Print 188 comment(s) - last by KOOLTIME.. on May 30 at 7:58 PM

  (Source: Sodahead)
Company also nixes backwards compatibility, suggests used games may come with an extra fee

The Xbox One, Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT) game console that will launch in a few months, appears impressive from a user interface, controls, and hardware perspective.  The lone fly in the ointment lies in the software.

I. No Backward Compatibility; Fees for Used Games?

Microsoft has confirmed that Xbox 360 titles will not play on the Xbox One, a reversal of its policy with the Xbox 360, which played a library of so-called "backwards compatible" (BC) (original) Xbox discs.  Microsoft claims "major architecture changes" made it impossible to allow backwards compatibility.

One piece of good news is that Microsoft appears to have backed off slightly from the rumored plan to ban used game sales.  The bad news is that Microsoft requires all games to be installed on the hard drive of your console before being played and that onboard digital rights management may allow Microsoft assess an extra fee on used games in exchange for unlocking the digital rights management (DRM).

Xbox One

Wired reports in its post-launch event coverage:

Microsoft did say that if a disc was used with a second account, that owner would be given the option to pay a fee and install the game from the disc, which would then mean that the new account would also own the game and could play it without the disc.

In a blog post, Lawrence "Larry" Hyrb, Director of Programming for the Microsoft gaming network Xbox Live and better known by his Live gamertag "Major Nelson" would not confirm or deny the possibility of a fee, "We have only confirmed that we designed Xbox One to enable our customers to trade in and resell games at retail."

II. Microsoft Pushed Developers to Ditch Offline Play

The situation is equally confusing about offline play.

The Verge reports that while the console can be played offline, it requires periodic internet "refreshes" (ostensibly to confirm DRM rights, etc.).  The report makes it clear that the timing of these refreshes is unknown at this point.

Further, Wired reports that some games may not be playable offline.  While the Xbox will not be locked to being "always online", as rumored, in all titles, developers have the ability to improve their games' performance by offloading certain task (say AI computations) to Microsoft's Azure cloud resources.

Ethernet Cables
Some Xbox One titles will be unplayable offline. [Image Source: Boot Click]

No internet connection in such titles means fundamental gameplay code is unable to be executed, which means you can't play these titles offline.  Marc Whitten, when asked by Wired whether many developers would make their titles cloud-enabled (and hence unplayable offline) comments, "I hope they do."

In other words, Microsoft is dropping the hammer slowly, offering up softened version of the draconian provisions rumored for its upcoming console.  But at the same time the net effect is the same in many cases -- gamers will find it harder to buy used games (in this stage more expensive) and will be unable to play many titles offline.

Sources: Wired, The Verge

Comments     Threshold

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

The silence is deafening!
By jnemesh on 5/24/2013 12:28:38 PM , Rating: 5
Every time a journalist brings up concerns, Microsoft hedges around the question or gives an incredibly vague answer. I am betting every single one of these "rumors" is true, and MS just doesn't want to talk about it! They KNOW people are going to be pissed...but like with Windows 8, they are going to push ahead anyway, criticism be damned!

Well, I know how to respond to this. I am warning all of my less tech savvy friends the hell away from this platform and, of course, I WONT be buying one myself!

It's Sony game now...unless they too try the same BS. If they DO, I will forsake consoles completely, and take the $1000 or so I was GOING to spend on consoles and sink it into a PC. Preferably one that is running Linux instead of Windows!

RE: The silence is deafening!
By crispbp04 on 5/24/13, Rating: -1
RE: The silence is deafening!
By tayb on 5/24/2013 12:38:00 PM , Rating: 5
They are protecting the developers, and providing an awesome platform for developers.

Yes, by screwing the consumer.

Tell me how this affects YOU, or your "less tech savvy friends".

I need to explain how routine DRM checks and fees for used games will effect gamers? Seriously?

RE: The silence is deafening!
By cubby1223 on 5/28/2013 2:47:47 AM , Rating: 2
You would be screwed even more so if you purchased a console and hardly no one developed any games for it.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By Kiffberet on 5/28/2013 7:56:23 AM , Rating: 2
All games are going this way.

Boycotting Xbox is fine, except when you plough $1000 into a PC, you'll come across exactly the same thing - Steam etc?

It's the way of the Future. And everyone will need internet.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By ppardee on 5/29/2013 5:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
Steam allows you to play offline. The only time it has given me problems is when my son logged onto the account on our other computer and we lost internet connection before I logged into on my end.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By 0ldman on 5/24/2013 12:40:41 PM , Rating: 2

The proposed setup means that if a friend comes over then I have to pay a fee to play a two player game on my console that has already been paid for.

As far as the online issue, I run a wireless ISP. I don't have 100% coverage in my area. There are places that have no broadband options. This means there are places where the XBox One will not work, more accurately, this means that people will buy the unit, get it home and find it won't work, but since they broke the seal the console cannot be returned for a full refund.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By kleinma on 5/24/2013 12:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
I highly doubt that. If you are signed into your xbox live profile, then why would you pay a fee when your friend comes over to play? Those fees are for when you give the disc away or sell it. Meaning the next time it is loaded on a console and played, your xbox live profile wont be signed in, and now its a second hand game.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By tayb on 5/24/2013 12:57:16 PM , Rating: 2
This is likely the case but it doesn't make getting started playing the game any easier. Apparently every game will require an install. So if I want to bring my game to a friends house I need to sign in to his Xbox and install the game before we can start playing. Seriously? It would be easier just to lug the freaking console around.

I've supported Microsoft consoles from the beginning. I was even a beta tester for Xbox Live before they launched it. But if these rumors come true I'm not going to stick around. It's not a good enough console to justify this crap.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By Etsp on 5/24/2013 1:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
So if I want to bring my game to a friends house I need to sign in to his Xbox and install the game before we can start playing. Seriously?
No. The install happens in the background while you are playing the game.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By dxf2891 on 5/24/2013 2:23:20 PM , Rating: 3
The Defiance game took 3 hours to install before you could play it. If this is a preview of things to come, Xbox One, you are the weakest link! Good bye!

RE: The silence is deafening!
By Etsp on 5/24/2013 2:40:44 PM , Rating: 2
Er, reading comprehension issues?

RE: The silence is deafening!
By half_duplex on 5/24/2013 5:36:15 PM , Rating: 1
Er, Battlefield III took me 3 hours to install as well, no 'quietly installing in the background' there.

Er, same for Halo.

MS paying you for this?

RE: The silence is deafening!
By Etsp on 5/27/2013 9:38:32 PM , Rating: 3
You own an Xbox One already? Wow.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By Kiffberet on 5/28/2013 7:57:45 AM , Rating: 2
ha ha

By Tequilasunriser on 5/27/2013 12:56:42 PM , Rating: 2

RE: The silence is deafening!
By Strunf on 5/27/2013 8:15:50 AM , Rating: 2
The install happens in the background while you play ANOTHER game, even if they managed to download the first level and the data to play the game you still need it before starting playing it, so if the bulk of this "first" data is 2GB you still need to download 2BG before you can start the game.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By Arsynic on 5/24/13, Rating: -1
RE: The silence is deafening!
By Hakuryu on 5/24/2013 1:56:18 PM , Rating: 4
You don't get it.

I own game A, but you do not. I bring game A over to your house to play, but you do not have rights to play it, so you must pay, not me, for the ability to play.

Even if the game is local multiplayer, you still have to be signed in to play; if your signed in account doesn't have rights to that game, you cannot play it.

It's like PC gaming in a way; I could bring Battlefield PC to a friends house and install it, but if he wanted to play with me, he needs his own account (hence needing to pay for it).

RE: The silence is deafening!
By inighthawki on 5/24/13, Rating: -1
RE: The silence is deafening!
By NicodemusMM on 5/24/2013 9:17:20 PM , Rating: 5
Apparently you don't get it:

I own game A, but you do not. I bring game A over to your house to play, but you do not have the rights to play it, so I log into my account on your xbox and we play happily ever after... as long as I only have 2 friends (because there is a limit of three such installs, otherwise such DRM is useless).

The whole forced install thing just sucks. 500GB non-removable HDD @ 15-30 GB per game at current game standards... and this excludes the OS, movies, music, photos, etc... over the life of the product. It going to be like managing Steam installs on a SSD. :/ Bet your friend is going to be thrilled at the wasted HDD space once you leave.

Oh.. and anyone who thinks that MS, Sony or any developer is concerned enough about users' impressions, satisfaction and opinions to avoid draconian DRM measures is exactly the type of early adopter they're looking for. Said companies would like to thank you in advance for your patronage and subservience. It's evident to anyone who is paying attention that such concerns don't enter into the equation until AFTER the launch of a device/software. It's when the backlash starts and future sales are threatened that such matters are brought to the forefront and consumer opinion suddenly matters.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By inighthawki on 5/24/13, Rating: 0
RE: The silence is deafening!
By NicodemusMM on 5/24/2013 10:44:35 PM , Rating: 2
You have game (A) registered on system (1). A friend comes over to play multiplayer. Great! Have fun! Enjoy the game as it was intended, socialize, get a little drunk maybe and find out many things about your mother from the opposing team that you never knew. Nothing changed from now.

Take game (A) over to a friend's house and install it on system (2). Great! Have fun! Enjoy the game as it was intended, socialize, get a little drunk maybe and find out many things about your mother from the opposing team that you never knew. Nothing changed from now. Except that you only have one install left. It doesn't really change anything from the point of initial user experience, but it does (almost) guarantee an increase in sales. Simple, reasonable and effective... at least until it's cracked. I mean... it is on x86 hardware. The X1 makes a hell of a toy to tinker with from that standpoint.

"...the most accurate/up to date report from microsoft is that you can install it on as many systems as you want..."
Really? Straight from MS or speculation by tech journalists?

RE: The silence is deafening!
By inighthawki on 5/24/2013 11:04:30 PM , Rating: 1
Oh except you somehow have some inside information stating that games are limited to being installed on 3 systems ever?

RE: The silence is deafening!
By kypd275 on 5/26/2013 11:16:41 PM , Rating: 1
As much as I'm against what MS is doing, I have not heard anyone anywhere other than you waving that 3-installs-only stuff. And believe me, it'll be quite the spectacle of extra gasoline-on-fire if it was.

Therefore, unless you can show some links to supporting evidence, I'm going to have to say you're just pulling **** out of your ass on this one.

