Xbox One Console Discussion

[Hero-of-Time]

Another price cut has now happened here in the UK.

 

You can now pick up a standard Xbox One console for as little as £329.99 in the UK. That's £20 less than the console's previous official price point.

 

The new price is now live on the official Microsoft Store site and is also reflected on third-party retailers such as Amazon.

 

Less than a year out and it's dropped £100. They really are trying to make up for lost ground.

[Sheikah]

To be fair, I think that's kind of what it should have released at (and not have gone with Kinect). I think they would have done well to sell it for that.

 

Hopefully the bundles will update since quite a few deals are selling consoles for around 330-350 with a game already.

[Hero-of-Time]

To be fair, I think that's kind of what it should have released at (and not have gone with Kinect). I think they would have done well to sell it for that.

 

Hopefully the bundles will update since quite a few deals are selling consoles for around 330-350 with a game already.

 

Yup, that was the price it should have been. It's nuts because they essentially threw it all away by going with Kinect.

 

It will be hard to get back to where they were with the 360 due to people investing in a PS4 first. It's like a chain reaction, once one person picks one up then their friend will, then his friend and so on and so forth. People tend to go where the crowd is and where they can play with their friends.

[Sheikah]

It's odd, both the Wii U and X1 have a lot to blame on a peripheral here. Hopefully this is a message to console developers to make these sort of gimmicky peripherals optional in future...and stick to quality gaming.

[Dcubed]

It's odd, both the Wii U and X1 have a lot to blame on a peripheral here. Hopefully this is a message to console developers to make these sort of gimmicky peripherals optional in future...and stick to quality gaming.

 

Xbox One's main albatross around its neck wasn't really Kinect, it was the DRM monster that it threatened to unleash at E3 that turned people away towards the PS4 mainly.

 

Of course the higher price didn't help, but it's not like the more expensive console has never stomped the competition before. Look at the PS2 vs the Xbox. There, Microsoft had the cheaper AND the more powerful console and still got destroyed by the competition (granted, they were late - as was Nintendo, who likewise had a cheaper and more powerful console - but still).

 

Sony won the mindshare battle right at the beginning with the E3 unveils and the effect has continued to snowball ever since. They're winning purely because Microsoft fucked up so incredibly badly back then and have scrambled to salvage what they could from the mess they made back at E3 2013. Not unlike Sony's own fumble back at the now legendary E3 2006 conference.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

Xbox One's main albatross around its neck wasn't really Kinect, it was the DRM monster that it threatened to unleash at E3 that turned people away towards the PS4 mainly.

 

Of course the higher price didn't help, but it's not like the more expensive console has never stomped the competition before. Look at the PS2 vs the Xbox. There, Microsoft had the cheaper AND the more powerful console and still got destroyed by the competition (granted, they were late - as was Nintendo, who likewise had a cheaper and more powerful console - but still).

 

The biggest issue was the price, without doubt, which was all down to the Kinect. At £80 more than the technically superior PS4, it was borderline ridiculous pricing considering most people didn't really care much for Kinect anymore. Most people aren't going to pay £80 more for a lower spec console that plays many of the same games the other one does.

 

As shown by what they actually did, they could drop the DRM policies in a heartbeat. It definitely hurt their image, but at least they could turn that around easily (plus there are many people who, unlike us forumers, just aren't as aware of bothered about DRM stuff). Not so with the price - they either couldn't or just didn't drop the Kinect when it released, meaning the console was £80 more expensive, meaning it was a bit of a no brainer for many really.

[Hero-of-Time]

Xbox One's main albatross around its neck wasn't really Kinect, it was the DRM monster that it threatened to unleash at E3 that turned people away towards the PS4 mainly.

 

Of course the higher price didn't help, but it's not like the more expensive console has never stomped the competition before. Look at the PS2 vs the Xbox. There, Microsoft had the cheaper AND the more powerful console and still got destroyed by the competition (granted, they were late - as was Nintendo, who likewise had a cheaper and more powerful console - but still).

 

As you pointed out though, they were late to the party. It was also their first console and I imagine consumers were wary. Had it not been for Live and Halo 2 I don't think it would have been as popular as it was. I know so many people who bought it just for online gaming.

[Sheikah]

Look at the PS2 vs the Xbox.

