How the Xbox One draws more processing power from cloud computing

Ars also talks to Microsoft about the integration of Kinect and RAM allocation.

Read the whole story

 

[lordcheeto]

DaveSimmons[/url]":1mbxgxj7]

Xavin[/url]":1mbxgxj7]

Well I understand what he's saying about always having a Kinect for personalization, it does seem a little creepy to me to always have a camera and microphone pointed at me while in the living room.

Realistically, your laptop, webcam, phone, and tablet are looking at you and listening to you all the time now, people just don't think about it that way. The XBOne should be much more difficult to hack than all those devices, so I don't see anything to worry about.

Nope. My phone, tablet, laptop don't listen to me or watch me when they are turned off. Kinect is always listening.

Kinect is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid it can't do that.

msm8bball[/url]":1mbxgxj7]

Crux[/url]":1mbxgxj7]

msm8bball[/url]":1mbxgxj7]
I do however believe that like every cloud based gaming scheme it is a good form of DRM.

Even at 300,000 it isn't enough it would still only be fractions of a second. To give end users a noticeable difference you would need to be able to perform minutes if not have a dedicated server for every user.

Why would every console need a dedicated server? Servers with beefy amounts of RAM and CPU/GPU power could handle dozens-hundreds of users at a time.

Absolutely. Also keep in mind that the current Xbox Live only has 150,000 servers.

Baumi[/url]":1mbxgxj7]

A laptop would be cheaper without a keyboard, but you wouldn’t think of doing it without it, right?

Did he just diss Microsoft Surface?

...the only tablet that comes with a keyboard built into the cover?

 

[lordcheeto]

Seraphiel[/url]":798wk4ne]
So we've found a way to make your friend pay, again, for something you already bought.

Oh, egads! While you're clutching your pearls in horror, why don't you get your moral compass checked? Your friend has no right to play your game unless that's what the developer intended (e.g. splitscreen multiplayer).

 

[lordcheeto]

Seraphiel[/url]":1qw02h3n]

lordcheeto[/url]":1qw02h3n]

Seraphiel[/url]":1qw02h3n]
So we've found a way to make your friend pay, again, for something you already bought.

Oh, egads! While you're clutching your pearls in horror, why don't you get your moral compass checked? Your friend has no right to play your game unless that's what the developer intended (e.g. splitscreen multiplayer).

Umm... Maybe in whatever backwater you're living in, but over here we have a fairly well-established first sale doctrine. Publishers have been trying for decades to destroy it (and MS may have found a way here) but for now it still stands.

If I buy an object (a book, a movie, a game, a blender) it is mine to give or sell to anyone I choose. The publisher/manufacturer doesn't get any input into the decision. They got their money from me and that object is no longer any concern of theirs.

The first sale doctrine is an entirely different issue. This is more of an issue of public performance.

Where's the limit? If you lend your game to a friend, fully expecting to receive it back when they're done with it, then you're crossing a line. The difficulty in establishing a litmus test for that line doesn't invalidate it. The difficulty in enforcing that line in traditional mediums doesn't invalidate it.

Yes, this is the way that it's been done; with books, movies, games, etc., but an honest society should strive to enforce that line in the mediums that allow it. It's going to be difficult to nail down a compromise, but the current free-for-all goes too far, no matter how much we like it. Steam goes too far in the other direction (there should be the ability to transfer licenses to competing distribution platforms).