There are enough to bash about the Xbone as it is, no need to make up imaginary reasons to do so, that only gives ammo to those who are whining about people making stuff up.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By andrewaggb on 5/27/2013 11:57:38 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed, never heard this 3 installs thing.

There's no reason to limit it because games are associated with your xbox profile.

The end result will be very similiar to buying games on steam. Cry and scream all you want, most pc gamers use steam and live with it. Personally, I've gone from initially strongly disliking steam to preferring it and the conveniences it offers. If ms offers digital downloads, pre-loads, automatic patching, and good sales on older titles I think it should be fine.

I think they dropped the ball is the tv aspect. Should have been able to replace a pvr or at least replace some popular hd boxes. If the 720 could do that, they'd sell lots of them. blu-ray, video games, dlna, pvr or hd box, and hd skype on the tv for my kids talking to the grandparents, in one device.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By Cstefan on 5/28/2013 11:34:54 AM , Rating: 1
MS has proven they care not about the paying customer unless they push back hard.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By P_Dub_S on 5/24/2013 12:47:42 PM , Rating: 1
You mention your gonna switch to PC if Sony follows suit. Well buddy just to let you know you can't play used games on a PC either, so all you will get is the ability to play a game offline on your PC that I bet is always online.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By Samus on 5/24/2013 1:12:19 PM , Rating: 3
He's not your buddy, pal!

You can play any used game on PC. Steam lets you give away old games or "regift" gifts that form from a re-purchase, and any physical disc can be sold with the account it was created with.

I've never seen an EULA for a videogame (console or PC) that forbids resale. Rental, redistribution, etc are obviously all banned.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By Motoman on 5/24/2013 1:45:22 PM , Rating: 3
There's a few. Spore, for example, and I think Bioshock would only "activate" a given number of times before they would become inoperable.

That is the primary reason why I returned the Spore Deluxe Edition that I'd been so excited to receive as a gift. Such abuses of the legitimate consumer are even though I *really* wanted to play Spore, I returned it to deny the producer any money on my behalf.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By Motoman on 5/24/2013 1:13:35 PM , Rating: 5
That's not true for the majority of PC games.

As a market, we all need to refuse to participate in systems with abusive DRM. Ideally, all DRM should be banned.

If we as consumers stop buying systems/games with DRM on them, the industry will have to respond.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By dxf2891 on 5/24/2013 2:26:45 PM , Rating: 2

RE: The silence is deafening!
By wempa on 5/24/2013 3:10:41 PM , Rating: 3

100% dead on. The best way to do this is to vote with your wallet. I used to be a huge fan of Blizzard games, buying multiple copies of Starcraft, Diablo and Diablo 2. I refused to buy SC2 due to their dropping LAN support. I refused to buy Diablo 3 because I won't do online only games. From what I'm hearing about the Xbox One, I'll be skipping this one, too. The best thing we can do is warn the less technical people and get as many of them as possible to boycott this nonsense. I hate where gaming is going. I hope that company greed backfires and they are forced to change their ways.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By Strunf on 5/27/13, Rating: 0
RE: The silence is deafening!
By Motoman on 5/27/2013 10:48:13 AM , Rating: 3
The problem in your example isn't a reflection of "what people want."

It a reflection of people taking what they're offered, whether or not it actually *is* what they want.

D3 came out without any LAN option. And with a requirement for always-on. The number of people who *wanted* those things was probably effectively 0. The number of people who *wanted* LAN play and the ability to play disconnected was probably pretty huge. that point you can either choose to not play D3 at all, or pay Blizzard the money they want and at least get as much as they're letting you have.

Obviously, the market as a whole accepts whatever the publisher gives them. The rational probably being "well getting D3 in an imperfect manner is better than not getting D3 at all."

It's a reflection of basic human nature. We all *really* wanted D3. And our desire to play D3 caused us to accept the bad things Blizzard did to it. It's an emotional response, not a logical one.

The problem is that over time this natural human behavior gets played by the publishers to take more and more away from the honest consumer. They have to give less and less, and they can take more and more control over us. And we let them do it.

Ultimately we have to stop letting them do it. Otherwise we're not far away from the point where you as a consumer have no rights at all about anything, you never own anything, and the publishers for all intents and purposes own you like a farmer owns a cow.


RE: The silence is deafening!
By domboy on 5/28/2013 9:08:53 AM , Rating: 2
luckily windows is windows since a long time ago and you can still play games from over 20+ years ago.

And that right there is why I haven't bought an Xbox ever... there are tons of games on the PC I have yet to play, so why do I need an Xbox?

I'll admit we have a Wii, but the only time it really gets played is when family or friends come over, otherwise it's a Netflix device. If I want to play a game by myself I'll use the PC, or sometimes a tablet. The more expensive consoles and their games have gotten (straight up prices plus DRM restrictions), combined with a lessening amount of spare $$ means I've become more interested in searching out older PC games that I've missed playing. Shucks, even the console ports are usually cheaper for the PC. Extreme example: I picked up Assassin's Creed 1 & 2 for $10, plus I can use an xbox controller to play them.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By inighthawki on 5/24/2013 4:02:31 PM , Rating: 4
Unfortunately some of the producers are just oblivious to what consumers want. They blame poor sales on piracy and try to beef up DRM. When nobody buys it because of DRM, they say the DRM wasn't good enough and too many people are pirating it. Vicious cycle. Hopefully one day they'll get it.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By Strunf on 5/27/2013 8:07:54 AM , Rating: 2
That's not really the case, today people have many leisure activities, there's dozens of games being released each month, then you have movies and what not, if people don't buy a game it's not cause of the DRM but cause it's a crappy game, what they got right is that people that pirate a game are people that want the game, if they completely block the game from being pirated then they will increase the sales of the said game, what they don't get is that if the DRM is a pain in the butt then some people will not buy the game, so at the end of the day even with a perfect protection I'm not sure they would sell more, that said I'm pretty sure a game without any kind of protection would be pirated a lot and that would be seen on the sales.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By TheJian on 5/27/2013 9:08:10 AM , Rating: 2
The Witcher 2...Gog, least pirated version in existence.

So says the developer, CDprojekt.

What the heck is this comment considered spam for? Too many prices? What is this? Dumb comment system. I've reduced this to two lines...Still a problem.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By TheJian on 5/27/13, Rating: -1
RE: The silence is deafening!
By WeaselITB on 5/24/2013 2:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
Looking through all the comments and negativity associated with the Xbox One, it seems like I'm the only person that has my console always connected and buys all my games new (whether full price or on sale).

I can't be the only person out there that does, that, right? Right?

RE: The silence is deafening!
By Etsp on 5/24/2013 3:18:02 PM , Rating: 2
I only buy used games when I can't find them new, and I don't sell them. I like to keep a library of games, which is why I'm disappointed in the decision of Microsoft and Sony to not support backwards compatibility.

There is a positive aspect to what Microsoft is doing with regards to DRM. Since your Xbox profile is the verified owner of the game, they can allow you to play it without needing to put the game disc in. It's not a huge benefit, but it's real.

On the 360, requiring the game disk was a form of DRM, not a technical requirement.

Does that benefit outweigh the con of higher costs of used games? For me personally it does, because it doesn't affect me. It sounds like you and I are in the minority though.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By wempa on 5/24/2013 3:35:02 PM , Rating: 3

I'm sure you are not the only one, but that's not the point at all. These are ridiculous restrictions being placed on us and they keep getting worse and worse. If I pay $400 for a console plus $60 per game, I should be able to play it anywhere I damn well please . If it has the restriction that I can only play it where I have internet connectivity, then it loses significant value for me. Even worse is that it is completely unnecessary. This is an attempt to take away more of our rights and get another cut of the money which they aren't entitled to anyway.

By inperfectdarkness on 5/24/2013 2:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
What, have we already forgotten about the Wii-U, or are you just inherently biased against Nintendo.

I've never had DRM issues with Nintendo. Sony, on the other hand, installed malware with it's CD's in the past. So yeah, how about we get behind Nintendo on this one?

RE: The silence is deafening!
By Ramstark on 5/24/2013 3:06:03 PM , Rating: 2
You really need to read the next poster link and UNDETSTAND HOW IT IS GOING TO WORK...

RE: The silence is deafening!
By SPOOFE on 5/24/13, Rating: 0
RE: The silence is deafening!
By inighthawki on 5/24/2013 4:17:56 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Even looking at HALF of the comments on just this article, there is so much speculation and rumor about how exactly certain things will work, that is all based on rumors with no sources to back them up. People hear MS say one thing about feature X and then automatically infer details X, Y, and Z which were never even discussed. If only people waited until ALL the details of something were announced before complaining about features they think may exist.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By SPOOFE on 5/24/2013 5:29:19 PM , Rating: 2
People have judged a device as consumers based entirely on a reveal clearly aimed at investors... investors that probably aren't even going to use the device.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By kypd275 on 5/26/2013 11:23:29 PM , Rating: 3
Really? no source? are you blind or just can't read? there are about 328947239847238 articles on various gaming sites with quotes from MS executives, or is that what you consider "rumors with no sources" now?

The source of these "rumors" are MS, and it only looks ambiguous and conflicting is because everything that's been said by MS while they try to backpedal are ambiguous and conflicting.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By SPOOFE on 5/27/13, Rating: 0
RE: The silence is deafening!
By kypd275 on 5/26/2013 11:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
If by rumor you mean statements by MS executives to the press right after the reveal that they've backpedaled from, then yes.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By SPOOFE on 5/27/13, Rating: -1
RE: The silence is deafening!
By Uncle on 5/26/2013 8:41:31 PM , Rating: 2
Not much to say. Don't buy into their BS.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By pjl321 on 5/27/13, Rating: 0
RE: The silence is deafening!
By Uncle on 5/27/2013 11:35:44 AM , Rating: 2
"If there was no piracy and no second hand games then the industry would be worth a lot more money than it currently is" It is impossible for the industry to project loss of income on piracy, they have no way to know who would have bought the game. All their numbers are bogus. If they could predict, they would be in a different business, and wealthy beyond their dreams.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By Invane on 5/28/2013 12:30:24 PM , Rating: 3
Pretty much every industry in America would be worth more money if you were forbid from ever reselling something you purchased from them.

Can you imagine how much more our automotive industry would be worth if you couldn't sell your car to someone else in the future? How about used computer parts you no longer need?

I am appalled anyone could come up with the argument you just made and take the time to type it out without realizing how absolutely ridiculous it is. We have first sale doctrine for a reason: to protect the consumer. These consumer rights are being eroded at a rapid pace. To see someone defend doing so just to let corporations make more money reminds me of how incapable of determining what's good for it the American public has become.