 

Very poor comparison, there are many reasons why the PS2 took over and none of which really have any bearing on two consoles released simultaneously with similar gaming libraries like in the case here.

[Hero-of-Time]

The biggest issue was the price, without doubt, which was all down to the Kinect. At £80 more than the technically superior PS4, it was borderline ridiculous pricing considering most people didn't really care much for Kinect anymore. Most people aren't going to pay £80 more for a lower spec console that plays many of the same games the other one does.

 

As shown by what they actually did, they could drop the DRM policies in a heartbeat. It definitely hurt their image, but at least they could turn that around easily (plus there are many people who, unlike us forumers, just aren't as aware of bothered about DRM stuff). Not so with the price - they either couldn't or just didn't drop the Kinect when it released, meaning the console was £80 more expensive, meaning it was a bit of a no brainer for many really.

 

I think price is key to the general public. If you have two machines arriving at the same time and both are pretty much the same, the general punter is gonna go for the cheaper option. £80 is a hell of a difference.

[Dcubed]

Specs aren't the deciding factor here, it's moreso the mindshare snowball effect.

 

I don't really need to point out how the weakest console has always won every single generation (higher priced or otherwise) surely? I mean, yeah, this generation looks to be the one exception in the industry's entire history, but that comes down to a much wider range of factors that all stem from that initial unveil and the massive pushback against it.

 

That day decided the entire future of this console generation right from the get go. It wasn't really the price difference, so much as it was the outcry against what MS were trying to do with their DRM. All that trust and faith in the Xbox brand that they had been building up for over a decade was shattered overnight and the mindshare had shifted more or less entirely over to Sony.

 

Any attempt to claw that back has been far too slow and far too late as the damage had already been done. Even if the Xbone was £200-250, with the PS4 still being £350, they would still be struggling because Sony own the mindshare of this market segment. Your friends already own PS4s because they got in early when the Xbox brand was in tatters and now you have to follow them if you want to be able to play alongside them. Even now with it being cheaper than a PS4, it's still getting its arse kicked by Sony, because Xbox is a damaged brand.

 

It's not that dissimilar from PS2/Xbox when you think about it. Xbox One wasn't really a viable option against the PS4 at the start and now when it's actually cheaper than the competition, it's too late as Sony have already won over your friends and the mindshare of the market at large. It's that same first mover advantage as in gen 6, albeit manifesting itself in a different way this time around.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Dcubed

[Hero-of-Time]

That day decided the entire future of this console generation right from the get go. It wasn't really the price difference, so much as it was the outcry against what MS were trying to do with their DRM. All that trust and faith in the Xbox brand that they had been building up for over a decade was shattered overnight and the mindshare had shifted more or less entirely over to Sony.

 

I doubt Joe Public had any idea about the DRM stuff. All they seen was the price difference. This was certainly the case with the people I know who arent core gamers. After that it was the snowball effect, like you and I have already mentioned.

[Dcubed]

I doubt Joe Public had any idea about the DRM stuff. All they seen was the price difference. This was certainly the case with the people I know who arent core gamers. After that it was the snowball effect, like you and I have already mentioned.

 

But they don't have to have heard about it directly... All they need to see is that first initial burst of early adopters all deciding where to go. They don't really need to know why, they just need to see where the majority of people have decided to go and just follow them.

 

They buy the consoles that their friends buy, so that they can play alongside them. They hear that the PS4 is just better (for whatever reason they hear) and that the majority of players are picking it up and so they follow.

 

The cheapest console is not necessarily the winner. In fact, it often isn't (Mega Drive was cheaper than the SNES and it lost world wide, as did the GCN, the Xbox and the Dreamcast) and the PS3 & 360 were pretty much neck and neck in the end, despite the huge price advantage that the 360 had to begin with.

 

While price is of course an important factor and a big advantage for anyone to have, it is not usually the decisive factor alone. It's usually the other aspects that are more important (exclusive games, rival fuckups like choosing cartridges over CDs, DRM, poor quality game lineups etc).

Edited September 23, 2014 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

'Weaker spec can win' - only applies if the console has something the others don't.

 

Wii had motion controlswhich whipped up a frenzy, PS2 had the early start, exclusive games, early adopters wanting a DVD drive, etc...

 

What does the Xbox One have versus PS4? Most people on here argue a lot that they are basically the same machine. I don't deny, I'm sure a lot of people view it that way too - most tend to have one or the other, with their own online paid accounts and gamerscore/trophies. They are really both vying for the same space, especially since a lot of the biggest selling games (Assassin's Creed, COD, FIFA, Destiny) release on both systems. Sure exclusives can do something, but they're clearly not as big a deal these days. Or at least not right now, since most of them aren't here yet.

 

So when these similalrly targeting machines release at exactly the same time, same sort of architecture (although one more powerful/pulling off better resolutions)... but one is £80 more expensive. Even if it had bad policies, they were dropped, and no doubt they had an effect but for the general populace I sincerely doubt it had anywhere near the impact as the price difference that remained in effect. Think about the average, less informed gamer (bear in mind that FIFA and COD sell shitloads; think about your average gamer who buys those games). Do you really think the DRM (which had since been dropped) was causing them to froth in disgust, or do you think the £80 difference is going to mean more?

Edited September 23, 2014 by Sheikah

[Dcubed]

'Weaker spec can win' - only applies if the console has something the others don't.

 

Wii had motion controls which whipped up a frenzy, PS2 had the early start, exclusive games, early adopters wanting a DVD drive, etc...

 

What does the Xbox One have versus PS4? Most people on here argue a lot that they are basically the same machine. I don't deny, I'm sure a lot of people view it that way too - most tend to have one or the other, with their own online paid accounts and gamerscore/trophies. They are really both vying for the same space, especially since a lot of the biggest selling games (Assassin's Creed, COD, FIFA, Destiny) release on both systems. Sure exclusives can do something, but they're clearly not as big a deal these days. Or at least not right now, since most of them aren't here yet.

 

So when these similalrly targeting machines release at exactly the same time, same sort of architecture (although one more powerful/pulling off better resolutions)... but one is £80 more expensive. Even if it had bad policies, they were dropped, and no doubt they had an effect but for the general populace I sincerely doubt it had anywhere near the impact as the price difference that remained in effect.

 

PS2 battered Xbox and Gamecube, despite offering nothing that the other consoles didn't. PS1 beat the N64, despite being the weaker machine because it had the better software support and far, FAR better marketing positioning amongst the 10-25 male audience (SEGA just shot themselves repeatedly in the foot with the Saturn of course), SNES molested the NeoGeo (yeah, massive price difference - but SNES had like ALL of the software support too) despite being less powerful and without a control gimmick...

 

The Wii won because it appealed to a wider audience with something the competition didn't offer, but that's not to say that the other weaker consoles didn't win for the same reason (and price alone is also not the sole answer). It's a multitude of factors that combine to bring about victory in the end and price is just one of those many factors.

 

Think about the average, less informed gamer (bear in mind that FIFA and COD sell shitloads; think about your average gamer who buys those games). Do you really think the DRM (which had since been dropped) was causing them to froth in disgust, or do you think the £80 difference is going to mean more?

 

I mentioned this in a previous post, but it doesn't matter if Joe Shmuck cares about the DRM now because the damage has already been done. It was the early adopters that decided the course of this generation and they were the ones who really cared about the DRM. Now that they have decided who should lead this generation, their friends are just going to follow where they go, and the market at large will follow where the majority of players are also heading.

 

The snowball effect has already taken over now and at this point, there isn't really much that MS can do to slow it down. Even with the price now working in MS' favour, they're still fighting against a rapid tide that started over 9 months ago.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

PS2 battered Xbox and Gamecube, despite offering nothing that the other consoles didn't.

 

What? PS2 had tons of games that never released on the other consoles! It also had a DVD drive, which was a big bloody deal at the time. Xbox had typically terrible Japanese support, and Japanese gaming was very much still king at the time.

 

Xbox One and PS4 have the same sorts of things going. Neither one has vastly more exclusive games that most people want, nor was one released 2 years before the other!

 

PS1 beat the N64, despite being the weaker machine because it had the better software support and far, FAR better marketing positioning amongst the 10-25 male audience (SEGA just shot themselves repeatedly in the foot with the Saturn of course), SNES molested the NeoGeo (yeah, massive price difference - but SNES had like ALL of the software support too) despite being less powerful and without a control gimmick...

