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

 

[Telekenesis]

The only reason why they are even doing this is they know their system is inferior in specs (RAM, -50% GPU and 3 GB system bloat could equal being 2X less powerful) and is only going to get worse in the future and it's going to be an ever growing issue; hence this discussion. It's simply a proof of concept.

This is all about making up for - poorly - in deficiencies in the system. Cloud does not equal in any way shape or form, or imagination, or fever dream the power of actual silicon, ready to use as the PS4 has.

This also brings up it being tied to DRM (the cloud) to make up for its inherent deficiencies which only makes its deficiencies worse and even more inconvenient.

 

[auxilio]

Telekenesis[/url]":2smwan9w]The only reason why they are even doing this is they know their system is inferior in specs and is only going to get worse in the future and it's going to be an ever growing issue; hence this discussion. It's simply a proof of concept.

Since when has inferior specs been a problem? You might be right, Microsoft may be worried about PS4 having better specs. But I would say that worrying would be unjustified.

Original Xbox was more powerful than PS2, but sold less.
PS3 is more powerful than Xbox 360, but they're about even in sales.
My statistics are from Wikipedia.

It is my personal opinion that people do not buy consoles based on technical specs, but rather the features and how many of their friends have that console. Gamers interested in the latest hardware would be better suited to PC gaming.

 

[Seraphiel]

msm8bball[/url]":1r105lcu]

dct1700d[/url]":1r105lcu]
I will never understand attitudes like yours…all I can think is that you must not be much over 25 years old.
Tell me the “necessary” reasoning behind forcing someone to pay twice for a game?
I used to swap games with people, specifically to try it out for a week…sometimes I’d even…GASP…rent games to try before I invested the money in buying them.
I guess in your mind that makes me a pirate.
YOU many not mind publishers getting more money in an unethical way, but I sure as hell do.
The only reason for instituting this is for money, like others have said. The entire history of video gaming has been the old way until recently. Hell I used to lend out my PC games back in the late 90s and early into the 2000s.
Attitudes like this are what will cause even you, eventually to object to some new restraint, but at that point it will be much too late. Just don’t come back here whining when it happens…you will have earned it.

So you're saying you occasionally want to try games out before playing them? There's a word for that. I believe the word started with an S. Nope, nope, I'm remembering correctly now. It was a T. Trail. Nope.....trial! You want to play trials of games before you buy them! Xbox 360 games sometimes had trials you could download, I see no reason to think why that would be discontinued for this generation.

My problem with freely exchanging games, is that you can play through the game once and be done with it, and then give it to a friend permanently (or long enough to beat the entire thing). That's lost money for the publishers/developers that they are fairly entitled to. You're saying it's unethical for them to make money when someone plays their games.

That isn't a problem, it's a feature that we, as a civilized society, have chosen to protect.

The madness you describe would eliminate libraries entirely, because the notion of lending a book to someone is lost money for publishers.

Nobody said it's unethical for them to make money. We're saying they aren't entitled to a cut of every single transaction after they've sold the object to a customer. They get one, and one should be enough for anybody, Veruca.

 

[108Stitches]

BajaPaul[/url]":3o5saj24]Read elsewhere that the game purchase will be tied to one Live account. Have to purchase a separate copy for another Live account. Rumors still I think!!!!

Hope not so. What if you have multiple kids or if dad wants to play too? If this is truly the case then I don't see the Xbox One going very far except in single player households. Now if it is all linked to one credit card that the household is using for various Live accounts it might work.

Rumors! MS really needs to clear this item up before we all get excited about anything regarding the Xbox One.

Besides, the name is really stupid. It makes you wonder about the current crop of Marketing and MBA people. More so the people making decisions on the issues. If they can't come up with a decent name then how the hell you expect a competent system? What are our colleges teaching our kids nowadays?

This already happens with the 360. I have a family account, but my son has to login to my account before he can access his Minecraft saves and cannot play battlefield 3 on his account because he cannot access the DLC which was downloaded under my gamertag on the same console. If he wanted to play the DLC under his gamertag, he has to repurchase it.

 

[Telekenesis]

msm8bball[/url]":49m5161z]

Telekenesis[/url]":49m5161z]The only reason why they are even doing this is they know their system is inferior in specs and is only going to get worse in the future and it's going to be an ever growing issue; hence this discussion. It's simply a proof of concept.

Since when has inferior specs been a problem? You might be right, Microsoft may be worried about PS4 having better specs. But I would say that worrying would be unjustified.

Original Xbox was more powerful than PS2, but sold less.
PS3 is more powerful than Xbox 360, but they're about even in sales.
My statistics are from Wikipedia.

It is my personal opinion that people do not buy consoles based on technical specs, but rather the features and how many of their friends have that console. Gamers interested in the latest hardware would be better suited to PC gaming.