RE: The silence is deafening!
By amelia321 on 5/29/2013 10:51:52 AM , Rating: 1
If you think Bernard`s story is impressive..., three weeks ago father in-law also made $5159 just sitting there eleven hours a week from there house and there buddy's sister-in-law`s neighbour has done this for three months and got paid more than $5159 part time on line. the guidelines on this web-site... kep2.comCHECK IT OUT

Just say "no."
By Motoman on 5/24/2013 1:42:43 PM , Rating: 4

1. As noted before many times on DT, all DRM should be made illegal. It has a 100% failure rate, and categorically does *not* serve it's stated purpose. It serves no function but to increase the cost of production to the producer, and the cost of the produce to the consumer, and to punish legitimate consumers who opted to buy legal product instead of using DRM-fee pirated copies.

1a. The law that the industry purchased that makes it illegal to circumvent DRM to make copies of your legally-purchased content that you are otherwise guaranteed by law the right to make should be tossed.

2. The interference in the 2nd-hand market, in this case due to the way used games will be handled, impedes the "First-Sale Doctrine," which is well-established and limits the producer's interest in a product to the original sale. The producer can only claim interest in a product on the original sale to the original owner...subsequently that owner can resell, lend, rent, or destroy the item as they see fit. Requiring someone who has legally purchased a used game to pay a fee to "register" or "activate" it on the console is a horrific violation of this principle. As is any other method used to impede the resale market.

3. Even requiring an "occasional" phone-home, instead of an absolute always-on connection, is unacceptable. Not only just for the privacy and normal use patterns of honest consumers (a great many game consoles are *never* connected to the internet, and/or are regularly used without internet connectivity...for the simple fact that it's blindingly obvious that there's no reason to make such a requirement in order to play a game you bought on disk) who *have* reliable broadband internet, but there are tens of millions of Americans who simply do not have access to reliable broadband internet. It's fundamentally unacceptable to sell an appliance to a consumer (and yes, a game console is an appliance...just like a TV, a DVD player, or your refrigerator) that will capriciously refuse to perform it's functions based on certain conditions. In this case, not having had internet access within a certain timeframe. Imagine if your TV did that. Or your microwave. Or your stereo. Now imagine that you are one of the tens of millions of Americans who lives someplace where you can't get reliable broadband internet service...the attitude being displayed by MS is clearly "why do you want to live there?" Why is it's MS's right to deride Americans for where they choose to live?

4. Not to mention no support of prior generation XBox games.

So on and so forth. In the end, the message is that MS et al need to be educated that their abuses of the legitimate consumer are intolerable. DO NOT BUY this product. Better yet, contact MS and let them know *why* you're not buying this product.

The misbehavior of the industry at large will not change unless the market forces them to do so. We are the market. We decide what is acceptable for producers to do to us...not the other way around.

RE: Just say "no."
By drlumen on 5/25/2013 3:26:19 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Unfortunately it's not just M$ shoving this crap down our throats.

What really stinks is the politicians letting crap like the DMCA into law en masse and completely disregarding or nullifying the first sale and fair use doctrines.

FWIW, I don't pirate but I completely reserve all my rights to fair use.

RE: Just say "no."
By Belard on 5/27/2013 4:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
The simple thing to do is to not buy the damn thing. There has been many games I wanted to BUY, but never have played. But they come with EA's SEcurROM... Mirrors Edge, Bioshock and more. I've seen them on STEAM for $5, I consider buying them... But they still have that SecuROM root kit which isn't even needed.

The DRM is BS... It doesn't do anything to pirates. Nothing has kept me from getting those games without the DRM. I even considers buying the game and using the pirate version... But why should I? Also, why reward EA?

I'm okay with the CD Key protection. Only basic protection is needed to stop Joe Blow... For if anyone really wants to pirate, the ability to do so is seconds away.

So... Don't buy the xbox1. Help make it another Microsoft failure.

RE: Just say "no."
By Belard on 5/27/2013 4:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
The simple thing to do is to not buy the damn thing. There has been many games I wanted to BUY, but never have played. But they come with EA's SEcurROM... Mirrors Edge, Bioshock and more. I've seen them on STEAM for $5, I consider buying them... But they still have that SecuROM root kit which isn't even needed.

The DRM is BS... It doesn't do anything to pirates. Nothing has kept me from getting those games without the DRM. I even considers buying the game and using the pirate version... But why should I? Also, why reward EA?

I'm okay with the CD Key protection. Only basic protection is needed to stop Joe Blow... For if anyone really wants to pirate, the ability to do so is seconds away.

So... Don't buy the xbox1. Help make it another Microsoft failure.

Confused here a bit.
By stances on 5/24/2013 7:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
Is it just more is this looking a lot like the whole RIAA/MPAA stuff?

Low sales/revenue not because of the game being shitty but blame it on piracy and now "used" game sales?

RE: Confused here a bit.
By half_duplex on 5/24/2013 9:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
There is money in used game sales. It's substantial as well. Half of my games are used.

MS wants to get their hands on it.

What they don't understand though, is for every used game I buy, a used game was sold and gave someone an incentive to buy a new game.

If MS thinks that people are gonna stroll into the MSGameStop store to trade the shitty game they just spent $70 on for "130,000 MS points" towards a set of merchandise that they themselves will get to choose... they really are stupid.

Too bad, I remember when the original XBOX came out, many a night spent playing Halo I. I'll be sad to see MS screw up one of the few remaining things they did half way decent.

RE: Confused here a bit.
By inighthawki on 5/24/2013 9:40:38 PM , Rating: 2
Why are people just speculating about how stuff will work. MS has not given a single definitive "This is exactly how it works" yet. Maybe you should wait to see how it *actually* works before you criticize it for being something you want to dislike?

RE: Confused here a bit.
By kypd275 on 5/26/2013 11:26:05 PM , Rating: 2
Yes they have.

They've just backpedaled away from those statements by retroactively calling what they said "potential scenarios"

RE: Confused here a bit.
By inighthawki on 5/27/2013 1:21:41 AM , Rating: 2
Really? So you can point me to an article where Microsoft goes into detail about how their used games scenarios will work? Or the extents that developers can utilize the cloud services besides a couple examples (i.e. limitations)? Not everything is a conspiracy theory you know. Just because they claim these are "potential scenarios" doesn't mean they are any more than just that.

Trend with Microsoft
By Ammohunt on 5/24/2013 12:39:18 PM , Rating: 3
Almost seems like a trend with Microsoft in the way they feel they have a mandate to dictate to consumers what they want and need; e.g. with the Windows 8 forced UI change and always online gaming with the Xbox one. Imagine the amount of cash on the backed they would save by not having to completely reverse course on product releases (or completely abandon products e.g. Zune) if they would do a tiny bit of market research in the demographic for a given product. Seriously already any non-arrogant employees at Microsoft paying attention?

RE: Trend with Microsoft
By BRB29 on 5/24/2013 12:46:56 PM , Rating: 2
they've been doing that for a long time lol. I don't know why this is even a surprise.

RE: Trend with Microsoft
By NicodemusMM on 5/24/2013 11:13:45 PM , Rating: 2
They're just pissed that Apple is making such a profit, so they're trying to take the largest single step in the Apple direction.

~They'll know what they want when we show it to them.~

At least that's what it looks like at this point.

By StormyKnight on 5/25/2013 12:30:57 AM , Rating: 4
There is nothing but drama about this console. There is nothing remotely attractive to the restrictions that Micro$loth is putting on the consumers. No backward compatibility? No deal. Can't play my game at a buddy's place without fees? No deal. Have to have internet to play? For real - NO DEAL. Sorry, Redmond, you aren't getting my business.

RE: Unattractive
By inighthawki on 5/25/2013 12:41:40 AM , Rating: 1
No backward compatibility?

Did anyone expect otherwise? A completely different CPU architecture makes this nearly impossible.

Can't play my game at a buddy's place without fees?

Yes, you can. All you need to do is log in to your account.

Have to have internet to play?

To launch the game, yes. Steam has done this for ages and nobody has had an issue with it. They haven't really released any specific details on how this will operate, so making assumptions at this point is stupid.

The only drama is coming from people like you. "Oh my god, let me just infer a bunch of stuff from limited details and jump to massively oversimplified conclusions about how everything works. I hate the xbox one!!!"

RE: Unattractive
By spacemonkey211 on 5/28/2013 1:44:17 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm... Steam has an Offline mode. Select that and you can play in perpetuity without ever logging in again or being connected to the internet. Here is the link:

Look something up before you speak.

backwards compatability
By Khenglish on 5/24/2013 12:37:27 PM , Rating: 1
I'm thinking that the lack of backwards compatability might actually be due to the Xbox1 have lower single threaded CPU performance than the Xbox 360. Having a 1.6ghz core beat a 3.2ghz core seems unlikely to me, even with the jaguar's much shorter pipeline. Jaguar lacks many performance features of high end CPUs, hurting ICP. From a performance standpoint the xbox1 probably can't handle 360 games without the 360 games being rewritten to use 8 cores vs 3, which is not going to happen.

I don't understand why half as many vishera cores were not used instead of jaguar cores. Would have had far more than double single threaded performance of jaguar, and more than the 360 for sure. vishera cores are used in trinity/richland APUs which have a 35W TDP, so we know that power would not have been a problem.

RE: backwards compatability
By Flunk on 5/24/2013 1:13:59 PM , Rating: 3
Shorter pipeline is actually a good thing, it will keep the clock speed lower but it will run faster at that clock speed. If it were a matter of recompiling games for the new system I think that would be workable. I just think that's more work than developers are willing to do for products that are already sold.

What Microsoft is essentially saying is that emulating the 360 on the Xbox One is not possible (for performance reasons) one of the biggest issues is emulating a RISC instruction set on a CISC architecture, which is a notoriously difficult issue. Emulation is a lot more processing heavy than porting. The 360 could do it because it was massively more powerful than the first Xbox and a lot of Xbox games weren't written to bare assembly code anyway.

RE: backwards compatability
By Khenglish on 5/24/2013 3:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say short pipeline was a bad thing. I said that it alone is not going to be enough to offset running at half the frequency, and I don't think that jaguar cores have enough other improvements to fill the gap.

And converting code from running on 3 cores to 8 is not a simple recompile. It requires major rewriting, and is definitely not something game developers would do for something they already sold.