 

Yeah, so the PS1 had more games/third party support, and it went with CDs so the games were cheaper. There's a substantial reason for success - but can you apply such a difference to the X1/PS4 situation?

 

The Wii won because it appealed to a wider audience with something the competition didn't offer, but that's not to say that the other weaker consoles didn't win for the same reason (and price alone is also not the sole answer). It's a multitude of factors that combine to bring about victory in the end and price is just one of those many factors.

 

No offence, but you're basically proving my point here. In each of your examples, you're saying the consoles had something about them that differentiated them (e.g. Wii appealed since it had a novel controller method that lots of people liked, even non-gamers, PS1 and also PS2 had more games/support).

 

Again, let's take this back to the X1 and PS4 - can you claim any such massive advantage one of these consoles has over the other? I can't - we can safely say these machines, at least viewed by the general populace, can substitute each other quite well, and neither got a head start. Like Hero says, outside of the gaming world, the DRM and conference is just a blip that I sincerely doubt most people take anywhere near as seriously as us. It's that £80 difference that is the kicker here. And the reason that matters in this case (unlike in past situations) is because many view the consoles as offering roughly the same experience.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Sheikah

[Cube]

Xbox One's main albatross around its neck wasn't really Kinect, it was the DRM monster that it threatened to unleash at E3 that turned people away towards the PS4 mainly.

 

Way I remember it, an albatross was a ship's good luck, until some idiot killed it.

 

I think it will be a white until either platform has a big enough list of great exclusives to make a huge difference, right now the PS4 seems more successful because they targeted gamers.

[Dcubed]

What? PS2 had tons of games that never released on the other consoles! It also had a DVD drive, which was a big bloody deal at the time. Xbox had typically terrible Japanese support, and Japanese gaming was very much still king at the time.

 

Xbox One and PS4 have the same sorts of things going. Neither one has vastly more exclusive games that most people want, nor was one released 2 years before the other!

 

 

 

Yeah, so the PS1 had more games/third party support, and it went with CDs so the games were cheaper. There's a substantial reason for success - but can you apply such a difference to the X1/PS4 situation?

 

 

 

No offence, but you're basically proving my point here. In each of your examples, you're saying the consoles had something about them that differentiated them (e.g. Wii appealed since it had a novel controller method that lots of people liked, even non-gamers, PS1 and also PS2 had more games/support).

 

Again, let's take this back to the X1 and PS4 - can you claim any such massive advantage one of these consoles has over the other? I can't - we can safely say these machines, at least viewed by the general populace, can substitute each other quite well, and neither got a head start. That £80 difference is the kicker here.

 

The PS1 didn't have any unique hardware gimmick that set it apart from the N64 or the Saturn (in fact it actually stole the analog stick and the rumble from the N64 later on). It was the software support and the marketing behind it that made it the victor, not the cheaper hardware/software alone (in fact, the N64 was selling well above it when it first came out. It wasn't until around late 1997 when the PS1 really took off, where it really got some major exclusives and the N64 suffered a tremendous software drought; and when it really took over the N64's mantle. The PS1 was always cheaper than the N64 and yet it didn't really claim its victory until those other factors really settled in.

 

Likewise the PS2 never had any unique hardware that wasn't matched by the cheaper and more powerful Xbox. The reason why the PS2 won is because the Xbox just came too late (which is why Microsoft were so adamant about beating Sony to the punch with the 360 coming out before the PS3 ("first to 10 million wins" and all that - which ironically actually turns out to be true for the most part )

 

PS4 won because MS just shot themselves in the foot with that initial unveil and when the console was finally put into a position where it could be a viable competitor, it was already too late. Even if there was price parity at launch with the Xbone and PS4 (or even a small advantage in MS' favour), Sony would still be claiming victory today.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

The PS1 didn't have any unique hardware gimmick that set it apart from the N64 (in fact it actually stole the analog stick and the rumble from the N64 later on). It was the software support and the marketing behind it that made it the victor, not the cheaper hardware/software alone

 

Never said it just had to be hardware?

 

I am asking you to produce such a hardware or software support difference between Xbox One and PS4, otherwise these past console battles are bad examples.

 

Because what I'm saying is, the general public view the PS4 and X1 as very similar consoles that will both let them play the vast majority of games that they want to play. Their similarity is boosted by the fact they both need paying accounts and both have a gamerscore system. Neither got a head start, so you can't say one is doing better because of that, either.

 

At the end of the day, I'd say PS4's head start (and continued snowball effect, as friends buy the console their friends have) was mainly influenced by its £80 cheaper price (despite delivering the same games), followed by marketing better (for the gamers/no "TV!"), followed by Microsoft's fuck up. I'd throw PS Plus and better hardware somewhere in there, too. I just don't believe that the DRM issue had anywhere near as much impact on most gamers (especially since it was revoked very quickly!) compared to a considerable difference in the amount of cold, hard cash people had to front, which speaks volumes to literally everyone.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Sheikah

[Dcubed]

Never said it just had to be hardware?

 

I am asking you to produce such a hardware or software support difference between Xbox One and PS4, otherwise these past console battles are bad examples.

 

Because what I'm saying is, the general public view these as very similar consoles that will both let them play the vast majority of games that they want to play. Their similarity is boosted by the fact they both need paying accounts and both have a gamerscore system. Neither got a head start, so you can't say one is doing better because of that, either.

 

At the end of the day, I'd say PS4's head start (and continued snowball effect, as friends buy the console their friends have) was mainly influenced by its £80 cheaper price (despite delivering the same games), followed by marketing better (for the gamers/no "TV!"), followed by Microsoft's fuck up. I just don't believe that the DRM issue had anywhere near as much impact on most gamers compared to a considerable amount cold, hard cash, which speaks volumes to literally everyone.

 

You know that we've never had such similar hardware before, so there's no point in asking that question from me. The point is that these past consoles that were cheaper didn't win purely because they were cheaper. In fact, the PS1 is a perfect example of a console that wasn't winning, even when it was cheaper (which would later go on to win because of other, more important factors).

 

Likewise, the Xbox and GCN lost despite being cheaper AND more powerful (and in the case of the Xbox, matched and surpassed every piece of hardware functionality that the PS2 had - save for backwards compatibility).

 

The hardware and software might be differentiated by very little this time around (outside of GPU grunt, a couple of exclusives here and there, some minor controller functionality & design and the different online services), but that doesn't mean that price alone was the only factor that decided the victor.

 

People were up in arms last year mainly about the DRM, not the price. And although that didn't help, the DRM was the biggest turnoff by far and even after they recinded, the distrust still remained.

 

At that point, the price drops and game bundles made little difference in MS' fortunes. Even now that they have the cheaper console without Kinect, it still makes little difference; and that's because Sony has continued to own the grand majority of the mindshare ever since that E3 2013 conference.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

You know that we've never had such similar hardware before, so there's no point in asking that question from me. The point is that these past consoles that were cheaper didn't win purely because they were cheaper. In fact, the PS1 is a perfect example of a console that wasn't winning, even when it was cheaper (which would later go on to win because of other, more important factors).

 

Bolded part - this has never been a point that has been argued here?

 

I never said all consoles would win out purely because they were cheaper. Rather that in all the other examples you have given, there were significant other reasons why those more expensive consoles did better (out 2 years earlier, better software support, Japanese games, DVD drive). Many reasons and big reasons, too.

 

The main argument here is that those sorts of differences aren't present between the PS4/X1, so now cost really does come into play. The initial huge cost difference for what many perceived to be similar products, as well as the marketing, I think had the biggest effect on what happened. I really don't think the DRM debacle reached Joe Public like it did us. You've got to remember that places like NeoGAF are a small and dedicated base of gamers that don't really speak for all gamers, I really doubt most gamers (who make up the FIFA/COD base) even read gaming blogs!

Edited September 23, 2014 by Sheikah

[Cookyman]

Regardless of what you all think, the fact of the matter is that your arguing has caused the most activity this thread has seen in weeks. There are a mere handful of Xbone owners in this community and they normally have little to talk about.

[Dcubed]

Bolded part - this has never been a point that has been argued here?

