weaker than that of even a mid-range gaming PC. It therefore follows that running a console game demo on a PC will provide increased performance. Even if the game is locked to running at the resolutions and the framerates that it will actually play at on the Xbox, the extra power of the PC can still be seen in areas like decreased (and hence unrealistic) loading times, or to compensate for the present lack of optimisation of the game software.
Furthermore, Microsoft made no clear attempt to inform users that the demo was running on a PC and not an actual Xbox, and instead used dummy Xbox units and advertising logos to imply that the consoles were running the game. This is a blatant attempt at deception and masking the truth, and irrespective of whether it really made a difference to the game demo experience should warrant at least a mention on this wiki page. --Lumos309 10:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a great analytical summary. Too bad it's based on a lot of assumptions. You are assuming that Microsoft, not the game developer, has the final say in every single demo assembled. However, as noted here, that is clearly not the case. You are also assuming that it's not a common practice in the industry to classify it as a "blatant attempt at deception". Multiple sources cited in this discussion show that it is, in fact, a common practice. And last but not least, you are assuming that in these isolated incidents, that Microsoft and/or the game developer had a product ready for presentation on an Xbox console. Instead, they chose to demo a PC version for the benefits you outlined. Well, that's a really big assumption. Fortunately, Wikipedia has policies in place that prevents us from including original research. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Exclude: For reasons articulated in my previous response. This 'controversy' has no enduring notability. Another case example is E3 2013, when a couple of PS4's overheated in small display cases. Eager for a story, the gaming press jumped on the incident and spread the news rapidly, but the 'controversy' had no legs and the story faded away. Same thing here. No enduring notability. The few quality sources that covered this incident in any depth say it's perfectly normal for console titles to be developed on more powerful development kits and, yes, sometimes they are buggy and crash in public. — TPX 12:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Include: It is not up to us to decide what is important or not, it is up to reliable sources. For this information, there are plenty of reliable sources who obviously think this significant information, regardless of whether or not a few wikipedians have a different opinion. <Karlww (contribs|talk) 13:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:RS is not the only criteria editors must consider when deciding to include or exclude information. — TPX 13:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Exclude - Same reasons I stated in the section above. Unreliable sources and WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE issues. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Include: Various sources are available for this issue, and this is clearly an attempt by Microsoft to mislead consumers. The fact that at a recent demonstration they had Xbox Ones on the table, but actually powering the demo was a high performance gaming PC under the table shows that Microsoft intentionally misled, rather than just using a devkit because no consoles were available, in order to make the games look better and perform better than they actually would on consumer hardware. For these reason, the use of PCs in place of Xbox Ones to demonstrate games is worth a mention. Puddleduck97 (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm still puzzled about this scenario in general. If this is such a big deal, why didn't any mainstream websites pick it up? Where's IGN or Eurogamer or GameSpot on this one? Why is it only these unreliable and obscure sources making a stink about this? And if it was such a big deal, why are we just trying to included it now, 2 years later. E3 2013 was a major event that generated all sorts of coverage, and the article gets thousands of views a day, 100,000 a month. How was this an oversight for 2 years?? Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Microsoft did at again at E3 2015. That's why it's a current issue and has been proposed for inclusion. This time they even went as far as posing Xbox Ones on the table above hidden PCs. Puddleduck97 (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Specific reliable source for E3 2015? -- ferret (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, most of these sources, like "Tweak Town" and "Diary of Dennis" do not meet the definition of a WP:RS. The Gamespot source is similar but separate to the E3 2013 issue, and is about a particular game, not the Xbox One in general. That's a fine source....for The Witcher 3. Sergecross73 msg me 22:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Some sources may not be fit for the article, but many are. The reason those were included was to prove how widespread coverage was, even if game journalism giants like IGN and Kotaku (both of which are known for shady journalism) decided to not report on it. I don't know why websites like IGN and Kotaku are suddenly the only sources accepted when a lot of sources used in this article aren't. Wikinium (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, you'd be a lot more persuasive if you trimmed out all the garbage sources. All you're showing is that it was widespread amongst by amateur blogger-types, which is irrelevant on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Exclude Per the Maximum PC article, this is a common practice not only to MS or the Xbox One. As such, it belongs elsewhere though where I don't know. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. We are describing an industry-wide practice. If we broaden the topic area, there are many PC titles that never reached the quality of their pre-release form. Remember the Killzone demonstration on PS3? I see no reason to include this material in isolation. — TPX 14:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Exclude: I've explained multiple times; we have to adhere to neutrality and not place undue weight on minority viewpoints. These are isolated episodes that have not sufficiently been reported by quality reliable sources. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
This isn't "undue". This is directly related to the Xbox One and false advertising involving the Xbox One. It has happened several times. It was even responded to by Microsoft on one occasion. A lot of people's idea of "neutrality" is "exclude everything negative about the Xbox One because I love it". Wikinium (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
No. This is not bias. This is following accepted practices; an article's coverage of a topic must be proportional to its coverage in reliable sources. As has been noted, not many high-quality sources reported on these incidents, and it is original research to collectively interpret them in such a way as to imply Microsoft has consistently misled the press on the quality of games running on its video game and entertainment system. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@ViperSnake151: WP:RS isn't the only reason something should be added. If anything, we could use the given references and then put a little {{citation needed}} at the end. --Anarchyte 01:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
If we don't have valid citations, we shouldn't add it.... The idea that we would add a paragraph that has a clear negative/criticism lean and tagged it as {{citation needed}} is silly. -- ferret (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Include The practice is proven to exist, therefore should be mentioned. Care needs to be taken, however, to maintain neutrality and avoid assigning it undue weight and/or synthesising conclusions.
  • Has PC hardware been used to demo XBox One titles before its' release? Yes (later stated by Microsoft to be devkits).
  • Has this been proven by reliable sources to be done after XBox One's release? Yes, on GamesCom 2014.
  • Has the demo been explicitly stated to be running on an XBox One and proven by reliable sources to be otherwise? See Witcher 3 as reported by Kotaku - strongly implied to be XBox footage, correction issued only after Kotaku reported on it.