I am not supporting MS by writing this and giving them an excuse. With vishera they easily would have had the performance per core to run 360 games. The only issue I see is that for 4 vicheras, they would only have 2 FPUs, but I feel like the 8 jaguar FPUs will have a hard beating the 2 much stronger vishera FPUs. I feel like jaguar ended up being chosen because of the silly old metric of peak FLOPs, which jaguar does technically win on paper.

By Ramon Zarat on 5/25/2013 10:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
Where do I start? From the beginning I guess...

1995. The year of the death of 8 and 16 bit personal computers that dominated for the previous 20 years. The kings are dead, hail to the new kings: Microsoft and Intel with the so called "Wintel" platform. Microsoft is alone on top, dictating the technological market at will with an iron fist, simply buying out the competitors that bother them with their billions in the bank.

Fast-forward 15 years and in 2010, that near monopolistic state of the Wintel platform is clearly far of what it used to be. Computing devices and platform are rapidly diversifying and democratizing, eating Wintel market share faster than Microsoft can deal with it. The old bullying tricks don't work anymore.

In 2013, we are now only 2 years from the 20th birthday of the emergence of the Wintel platform domination. More and more, it smell like the end of an era, the end of an empire and it shows. Microsoft is desperate and it reflect badly on their business strategy: They were late to the smart phone AND tablet market + they are trying to make up for all the market share lost.

That's a lot of stuff to make up for in 1 single business strategy. So with their back virtually against the wall, they simply went all in: The cloud + direct sale + recurrent revenue by renting software, app and games instead of selling them. Basically, a major lockdown on the users choices and decision power. Microsoft want to dictate again, but this time their own users and customers is the target.

That explain Windows 8 and Metro jack of all trade, master of none. A phone, tablet, PC and now console OS + the cloud based Microsoft store behind Metro. That also explain Office 365, many other cloud oriented efforts and that lead us to the Xbox one, the last piece of the puzzle.

Adam Orth was right all along, the new Xbox will, one way or the other, end-up being an always online device, despite all MS efforts do downplay the issue. MS is actually trying to make game developers take the fall for this abomination, wishing "they" will make their games to be connected to the cloud mandatory... The line is very thin between wishing and dictating when it comes to Microsoft. In fact, I'm sure the cloud will become mandatory for all apps and games, no matter what MS say or how they call it.

The final intention from MS here is to discontinue support of physical media to force all users to get their games and apps in a digital format, downloaded directly from the Microsoft store and force you to use other cloud related services to interact with your games and app + badly restrict used games with unacceptably high fees and eventually, rent all their software that will stop working the day you stop paying Microsoft.

The Windows 8 closed ecosystem gulag-prison-camp encompassing all your devices from phone to console and everything in between + the cloud lockdown is Microsoft last and final attempt to dominate the market. Unfortunately, they have dramatically failed in the phone and tablet department, just look at the latest sale and market share charts. Surface was a disaster and Windows phone is not even registering on the radar. Windows 8, the life blood linking all those devices together is the worse thing to ever come from Redmond's intelligentsia and is a marketing failure.

And now, we have the cherry on the cake, the final touch: the Xbox one that stands on the rotten foundation of Windows 8 and Microsoft broken grandiose cloud business plan.

You will pay for Live, then to download your games and apps direct from MS without any competition to drive the price down, then for in-game DLC items borderline necessary to finish the game, then for the cloud services REQUIRED by all those games and apps, then again for used games and you will even pay to use something as basic as Youtube (require Live gold membership)! You'll pay all the time, every time, for a limited time use and for the rest of your sorry life. Talk about recurrent revenues...

And what will happen to all your console investment when in 6-7 years Microsoft inevitably shutdown Xbox one servers? That's right, everything you own is now both useless AND worthless. You'll need to upgrade on MS terms, when MS feels like it. The best part? You won't be able to sell your old useless console to finance the purchase of the new one! You'll need to re-invest from scratch. Isn't that nice how far MS is pushing the "recurrent revenues" concept to its absolute extreme?

This totalitarian, Orwellian, suicidal business plan is about to explode in MS face so bad, it will register 9.5 on the Richter scale. There is no plan B and no brake on-board. It's full steam ahead, do or die, no matter what. Despite the insane amount of criticism, MS will simply not back down. They never did. They don't know how and that's my friend, is how you destroy an empire by being incapable of adapting and reinventing yourself.

MS boat is leaking badly, it's falling apart piece by piece. They are disconnected from reality and their customer base. Most of what they attempted is the last 2-3 year is failing miserably. They make very bad decision, their execution is erratic at best and let's not talk about how badly they handle public relation.

Xbox one is already stigmatized with an aura of premature death and it's not even out yet. Most of the worse prediction about it appear to be true in one form or another and their main competition, Sony's PS4, seems to have dodged them all. A real, pure gaming device, with few restrictions, 30% more GPU power, much faster GDDR5 RAM and a friendly SDK for easy development.

Guess which one I will buy? Guess which one will fail miserably? Mark my word: This is the beginning of the end for Microsoft's falling empire.

By Tuor on 5/26/2013 12:32:33 AM , Rating: 2
An excellent post. The only thing you left out is how they've got their new and improved Kinect watching you... always watching you (cue ominous music), and that it'll be connected to the Internet via an (obfuscatedly defined) always-on connection. I'm sure that there is NO WAY that data would ever be used for anything beyond what Microsoft states it will be used for. We can trust them, right? I mean, it's not like AT&T ever had a special room any of their facilities that would allow a 3rd party to tap phone lines without a warrant; after all, AT&T didn't really *need* that Congressional pardon after the fact or anything. And even if they did, Microsoft is far more trustworthy than AT&T.

By croc on 5/28/2013 8:26:49 AM , Rating: 2
Black tape. Copious quantities of black tape. Buy shares in any / all black tape companies now. (I actually already have 'lens caps' for all of my 'connected' lenses... When you really start counting them, there are a lot.)

Offline Play and TV services
By AkiraJMX on 5/27/2013 2:31:20 AM , Rating: 2
I don't like the idea to force consumers to connect online every time I want to play, probably for a lot of people this is OK, but as today I have my PS3 and XBOX 360 offline all the time unless I want to apply a patch/upgrade or play online I do have a choice! and I like that. I don't want to be forced by a greedy company to "rent" a license of a game, if I want to give for free a game I already finished to my brother who lives 4 hours from where I live why in hell should I pay a fee to MS!! I'm not a lawyer and I live outside US so I ask you guys if this is even legal in the US? I will have to investigate if this is legal where I live.

Let’s use as an example what happen today the PS3/XBOX360 do not force you to install the full game on the HDD (well probably some games), you can do it if you will but you need to have your game disc in order to play, this is OK with me, If I give away the game CD I can’t play the game anymore, now under the XBOX ONE the system will force you to install the game on the HDD so MS can screw you! Does MS will ignore their user base once more as with WIN8 and the start button/metro UI by not giving their users a choice?

As I see it the XO is aimed to the US market mainly as the ZUNE was and some of the Windows Phone functions are, a hell lot of features do not even work outside US, TV?? Are you kidding me those TV functions will be useless for a lot of folks outside US due to content restrictions. NFL? I don’t care about it, NETFLIX? I can watch Netflix already in my TV with no need of an external device.

DRM crap all over the device that just screw the loyal users who purchase all original games, the guys that purchase a pirate copy of a game usually do it from the day they mod their consoles and never again purchase an original game disc.

I do not care how much the fee is for used games, MS don't even have to mess with a game that is supposed to be mine if I pay 70us for the damn thing, if this is the case I will give the middle finger to MS in this generation. I hope Sony do not do the same with the PS4 as Sony has proved is also fan of DRM.


RE: Offline Play and TV services
By Belard on 5/28/2013 2:29:01 PM , Rating: 1
Your examples are valid... But MS doesn't care . It's about money. They want the 2nd hand money. Some musicians were assholes about 2nd hand CDs ten years ago. Yep, they wanted the royalties of a CD that was already bought.

Now, you ask about legal. MS has an EULA, it's a contract. Most people don't know what is in it. He click yes and go. You give MS the rights to modify and edit ANY info on your windows comput and xox. Note: Linux has no such thing.

RE: Offline Play and TV services
By Belard on 5/28/2013 2:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, Microsoft always considers THAT you never owned the software. You are licensinced to use it, othing more. Which is corrrect, to a point. If you OWED the software, you could do anything you wanted with it, change the title, make 10000 copies and sell them for $5 each.

So it does make sense... Look at Linux, you can rename it, change the look and make 10000 copies... But youll have a hard time selling it for $5 each.

I won't be buying one.
By ShaolinSoccer on 5/24/2013 12:46:22 PM , Rating: 1
I won't buy a PS4, either. I'm skipping these next generation consoles. The 360 and PS3 are already good enough for me and I'm sure there will be tons more games made for them in the future. If MS and Sony wants my business, they need to make these consoles more affordable with less features and "more gaming"! They need to quit with all the data mining crap.

RE: I won't be buying one.
By SPOOFE on 5/24/2013 5:31:40 PM , Rating: 3
I'm skipping these next generation consoles.

I doubt I'd consider buying either of 'em until they've been out a couple years, unless they change historical trends and offer a slew of interesting games at or close to launch.

MS shill invasion
By half_duplex on 5/24/2013 5:46:44 PM , Rating: 4
Seems like we have a few posters here on the MS payroll.

1) We will need a connection at the onset of gaming for DRM. They have said this.

2) Because DRM will tie our names, games and XBOX all together, you will no longer be able to let a friend borrow a game, sell a game to a friend, trade a game for non-MS merchandise.

3) Because MS will now monopolize the used game market, they will set the value of the games you no longer want, or need to sell.

4) We DO NO NOT know if the games will "install in the background". Currently, they DO NOT, so I have no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. It's like saying we can use Windows while it's being installed.

5) Where there is smoke, there is usually fire. I would not be surprised if MS was pushing developers to require always on. It achieves their goal of maximum data collection / dependency and at the same time they don't take the blame.

Sorry MS, the cats out of the bag, and I'm gonna do my best to spread the word.

By KarenYoung47 on 5/25/2013 1:58:24 PM , Rating: 2
Nicholas. I see what you mean... Donald`s storry is flabbergasting... on thursday I got a new Alfa Romeo since I been bringin in $8180 this past 4 weeks and just over 10/k last-munth. it's realy the best job I have ever had. I began this 7-months ago and almost straight away made over $84, per-hour. I use this great link, Bow6.comTAKE A LOOK

RE: !!
By dali71 on 5/26/2013 1:45:57 AM , Rating: 2
I hope you crash and burn to death in your fictional Alfa Romeo.

By djdjohnson on 5/25/2013 2:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm... "cloud enabled" doesn't equate to "not playable offline." Games can be (and many are rumored to be) playable offline while having cloud-provided enhancements. That's the way most 360 games work now.

But aside from that, who doesn't have an Internet connection these days?

By mackx on 5/25/2013 2:40:11 PM , Rating: 2
lots of people in more rural areas.

for most of us here though i would imagine it's a far more simple case of wanting to play your games after your cable goes out. oh noes! no tv, no internet and that of course now means no console either. well, unless you're allowed to tether your phone or something. oh no, tetherings not allowed for the most part.

i was going to get an xbox one but if i cant rent games instead of buying one then i won't bother. i'll stick to my 360 controller on my PC

p.s i love you steam. long may you continue

By phatboye on 5/25/2013 9:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
Just like Win 8, if M$ refuses to listen to its customers then I will not be purchasing a XB1. I do not want their DRM ridden, used game banning, always on-line console.

While Ms is at it, they could require a SSN to log on to xbox-live for all I care.

This would be the perfect time for Google to pounce on the console arena and make a gaming version of he forthcoming googleTV.

With the increased pressure from Valve & Sony I really don't understand why MS is trying to kill off its console.

By Tuor on 5/26/2013 12:17:23 AM , Rating: 2
It seems to be pulling an AOL: appeal to people who are entirely clueless by marketing the hell out of them, thereby expanding the pool of customers. The X-bone is an "entertainment device," with gaming something that's tacked on. So they're aiming at people who own TVs rather than serious gamers.

Apparently they believe that this strategy will allow them to get their foot in the door in a large number of living rooms across America, and if they can do that, then they can start binding all of those people to their system for all of their entertainment needs... and of course they'll then start to impose how it all should work, what they should buy, how they should watch it, all with an eye to maximizing revenues and profit.

As for gamers... I think Microsoft feels they'll come around because the other games in town aren't compelling enough for gamers to stay away. And if they don't all come back, enough will that it won't be a problem for them. Microsoft seems to like giving the impression that they're the only game in town, so if you want to play, you have to come to their house to do it.

DRM is pretty useless...
By jeff834 on 5/27/2013 6:42:42 AM , Rating: 2
This is the hilarious scenario I would most like to see:

Day One: Xbox One is released.
Day Two: Xbox One is hacked so completely it becomes ridiculously easy to circumvent all DRM and online requirements.

Seriously, DRM that takes years to develop is usually rendered useless within a week, often by teenagers. I just love to picture the spectacular downfall after all the hype.

RE: DRM is pretty useless...
By Belard on 5/28/2013 2:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
Not quite. The hardware is coded to call home. Or you have to simulate an MS server... And if an update is required... Then he X1 knows its compromised... Then MS bricks your console.... And your games.

Here's a new thought:
By inperfectdarkness on 5/28/2013 3:14:44 AM , Rating: 2
If MS wants to push advertising like it has been trying to do, why not build it into the games?

I mean, we've been seeing strategic ad placement in video games since at least NFSU2, so why not go one step further? Create games with environments where there are "blanks" for texture panels to fill. random billboards, playbill posters, etc. Then all that has to be done is to insert pre-rendered images for these ads into the "blanks" within games.

Ads can change based on who is paying for them, and the application/visibility for them is virtually endless. And it also gives the option to charge full-price for a game uncluttered with ads, or get a discounted price and be subjected to ads.

I'd be willing to bet that there are a lot of people out there who would consider paying $20 for a game with ads that they would not buy at all for $60 ad-free.

RE: Here's a new thought:
By Belard on 5/29/2013 3:39:06 PM , Rating: 2
Some games do this already. They have been doing it for years.

Doesn't work for consoles
By Concillian on 5/24/2013 2:18:42 PM , Rating: 3
If my kid wants to take her console when she spends her two weeks at grandma's house on summer vacation, she should be able to do so and play her dance games without her and grandma calling me to figure out how to hook it up to the wifi.

If I go on vacation, I should be able to bring my console and hook it to the TV in the hotel without worrying about paying the wifi fee.

This isn't a PC, my mom shouldn't need to call me to figure out how to hook up a console. This should be a simple device. PCs are a different story, I don't like it for PCs either, but at least you can understand the motivations. Pirating is easier; if you're bringing a PC with you, you're likely paying the wifi fee at a hotel anyway. Consoles? Doesn't make sense at all.

By dxf2891 on 5/24/2013 2:20:45 PM , Rating: 3
I purchased that "Defiance" game and installed it on the "family" Xbox 360. I mistakenly installed it under my sons profile and began to play it. I got pretty far before I turned the game off. Logged in with my profile after realizing my error and I had to start all over even though I used my code. This DRM stuff is a nuisance. They are effectively killing their own profitable industry. I usually buy both consoles (Xbox and PS2, Xbox 360 and PS3), but if this is the way Xbox One will handle Microsoft's customers, hello PS4 and screw you Xbox One.

just the title
By rob19478 on 5/24/2013 5:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
Congratulations MS for loosing a customer, just the title made me decide to ditch the xbox one and continue supporting steam, and no i do not pirate games,

RE: just the title
By SPOOFE on 5/24/2013 5:33:50 PM , Rating: 1
just the title made me decide to ditch the xbox one

So you believe every silly rumor you read without applying an iota of critical thinking in analyzing it?

Journalism 101
By OoklaTheMok on 5/24/2013 12:46:13 PM , Rating: 2
Who is Marc Whitten and why should we care about his opinion?

money hungry
By momorere on 5/24/2013 12:46:17 PM , Rating: 2
Not enough clicks today?
By Gunbuster on 5/24/2013 1:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
Did you need more clicks today? This story and the title just scream click bate.

Connection Hog?
By kutabaregaki on 5/24/2013 2:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
I only wonder how much bandwidth it will take to play a game per hour. Some of us have to deal with Caps. :/

Microsoft Presents:
By lagomorpha on 5/24/2013 3:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
Sim City the console!

Enjoy waiting in perpetual queues for those 'graphics boosting' servers to open up slots.

Is no one else upset about this?
By Freakie on 5/24/2013 8:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
Am I the only one upset about this: "We have only confirmed that we designed Xbox One to enable our customers to trade in and resell games at retail."

Saying hat the new Xbox is designed to just like Game Stop screw us over by giving us $3 for a used game and turning around and selling it for $30? When you can sell/buy the same game on ebay for $15? If it's designed to completely take out private used sales like that, then I don't care what they say, they are getting rid of being able to play a used game. Honestly, how many people actually buy and sell their used games at retail? This is ridiculous!

no surprises here
By cyberserf on 5/24/2013 11:23:42 PM , Rating: 2
it is like all the good people who made Microsoft what they were until XP left or were moved somewhere else.
this company must be run be outsourced morons.
they screwed the PC user first with less and less windows games made directly by Microsoft. still no new Halo games on PC.
butchered outlook express, windows explorer. windows GUI.
now they are trying to pull their idiotic ideas on the consoles where they have to deal with Sony/Nintendo. They are just gonna get slaughtered just like they did with Zune/tablets/phones. Samsung/Apple etc....
only reason they are still around is the PC user base.
The list goes on and on.


By augiem on 5/25/2013 2:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
from a user interface, controls, and hardware perspective .

I'm very disappointed in this gen from a hardware perspective. I mean, a doubled-up netbook/notebook processor? Really? Neither MS nor Sony did a thing on R&D this round. Last time around was very impressive. Both the cell processor and the 3-core 3.2GHz PPC were quite a bit more competitive with the PCs and quite innovative since we didn't even have dual-core CPUs back then. And the GPUs... All we had when the 360 was announced were GF4 or FX. There's a reason these consoles lasted almost a decade. This round, they really got lazy IMO. Sad. But I guess all it really means is there's room for another player in the market should one choose to compete on pushing technology.

By SusanBoyd47 on 5/26/2013 11:04:44 AM , Rating: 2
up to I looked at the paycheck of $6621, I have faith brothers friend was truly erning money in there spare time at their computer.. there brothers friend haz done this for only about seventeen months and recently took care of the dept on there cottage and got a great Lancia Straton. read more at, Exit35.comCHECK IT OUT

By BZDTemp on 5/26/2013 11:18:19 AM , Rating: 2
I love going retro now and then and have some fun with a old console, but seeing how Microsoft killed their support for the original XBOX pretty quick it has me wondering about going retro sometime in the future will not be possible. I mean if some on-line verification is needed to play a game then that won't be possible once that service is gone.

Stop being so tight
By pjl321 on 5/27/2013 7:45:17 AM , Rating: 2
I am really not understanding everyone's problem with what MS are rumoured to be doing. Microsoft and Sony will have invested millions, if not billions on developing these consoles. If we want decent consoles and decent games then companies have to believe their colossal investment at the start will pay off, this will not happen if people are buying and selling 2nd hand games left, right and center. Developers will just make cheaper, shorter, poorer games or worst still they will go bust like so many great game developers have recently.

If a game is worth buying then buy it! If it's not worth buying then don't, if you are unsure then read reviews, if you can't afford new games then wait for the price to drop like they always do or find a special offer anywhere.

Yes MS wants you to connect to the internet so see you have bought that game legitimately, what's the big deal with that? Doesn't a supermarket want you to pay for your food before you get home and eat it? If you don't have the internet yet then probably the latest technology isn't for you.

If there was no piracy and no second hand games market then the industry would be worth a lot more money than it currently is and as a result we would possibly see much more powerful (expensive) hardware inside consoles, less game developers going under, better games and possibly even cheaper games at launch as they don't need to factor in that this isn't 1 game being sold to 1 person but it's actually 1 game being sold to 2, 3, 10 people!

By Darkmatter25 on 5/28/2013 6:30:43 AM , Rating: 2
DRM is perfectly fine as long as it does not affect a legitimate end user. Steam is a good example of this, its a DRM system that does not interfear with my enjoyment of my games.

This system of: I buy a game, add it to my profile and play it, does not seem to effect me as a legitimate end user. If i want to play my games elsewhere i enter my username and password which takes about 30-60 seconds depends on how fast you type. This is exactly the same as steam and blizzard.

The price of used games is not that far from new so i have no problem with the used game market dying. None of my PC games can be sold.

I will be looking forward to buying my XBOX One in November.