Original Xbox was more powerful than PS2, but sold less.
PS3 is more powerful than Xbox 360, but they're about even in sales.
My statistics are from Wikipedia.

PS3 was not more powerful then the 360. CPU was if used perfectly; GPU and available RAM - you know, things for games were always inferior.

You're ignoring marketing, 3rd party support, hardware reliability etc. You're over simplifying the issue. The problems with those systems had nothing to do with the power but design, marketing, games, etc.

With this gen both are assumed competent - this is not MS's first foray into consoles like the Xbox ....One? So what is left after they are known to be competent in design is power and games; games being ruined by lesser power. Any game that is on the Xbox One would be better on the PS4 becuase it is more capable of expressing that experience. Period.

It's all very simple. Your computer that you upgraded is better then the one you left behind. Why does this need explaining?

 

[Seraphiel]

msm8bball[/url]":1jocncug]

Seraphiel[/url]":1jocncug]

lordcheeto[/url]":1jocncug]

Seraphiel[/url]":1jocncug]
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.

That works fine in the non-digital age where the value of things diminish simply by being owned, so if you want the full experience you have a reason to buy new. But digital things don't have their value diminish by being owned.

I'm not aware of anything in statue, regulation, or precedent to support the notion that first-sale doctrine is negated by non-depreciation of the object in question. A rare Superman comic was discovered recently and last I saw the auction was over $100,000. Are you proposing that the publisher is entitled to a portion of that sale, because its value wasn't diminished from the few cents that was originally paid for it?

Aside from that, it's not really true. Used games (with the exception of some rare/import titles) tend to cost less than new ones.

This is insane. There's no legitimate reason to carve out a whole segment of the economy for special treatment just because it's digital.

 

[auxilio]

Seraphiel[/url]":2sh01u43]
That isn't a problem, it's a feature that we, as a civilized society, have chosen to protect.

The madness you describe would eliminate libraries entirely, because the notion of lending a book to someone is lost money for publishers.

Nobody said it's unethical for them to make money. We're saying they aren't entitled to a cut of every single transaction after they've sold the object to a customer. They get one, and one should be enough for anybody, Veruca.

According to this thread I found (and the posters in there are providing sources) there are exceptions for books that don't apply to other media.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/sho ... p?t=303382

 

[Slipgatex]

Ostracus[/url]":202u3tyr]So does the Kinect have a lens cover for when you're not using it?

I'm sure someone else has probably said it, and it's not a big deal, but if you're going through the trouble of putting a cover on it, why not just turn it face down?

 

[auxilio]

Telekenesis[/url]":2pwrk90w]

msm8bball[/url]":2pwrk90w]

Telekenesis[/url]":2pwrk90w]The only reason why they are even doing this is they know their system is inferior in specs and is only going to get worse in the future and it's going to be an ever growing issue; hence this discussion. It's simply a proof of concept.

Since when has inferior specs been a problem? You might be right, Microsoft may be worried about PS4 having better specs. But I would say that worrying would be unjustified.

Original Xbox was more powerful than PS2, but sold less.
PS3 is more powerful than Xbox 360, but they're about even in sales.
My statistics are from Wikipedia.

It is my personal opinion that people do not buy consoles based on technical specs, but rather the features and how many of their friends have that console. Gamers interested in the latest hardware would be better suited to PC gaming.

"Original Xbox was more powerful than PS2, but sold less.
PS3 is more powerful than Xbox 360, but they're about even in sales.
My statistics are from Wikipedia."

You're ignoring marketing, 3rd party support, hardware reliability etc. You're over simplifying the issue. The problems with those systems had nothing to do with the power but design, marketing, games, etc.

With this gen both are assumed competent - this is not MS's first foray into consoles like the Xbox ....One? So what is left after they are known to be competent in design is power and games; games being ruined by lesser power. Any game that is on the Xbox One would be better on the PS4 becuase it is more capable of expressing that experience. Period.

It's all very simple. Your computer that you upgraded is better then the one you left behind. Why does this need explaining?




PS3 was not more powerful then the 360. CPU was if used perfectly; GPU and RAM - you know things for games were always inferior.

It sounds like you're trying to disagree with me, despite us saying the same thing. Technical specifications alone has not predicted the success or failure of a console. Therefore, Microsoft should not be concerned if the PS4 has better specs than the Xbox One, because there are other ways to differentiate. The post I was replying to stated that Microsoft is doing this cloud compute stuff because they think the PS4 has better specifications. I was not disagreeing with your post- I'm merely saying that Microsoft's worries are probably unfounded.

 

[Seraphiel]

msm8bball[/url]":z185xjnc]

Seraphiel[/url]":z185xjnc]
That isn't a problem, it's a feature that we, as a civilized society, have chosen to protect.

The madness you describe would eliminate libraries entirely, because the notion of lending a book to someone is lost money for publishers.

Nobody said it's unethical for them to make money. We're saying they aren't entitled to a cut of every single transaction after they've sold the object to a customer. They get one, and one should be enough for anybody, Veruca.

According to this thread I found (and the posters in there are providing sources) there are exceptions for books that don't apply to other media.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/sho ... p?t=303382

Those exceptions described are to protect libraries (many of which also have catalogs of audio recordings and films), not the books specifically, and not the publishers.

 

[academic.sam]

My spidey sense tells me that this is just a BS cover story for always-online. I cannot see a single benefit when you take in to account that game developers have to deal with the lowest common denominator.

When they shut down the servers after 5 years because "the market is too low", what then? If they are saying that these are generic compute resouces (backed by a cloud API) that any game dev can use, so that they don't have to have their own servers, this concern goes away. But point 1 still stands. But, then you will have a problem of incompatibilities with newer version of such an API.

 

[auxilio]

Seraphiel[/url]"ujx81dc]

msm8bball[/url]"ujx81dc]

Seraphiel[/url]"ujx81dc]

lordcheeto[/url]"ujx81dc]

Seraphiel[/url]"ujx81dc]
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.

That works fine in the non-digital age where the value of things diminish simply by being owned, so if you want the full experience you have a reason to buy new. But digital things don't have their value diminish by being owned.

I'm not aware of anything in statue, regulation, or precedent to support the notion that first-sale doctrine is negated by non-depreciation of the object in question. A rare Superman comic was discovered recently and last I saw the auction was over $100,000. Are you proposing that the publisher is entitled to a portion of that sale, because its value wasn't diminished from the few cents that was originally paid for it?

Aside from that, it's not really true. Used games (with the exception of some rare/import titles) tend to cost less than new ones.

This is insane. There's no legitimate reason to carve out a whole segment of the economy for special treatment just because it's digital.

I am not saying that there is such an exception. I am not that well briefed on copyright law. But I'm saying, there should be an exception if there isn't one. Digital products are different from anything that has come before it.

The Superman comic you mention isn't a digital object. If it was a digital object, the value would not soar to epic proportions due to rarity. I believe the publisher would be entitled to a cut of the sales from a digital Superman comic.

 

[Slipgatex]

108Stitches[/url]":3maegbo2]

BajaPaul[/url]":3maegbo2]Read elsewhere that the game purchase will be tied to one Live account. Have to purchase a separate copy for another Live account. Rumors still I think!!!!

Hope not so. What if you have multiple kids or if dad wants to play too? If this is truly the case then I don't see the Xbox One going very far except in single player households. Now if it is all linked to one credit card that the household is using for various Live accounts it might work.

Rumors! MS really needs to clear this item up before we all get excited about anything regarding the Xbox One.

Besides, the name is really stupid. It makes you wonder about the current crop of Marketing and MBA people. More so the people making decisions on the issues. If they can't come up with a decent name then how the hell you expect a competent system? What are our colleges teaching our kids nowadays?

This already happens with the 360. I have a family account, but my son has to login to my account before he can access his Minecraft saves and cannot play battlefield 3 on his account because he cannot access the DLC which was downloaded under my gamertag on the same console. If he wanted to play the DLC under his gamertag, he has to repurchase it.

Edit: Removed, didn't see the "my" in the sentence about minecraft.

 

[auxilio]

academic.sam[/url]":12xmikbo]My spidey sense tells me that this is just a BS cover story for always-online. I cannot see a single benefit when you take in to account that game developers have to deal with the lowest common denominator.

When they shut down the servers after 5 years because "the market is too low", what then? If they are saying that these are generic compute resouces (backed by a cloud API) that any game dev can use, so that they don't have to have their own servers, this concern goes away. But point 1 still stands. But, then you will have a problem of incompatibilities with newer version of such an API.

Agreed, this is the one thing that has worried me. After they shut down the servers-what then? I highly doubt Microsoft (or whoever's decision it is), but there's always a possibility they could disable the need for old games to check in with servers, or provide Virtual Machines or Azure services that you run on your own local network, eliminating the need for the cloud.

Probably a far-fetched dream on my part.

 

[ukcannonfodder]

has anyone seen this>?

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/new ... d-licences



GAMES CONSOLE FLOGGER Microsoft has commented on but not confirmed rumours that gamers will have to pay £35 for the right to play second hand games.

The news that Microsoft has effectively blown the second hand market out the window was reported at Consoledeals. It revealed that Microsoft intends to charge up to £35 for an additional licence for a second hand game, and said word came from a games store industry insider.

This caused some shock among gamers. A £35 levy on a pre-owned game effectively kills it, and will do the same for friendships based on swapping Xbox game discs.

On the question of the latter, Xbox blogger Major Nelson said that users will be able to play their games at other peoples' houses, just so long as they use their own credentials.

"Another piece of clarification around playing games at a friend's house," he said. "Should you choose to play your game at your friend's house, there is no fee to play that game while you are signed in to your profile."

Microsoft spoke with us today, saying that it understood that there is "confusion" around used games and its new console. However, it would not go into any specifics about how the system will work.

"We know there is some confusion around used games on Xbox One and wanted to provide a bit of clarification on exactly what we've confirmed. While there have been many potential scenarios discussed, we have only confirmed that we designed Xbox One to enable our customers to trade in and resell games at retail," said a Microsoft spokesperson. "Beyond that, we have not confirmed any specific scenarios."

There are also suggestions that Microsoft has tightened up digital restrictions management (DRM) type controls on the console, and might have Kinect technology that can tell if too many people are watching some media without the right sort of license.

When asked, Microsoft's official response to this question was, "Microsoft does not comment on rumour and speculation." µ

 

[Hurda]

toddiuszho[/url]":1jdbq98q]Is anything stopping my Kinect from always being plugged in, yet always facing the wall?

"Detecting no human lifeforms, shutting down."

To be read with the voice of GLaDOS.

 

[ukcannonfodder]

this is just unbelievable, ive always joked about how m% will use the connect to count the ppl in the room then charge per ticket, which now seems like it could become reality.

http://games.slashdot.org/story/13/05/2 ... ut-of-sale

Chewbacon writes "Details about the used-game policy on Microsoft's newly-announced Xbox One console have been leaked. The policy explains how used-game retailers can survive Xbox One destroying the used-game market as we know it: they have to agree to Microsoft's terms and conditions to do so. In summary, the used game retailer can still buy the game from the consumer, but they must report the consumer relinquishing their license to play the game to a Microsoft database. They must also sell it at a market price (35£ in the UK), but the publisher will get a cut of the price. The article goes on to explain how Xbox One will phone home periodically to verify a player hasn't sold the game according to the aforementioned database." A big downside is that we're likely going to see the end of cheap, used games. A potential upside pointed out by Ben Kuchera at the Penny Arcade Report is that this would unquestionably boost revenue for game publishers, giving the smart ones an opportunity to step away from the $60 business model and adopt pricing practices seen on Steam and iTunes (neither of which allow the purchase of "used" games/media). Also, it's worth noting that even if the policy leak is 100% correct, it could change before the console actually launches.

 

[auxilio]

ukcannonfodder[/url]":1gf85or9]this is just unbelievable, ive always joked about how m% will use the connect to count the ppl in the room then charge per ticket, which now seems like it could become reality.

http://games.slashdot.org/story/13/05/2 ... ut-of-sale

Chewbacon writes "Details about the used-game policy on Microsoft's newly-announced Xbox One console have been leaked. The policy explains how used-game retailers can survive Xbox One destroying the used-game market as we know it: they have to agree to Microsoft's terms and conditions to do so. In summary, the used game retailer can still buy the game from the consumer, but they must report the consumer relinquishing their license to play the game to a Microsoft database. They must also sell it at a market price (35£ in the UK), but the publisher will get a cut of the price. The article goes on to explain how Xbox One will phone home periodically to verify a player hasn't sold the game according to the aforementioned database." A big downside is that we're likely going to see the end of cheap, used games. A potential upside pointed out by Ben Kuchera at the Penny Arcade Report is that this would unquestionably boost revenue for game publishers, giving the smart ones an opportunity to step away from the $60 business model and adopt pricing practices seen on Steam and iTunes (neither of which allow the purchase of "used" games/media). Also, it's worth noting that even if the policy leak is 100% correct, it could change before the console actually launches.

I fail to see what that has to do with Kinect and the ability to count how many people are there.

 

[xs0u1x]

msm8bball[/url]":3mygkiau]

ukcannonfodder[/url]":3mygkiau]this is just unbelievable, ive always joked about how m% will use the connect to count the ppl in the room then charge per ticket, which now seems like it could become reality.

http://games.slashdot.org/story/13/05/2 ... ut-of-sale

Chewbacon writes "Details about the used-game policy on Microsoft's newly-announced Xbox One console have been leaked. The policy explains how used-game retailers can survive Xbox One destroying the used-game market as we know it: they have to agree to Microsoft's terms and conditions to do so. In summary, the used game retailer can still buy the game from the consumer, but they must report the consumer relinquishing their license to play the game to a Microsoft database. They must also sell it at a market price (35£ in the UK), but the publisher will get a cut of the price. The article goes on to explain how Xbox One will phone home periodically to verify a player hasn't sold the game according to the aforementioned database." A big downside is that we're likely going to see the end of cheap, used games. A potential upside pointed out by Ben Kuchera at the Penny Arcade Report is that this would unquestionably boost revenue for game publishers, giving the smart ones an opportunity to step away from the $60 business model and adopt pricing practices seen on Steam and iTunes (neither of which allow the purchase of "used" games/media). Also, it's worth noting that even if the policy leak is 100% correct, it could change before the console actually launches.

I fail to see what that has to do with Kinect and the ability to count how many people are there.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/24/ ... visual-drm

MS does appear to have patents on the technology. so in theory they could implement it.

yeah thanks but no thanks.

 

[auxilio]

xs0u1x[/url]":2eoa5kf9]

msm8bball[/url]":2eoa5kf9]

ukcannonfodder[/url]":2eoa5kf9]this is just unbelievable, ive always joked about how m% will use the connect to count the ppl in the room then charge per ticket, which now seems like it could become reality.

http://games.slashdot.org/story/13/05/2 ... ut-of-sale

Chewbacon writes "Details about the used-game policy on Microsoft's newly-announced Xbox One console have been leaked. The policy explains how used-game retailers can survive Xbox One destroying the used-game market as we know it: they have to agree to Microsoft's terms and conditions to do so. In summary, the used game retailer can still buy the game from the consumer, but they must report the consumer relinquishing their license to play the game to a Microsoft database. They must also sell it at a market price (35£ in the UK), but the publisher will get a cut of the price. The article goes on to explain how Xbox One will phone home periodically to verify a player hasn't sold the game according to the aforementioned database." A big downside is that we're likely going to see the end of cheap, used games. A potential upside pointed out by Ben Kuchera at the Penny Arcade Report is that this would unquestionably boost revenue for game publishers, giving the smart ones an opportunity to step away from the $60 business model and adopt pricing practices seen on Steam and iTunes (neither of which allow the purchase of "used" games/media). Also, it's worth noting that even if the policy leak is 100% correct, it could change before the console actually launches.

I fail to see what that has to do with Kinect and the ability to count how many people are there.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/24/ ... visual-drm

MS does appear to have patents on the technology. so in theory they could implement it.

yeah thanks but no thanks.

In theory, yes. But having a patent and using a patent are different things. There are a number of reasons to hold such a patent.
1. To directly use the patent.
2. To charge other companies if they want to use that technology.
3. To have the option of using the patent in the future, with no current plans to implement. (most likely IMO)
4. To prevent others from using that technology (least likely IMO)

 

[zer0x1A4]

msm8bball[/url]":37u3ekmy]

xs0u1x[/url]":37u3ekmy]


http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/24/ ... visual-drm

MS does appear to have patents on the technology. so in theory they could implement it.

yeah thanks but no thanks.

In theory, yes. But having a patent and using a patent are different things. There are a number of reasons to hold such a patent.
1. To directly use the patent.
2. To charge other companies if they want to use that technology.
3. To have the option of using the patent in the future, with no current plans to implement. (most likely IMO)
4. To prevent others from using that technology (least likely IMO)

Your right, we should totally trust them because - when has a company ever actually taken out a patent to use? I'm sure they took out the patent so that other companies can't count the number of people in a room from a camera. When you combine the fact that they even own this patent with the need for the Kinect to be connected it pretty much negates all of the comments from people who are suggesting that we just "disconnect it" or "drape a cover over it". I don't care whether they actually choose to enforce the number of viewers in the room with licensing, if it so much as requires the ability to count the number of viewers that means I am required to allow the Kinect to be connected and have full view of my room at all times when using the system, therefor I have to agree with xs0u1x ... no thank you.

 

[Paul Heenan]

Overly complicating and greed-ing you way out of customers, just like with Win8. Good job, MS. Most people are trying to SIMPLIFY their living room, not make it more complicated and restrictive.

Been an Xbox fan since Xbox rolled out. Looks like I'm either moving to PS4 if they don't pull the same shenanigans or I'll just not be a console gamer anymore. There's always EVE online or WoW or SCII or *gasp* RL.

 

[lugaidster]

Lonyo[/url]":34cf8107]

BajaPaul[/url]":34cf8107]Read elsewhere that the game purchase will be tied to one Live account. Have to purchase a separate copy for another Live account. Rumors still I think!!!!

Hope not so. What if you have multiple kids or if dad wants to play too? If this is truly the case then I don't see the Xbox One going very far except in single player households. Now if it is all linked to one credit card that the household is using for various Live accounts it might work.

Rumors! MS really needs to clear this item up before we all get excited about anything regarding the Xbox One.

Besides, the name is really stupid. It makes you wonder about the current crop of Marketing and MBA people. More so the people making decisions on the issues. If they can't come up with a decent name then how the hell you expect a competent system? What are our colleges teaching our kids nowadays?

Millions of Steam users are perfectly happy with this.
And no used games/reselling.

Suddenly on a console it might be bad?

I'm a Steam user and I'm not happy about there not being multi-login. Main reason I do most of my SP gaming on consoles. I'm not looking forward to the Xbox being like Steam. I was hoping for it being the other way around and Steam becoming a bit lax on that particular policy.

I bet if we could somehow gauge the happiness of Steam users towards that policy, it would probably be a very polarized result.

 

[DrigJ]

msm8bball[/url]":117tkr6i]Possible leak about the new used game policy: http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/publishe ... il/0116137

DrigJ[/url]":117tkr6i]Kinect is required to even start the machine. That's fine. Let's see how happy the Kinect is looking at the back of my entertainment center.

Do you have a source that you're using for the claim that Kinect is required to start the Xbox One?

It's been mentioned several times that you can start it with your voice, thanks to the microphones in Kinect. But I don't think I've seen anything that says it's the only way to do it.

Ummm, it was said in the article itself that the Kinect was required to use the machine. Plus, my statement never said you needed it to turn the box on. I just said that I'll gladly connect the thing so I can use the system, but I'm going to point the camera towards the back of my entertainment center so that it won't be used as a camera.

 

[lugaidster]

msm8bball[/url]":3snhiwnp]

Seraphiel[/url]":3snhiwnp]

lordcheeto[/url]":3snhiwnp]

Seraphiel[/url]":3snhiwnp]
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.

That works fine in the non-digital age where the value of things diminish simply by being owned, so if you want the full experience you have a reason to buy new. But digital things don't have their value diminish by being owned.

Maybe a digital object doesn't lose value due to wear, but a game's novelty wears out, which means that it by sitting in a shelf loses value after it was released. That doesn't mean that a digital item simply loses value by being owned, but it does lose value by being old. This basic premise means that if publishers don't adjust their prices due to their products becoming old, an alternative market that does recognize this loss of value is created. Now they are trying to squash this market without addressing the reason it spurred in the first place. Anti-capitalism at it's finest.

Steam effectively fights this market because they aren't afraid to offer heavily discounted games (no difference between a new or used game if both are digital, so why bother with the used one in the first place).

The physical games world has stores that deal with this by buying and selling second-hand copies. As long as a physical object continues to be sold in order to play the games (even it it's just for storage), this object can and should be able to be sold and transferred.

Digital games, however, have many issues themselves though, and I'm not sure the trade-offs net a positive gain. I'm glad Steam exists to make the life of some gamers better, it certainly did so for me for a long time. But now I'm sad (mostly nostalgic) that my games are no longer mine. Maybe the software was never mine, but the disc certainly was. And there was nothing the company could do to take it off of my hands, nor restrict me from doing what I wanted with it.

All of this sounds like I'm just bitter though, but there are practical implications to all of this. Steam users only own a subscription, not even a license of the software, that can be revoked arbitrarily and unilaterally at their will (It has happened already by mistake). Furthermore, I can't play those games I bought at the same time (like maybe me playing one while my son plays another one, something that current consoles handle without issues). Digital games haven't come down in price relative to physical games yet (maybe discounted they have, but retail price is often the same), and they carry many more restrictions than physical games (effective restrictions, at the very least). If this comes to the Xbox, I'm sure there will be many upset customers. Multi-console gaming is far more common than multi-pc gaming on a single household.

A glorified install disc is not the same as a physical copy of the game.

 

[clackerd]

lordska[/url]":3rny5e3r]What is the likelihood of the Police/FBI making requests to Microsoft for Kinect data to find crime/terroist suspects or gather evidence. I'm sure facial recognition and location data will be of great use. Me, I'll be wearing big aviator shades and a hat (made of tinfoil, you say?) while playing future Xbox.

High would be my guess. Phone records are easy to access for law enforcement, this will be too.

 

[PNWcontrib]

So in theory, we could build our own cloud and have it perform the offloaded operations?

That would be more appealing to me then connecting to a corporate cloud.
Microsoft, make that an option will ya!

 

[notthis]

I haven't played it, but I saw a talk at GDC this year concerning what was called Just-In-Time Lighting used in the latest HALO game. The game features player made maps created with pre-made building blocks that have a lot of lighting calculations baked in. The problem is that the game uses light-mapping, so all shadowing information (at least from static objects, like the player made map) needs to be calculated before the map loads. I believe the amount of data needed made saving it as part of the map and uploading it too slow. So, when loading a player made map, the game spends 5ish seconds computing all this shadow information so the map has nice lighting.

I'm not sure how downloading the data from the cloud is better than saving it as part of the map... Maybe the cloud could churn out various fidelity levels, which would suck to do on the player's machine, and a player using the map receives the one that best matches their connection speed.

This is a very specific case, but it is with a big XBOX property that was in development while the ONE was in development.

 

[theyuriha]

and what if I want to play where there's no internet service?

 

[Rukh]

PlaceHolder[/url]":3dc6zraf]

I have an ancient Laptop that has no video and that I never use anyway....(all my tech is ancient)...

so if all of your gear is so old, why are you suddenly considering buying a just announced game console/media center?

So I agree with your point that camera's are hard to impossible to avoid... and I don't really worry about it too much... but if I ever have a tinfoil hat moment, I would really start to wonder if any of my tablet and cell phone apps are allowing someone to spy on me...

sir, it seems to me you are well beyond experiencing your first "tinfoil hat" moment.
you are aware that large amounts of public space in many industrialized nations is covered by CCTV?
red-light cameras at intersections, automated toll cameras on highways, people wearing google glass walking down the street, etc. it is beyond hilarious to imagine that you can actively take part in modern society while never being under any form of surveillance.

you already live in a society that is permeated by surveillance.
the fuss you're making over the Kinect is hilarious and silly.

 

[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).

 

[heinousjay]

Seraphiel[/url]":3d1urbqz]
I'm not aware of anything in statue, regulation, or precedent to support the notion that first-sale doctrine is negated by non-depreciation of the object in question. A rare Superman comic was discovered recently and last I saw the auction was over $100,000. Are you proposing that the publisher is entitled to a portion of that sale, because its value wasn't diminished from the few cents that was originally paid for it?

Aside from that, it's not really true. Used games (with the exception of some rare/import titles) tend to cost less than new ones.

This is insane. There's no legitimate reason to carve out a whole segment of the economy for special treatment just because it's digital.

There's a perfectly legitimate reason - it's their device and their ecosystem. They can do whatever they want with it. There is no statute, regulation, or precedent to support the notion that they need to do things the way you want them to do it just because that's how things used to work.

Your relief is to not participate if you decide the value does not match the price. It's not like you have some special right to be entertained on your own terms, even if you feel like it's "ethical" or whatever the word of the week is for the moralists.

 

[wzombie]

5 zero's and a 3.. hmm 300000
if i can't try before i buy.. i'm out

 

[ToRJS]

So how does this work? When you buy xbox one you also get your own server in the cloud that has a higher compute capability than it? Then this is great value for money!! But wait a minute... didn't they only buy 300,000 extra servers? To run compute for up to 77,000,000 (amount sold this gen) xboxes? Or do they expect to sell 300,000? BOGUS!!!!!

 

[Lord Sidious]

It is a classic and well known computing problem.
The bottleneck dooming the feasibility of this is the bandwidth, not computing power.
If you have an intense number crunching problem which produces small output, distributed computing is a good solution, as nodes shares small amounts of data and the network speed is not a limiting factor.
On the other side, game graphic requires an huge flow of data, so it is exceptionally unsuitable for grid computing due to limitation of bandwidth - that is exactly the reason why top performance graphic card have local high bandwidth memory (just think about taking memory modules out of your graphic card and put it on a remote server over the network...)

 

[Seraphiel]

lordcheeto[/url]":3vslgxo0]

Seraphiel[/url]":3vslgxo0]

lordcheeto[/url]":3vslgxo0]

Seraphiel[/url]":3vslgxo0]
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).

The limit is where it's already defined: the publisher gets a cut when I buy the thing at retail (or, more precisely, shortly before that).

Period.

Done.

After that, I can lend it, resell it, wear it as a hat, or set it on fire. Short of making copies for distribution, I can do anything with it that I want. It belongs to me now, and their stake in it ended the moment money changed hands at the store. They have no further right to get any money from any subsequent transactions involving that item.

Things like Steam and the various app stores don't tend to provoke much outrage because the stuff in question is so cheap. Users of those services are effectively selling their ability to easily "possess" something in exchange for a (sometimes hefty) discount on the goods in question.

 

[Seraphiel]

heinousjay[/url]":3chqi31m]

Seraphiel[/url]":3chqi31m]
I'm not aware of anything in statue, regulation, or precedent to support the notion that first-sale doctrine is negated by non-depreciation of the object in question. A rare Superman comic was discovered recently and last I saw the auction was over $100,000. Are you proposing that the publisher is entitled to a portion of that sale, because its value wasn't diminished from the few cents that was originally paid for it?

Aside from that, it's not really true. Used games (with the exception of some rare/import titles) tend to cost less than new ones.

This is insane. There's no legitimate reason to carve out a whole segment of the economy for special treatment just because it's digital.

There's a perfectly legitimate reason - it's their device and their ecosystem. They can do whatever they want with it. There is no statute, regulation, or precedent to support the notion that they need to do things the way you want them to do it just because that's how things used to work.

Your relief is to not participate if you decide the value does not match the price. It's not like you have some special right to be entertained on your own terms, even if you feel like it's "ethical" or whatever the word of the week is for the moralists.

Sigh. Straw man down. Well done.

But let me make it clear, since this is obviously confusing a lot of people:

Nobody (literally: nobody) who is complaining about this development has claimed or even acted like they're being forced to buy a new Xbox at the point of a gun.

Obviously we aren't required to buy one or be involved in it at all. However, since this is a civilized society, we are also allowed to express discontent at a general pattern of anti-consumer behavior, and the negative outcomes this will cause for a hobby we enjoy.

 

[leonidas78]

Ok, yes, more power from the cloud. What a nice headline to attract attention AND make excuses for the always on DRM. In reality, even the notion of cloud computing at this time, with our infastructure, prices, data caps, software situation and a 1000 other factors, is laughable. Especially high bandwidth GPU cloud computing is something like warp drive at this point. We want it, we make movies about it, we need it, but it's NOT HERE YET.
So, good work trying to defend the epic failure that XBOX One presentation was with science fiction. It's a game console for crying out loud, not a PhD project on cloud computing. Everything else is excuse for the online DRM and the fact that it is an underpowered VCR that might play some EA sports titles. I foresee hard core gamers passing on this one, unfortunately.....

 

[neitto]

Seraphiel[/url]":29zs8rfo]

heinousjay[/url]":29zs8rfo]

Seraphiel[/url]":29zs8rfo]
I'm not aware of anything in statue, regulation, or precedent to support the notion that first-sale doctrine is negated by non-depreciation of the object in question. A rare Superman comic was discovered recently and last I saw the auction was over $100,000. Are you proposing that the publisher is entitled to a portion of that sale, because its value wasn't diminished from the few cents that was originally paid for it?

Aside from that, it's not really true. Used games (with the exception of some rare/import titles) tend to cost less than new ones.

This is insane. There's no legitimate reason to carve out a whole segment of the economy for special treatment just because it's digital.

There's a perfectly legitimate reason - it's their device and their ecosystem. They can do whatever they want with it. There is no statute, regulation, or precedent to support the notion that they need to do things the way you want them to do it just because that's how things used to work.

Your relief is to not participate if you decide the value does not match the price. It's not like you have some special right to be entertained on your own terms, even if you feel like it's "ethical" or whatever the word of the week is for the moralists.

Sigh. Straw man down. Well done.

But let me make it clear, since this is obviously confusing a lot of people:

Nobody (literally: nobody) who is complaining about this development has claimed or even acted like they're being forced to buy a new Xbox at the point of a gun.

Obviously we aren't required to buy one or be involved in it at all. However, since this is a civilized society, we are also allowed to express discontent at a general pattern of anti-consumer behavior, and the negative outcomes this will cause for a hobby we enjoy.

You do him a misdeed.

He was responding to your comment -- which had to do with what someone was entitled to. He was only saying that Xbox is trying to create a system where they can set closer terms on what people are entitled to.

You can think that sucks. From what I've heard, the particular bill of entitlements that they appear ready to put forth, I think it sucks.

But I don't object to the idea that the system, like Steam (seems like poor Valve is getting shouted out more often than Microsoft), seeks to redefine the relationship of the consumer with the product/service. People like Steam, they find benefits in using it. No harm no foul.

But you cite first sale doctrine, as though that would apply to this opt-in scenario. (and as though non-physical digital assets are "sold" at all) It's not an attempt to "carve out a whole segment of the economy for special treatment just because it's digital", it's an attempt to create an opt-in environment for the sale and use of their stuff.

I don't like the smell of it, and I hope that consumers stay away, or that the system enables Xbox to offer something genuinely compelling for the user. But I'll save my business model outrage for Prenda and the Government of North Korea.

 

[tbris84]

Tom Brokaw[/url]":q70d56cv]I agree that making the Kinect built in is good for devs in terms of consistency. The cloud computing stuff seems interesting, and if they can pull it off, pretty cool. I don't have the knowledge to evaluate it much; my opinion is that it will end up not working as well as described.

The non-user friendly HDD is stupid. That's just ignant.

I don't mind the "non-user friendly" internal HDD. I would much rather add an inexpensive external USB3.0 HDD that I can bring with me to friends' houses with my saved games on anyway. As long as I'm logged into my XBL account on my friends' XB1, I have access to all my games saved on a convenient/portable external HDD. IMO, 500GB is a large enough on-board storage capacity for me to feel comfortable and small enough for it to keep build costs down.