  • Have reliable sources reported on the controversy and/or put forward accusations of false advertising? If not, then any phrasing that suggests otherwise should not be used in the article.
So far I see them just raising concerns that the performance of the PCs (devkits) would not be representative of the actual console. That might be something to report on in and of itself.
--The Fifth Horseman (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@The Fifth Horseman: Out of all the responses so far in favor of inclusion, this appears to be the most levelheaded, so thanks for that. First of all, verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion (see WP:ONUS), so the fact that it can be proved doesn't necessarily mean it should be mentioned. A big problem with the content represented by the cited sources above – reliable or not – is that there just isn't a lot of analysis on what's been observed. On Wikipedia, controversial content should be supported by secondary sources that do more than just report an observation. They should use multiple primary sources to form a reasonable conclusion on what's been observed. That is what's severely lacking here.
In addition, if you run a general search on E3 2013 or GamesCom 2014, the two events being looked at under the lens of a microscope here, very few sources out of thousands mention the controversy. And out of the hundreds of thousands of articles out there on the Xbox One, it's a needle in a haystack. The lack of significant coverage is where concerns of WP:UNDUE come into play. Furthermore, there are reliable sources that explicitly state this is a common practice in the industry and isn't a significant concern (MaximumPC, Forbes). So at the very least, this wouldn't be appropriate for this article if it's even deemed appropriate for Wikipedia. It would be more suitable in an article about marketing tactics in the gaming industry, or possibly as a brief mention at an article covering E3 or GamesCom. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@GoneIn60: I feel that splitting it off to a separate article would draw substantially more attention to it, making for a much worse case of WP:UNDUE. The subject is less relevant to E3 / Gamescom than it is to the marketing of this system. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@The Fifth Horseman: In an article that is focused on the events surrounding the controversy, it's actually more appropriate per WP:DUE. In an article that covers all aspects of the Xbox One such as this one, it is a view represented by only a tiny minority. We'll see how it plays out in the proposal below, but at this point I'm not convinced it has due weight. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Include As stated the practice has existed and there has been a relevant amount of media coverage over it. However the coverage should be presented in a neutral manner, as the sources have yet to be deemed reliable. I would propose something along these lines: "The use of gaming computers to power game demos has been controversial among journalists, some of which (insert citations) have criticised it as being false advertisement as the computers were likely significantly more powerful than the console." Rather than directly questioning the use of PCs, which would be a clearly negative viewpoint towards MS/Xbox the wiki page should cite the media coverage, as that would allow both sides of the "argument" to be shown in a neutral manner.Al.in.b2s (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Two notes... If the sources have yet to be deemed reliable, we shouldn't use them, period. Second, it's been shown in the reliable sources that we do have, which seek to counter the so-called controversey, that this is a common industry practice that Sony and other developers also do, which suggests it's undue weight to single out the Xbox One. See Masem's comments above. -- ferret (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree about singling out the X1, but I can't say that there is explicit evidence (at least not that I've seen) of PS4s being used similarly. Also, the sources are regarded as reliable within a group of people who are well acquainted with the hardware that is in those PCs. I'd think that if you took a deeper look into those sources, they are reliable regarding the relevant topics. And even if the reliability of the sources can be questioned, the fact that it has been repeatedly brought up (by sources be they reliable or not) is a notable fact regardless of the spin that these specific sources put on it. Al.in.b2s (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
What's with this unrestrained censoring for Microsoft despite solid evidence? Wikipedia is supposed to be a place for information, not bias.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.217.201 (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Al.in.b2s: "Repeatedly brought up" is a matter of perspective. The article is about the Xbox One. Of all the reliable sources that cover the Xbox One, this issue doesn't exist statistically when placed in that context. The focus is too narrow to justify inclusion. Now if it were an article focused on game console marketing, E3 2013, or GamesCom 2014, it might hold enough significance. And for your reference, there are similar-grade sources that have reported on similar incidents involving Sony, see this one from CinemaBlend. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Include: All of it. Wikipedia is not a place for censoring, it is a place for facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.217.201 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 22 June 2015
These are not facts. They are probably made up, and IGN/Kotaku didn't even cover it. Not even PC Gamer covered it. If it was true, why would mainstream gaming media not cover something like this? You just hate Microsoft, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.244.69 (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Kotaku has covered some of it: http://kotaku.com/xbox-youtube-channel-advertises-the-witcher-3-with-pc-f-1699455645 --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Include: The information came from relevant sources, and should be included in the proper section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.79.167 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 22 June 2015
  • Include: Wikipedia is not for censorship or video game fanboy oponions. We are truth, not some place to be funded by anonymous users.Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - We are not idiots - it's very obvious that when suddenly all these people come out of nowhere and sputter the same vague nonsense about censorship that there's some obvious WP:CANVASSing going on here. These sort of obvious antics are considered when closing discussions like this, as are stances that has no basis in policy (like censorship.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: I'm pretty sure it come from this; [9]. --Anarchyte 07:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Exclude – Proposed content that claims there's a controversy surrounding the way some games are demoed at gaming conventions is a view held by a tiny minority, and as such per WP:UNDUE, would not be in proportion to the coverage of the Xbox One in reliable sources. The information would be more appropriate in an article with a narrower focus, such as one that covers game console marketing in detail or the events themselves (E3 2013 and GamesCom 2014). Furthermore, the analysis provided by many of the sources that do exist is not well-researched. No attempt was made to uncover additional facts from the parties involved – Microsoft, game developers, convention organizers – that would provide much needed context and understanding. There are a few sources that do, such as these from MaximumPC and Forbes, and they both conclude that the controversy is insignificant. This helps explain why the so-called controversy hasn't been widely reported in the most reputable industry sources like IGN, GameSpot, The Verge, Polygon, etc. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Exclude - Utterly trivial shit. WP:NOTNEWS. - hahnchen 20:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Exclude - Pretty clear-cut case of undue weight, lack of notability or uniqueness to Microsoft (in other words, "everybody does it") and WP:NOTNEWS, as has been stated already. I would further state that if Forbes is calling it a non-issue, its position outside of gaming would make it probably the least biased source to cover the story. --McDoobAU93 01:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Make an actual proposal