By SherryMorris41 on 5/28/2013 12:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
If you think Ann`s story is exceptional,, a month-ago my daughter in-law earned $4729 just sitting there a 20 hour week from there apartment and they're classmate's mother`s neighbour has done this for 5 months and made over $4729 in there spare time On there computer. use the information from this web-site Exit35.comCHECK IT OUT

By PatriciaBau52 on 5/29/2013 8:11:00 PM , Rating: 2
If you think Karen`s story is good..., won weak-ago my brother in law basically also made the small fortune of $6421 grafting twelve hour's a week in their apartment and they're neighbor's step-aunt`s neighbour was doing this for 3 months and got a cheque for more than $6421 in there spare time from a labtop. applie the guide from this web-site.. Bow6.comTAKE A LOOK

Shut up
By Zingam on 5/30/2013 9:12:34 AM , Rating: 2
Companies' CEOs need money for a new mansion or yacht to take hookers and to have fun. So shut up and pay up!
Companies' CEOs don't play games they play the real deal. That costs lots of money and you have to cover the costs. So shut up and pay up! :)
...aaah, I've forgotten the investors. So double the price and you should go find a second, third, fourth job so you can pay!!!

By KOOLTIME on 5/30/2013 7:58:45 PM , Rating: 2

Online games majority of them suck bad due to they are all riddled with scammers and spammers, not really enjoyable night, to get hit with 50 messages to buy some illegal things, when just trying to enjoy a few hours relax game time after long days work, that kills the mood and fun.

Sure they put some block message actions into the system, but the scammers and spammers, just make new names / accounts so you can block all you want, then 2 minutes later they spam you the same again under a new name.

Offline games, are way better for some games, no hassles, no network or account payments or idoits to deal with to harass you all the time your online.

By Arsynic on 5/28/2013 9:57:42 AM , Rating: 1
This does not make sense. If they backed off a plan then it wasn't a rumor. If it was a rumor then there's no proof that they backed off of a plan. Shoddy "journalism" right there and stuff like this has been feeding the hype and bullshit surrounding the XONE reveal.

All we know is that there will be changes. XONE games will install to the HDD and will not require the disc to be in the console which is a great convenience for the gamer. However, this introduces a problem for Microsoft and other game publishers. They need a method to verify that the user is playing an authentic copy of the game.

I'm okay with an occasional online check-in process since I like the convenience of not having to purchase a game disc or when I do, to install it and put the game pack on the shelf to look pretty. But I understand that some of you hate change and don't mind disc swapping, so MS should give you the option of having to authenticate from the game disc every time you want to play. This should be the default method for disc-based games.

If you want the convenience of downloading games then you need to accept a EULA before you download that says you're okay with MS checking in every 24 hours to make sure that your copy of the game is authentic. Don't complain about "What if my Internet goes out!" either. Obviously your Internet is reliable enough for you to download a 25 GB game and if it's out longer than 24 hours then likely you have bigger issues to worry about than playing video games.

If you change your mind, you should be able to order a game disc from the publisher at anytime for the cost of shipping and handling.

Factual inaccuracies....
By Etsp on 5/24/13, Rating: -1
RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Motoman on 5/24/13, Rating: 0
RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Etsp on 5/24/2013 2:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
If you look at the article I linked,
He said the improved cloud architecture will speed up GPU- or CPU-heavy chores that aren't dependent on latency -- like lighting or cloth dynamics -- by pre-calculating them before applying them to a scene.
They are claiming exactly that.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Digimonkey on 5/24/2013 2:28:24 PM , Rating: 1
That's not what it's saying. It's not rendering anything in the cloud. The servers are passing information on how to light the scene or telling the game how the objects should be affected by physics. Rendering like Motoman said is all still locally done.

All that said though, it's still impressive if it works out and I'm all for it.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Etsp on 5/24/2013 2:47:40 PM , Rating: 2
It is doing some pre-rendering, or it is doing a lot of the calculations involved in rendering. The final product uses that data to render the scene. The difference is in semantics at this point as far as Motoman's comment is concerned.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By half_duplex on 5/24/2013 5:28:26 PM , Rating: 4
Prerendering? Some of the calculations involved in rendering?

This is not how graphics processing works, sorry to burst your bubble.

And if you do find something that suggests "the cloud" will render half your graphics and your gpu will take over from there... it's a sham.

And if they do find some squirelly way to make your XBOX dependent on "the cloud" for rendering, then the console should be much, much cheaper.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By inighthawki on 5/24/2013 5:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
There are actually games that perform cloud rendering. The rendering pipeline can be more complex than "in the next 16ms draw everything I see." There are rendering operations that can easily take multiple frames, or precalculated rendering costs that are amortized over seconds worth of time. Easily offloadable, you just need enough processing power server end, which is where it gets... iffy. I have a very hard time believe Microsoft could provide enough server processing power to take rendering costs of millions of players and perform it with a low enough latency to be useful. I think we have to wait and see how developers use it, and not make assumptions like 90% of the people here are doing.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By StevoLincolnite on 5/25/2013 5:48:47 AM , Rating: 2
What about the Dozens of country's around the world that Microsoft will sell the console too who do NOT get any form of dedicated servers near-by who then need to rely on servers that can be 300-1000ms away? Should they just "Deal with it?"

You can't exactly throw the law of physics out the window and hope everyone on the planet will get 10ms.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By mcnabney on 5/25/2013 10:59:31 AM , Rating: 3
Or the fact that this type of processing model means that a game has an expiration date. When the servers are turned off, nobody will ever play it again.

I would expect Madden 2013's servers to shut down the moment the next year's version is available to purchase...

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By someguy123 on 5/25/2013 3:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
It is not easily offloadable...

a frame in even a 30fps game is a relatively low 33ms per frame. say you had a 3 buffer window of 3 frames (pretty high for 30fps) for 99ms, good luck trying to send the geometry data/maps over to their servers, calculate, receive and then draw inside that buffer window with any type of accuracy. Best thing I can even picture would be some kind of very fast screenspace shader like SSAO, but this doesn't add much and in some cases will look worse.

The latency would be more performance prohibitive than simply rendering on worse hardware unless their servers were exponentially more powerful (for all users), though you'd still need a wide buffer window, which means high input lag.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Motoman on 5/24/2013 2:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
...chores that aren't dependent on latency...

This is the part that makes no sense. If the server is doing *anything* related to the realtime rendering of a scene - whether actually doing rendering work, or even just helping with some calculations to send final numbers to the client - that, by definition, is necessarily VERY dependent on latency.

A bomb drops from a plane and blows up a factory. LOTS of physics involved there...the renderer has to deal with lighting and material behavior of untold numbers of fragments and particles.

Explain to me how the server can do any portion of that work - any portion at all - in a way that isn't dependent on latency. As in, you're the player watching the thing explode, and if you have yellow/red latency issues, you're going to get stuttering and missing information problems with what you see on your TV.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Motoman on 5/24/2013 2:34:31 PM , Rating: 2
I get that he said that. I don't believe it makes any sense. Lighting and cloth dynamics are both realtime rendering issues - and as such, are highly affected by latency.

When you look at an online game...WoW for example...all the actual rendering is done on the local machine using it's hardware resources, to minimize the amount of data that has to be pushed back and forth in realtime...and also to maximize the number of users that can be supported from a given server or server farm.

When your lag indicator turns yellow or red, you start to get really choppy based on the simple fact that the WoW client is waiting for *basic* information from the, which character on the screen just did what action. And you sit and wait for that *basic* information to come down so that your machine can render it nearly instantaneiously...once it knows what to render.

Having any *actual* rendering done on the server necessitates the transmission of far more data than "character Bob kicks character Alice for 10,000 damage." And saying that such things "aren't dependant on latency" is just ridiculous. EVERYTHING is dependant on latency...and realtime rendering functions moreso than anything else.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Etsp on 5/24/2013 2:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
Here's the source article to what engaget's article was about:

Basically, what they will doing in the cloud is stuff that doesn't need to be calculated out for each and every frame, but might need to get updated x times a second, and doesn't affect real-time stuff it it doesn't get recalculated on time. He gives some specific examples in that article.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Motoman on 5/24/2013 3:03:27 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, I read that article.

I don't buy it.

At best...BEST...they are horribly underestimating the effects of latency in the real world.

If they literally attempt to implement this in the real world, I see it failing massively.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Digimonkey on 5/24/2013 3:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
Developers don't have to use it. It's just a extra feature they have the choice in using or not using. If they find it doesn't work well in the real world, they won't bother.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Motoman on 5/24/2013 3:24:54 PM , Rating: 2

But at a minimum, how many titles are there going to be at launch?

Wait until the Madden 2014 OMFGWTFBBQ Edition that all the gamerz buy at launch with their new consoles looks like sh1t most of the time because these guys don't fundamentally understand physics (real-world physics...not game physics).

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Digimonkey on 5/24/2013 3:37:40 PM , Rating: 2
That'd be on the developers. Are you trying to say Microsoft shouldn't offer developers new tools or features because the developer might not be able to use them effectively? Sounds like you've convinced yourself this feature won't work at launch or ever. It may not, I don't care, complaining about it seems silly though when all you can do is speak hypothetically.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Motoman on 5/24/2013 4:17:25 PM , Rating: 3
I'm saying that at best it's DRM in sheep's clothing. At worst, it punishes gamers who don't have the best broadband access.

In either's something MS shouldn't be doing.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By inighthawki on 5/24/13, Rating: 0
RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By EnzoFX on 5/24/2013 4:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't think that applies. The whole notion of consoles is that everyone gets the same experience. So I don't mean to get into the specifics of this particular argument, but if MS is starting to separate out different experiences in what a console's most basic duty, gaming, then it deserves to be a big deal at least.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By althaz on 5/24/2013 7:39:42 PM , Rating: 1
The whole point of consoles is NOT that everybody gets the same experience, but that everybody has the same base hardware to optimize for (also the same input devices, etc).

If there's a way for some people to get a better experience, whether it's by having a faster internet connection or by having a nice third-party controller, that's a fundamentally GOOD thing.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Motoman on 5/24/2013 4:54:59 PM , Rating: 2
Scenario A: everybody gets the same product for the same money.

Scenario B: One group of people gets a lesser product for the same money than another group of people.

Ergo, one group of people in Scenario B is punished.

You can try to re-frame it all you want...but you're wrong.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By inighthawki on 5/24/2013 5:43:04 PM , Rating: 1
First and foremost, the people in scenario B are paying more, for a good internet connection.

And secondly, what? That doesn't make any sense. It's like this: I walk into a crowd of people and sell ice cream cones for $1 each. For 10 cents more I add sprinkles (pretend everyone likes sprinkles). Some people may not have a dime on them, so they don't get sprinkles. Does that mean I am punishing those who did not get sprinkles because some people DID have an extra dime? No of source not.

This is the same idea. Everyone has "baseline quality," and those with a good internet connection can take advantage of more of the technology. Why should people not be allowed to make use of a technology just because some people can't use it? Should developers stop making games with DX11 support because not everyone has a DX11 compatible video card?

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By V-Money on 5/24/2013 6:11:13 PM , Rating: 2
First and foremost, the people in scenario B are paying more, for a good internet connection.

As a former submariner I would like to say first and foremost F*@^ you. While out on deployments on a submarine you don't have any internet connection to "refresh" your system. Also, we aren't paying any less because while out we still have rent payments and internet payments and every other bill imaginable and we pay the same amount for the system. There isn't much free time on a submarine, but when you get it you want to be able to have some form of entertainment to keep you from going insane.

You analogy about direct x isn't valid because the system is perfectly capable playing the games without an internet connection. In your scenario people either have hardware that doesn't support it or the people are refusing to download the software. Same with your sprinkles analogy, you are talking about people not being able to afford the extra features. I'm not asking for much along the lines of "baseline" quality, I'm just asking for the thing that I PAID FOR to F$^@ing work.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By inighthawki on 5/24/2013 6:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
And it does work. Not having this feature only lowers the quality bar. They are not making the console WORSe for people WITHOUT internet. they are making it better for those who do.

For your particular case, I can sympathize as a scenario that without an internet connection at all, you would not be able to play. I DO think that that is a mistake. I see no reason that a connection should be established every 24 hours to play.

However, believing that you should lower the quality bar for everyone just because some people cannot use it is selfish and asinine. Let's NOT develop and improve our software because a small fraction of their target demographic can't make use of it. Genius.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By EnzoFX on 5/24/2013 7:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
The whole point of consoles is so you do not have different experiences. I understand what you're saying, but surely you see how it goes against the basis of what makes consoles successful.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By inighthawki on 5/24/2013 7:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
And to that point I can agree, but we don't even know the extent of this technology and how it will be used, so I feel it's silly in the first place to be arguing this. I can't even imagine what kind of realistic calculations it could make to improve quality by significant margins. I somehow sincerely doubt that it would be any kind of night and day difference. Imagine the kind of compute power that Microsoft's servers would need when a new CoD comes out that uses online rendering and tens of millions of players try to use it. Obviously there is not enough compute power for this to realistically compute something of high enough value to produce a hugely noticeable quality difference.

Nonetheless, whether you agree or not, I do stand by my opinion that we should not try to limit the technology because a small number of people may not be able to use it.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By NobleKain on 5/24/2013 8:37:25 PM , Rating: 2
"The whole point of consoles is so you do not have different experiences. I understand what you're saying, but surely you see how it goes against the basis of what makes consoles successful."

This is complete and utter hogwash.

The whole point of consoles is to minimize the variations of the architecture developers must code for, thus allowing Developers to have clearly definable specifications they must adhere to which in turn allow them to maximize the experience.

HOWEVER... that does not mean the idea is to have the same experience. They can't control the television you play the game on... nor can they control the sound system you attach to the game. In the same way, they can't control your internet connection speed.

What they CAN account for is that the lowest common denominator (the console) provides a fairly small subset of experiences.

If you choose to buy a 4K TV, and the console can render to 4K, it makes sense they'd do it, even if the majority of people can't afford the 4K TV. It's not a PUNISHMENT to those that only have 1080P, or worse, 720P.

If all you have are the stereo speakers of your TV, should they not also put in Dolby Digital 7.1 surround simply to keep the "experience the same"? Don't be stupid.

By the same token, if they can architect the game to gain EXTRA performance for those with a home ecosystem that has a super fast Internet connection, they should do so. That's not penalizing everyone without the fast internet... but its providing a better experience for those that have it.

"Let's not produce OLED displays because not everyone can afford one." Y'all are back-asswards.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By SPOOFE on 5/25/2013 3:18:21 PM , Rating: 1
As a former submariner I would like to say first and foremost F*@^ you. While out on deployments on a submarine you don't have any internet connection to "refresh" your system.

You're out on a submarine and worried about refreshing your game console?!?!?

First. Fucking. World. Problems. Cry me a river.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Reclaimer77 on 5/25/2013 5:40:36 PM , Rating: 1
lmao no doubt.

They should remake The Hunt for Red October but have the good guys lose instead because they're too busy playing Xbox and jerking around haha.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By dali71 on 5/26/2013 2:08:23 AM , Rating: 1
He was defending our country so that you have the right to be a fucking douchebag on the internet. Show some respect.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Belard on 5/26/2013 12:41:53 AM , Rating: 2
No... Because everyone is still paying $60 for the same game. So for those limited or no Internet access get screwed... But there is a solution.

Don't by the xbox1.

The other thing that is effected is game rentals... Oh well. Intelligence and Microsoft don't go together.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Piiman on 5/25/2013 4:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
How is it DRM? How would this prevent someone from using a pirated copy of a game? After all isn't that what DRM is?

Being always online isn't DRM either unless it is connecting and checking your license every 5 minutes.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Etsp on 5/24/2013 3:22:46 PM , Rating: 2
But if it works, and works well, it could become something huge. It would give Microsoft a means of upgrading the performance of the Xbox One post launch, as they would upgrade their servers over time.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Motoman on 5/24/2013 3:28:17 PM , Rating: 5
If it works at all, it becomes a de facto DRM in and of itself...because you can't play the games "in full capability" unless you're always-on with a very fast, low-latency, highly reliable internet connection.

Which at a bare minimum cuts out tens of millions of Americans who don't have that to start with.

But I'm pretty sure it's going to suck so hard, for a significant number of people, that MS will have to backtrack once again. The physics involved in moving the bits and bytes back and forth in realtime just doesn't add up.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By inighthawki on 5/24/2013 4:15:08 PM , Rating: 2
I think both of you are arguing over something that neither of you really has any accurate information on. Neither of you knows the extent of what the feature is or how it should be used, so it's stupid pointless to argue about it.

Obviously there will not be realtime rendering operations on a per-frame basis that use this cloud calculations, but that doesn't mean that parts of the rendering pipeline cant leverage it.

because you can't play the games "in full capability"

(Assuming you could get the kind of advantage you are referring to) I think you are thinking about this the wrong way. It is not punishing the people who would not have a good internet connection, it only rewards those who do. It is just like extending the capabilities of a terminal by offloading additional quality calculations to the server. You are providing a virtual upgrade to the hardware by utilizing off-site resources.

You have to look at it from this perspective:

There are two possibilities:
1) This technology doesn't exist, thus everyone is limited to the power of the hardware in the xbox
2) This technology does exist and provides *extra* quality to those with an internet connection fast enough to offload important calculations to off-site servers. Otherwise you are limited to the quality of the xbox.

The ONLY way this would be a *bad* thing is if the game was not playable *at all* without a fast, low latency internet connection. And since nobody here knows any of the requirements of full uses of this technology, you cannot assume something like that. Let's wait for them to release details before getting our panties in a bunch of bundles.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Motoman on 5/24/2013 4:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
It is not punishing the people who would not have a good internet connection, it only rewards those who do.

Uh-huh. And slavery wasn't punishing people for being black, it was rewarding those who were white.

So can I get a discount on my console, and my games, because they aren't the same quality product for me out in the country as they are for my buddy who lives in the city?

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By inighthawki on 5/24/2013 4:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
Uh-huh. And slavery wasn't punishing people for being black, it was rewarding those who were white.

That is one of the worst analogies I've ever heard of. Having a better connection and getting higher uality from your games is NOTHING like this. It would have to imply that white people were also slaves and that all of the white people simply "bought" a higher quality of life.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Motoman on 5/24/2013 4:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
You can dislike the analogy all you want, the point is that you're trying to frame this as "not something bad for a group of people, but rather something good for a different group of people."

You can frame *everything* that way, and it's blatant dishonesty.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By inighthawki on 5/24/2013 5:49:03 PM , Rating: 2
But that IS what it is, and nothing else. Those without a good internet connection are not losing anything. Only those with a good internet connection may benefit from it.

By your standards we should stop trying to offer improvements because some people can't use it. Google should just scrap Google Glass. There are people who can't see so they can't benefit from it.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Digimonkey on 5/24/2013 4:35:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not even going to touch that analogy, but I'm pretty sure it's far off base.

Using your logic I shouldn't be able to play my games at max settings because someone else that bought the game might not be able to, or they should at least get a discount for not being able to use any of the new DirectX 11 features in the game.

Now you may say they have the option of buying a better video card, but the question is do they? Maybe they can't afford it, maybe they don't have a good enough job due to life choices, like the life choices that you made to leave you with a shoddy internet connection at where you live.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Motoman on 5/24/2013 4:50:48 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that we're talking about a *console* here. It's the same for everybody...or at least, it's supposed to be.

Not the same thing as a gaming PC, where you're limited based on the unique hardware that you yourself have. If you want to get higher resolutions on your PC, sure, you can buy a better video card.

But on a console? When the limiting factor isn't something you have control over, like whether or not reliable broadband is available to you?

Now you're back to "well, why do you want to live there" - which is the attitude that (rightfully) got Adam Orth fired.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By inighthawki on 5/24/2013 5:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, we shouldn't allow some people to have a better experience because SOME people cannot. Let's bring down the quality of everyone so they don't feel left out. For someone who works in IT, you don't seem to have a firm grasp on how software technology is driven.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By EnzoFX on 5/24/2013 7:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
Some people here don't understand the principle of consoles. They are supposed to provide the same gaming experience. Doesn't F'n matter if you look at it as making it better or worse for others, we're talking about it's most basic duty, gaming. So clearly anyone should be able to see how some could feel alienated about it. Whether this goes over well depends on whether people are ready, in principle, for a new rule.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By EnzoFX on 5/24/2013 7:20:47 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, and I'll add. If you're one of those that look at it as making it better for some, you're an asshole lol. You can justify a lot of shitty things by breaking it down that way. The problem is that decisions like these are always a false choice. If they really don't want to alienate people, they could allow the service for cloud rendering and not be dependent on paying more or it effectively becoming drm, etc, etc. It could simply be something that is either available to you or not. It shouldn't be tied down and a reason to justify some new rules, new territory that's indicative of catering to devs that can't have enough drm. Get a clue. Just because it may not affect you in your usage, you're still encouraging behavior that isn't necessary. So even if you're not of the extreme were all drm should be banned, there are clearly cases where it's impractical, or more costly, etc. etc. Arguing within their structured false choice is a fail by everyone.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By inighthawki on 5/24/2013 7:28:56 PM , Rating: 2
If you're one of those that look at it as making it better for some, you're an a*shole lol. You can justify a lot of sh*tty things by breaking it down that way

How so? There is no disadvantage to those who can not make use of it. That doesn't make it "a justification for some sh*tty thing." By that logic we shouldn't even have internet because some people live in areas where it's impossible or impractical to get it. We don't want to make some people unhappy because they happen to live somewhere where they can't get internet. Sure it sucks, but that's not a "cost" to make something happen.