 

I never said it would win out purely because it was cheaper, just that in all the other examples you have given, there were significant reasons why those more expensive consoles did better (out 2 years earlier, better software support, Japanese games, DVD drive). Many reasons and big reasons, too. The differences between the consoles here are much smaller, it's mostly down to the initial huge cost difference for what many perceived to be similar products, as well as the marketing. I really don't think the DRM debacle reached Joe Public like it did us. You've got to remember that NeoGAF is a microcosm, I really doubt most gamers (who make up the FIFA/COD base) even read gaming blogs!

 

Yeah, you're right about these differences being much smaller than the past and you're right about these sites not really being representitive of the market at large, but these kinds of stories spread wide and fast these days. The used games video that Sony out out during E3 ended up getting around 4 million views for instance, while many newspapers worldwide were also commenting on the DRM story. Then there's pretty much every gaming focused website and magazine out there and even mainstream news sites like BBC and CNN commenting on the DRM fiasco...

 

But it's not Joe Shmoe who is going to lineup on launch day to get their hands on a console anyway, they'd be buying the console later on. It's that fanatic core audience who would be buying in during that launch window and generating that wind of change. They were the start of the snowball that has continued to roll to this day.

 

And while the price difference is a big factor in that, I'm sure that it's something that could've been overcome if MS had not shot themselves in the foot from the get-go. Remember that MS was the victor from the last generation and coming off from a position of power. They had the reputation for the better online service and the platform of choice for shooters and open world games (the two most popular genres from last gen) and had the more popular console of the two last gen (despite being seen as the weaker console of the two at the start of last gen "Xbox 1.5" and all that), even with Kinect jacking the price up to PS3+ levels on top of being the only one of the two charging for online play last gen. They had the mindshare advantage right up until the great E3 fuckup where they threw it all away.

 

Going into this gen, Sony was the challenger. Without the DRM fiasco on MS' side, they were going into this gen at a disadvantage from a mindshare standpoint and I don't think that price/specs alone would've been enough to turn the tide in their favour. Plus there was also the poor support given to the Vita that people were unhappy with them about too, so that only made things worse for them going into this console gen...

 

Regardless of what you all think, the fact of the matter is that your arguing has caused the most activity this thread has seen in weeks. There are a mere handful of Xbone owners in this community and they normally have little to talk about.

 

Heh, yeah. It is kinda sad to see people not using this thread for much, but I do admit that it IS fun to talk about why MS are in the current situation they're in.

 

Would be nice to see some more positive talk in this thread...

Edited September 23, 2014 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

Yeah, you're right about these differences being much smaller than the past and you're right about these sites not really being representitive of the market at large, but these kinds of stories spread wide and fast these days. The used games video that Sony out out during E3 ended up getting around 4 million views for instance, while many newspapers worldwide were also commenting on the DRM story. Then there's pretty much every gaming focused website and magazine out there and even mainstream news sites like BBC and CNN commenting on the DRM fiasco...

 

But it's not Joe Shmoe who is going to lineup on launch day to get their hands on a console anyway, they'd be buying the console later on. It's that fanatic core audience who would be buying in during that launch window and generating that wind of change. They were the start of the snowball that has continued to roll to this day.

 

Sony shifted a bucket load of consoles very quickly while it was still £80 cheaper. It was advertised in game shops on the high street and people were hungry for the next gen as the previous gen had gone on too long. Not just core gamers who were incensed with MS, but far more people who probably factored that very little. Remastered games on the new consoles were charting number 1 - people were there! Short story, it was selling to far more people than just those incensed by a (revoked) decision made by Microsoft. That price! £350 was a pretty attractive price point for a new piece of powerful kit that could replace your wheezing old PS3 or 360. £430 was pretty insane! Why pay £80 more for a worse machine?

[flameboy]

Regardless of what you all think, the fact of the matter is that your arguing has caused the most activity this thread has seen in weeks. There are a mere handful of Xbone owners in this community and they normally have little to talk about.

 

There's the reason I barely post here anymore! I got an Xbox One because there is a bigger Microsoft presence here but this place doesn't service me anymore!

[Cookyman]

There's the reason I barely post here anymore! I got an Xbox One because there is a bigger Microsoft presence here but this place doesn't service me anymore!

 

We miss you Flamey, we do.

We miss you Flamey, we do.

We miss you Flamey, we do.

Oh Flamey we miss you.

(so flog the Xbone and get a PS4)

XXX