This is a discussion, not a forum. Any off topic or derogatory comments will be removed. Please try and stay civil when talking to other uses and always assume good faith.

I very much such doubt it will be included, because most of the people who want to include it have stances that don't hold up with Wikipedia policy. But even if it were, the "includes" need to write up an actual proposal as to what the wording and sources would be, as even most of the people who want to include it recognize the wording initially proposed was entirely unacceptable. Please put some proposals below, so it's easier to accept/reject the content rather than discuss these hypothetical wordings that would be better. Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 1

I believe I've found a reasonable compromise. Personally, I find the extent of console gaming companies' efforts to deceive the public into believing that the game demos being displayed are running on consoles is false advertising in and of itself. If the console companies weren't trying to deceive consumers, there wouldn't be a console on display; they could have it running on a PC under or even on the desk and not lie to us about it and we'd all understand. The misleading of the public in such a smoke screen, as is obviously the case, is an issue to report on. This is not an incident/issue restricted to any particular company or console, and as such I believe a section such as the one I'm proposing may be necessarily included in other console gaming pages here on Wikipedia. I'm sure I could find a million and one examples in online articles, or spend hours of my life finding citations from books and magazines, but that's time spent out of my life that isn't even necessary to report on this issue.

Being a programmer, I fully understand that what is being developed needs to be shown from time to time, and what's shown isn't necessarily the end product. Developing apps for Android, I use my PC to code - not a cell phone or tablet. Via the devkit, I run tests of apps in an emulated Android environment, which is still on my PC. However, final testing, and ultimately demoing the apps to the consumer, needs to be done on an Android system. To do otherwise misrepresents my product, because the capabilities and limitations of my PC and an Android device are not the same. This principle holds true for console development; the capabilities and limitations of a console are not identical to those of a PC.

Regardless of whether companies ultimately should or shouldn't be presenting demos to the public on PCs instead of the consoles they're advertising said games for, there's no need to deceive the public into believing the game is being played on the actual console at events such as E3: We, as consumers, know that what's presented at events such as E3 isn't the final product. If it were, we'd be holding it in our hands at the checkout line, not playing it at a giant event for promoting yet-to-be-released titles.

To me, what's going on here is akin to me trying to sell people a digital magazine, handing out a physical printed copy during my sales pitch, and not informing my potential customers that the magazine is actually digital-only: although both the physical and digital publications may have the same content, the delivery of the content is substantially different in a variety of ways. Not quite a great example, but the best comparison coming to mind at the moment.

There is a controversy here that needs to be documented and reported on, and not simply hidden and removed from this wiki because people disagree, or can't find online citations that are adequately "reliable". We have numerous resources here which, when combined, document a controversy. I'm unsure of how, exactly, an online source is deemed a "reliable" source for citation purposes on Wikipedia while other online sources aren't. It's the internet; unless your citation is along the lines of "Chant, Christopher (1986). The Encyclopedia of Codenames of World War II. Routledge & Kegan Paul. p. 118. ISBN 0-7102-0718-2" I find the citation's reliability to be wanting anyways. However, I don't believe each individual source should need to qualify under Wikipedia's "reliable" restriction to be considered, as a whole, the documentation of a controversy. After all, is it really a controversy if only one source is reporting on it? If you consider the abundance of sources documenting that there is, indeed, a controversy here, that is proof enough to report that there is a controversy over this subject. That's what should be reported on until someone's willing to do the research necessary to prove or disprove this controversy with the necessary "reliable" sources and information. That person's not me, because I don't care for consoles (proprietary crap pisses me off - hence the Android app development instead of Apple - and gaming consoles are a haven for proprietary development).

Please, feel free to help find citations and help edit this into a reasonable addition if you find it lacking in some manner. I would especially appreciate the addition of links/references/citations to examples of any other console gaming company with such deceiving displays (Sony in particular, as it is most pertinent to my submission... just not enough time right now to do it myself). Keep in mind that I believe something similar should be posted to any other relevant Wikipedia topic on gaming, console or otherwise (that's right, I'd even like PC gamers to be able to read in Wikipedia that what they're seeing at E3 is probably a recording of the intended product, not the actual product). New references would be needed for those other Wikipedia pages, to remain relevant to that particular console or topic. The citations in this proposal are simply some of the links provided within this talk, as they are, when combined, proof of the controversy (even if individually the sources aren't considered "reliable" to you, it is needed as an example that this controversy does, indeed, exist, and that's what we're using the references for). I am willing to further edit this addition (if it's accepted) at a later date to include citations for other statements herein (such as a citation for proof of games being developed on PCs before being compiled to run on a console, etc... not like I'm publishing a cure for cancer here, but it should have proper proof in the end anyways). However, enough of my personal opinions and ranting, and on to the proposed addition:

Demo Controversy

Although console games are obviously made to run on consoles, they are developed on a platform outside of the console - usually a PC. After development is complete, the code is compiled and distributed to the consumer, who obviously runs the game on the console. During development, however, the game is programmed, compiled, and tested on a PC. While a game is still in development, a company may decide to showcase their unfinished product to build hype about it, and entire events - such as E3 and BlizzCon - are orchestrated for developers to do just this.

A game isn't always truly ready to be compiled and ran on the intended console when such advertising events occur. Regardless, developers must overcome such hurdles in order to advertise their product to the public within the time constraints of such well-known events. Hence, the content displayed to consumers at this point may be a demo of the unfinished product that's actually running on a PC, or even a rendered video [commercial] of the intended product.

The fact that console games are developed on a PC prior to running the finished product on the console itself is not some secret that's kept from the public. However, developers seem reluctant to reveal to the public that their product is running on a device aside from the intended console, and hide PCs under their displays - displays that often have the console itself on display in a manner as if it were currently running the developer's product. This deception has become quite a controversy in recent years, with the competition between Sony's PlayStation and Microsoft's Xbox franchises. The two companies' competition for market superiority has become so intense that consumers of the gaming systems have taken up the battle amongst themselves by praising or criticizing the one company or the other, and fans of the company, on any forum at their disposal.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

  1. ^ http://www.tomshardware.com/news/xbox-one-kinect-power-boost,26999.html
  2. ^ http://www.techpowerup.com/185721/microsoft-pulls-a-fast-one-with-e3-xbox-one-demos.html
  3. ^ http://n4g.com/news/1566930/microsoft-did-it-again-shows-pc-version-at-xbox-one-stand-gamescom
  4. ^ http://www.tweaktown.com/news/39722/microsoft-reportedly-used-pcs-to-promote-console-games-at-gamescom/index.html
  5. ^ http://www.eteknix.com/microsoft-caught-running-xbox-one-demos-on-nvidia-pcs-again/
  6. ^ http://www.neowin.net/news/some-xbox-one-demos-at-e3-2013-ran-on-windows-7-nvidia-pcs
  7. ^ http://www.gamegrin.com/news/microsoft-found-using-pcs-to-run-gameplay-demo-at-gamescom/
  8. ^ http://www.dsogaming.com/news/gamescom-2014-microsoft-caught-using-once-again-pcs-to-showcase-its-xbox-one-games/
  9. ^ http://www.maximumpc.com/microsoft-uses-pcs-showcase-xbox-game-gamescom-2014/
  10. ^ http://www.slashgear.com/xbox-one-gamescom-demoes-were-played-on-windows-gaming-pcs-15341348/
  11. ^ http://diaryofdennis.com/2014/08/14/yet-again-microsoft-shows-xbox-one-games-on-a-windows-pc-system/

Erglewalken (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Feedback (Proposal 1)
  • This is far from acceptable due to the amount of original research. The sources you provided are regurgitated from the above discussion and do not support the opinions provided in this proposal. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, you should not go beyond what is expressed in the sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I oppose as well, similar to GoneIn60 above. You need to cite each idea, not just slop a bunch of refs in at the end. Sergecross73 msg me 12:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this as well, for the same reasons as GoneIn60 and Sergecross73. -- ferret (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal 2

My rough proposal is as follows: --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

As noted before: This is a draft, and the references must first be checked and then added. Right now I'm more concerned about it being adequately NPOV than the exact references to include. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Demo/Advertising Controversy

On several occasions [when? where?], desktop computer hardware has been reportedly used to demo Xbox One games. This has raised concerns [from whom?] that the performance of the demos may not be representative of the console's actual capabilities. The systems in question have been later stated by Microsoft [citation here] to have been Xbox One development kits.

A similar controversy arose again in April 2015, when the official Xbox channel on YouTube has published video footage of Witcher 3. Despite prominently featuring Xbox logos, the footage was found to have been sourced from the PC version of the game, and confirmed as such by CD Projekt Red. [10] As the game would not be able to maintain the same frame rate and visual quality on the console, the propriety of such advertising methods has been questioned by the media [11] [more references here].

Feedback (Proposal 2)
  • I'd like to add that using "Controversy" or "Controversies" instead of my original "Criticism" seems to be a much better fit. Also, instead of "desktop computer", you might be able to do "desktop PCs" (seems to be a better fit). This is a nice summary, it's compact, to the point, and includes both the game demos and game footage controversies. Wikinium (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • May need minor rewording to clarify terms such as 'performance' (performance is rather arbitrary in this context and is not clear to someone not well versed in computer graphics). Also, I would encourage anyone to add possible counter-arguments that have been made. Lastly I am a little uncertain about specifically quoting Kotaku, as the general consensus of all the sources seems to have been the same and it puts Kotaku in a questionable position of seeming more important than any other news source. Al.in.b2s (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't really support this one, because there's too many references not present. People, you're supposed to start with the refs first, and then write the content according to what they say. Also, The Witcher 3 part does not belong on this article, it would belong over at The Witcher 3. (If anywhere.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Please note: "rough proposal". It was posted as an outline rather than the final text (we're on a talk page!), and I will be adding the refs a little later today when I have the time to go through the available material. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm just saying its not off to a good start if you're not starting off the writing process with the refs, and I don't know why you'd put it here if you weren't ready to get feedback on it... Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see how this proposal can go forward. It is essentially unsourced and in it's current form contains from the start multiple clarification templates such as whom and cn. Furthermore, the topic of this proposal is not really the Xbox One console, but Microsoft's marketing and advertising practices, so would belong somewhere on Microsoft in my view, or as Sergecross73 noted, on Witcher 3 concerning the youtube video incident. -- ferret (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • As noted above: "rough proposal". Sources exist, have been mentioned before in the discussion, and because of concerns about their reliability need to be checked before being added (also because some of the ones given before all repeat each other regarding the same incident). --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @The Fifth Horseman: I know you're just trying to lend a hand here, but really this area is for finalized proposals, not rough drafts. You should use your sandbox while it's in the rough draft stage instead of this talk page. The problem with constantly updating the text you've posted above is that it throws off the feedback section that has already accumulated responses. Some will no longer make sense as you make requested improvements. At the very least, you should consider striking out text that was in the original proposal instead of just removing/changing. See WP:REDACT for proper talk page etiquette. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

An actual proposal

This would go under reception, either after Microsoft response or after critical reception

Allegations of inaccurate game portrayals

During E3 2013, a photo from the show floor emerged showing a demo booth for LocoCycle having crashed to a Windows 7 desktop—running on a HP personal computer with a Nvidia graphics card, rather than actual Xbox One hardware. The photo resulted in allegations that all of Microsoft's Xbox One demos at E3 were running on such hardware—thus misrepresenting the quality of the game when running on actual Xbox One hardware. A spokesperson for the game's developer, the Microsoft-owned Twisted Pixel Games, denied this was the case, and stated that it was an isolated situation specific to Twisted Pixel and LocoCycle.[1] At Gamescom 2014, a similar incident occured with a display that allegedly ran Ori and the Blind Forest on Xbox One, but was again, actually on a PC.[2] Microsoft had used Power Mac G5 computers for demonstration units of Xbox 360 games at E3 2005 (taking advantage of similarities in their overall hardware, such as their use of PowerPC processors), although in this case the computers downgraded the quality of demos due to the limitations of their graphics cards.[3][4]

In 2015, an Xbox-branded YouTube channel posted footage of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt; despite the game's studio stating that the game would run at 900p resolution at 30 frames per second on Xbox One, the video portrayed 1080p gameplay at 60 frames per second captured from its PC version, implying it was the Xbox One version. Following complaints, a Microsoft spokesperson stated that the footage had been provided by CD Projekt Red and confirmed it showed the PC footage, and stated that Microsoft "no way intended to misrepresent the title on Xbox One". A video was re-issued with a disclaimer stating that the footage was from the PC version.[5]

  1. ^ "Were Xbox One E3 Demos Powered by Windows 7 and Nvidia Graphics?". Maximum PC. June 16, 2013. Retrieved 23 June 2015.
  2. ^ "Microsoft Uses PCs to Showcase Xbox Game at Gamescom". Maximum PC. Retrieved 23 June 2015.
  3. ^ "E3 2005 - Day 1: The Xbox 360 Update". Anandtech. Retrieved 23 June 2015.
  4. ^ "Xbox 360 demos running on Macs". CNET. Retrieved 23 June 2015.
  5. ^ "Microsoft Apologizes for Confusion Over 1080p/60fps Witcher 3 Footage on Xbox Channel". GameSpot. Retrieved 23 June 2015.

If it is included at all... ViperSnake151  Talk  03:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Feedback (Proposal 3)
  • Comment – ViperSnake151, well done. If I had to vote for one, this would be it. Unbiased and straight to the point. However, I still have concerns that the information holds little weight in the scope of an Xbox One article, but if the consensus sides with its inclusion, this is by far the best option (albeit, a shorter version most likely), --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I feel the same. I don't really believe it needs to be in at all, but if it does, this would be the version. Its based off the sources, which are reliable, and is worded neutrally, like an excerpt from an encyclopedia, not an anger-fuel opinion piece from a messageboard... Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Feel a bit like a broken record, but I once again agree with GoneIn60 and Sergecross73. -- ferret (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Even this feels far too damning and bloated for such a minor footnote that really isn't even about the console itself. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It's getting closer. If there were section on marketing, it would fit best there. It could be trimmed further... –xenotalk 18:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Suggested trim
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Allegations of inaccurate game portrayals

During E3 2013, an Xbox One game demo was shown to be running on PCs rather than actual Xbox One hardware, resulting in allegations that all demos were running on such hardware (potentially misrepresenting the quality of the games), however the developer in question stated that it was isolated to one game[1]; a similar incident occured at Gamescom 2014.[2] Microsoft previously used Power Mac G5 computers for demonstration units of Xbox 360 games at E3 2005[3][4]

In 2015, a video was posted to the Xbox YouTube channel showing The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt that appeared to have been captured from the PC version. Following complaints, a Microsoft spokesperson stated the footage was "in no way intended to misrepresent the title on Xbox One" and that they had updated the description of the video to confirm the platform.[5]

  1. ^ "Were Xbox One E3 Demos Powered by Windows 7 and Nvidia Graphics?". Maximum PC. June 16, 2013. Retrieved 23 June 2015.
  2. ^ "Microsoft Uses PCs to Showcase Xbox Game at Gamescom". Maximum PC. Retrieved 23 June 2015.
  3. ^ "E3 2005 - Day 1: The Xbox 360 Update". Anandtech. Retrieved 23 June 2015.
  4. ^ "Xbox 360 demos running on Macs". CNET. Retrieved 23 June 2015.
  5. ^ "Microsoft Apologizes for Confusion Over 1080p/60fps Witcher 3 Footage on Xbox Channel". GameSpot. Retrieved 23 June 2015.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2015

Xbox one amount sold is inaccurate an needs to be updated. It currently shows 2013 numbers. DelilahHD (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't have newer numbers published from Microsoft, otherwise we would have updated already. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 07:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Yup, exactly. The Vita page has the same problem. The figures can't be updated until they are actually released. (Estimates, and numbers that included other products in the figure, cannot be used here.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of software info

Articles consisting solely of details surrounding a game console's operating system, software, and changelog have been declared WP:GAMECRUFT per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_99#Category:Game_console_operating_systems, and have been deleted and redirected by Czar (talk · contribs) per assumed consensus. Please discuss this action on WT:VG if you have any comments or concerns. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I wonder why the move (only) takes place now when the said discussion was over 2 years old. Articles for details surrounding a game console's operating system have been updated quite frequently over these years to reflect new changes etc, and I wonder why they are suddenly all removed completely? --Cartakes (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
VS agrees with the merge. It took two years because there's no rush. The rationale hasn't changed. – czar 16:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
No, VS tried to used Afd ([12]) instead of sudden removal of contents by you. It is not about whether they agreed with merge or not, but about sudden removal of all these articles (in fact, this is what I primarily question too). You think there is no rush within these over 2 years, but all contributions of other users in these articles in these years are lost. --Cartakes (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The AFD was after the deletions, but Czar told me my nomination was invalid because I did not "advance an argument for deletion" and no one else argued for deletion. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • all contributions of other users in these articles in these years are lost The articles aren't deleted, just redirected. Feel free to take its contents under a cc-by-sa license and import them to Wikia or somewhere else. We don't maintain changelogs here. – czar 17:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if articles like History of Firefox and History of the Opera web browser are changelogs too and if they should exist in Wikipedia. --Cartakes (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Parts of them need to be blown up sure, though the basic article concept is okay. Just needs to be written in prose, stick to the major details, use secondary sources instead of primary source minutiae. – czar 18:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

About my old, unfavored image (a comparing-Xbox One-to-PlayStation 4 image)...

Was the only problem that it was off-topic? If it were, I would apologize, for I did not realize that. Otherwise, I would have stopped myself from adding that in the first place. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Considering that you asked for the previous section to be archived as a matter of embarrassment, I'm not sure why you're bringing it back up. Although I would agree it was off topic and unnecessary, in my eyes the primary issue was that an image attempting to show differences in graphics quality at maximum resolution cannot be a compressed image. Any actual difference between the platforms is impossible to see because image compression has ruined it and introduced artifacts. -- ferret (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

If This Article Ought Not to Have this image: File:Xbox One interface.jpg,...

...should we also get rid of one screenshot of the PlayStation 4 interface? Both images in my opinion may be pertinent, but I find them notable for both articles' subjects, but others may disagree, so I want to know whether these images really are noteworthy. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

We have a separate article for both system's individual system softwre, that's where the images should be had, not on the console page. --MASEM (t) 04:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The image was removed because it is out of date and does not reflect current software. Additionally, this is not intended as an all-or-nothing scenario. But thenagain, as the information on specific functionality was inexplicably trimmed, it no longer meets WP:NFCC#8. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It has hereby been moved. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Xbox One interface.jpg Screenshot's been updated. I kept forgetting to take another one for Wikipedia since Windows 10 came out. (Though I have had the preview for months...) Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The lead is misleading

"The Xbox One is a home video game console developed by Microsoft"
the very first line of the article states it's a "home video game console"
however Microsoft have promoted the device as an "all in one multimedia device"
for the living room, that has the ability to play games and media. I think stating
in the lead that it's a "home video game console" and not a "multimedia device"
is very misleading 77.100.129.163 (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

First parties often use all sorts of promotional wording for their products, sometimes accurate, sometimes misleading. Point being, their primary interest is in promoting and selling their product, not necessarily the hard facts. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia emphasizes documenting things according to what neutral, unaffiliated third parties say. I have no problem with working "multimedia device" somewhere in the wording too, as its not wrong, but I think there's little doubt that the product's primary function is as a video game console. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Describing it primarily as such would be a violation of the neutral point of view, as it only factors in Microsoft's perspective on the device, and not the general consensus by reliable sources that this primarily is a video game console with multimedia features. In fact, the lead already states that "Microsoft and various publications have classified the device as an "all-in-one entertainment system", also making it a competitor to other digital media players, such as the Apple TV and Google TV platforms" ViperSnake151  Talk  17:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
In addition to above, we have to keep in mind that MS started talking about the XBox One as a multimedia center that put games second to entertainment when they first announced it, which got a big backlash and caused MS to readjust their pitch of the unit to be a gaming system that can be the center of the living room entertainment system. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

ok, no problem, I concede the point 77.100.129.163 (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Out of Date Figure Template?

Kinda sitting here mulling over the sales figures again but I'm puzzled thinking does there exist a template of sorts similar to *blank* needed for an old figure? Not so much to have someone shovel in VGChartz again but more to inform the reader that we've nary a clue what current figures are like. Anyone? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 06:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't Template:As of basically act in the capability of marking potentially dated information? -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
We could add a footnote of sorts to explain the sales figure problem, using {{efn}} template, as used in articles like Final Fantasy VII Remake to denote the "additional help" type development support info. In it, we could make a comment that the figure is outdated because no new official figures have been released. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I tried adding something for this. Thoughts? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 21:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks good to me. (And not a moment too soon, with that rumored figure continually being added to the article recently...) Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Xbox One sales

Let's come down to reality for a minute. If anyone has been following Microsoft's PR, then it is clear they're not going to reveal sell through figures anytime soon. With this in mind, it isn't practical to stick with the 3 million 2013 figure when albeit 3rd party but reliable sources have given sales figures. In my opinion, that's what should be on the page, with a note specifically stating that the sales figures is based on third party sources. And this would not be the only wikipedia page to do so. In other words, if other wikipedia articles use 3rd party sources to verify information, the application should be allowed here too. Osh33m (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It can actually be on the page, but it needs to be in the prose with context, explaining how its a third party estimate, and the who/how/why they come up with that number. The part in the infobox is for confirmed information, not individual, unconnected guesses. This issue is not specific to Xbox One - the same issue occurs at the Vita article as well. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I will do that then. And we should stick with it unless microsoft comes out with an official number but like I said, it seems highly unlikely anytime soon. it is foolish and nonsensical not to include ea's numbers. Osh33m (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I've restored the official numbers in the Infobox, as your last undo removed them again. -- ferret (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that, as there's clearly no consensus to put estimates in the infobox. Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Here's a link http://www.techtimes.com/articles/123375/20160112/xbox-one-sales-hit-18-million-report.htm -- User:Ortwl (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
That's still an estimate and unverifiable count, which even Mary Jo Foley says she can't confirm. -- ferret (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand that MJF can't confirm, but leaving the figure at 3 million is entirely misleading. A January 2016 article in Ars Technica reports that an EA exec indicated Xbox One console sales are up to 19 million. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/01/ea-lets-slip-li--fetime-xbox-one-and-ps4-consoles-sales/ -- Scipio82 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
That's also an unofficial third party estimate. -- ferret (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to add an estimate or two in the prose with proper context, but leave it out of the official sales area. Blame Microsoft for not releasing official info. As mentioned before, the same problem occurs with Sony's PlayStation Vita, so it's not just a Microsoft thing either. Sergecross73 msg me 03:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Compatibility in the lede?

That edit of adding the number of BC games got me thinking. Should we mention the idea of backwards compatibility in the lede? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 04:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

IPA spelling for consoles

There is an on-going discussion about this in the Wii U article talk page, I refer to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wii_U#Wee_Ew.3F --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Operating system

Why dont we call it Xbox OS 3? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vargskelethor (talk • contribs) 05:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there a source that says that's the official name? If not... -- ferret (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
We go by whatever Microsoft names it or what reliable third party sources refer to it as. Do either call it that? Sergecross73 msg me 12:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xbox One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Xbox One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sales were down 33% for the three-month period ending June 2016

I want to add to the sales section that sales were down 33% for the three-month period ending June 2016. Does anyone disagree with adding this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.148.146 (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I do, because you put it in without the context of "Because the S is coming soon." Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! I fixed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.77.203 (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
You keep blanking this. But, hiding this information breaks the neutrality of the article. Could you provide a good reasoning to hide this information? Otherwise I will have to revert your blanking. 88.109.65.154 (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Please propose wordings here on the talk page, and only re-add it if there is consensus to do so. Slapping a "Because S model" still isn't the best description as to what's happening here. You need to word things much better. For example, it's only Eurogamer's speculation that the new models are causing this, it shouldn't be worded as fact. There's also the issue that "revenue" is what is down, not necessarily "sales", which to many sounds like "unit sales", which isn't confirmed as far as I know. Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Until the S actually comes out and sales level off, this is trivial at best. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that was another thing I was going to say. It is a rather small decrease, over the course of a rather small period of time. (33% decrease in 3 month period in a lifespan that is 3 years long now, and will probably 6-8 years total, isn't really the most important sales trend.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Updating the Total sales?

I'm pretty sure that the sales are majorly known as a lot higher than you have it, maybe its time for the sales list to hit a higher mark on wiki so people know the reality, also the Xbox One S should be shown a bit better as it has 4K optimisation for shows. This also is a Entertainment System as well as a Gaming System so maybe try putting in correct information as this is like looking at wrong allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalebsmith1999 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You're free to update whatever information if you can find reliable sources that back it up, but I can almost guarantee that there aren't any more updated sales figures. It's been discussed endlessly in the talk page archives. Microsoft refuses to release updated sales figures. So we can't update the official total. We have the same issue at the Vita article. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Xbox One Elite Controller image awful

For someone who has a good camera and an Xbox One Elite Controller, could you please upload a better version of my image. My image looks awful, given that it has been taken with my iPod Touch 5th Generation (and that is one reason why I would like to get myself a high-quality camera sometime). Gamingforfun365 (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I am going to bump the thread as there has been no response since the above post. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
We should ping @Evan-Amos:, the editor that has contributed most of our video game hardware images to see if this can be fixed. --MASEM (t) 02:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I would also ping @Evan-Amos: to help because my picture is just potato (slang for "low-quality"). Gamingforfun365 (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Updated sales figures with CNBC source

I accidentally wrote disputed source, this is undisputed, CNBC is reliable and the figures need updating. Do not revert without discussion. Here is the source. Valoem talk contrib 03:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think the concern is where they got that number, since no figure like that has ever been announced by Microsoft... Sergecross73 msg me 03:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Does the information released by Microsoft conflict with this figure? Microsoft should be doing this annually why hasn't the number been updated to the current year? Valoem talk contrib 03:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Microsoft hasn't released figures in years. There have been many rumored figures, and CNBC is likely using one of them. The last confirmed sales number from Microsoft was 3 million, and the last official number for units shipped (During a conference by a MS rep) was 10 million. -- ferret (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Therefore we can never updated the figures? CNBC is considered RS by all standards do you have the discussion link which determined all sources not Microsoft as unreliable? Valoem talk contrib 03:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Many reliable sources have quoted incorrect sales figures in the past. CNBC is making a passing mention with no details or sourcing information, while discussing a completely different console. It just isn't a suitable source for this. We have much better sources that discuss where these figures come from, and they all reveal that they are sourced to unofficial third party estimates and rumors, most even directly sourcing to VGChartz which is deemed unreliable by project consensus. We know Microsoft hasn't released any figures, so CNBC cannot have official figures, and they give us no information on how they got the figures. -- ferret (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
You don't find a figure from 2013 to be completely outdated? Can you please cited where reliable sources specifically from CNBC have been wrong regarding sales with a linked discussion. Per WP:RS the information I added plus the quality of the source should be undisputed. Valoem talk contrib 03:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Take it easy. It's not that CNBC is unreliable on a whole - they're a massive news corporation, so of course they're going to meet the requirements of being a Wikipedia reliable source. That being said, that doesn't make them infallible or an absolute truth here. It's not crazy to question a figure that hasn't been reported anywhere else about a company that said they'll no longer announce said figures... Sergecross73 msg me 03:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot be blamed if reliable sources are incorrect, if that was the case we wouldn't be able to write an article on anything. I dislike being reverted when I am the only person citing policy why that figure should be allowed. I believe that the number should stay unless someone cites policy why a reliable source cannot be added to update a 2013 sales figure. Valoem talk contrib 03:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

As I was mentioning at the talk page of the WikiProject, I think I can see what happened here:

  1. Microsoft announces they won't release new sales figures for the console. Years pass, and no figures come out.
  2. Today, an analyst speculates on the sales.
  3. Today, CNBC announces sales figures that match the estimates exactly.
I think it's pretty easy to piece together what happened - the source reported the estimates as actual sales figures. Sergecross73 msg me 04:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
You are making presumptions saying is reliable source might not be accurate not that the publisher passes WP:RS. Unless you show me a discussion where total sales requires a primary source it is safe for me to revert back. Valoem talk contrib 07:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
No, you are not within your right to revert back - discussion is on-going and you don't have a WP:CONSENSUS in your favor right now, neither here or at WP:VG. As I've said, it's perfectly within policy to discuss the content and accuracy of sources. There's reason to doubt the figure, so it's reasonable to request further sources to back up the claim. Further research has only shown further reason to doubt the figure so far. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Also keep in mind the article in question is about Sony's dominance in the market, based on Sony's own numbers. Knowing MS does hold actual sales numbers very close to their chest, we have to be wary of any number that can't be directly backed up by MS particularly in an article detailing the competitor. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
That was one of my issues as well, when this source was used for Xbox One and Wii U. It's an article about the PlayStation 4, only mentioning the other two for a short sentence about sales that has no context. It's much too weak and passing of a mention to source this. Multiple other sources discussing the PS4 50 million mark either don't mention the other consoles, or directly note that we don't know the Xbox One figures, such as Verge does (Also an RS), or Engadget does (Also an RS). All the other RS's clearly note 25-30 million Xbox Sales are estimates. -- ferret (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
So it better to give the number from 2013 then a possibly an estimate with mention that it is an estimate? There are clearly multiple reliable sources citing an estimate, we think it is better to not mention this and keep it at the 3 million mark which is clearly outdated? Valoem talk contrib 17:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, confirmed older data is better than unconfirmed new data. As mentioned at the WikiProject, feel free to add a sentence to the prose with proper context saying that analysts predict it's around 30 million. You just can't update the official figure on it. I've had to do the same thing at the PS Vita article I maintain... Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

What sources say that Project Scorpio is a competitor of Neo?

The article says that Microsoft's Xbox One Project Scorpio is said to be a competitor to Sony's PlayStation 4 Neo, but it does not provide sources that describe the hardware revision as such. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, on a conceptual level, PS4 competes with Xbox One, so why wouldn't their variants? On a sourcing level, it seems like it'd be pretty easy to source... Sergecross73 msg me 01:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Xbox One once nominated for IGN People's Choice Award

On IGN's website, IGN asked its readers to vote in several categories which part of the consoles and which console are better, with the winning console receiving the IGN People's Choice Award, and the Xbox One lost every category to its rival. Do you support or oppose the inclusion of the non-critic reception? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Opposed. Essentially a user generated poll, which can be influenced by canvasing and bot efforts. -- ferret (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"PS4 requires PlayStation Plus for such functionality"

Regarding a recent edit ViperSnake151 reverted and left the following message on my talk page. I'm moving it here for discussion. — TPX 20:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, all notable perspectives published by reliable secondary sources must be adknowledged within an article. Thus, the Xbox One article's use of contrasts to the PS4 Pro is approriate, especially in a section covering a review whose main intent was to compare it to PS4 to begin with. Plus, it is absolutely worth noting that despite a criticism of Xbox One S's lack of 4K content sources, the fact that it is the only console right now to support Ultra HD Blu-ray Disc is absolutely a notable comparison.ViperSnake151  Talk  15:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's look at this from a different angle for one moment. What if I were to proceed to PlayStation 4 and insert bracketed remarks stating that "Xbox One requires Xbox Live Gold for voice communication and party chat functionality...", or "Xbox One requires Xbox Live Gold in order to play free-to-play games online...", or "Xbox One requires Xbox Live Gold to save your edited DVR clips to the cloud..."? Every one of these statements is supported by a reliable source, and PlayStation Plus is not required for similar functionality on PS4. How about pointing out that—unlike every PS4—the original Xbox One is not a HDR capable device, or when offering an account of PSVR digressing to highlight the lack of VR functionality on Xbox One? — TPX 20:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, when you put it this way ... I guess it actually is undue to make these statements in the article, because it implies a pro-Microsoft POV by disrapaging a competitor in the midst of neutral discussion of the subject. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

IGN's review for Xbox One S

This review for the Xbox One S here may contain useful details. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I am going to summarize the key points below so that editors considering adding the information will know what to write down:
  • Ryan McCaffrey: reviewer
  • Trimmed down fat: praised
  • 4k Blu-Ray and streaming: praised
  • HDR support: praised
  • Controller Bluetooth support: praised
  • Internal power supply: praised
  • Upscaling everything to 4k: praised
  • No native Kinect port: criticized
  • Screen loading times: criticized
  • Score: 8.5/10
Gamingforfun365 (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Anyone in favor of adding this review? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"Project Scorpio" to support all Xbox One games

"Project Scorpio" is only a hardware revision of the Xbox One, not a successor thereof or a ninth-generation console, obviously meaning that all the Xbox One games will run on the upcoming system, and the article states that all the Xbox One games will run on the upcoming system, which seems needless to say for me. Thoughts? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

My point is that it is essentially an Xbox One that will run all Xbox One games. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Everything you say is correct, but I think the comment should remain, as there are a lot of misconceptions on this. Some people inexplicably seem to think it's a new system, based on a number of discussions I've had related to Switch and the video game generations. Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Project Scorpio DX12 Hardware

I don't know if this should go in the hardware table or in the body of the description. Scorpio has an impressive piece of hardware in it called the "GPU Command Processor".

"We essentially moved Direct3D 12," says Goossen. "We built that into the command processor of the GPU and what that means is that, for all the high frequency API invocations that the games do, they'll all natively implemented in the logic of the command processor - and what this means is that our communication from the game to the GPU is super-efficient."

Processing draw calls - effectively telling the graphics hardware what to draw - is one of the most important tasks the CPU carries out. It can suck up a lot of processor resources, a pipeline that traditionally takes thousands - perhaps hundreds of thousands - of CPU instructions. With Scorpio's hardware offload, any draw call can be executed with just 11 instructions, and just nine for a state change." [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptwinters (talk • contribs) 11:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not unique to Scorpio. The same capability is included in the Xbox One and Xbox One S. This is an evolution of that feature. [13] — TPX 12:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-project-scorpio-tech-revealed
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xbox_One/Archive_3&oldid=1136222965"