There are plenty of cases where there is a "sacrifice the few for the many" attitude but this also isn't one of those situations either.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By inighthawki on 5/24/2013 7:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
Firstly I think this is blowing things way out of proportion. Even with two levels of quality, the consistency of the experience won't change much unless we're talking about current vs next gen quality differences here. But a consistent experience can still be obtained with varying quality. Look at the N64. It had an upgrade that expanded texture memory that some games could take advantage of. Nobody was kicking and screaming back then that it was unfair, did they?

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Digimonkey on 5/24/2013 7:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
Some people here don't understand the principle of consoles. They are supposed to provide the same gaming experience.

That's really just a by product of mass producing the same hardware to bring down the price and make game development easier. It also serves as a pro argument for console vs PC.

All the console companies really care about is that you have a good enough experience to want to buy more games. They have no issue selling new updated more powerful models of consoles and expensive accessories that can change the experience quite a bit.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Piiman on 5/25/2013 4:56:49 PM , Rating: 1
The only "principle of consoles" is that they all have the same hardware and it doesn't change for a long time.

All Xbox one's will have the same hardware.

Did you bitch when some xbox owners attached HD's to their Xbox's and tell them they weren't following the "principle of consoles"?

LOL Come on man your point is just looney.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Digimonkey on 5/24/2013 6:45:35 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think you read the last paragraph of my post. What if someone truly can't afford the hardware upgrade, just like you can't get better internet service?

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Piiman on 5/25/2013 5:08:33 PM , Rating: 2
What if everyone can't afford an XB one? Should they not sell them then?

Your argument is silly

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Piiman on 5/25/2013 4:50:55 PM , Rating: 2
"The problem is that we're talking about a *console* here. It's the same for everybody...or at least, it's supposed to be. "

Is that a law or something? Where is it writen in stone that everyone with a console should be the same? thats may be the way it's been but that doesn't make it some univeral law that can never change.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Piiman on 5/25/2013 4:46:57 PM , Rating: 2
Does a person with a better PC and GPU pay more than someone that has an old PC and GPU?

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Piiman on 5/25/2013 4:45:12 PM , Rating: 2
But that isn't the function of DRM. DRM is to prevent Pirating and this tech , so far, does none of that that I can see. Unless it also checks license or some code also its not DRM. Its not there to prevent stealing of software.

It may be a pain in the ass if the dev decides not to also use local hardware if your not online,but how is just being online to use a clould service DRM?

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By AmishElvis on 5/24/2013 7:39:48 PM , Rating: 2
Those things often involve some complicated up-front calculations when you enter that world, but they don’t necessarily have to be updated every frame.

To me "when you enter the world" means when the level loads. So the cloud would only need to assist with rendering every 10 minutes or so when you change zones.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Motoman on 5/24/2013 8:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
Then there would be no point, as it wouldn't improve gameplay or visuals at all - because the moment you move, everything has to be re-done.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By inighthawki on 5/24/2013 8:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
There are calculations done in rendering pipelines that do not necessarily need to be done every frame, you know.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Motoman on 5/24/2013 9:54:43 PM , Rating: 2
You don't f%cking say.

Do they need to get updated once a second? Like, one out of every 30 frames? Because that's still not going to work. Every time you move, whatever happened before is no longer valid. You have a new screen that needs to be rendered. So sure...if you sit there and stare at the same screen without moving or anything else happening, I'm sure one update a second might work. It's just that people probably expect to *play* their games...and that involves moving and other things happening, and that involves *constant* rendering of the screen.

I fully disagree with any assertion that there's "things that can be done remotely" that aren't going to be affected by latency. That's pure BS. Period.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By inighthawki on 5/24/2013 11:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
I can tell that you have very little experience in game development or graphics. If you did you'd know there are plenty of things that can be computed lazily across many frames seconds apart during normal gameplay. You don't have to stand still to make use of it.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By drlumen on 5/25/2013 3:07:12 AM , Rating: 2
There are things in a scene which can be pre-calculated and does not affect the rendering in general. Little things like the points of a circle can be calculated and put into a table so they can be transitioned and rendered - the points don't change it's just the perspective.

However, with that said, I still believe this is a clusterfail waiting to happen. It's hard enough for developers to handle multi-threading apps in an efficient way on a single system let alone a server somewhere providing data with variable lag.

Also, if a developer were to really push the tech by offloading too much to the servers I can easily see the servers melting down with those trying to play just getting TICKED! MS will then put limits on it to the point that it will be useless and the developers will give up trying to use it.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By someguy123 on 5/25/2013 2:47:24 PM , Rating: 2
That cloud assisted graphics thing is the most hilarious lie I've read all week. How is it even legal to claim you're offering the nanosecond response times required to have on the fly offloading of real time 3d games? At least with on-live they were offering video feeds rather than claiming they magically insert shadows directly onto game geometry while the engine is actively culling.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By inighthawki on 5/25/2013 4:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure why people are jumping to conclusions. Someone says it can help with graphics and all the sudden people jump to the conclusion that the only way to help rendering performance is per-frame. Not every aspect of rendering a scene has to be done for every 16ms frame.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By someguy123 on 5/26/2013 10:43:48 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it does, because your FOV is not static, so at best you will have a normal buffer window, and during that buffer window is the only time you can alter visual data without the player input adjusting the FOV. Calculating collisions would be worthless as the latency would be too high for player input. Give the player no influence and it may as well be prebaked, which you can already do very quickly without the extra cloud latency (HL2 did this in ep 2). If you want to add shadows to a scene it will need to be in the buffer window as everything out of your FOV is culled and textures filtered based on FOV angle as well. There's practically nothing they can add but fast post filers like blur, color correction or SSAO.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By inighthawki on 5/26/2013 11:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
Not every part of the rendering pipeline is performed when you are rendering triangles to a back buffer. There are operations such as in global illumination that can be done over the course of several frames. Unreal 4 utilizes a compute technique that inject light into a 3D voxel grid to simulate realistic global illumination. This step in their lighting pipeline is NOT done per frame, and is NOT part of rendering to the backbuffer.

That being said, I also believe that this entire discussion is taken out of proportion. Nobody actually knows what kind of operations the technology is suited for, people are just jumping to conclusions based on the incredibly vague example the Microsoft guy specified. The concept that MS could realistically have enough servers with enough compute power to process any kind of intensive graphical operations on the fly all the time is so unlikely.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By someguy123 on 5/27/2013 3:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
GI data requires that actual frame data first before you can draw shadows. If you were to attempt to just stream this data in after the fact then draw on the fly over the internet you'd have even more pop-in than the original UE3 texture problem. You do not simply render a massive amount of GI information for the entire scene to be read at all times considering the ridiculous processing cost. The only way this would even be practical over network is in a scenario with very high framerates (100s or more) to allow for a wider frame prebuffer at lower latency. This would absolutely need to be treated as static information on the xbox, which would be worthless as its more cost effective in every aspect to just prebake during content creation. There is very little in modern video games that can be "offloaded" yet aren't already prerendered during content creation.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Piiman on 5/25/2013 5:11:23 PM , Rating: 2
You may want to actually read a little about it before posting crazy rants.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By Major HooHaa on 5/25/2013 7:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
I just had two weeks without a reliable internet connection.

The connection kept dropping in and out and web surfing was painfully slow when I could get online. Glad I didn't own an "always online console."

But I did have a classic old game running on DOSBOX though. This was completely unaffected by a lack of an internet connection.

RE: Factual inaccuracies....
By half_duplex on 5/27/2013 10:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
You're making this up, nowhere in the world do such "off line" scenarios exist. Everyone one is online, all of the time, even most ovens are connected now, people just don't realize it.

here comes the flames.
By crispbp04 on 5/24/13, Rating: -1
RE: here comes the flames.
By Boze on 5/24/2013 2:39:58 PM , Rating: 2
So you think that someone who doesn't have access to broadband Internet access is a hillbilly? Is that correct?

And you furthermore would agree that someone who might live in a sparsely populated area with limited connectivity, like say, Montana or Wyoming, shouldn't be allowed to purchase a console and buy $60 games for it and then be able to play said games?

Am I understanding you correctly?

Because a cattle rancher shouldn't ever want to play Call of Duty or Halo, amirite?

RE: here comes the flames.
By Ammohunt on 5/24/2013 2:56:13 PM , Rating: 3
Because a cattle rancher shouldn't ever want to play Call of Duty or Halo, amirite?

When would he have time with all that moonshine production and cattle tipping for fun?

RE: here comes the flames.
By ipay on 5/24/2013 5:43:51 PM , Rating: 2
There are a bunch of legitimate scenarios. Take this one, for example: Imagine I take the console to my vacation home that doesn't have broadband. Should I not be able to play the games I purchased?

RE: here comes the flames.
By NicodemusMM on 5/24/2013 11:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
...or maybe the average consumer that pays for his/her games at Wally World, GameStop, or wherever really, really hates not being able to play it for a few days (or longer) because the EA/ActiBlizzard/NameADeveloper authentication servers can't handle the load, got DDoS'd, NameACommonProblemThatWeHaveSeenLately. You know, like Diablo III, SimCity, and others? I guess looking at recent problems with draconian DRM would require effort, like... wait, no. It's evident enough that it requires more effort to ignore the problem than admit there is one.

Note to self: compare and contrast the similarities between modern software development, marketing, and distribution with current education, political campaigning, and political ideologies with a particular focus on the increased pressure to rely on corporations and/or governments to dictate social acceptance, morals, and expectations. I.e. - don't bother thinking, they'll handle the "heavy lifting."

By they way, hillbillies use satellite now... even they're up-to-date enough to know that.

"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki