backtop


Print 115 comment(s) - last by Gladius777.. on Apr 8 at 8:48 PM

This may be a clue as to what to expect with the next Xbox console

Microsoft's creative director put up quite a fight in favor of always-online consoles, which is a particularly curious move -- especially on Twitter -- when the company hasn't said much about its upcoming Xbox console. 

Adam Orth, a creative director at Microsoft Studios, posted a tweet that said "Sorry, I don't get the drama around having an 'always on' console. Every device now is 'always on.' That's the world we live in. #dealwithit."



While this tweet wasn't too surprising, what transpired afterward ended up being pretty interesting. Two Twitter users -- Alex Wells (@TheonlyAlexW) and Manveer Heir (@manveerheir) -- disagreed with Orth's initial tweet, and Orth came back pretty strong. 

Here's the Twitter conversation transcribed:

Orth: I want every device to be "always on."

Wells: Off the top of my head I know 5 people who own 360's who currently have no access to the internet. They would be screwed.

Orth: Those people should definitely get with the times and get the Internet. It's awesome.

Heir: Did you learn nothing from Diablo III or SimCity? You know some people's Internet goes out right? Deal with it is a sh*tty reason.

Orth: Electricity goes out too. 
Sometimes the electricity goes out. I will not purchase a vacuum cleaner.
The mobile reception in the area I live in is spotty and unreliable. I will not buy a mobile phone. 

--

While Microsoft (or Orth) haven't made any specific mentions about how the "always-on" argument applies to the next Xbox console, this little Twitter argument may be dropping some clues. 

In December 2012, Xbox Live subscribers lost the Cloud Saved Games feature, which allows gamers to store saved games online and pick them up later on a different console if they'd like. The outage lasted anywhere from a couple of hours to a couple of days. 

Source: Kotaku



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Until
By Motoman on 4/5/2013 9:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
I would suggest you use a definition from someone who matters...like the FCC.

Here's a quote from their August, 2012 inquiry into the state of broadband internet access in the USA:

quote:
Nevertheless, in the last three broadband progress reports, the Commission found that “advanced telecommunications capability” was not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.15 The Commission found that “advanced telecommunications capability” at a minimum must permit an end user to download content at speeds of at least 4 megabits per second (Mbps) and to upload content at speeds of at least 1 Mbps over the broadband provider’s network (4 Mbps/1 Mbps or benchmark).16 Most recently, in the 2012 Eighth Broadband Progress Report, the Commission found that despite the expansion of broadband, approximately 6 percent of Americans—nearly 19 million people—remain without fixed broadband service meeting the benchmark.17 The data also indicate that people living in rural and on Tribal lands are disproportionately lacking such access and that 80 percent of E-rate recipients say that their broadband connections do not fully meet their needs. Based on these and other results, we concluded that broadband was not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.18 The Commission also noted that consumers’ uses are changing and higher speeds and capacity are necessary to continue driving innovation.


So...4Mbps down and 1Mpbs up might be good. Although I heavily dispute their notion that only 6% of Americans are without any access to broadband at all...the real number is at least twice that, perhaps three times that. Their methodologies for surveying such things have been highly suspect, like just declaring a whole zip code to be "good" if one resident has functional broadband.

Satellite and cellular wifi are categorically *not* broadband. Regardless what their marketing says. And I speak from personal experience, and the experience of supporting others around me who have to try to get along on these services.

4G wifi on my cellphone realistically never gets above .5Mpbs, and frequently is down around .1Mpbs. Until I get throttled, then it drops to about .02Mpbs, sometimes .01Mbps. And even if you're happy with the download speed you get from cellular wifi, the problem is you hit the data cap wall pretty much instantly if you're doing anything like online gaming. You can have between 2 and 10Gb or so on a wifi plan. How long do you reckon that's going to last you with an always-on XBox constantly download patches and whatnot?

Satellite is significantly worse than wifi. Firstly, you have the same data caps to deal with. But then on top of that, the latency is horrific - which is a necessity of the physics involved. Satellite is essentially unusable for online gaming to start with...and then you still hit the same data cap wall.

So no...wifi and satellite absolutely, positively, do NOT qualify as broadband. Not in any real, functional sense. Satellite and wifi are little more than a cruel hoax played upon their users...who simply have no other viable choices.


RE: Until
By Motoman on 4/5/2013 9:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki