TBH, I could see this helping BIG-TIME with Sports Games.
Daily updates to injuries, player stats, or roster moves. If a player turns it up IRL, he'll be turning it up in the game.
It could also stand to use the public as a HUGE beta-test service like Battle.net, so studios can balance games on the fly, or balance overpowered classes/weapons, and give boosts to nerfed characters (Especially important to the Killer Instinct Launch).
I dunno... seems more interesting framed in the right mind-set.
I dunno... seems more interesting framed in the right mind-set.
There is plenty of potential in the system Microsoft has put together in preparation for the XBox One. I was listening to a podcast where a Microsoft engineer was explaining their "cloud" a bit more accurately. The persistent shared data that will be available to all games for the system sounds like one of the big strengths.
One of Microsoft's big failings at this E3 was their innability to properly explain why a feature like this is useful for games. (or indeed explain the feature at all) On the PS4, games won't have this shared data by default. Publishers and developers would have to construct and implement such a system themselves. Still quite possible, but less likely to be incorporated regularly. (due to the expense and trouble) Microsoft making always-online a requirement also insures that publishers/developers will be able to rely on that shared data being accessed and updated regularly.
This lends credence to the theory that Microsoft's hand has been forced somewhat by the launch of the PS4. I suspect that a lot of XBox One titles are a lot earlier in development than anyone is willing to admit. Many of them probably haven't fully come to grips with how they are going to be implementing some of the XBox One's on-line features. With titles further along in development, Microsoft probably would have had more use-cases they could have held up as examples of why their new on-line policies are necessary.
JacqueChoi: Sounds nice, but if everything was constantly updated like that how would EA be able to sell yearly iterations of their sports games? They would either have to limit how much was updated or change their (currently very profitable) business model to fit.
JacqueChoi: Sounds nice, but if everything was constantly updated like that how would EA be able to sell yearly iterations of their sports games? They would either have to limit how much was updated or change their (currently very profitable) business model to fit.
Add an "annual" variable to the shared data. Now in order to access the shared data for the new year you have to purchase the new annual version of the game. Otherwise your game will simply cap off at the current year's data and advance no further. This sort of system gives publishers a ton of control. They can add in new features, but they can also gate things off however they please. Remember that this whole thing was designed from the ground up with publisher's in mind, not consumers.
Wouldn't it still be a problem running XBox games on XBoxOne due to the orignal system using an NVidia GPU?
Not necessarily. They would need a wrapper to convert the Nvidia commands to the AMD. But didn't they use like a custom version of directx in the original xbox? That would make any emulator on the system possible.
Justin.. What I am saying is there is a way here to at least make the system slightly more appealing. There were a few games on the xbox that were memorable. Like Steelbattalion, Mech Assault, Conkers Bad Fur Remake, Simpsons, Futurama, these are the ones off the top of my head from someone who doesn't even do consoles.
There is plenty of potential in the system Microsoft has put together in preparation for the XBox One. I was listening to a podcast where a Microsoft engineer was explaining their "cloud" a bit more accurately. The persistent shared data that will be available to all games for the system sounds like one of the big strengths.
It's nothing that hasn't already been done for years, including on the 360. All this 'cloud' functionality is largely just a bunch of dedicated servers, and the occassional online database.
The cloud is great except those games are going to dissapear eventually even more than multiplayer games will.
Microsoft cant give a massive cloud servers over to developers for free for games which have no continued monetary system. Microsoft is a publicly traded company someones going to look at the data and the amount of money they are wasting on the cloud and do something about it eventually.
Like probably get rid of the games that arent getting them any money. Like you wont be able to play Forza 5 when Forza 6 or 7 comes out. Great for them not that great for consumers.
It won't be free, that's naive thinking. Microsoft will either charge publishers to rent them, or they will include some kind of API so that developers can implement their own set of cloud functionality on their own servers.
It won't be free, that's naive thinking. Microsoft will either charge publishers to rent them, or they will include some kind of API so that developers can implement their own set of cloud functionality on their own servers.
Well exactly, I'm only quoting them. But I doubt Microsoft will allow developers to use their own servers. They've said they've done all this so third parties don't have to use their own servers and they like exclusivity and control. Maybe that's the strategy, get everyone using their servers then start charging or they shut it down.
I'm assuming they are using their Azure services, which is what MS has been pushing for when doing asp.net development. Basically, they offer you hosting, and database storage, which scales based on usage. You pay for what you need. If you have a low volume site, than you don't pay much, but if something triggers a huge influx of traffic, you can scale up instantly (by upgrading your tier/package). Same goes for the database.
So I suspect studios will pay to use these databases, and the rates will scale, based on the storage usage. I'm sure, to maintain costs, studios will drop support of old/less profitable games, when the database scales to high. Take that for what you want, but in my mind, it means that games over a few years old, will die.
Oh snap! Current scuttlebutt is that Microsoft is doing an about-face on the vast majority of the restrictions that were being applied to the XBox One. Giant Bomb apparently broke the story, and now the Giant Bomb site as well as XBox.com are both down due to excessive traffic.
If it turns out to be true, I would be willing to bet that it is happening because of pressure from Microsoft's stockholders.
Actually kind of pissed I can't share within my "family" circle anymore. That was a HUGE plus for me. Obviously it makes sense for them, but for me personally I'm disappointed with that change specifically.
oh haha, this is a surprise. I can only imagine the uncomfortable "we fucked up" meetings after E3.
Now they need to:
Lower the price
remove the mandatory Kinect bullshit
optimize the OS for more allocated ram to games
hell, an overall hardware overhaul would be nice.
also would be nice if they expecte higher quality games from devs? no? ya? eh.
Still getting a PS4. I just, mmmm, i dunno, i just feel like SONY respects the consumer more.
Lower the price
remove the mandatory Kinect bullshit
optimize the OS for more allocated ram to games
hell, an overall hardware overhaul would be nice.
also would be nice if they expecte higher quality games from devs? no? ya? eh.
Of all those, lowering the price is easily the most important. Removing the Kinect requirement ties directly into lowering the price, but I'm honestly sure that's the right way to go. Some of the Kinect voice-control features are actually going to be a major selling point for the XBox One.
The optimization of the OS for more game power isn't really necessary. While more power is good, it's never been a requirement for success in this industry. Overhauling the exterior hardware would be more important. The current iteration looks like a beast, especially stacked up against either the PS4 or Wii U.
I'm still a little puzzled over the $100 price difference. And that, more than anything else, is why I think Microsoft is being forced to jump the gun on releasing the XBox One. The PS4 is going to be smaller, more powerful, and cheaper? That says to me that Sony has been working on designing the PS4 for a lot longer than Microsoft has been working on the XBox One. The expense of the Kinect could account for the $100 difference, but I still feel its not enough. (the PS4's camera peripheral will be sold for less than $100)
I strongly suspect that Microsoft had to rush the final hardware design of the XBox One, and ended up with a box that was less efficient in terms of production cost. (as well as possibly rendering power) You can throw money at putting power in a box, but it takes time and engineering to do it in a tighter form factor that is cheaper to produce.
Of all those, lowering the price is easily the most important. Removing the Kinect requirement ties directly into lowering the price, but I'm honestly sure that's the right way to go. Some of the Kinect voice-control features are actually going to be a major selling point for the XBox One.
The optimization of the OS for more game power isn't really necessary. While more power is good, it's never been a requirement for success in this industry. Overhauling the exterior hardware would be more important. The current iteration looks like a beast, especially stacked up against either the PS4 or Wii U.
I'm still a little puzzled over the $100 price difference. And that, more than anything else, is why I think Microsoft is being forced to jump the gun on releasing the XBox One. The PS4 is going to be smaller, more powerful, and cheaper? That says to me that Sony has been working on designing the PS4 for a lot longer than Microsoft has been working on the XBox One. The expense of the Kinect could account for the $100 difference, but I still feel its not enough. (the PS4's camera peripheral will be sold for less than $100)
I strongly suspect that Microsoft had to rush the final hardware design of the XBox One, and ended up with a box that was less efficient in terms of production cost. (as well as possibly rendering power) You can throw money at putting power in a box, but it takes time and engineering to do it in a tighter form factor that is cheaper to produce.
well, I guess if we get red rings again, that would prolly confirm it being rushed.
You're right, somehow it feels like it's been 2-3 months just due to the sheer volume of news between the unveil, E3, and all the topics/discussions on the policies.
Some of the Kinect voice-control features are actually going to be a major selling point for the XBox One.
It's probably the first thing most people will turn off, because it's flakey as fuck and was never a good idea in the first place - as demonstrated by kinect owners having issues with MS' live streams the first time around.
It also still only supports English to any real extent, and can't handle the slightest of accents.
That's ... pretty awesome. I usually cannot stand how pointless social media tends to be, but this time around it really worked quite well as a platform for consumer support ... and public outrage The #XBoxSupport exchanges were very interesting to follow.
Now they just need to stop talking about ***tHePoWerOfThEcLoUd*** and I'll be happy. It's going to be interesting to see all these so-called "cloud powered" single player games magically working just fine even without the mandatory connection (like the Forza Drivatars being what they've always been, that is to say, an optional feature reading player data from a server, simply replaced by regular AI if no connection is detected.)
I'm sure I'm in the minority but I'm pretty disappointed in the flip. It makes perfect sense to change it, I get it, but it doesn't make it suck any less for those of us that were excited about the XB:1 from the beginning.
I, as well as a large group of my friends, were really excited for the game sharing, and now we basically have an XBOX 360 with better graphics. I hope they can somehow figure out a way to have that be optional again, as that was one of the big benefits to me. It still has all the exclusives I want, as well as the media center functionality, but I'm still bummed.
I don't see any reason why they wouldn't have game sharing. For it to work they just have to have a little disclaimer saying : "For game sharing to be enabled for this game, a daily online connection is required for authentification. Press A to accept."
That was the root of the problem really - none of the "always on" feature were ever necessary, yet Microsoft claimed they were. All these features are perfectly fine as options, and could very well make their way to the PS4 too. Good stuff !
I'm pretty disappointed Microsoft caved in to the neck-beards. Having said that it was never really going to work without Sony being on board too though. Not everyone can be Valve I suppose. If they'd called it Steam Box instead of Xbox One the idea might actually have caught on.
I'm holding out hope that they implement it down the line. Or, like you said, just make it an option, that way people with solid internet connections get the experience they want, and the large number of people apparently living in cabins get what they want. Sorry, still kind of salty over this lol.
I'm holding out hope that they implement it down the line. Or, like you said, just make it an option, that way people with solid internet connections get the experience they want, and the large number of people apparently living in cabins get what they want. Sorry, still kind of salty over this lol.
They aren't going to stop any of their previous on-line plans. All of their vaunted "cloud" functionality is still going to be around, and will be available for whatever games need it. And the XBox One is still going to have a low-power mode, and will download and apply patches automatically anytime they are available.
The only thing that is really changing is the constant on-line validation, and the need to have a disc in the drive when playing a game. That's pretty much it. Microsoft's willingness to cave on the issue just proves that the whole thing was just a convoluted DRM scheme from the beginning, with no real benefits to the end-user.
I have mixed feelings about this honestly. I was disappointed and upset that Microsoft did this to their next system, but my wife and I would have bought the system anyways when the next halo or another game that we really wanted came out on that system.
The problem now is, I can not possibly in my right mind as a consumer reward Microsoft for this bad behavior by buying their system now. An illustration maybe to better relay my feelings. They acted like a spoiled child in the market screaming and throwing it self on the ground because their parent would not buy them the expensive toy, but only the cheap toy. And then when the parent gets frustrated telling the child that "no you are getting the cheap toy or no toy" the parent starts to leave the store, only to have the child realize that it will no longer the anything so it stops it's tantrum and acts sweet and kind to the parent as it is walking out of the store asking for the cheap toy.
I would not get that child any toy in that situation, and likewise I will not reward Microsoft for their bad behavior and then expect us to give them what they want when they start acting the way they should have from the beginning.
The hubris of this company also turned me off. Mainly the "we have an offline concole its called the 360" comment. I have internet, I never don't have internet, but the balls on someone to tell the consumer that they don't deserve their product if they don't have the internet...
Sorry for the rant that is my feelings on the matter.
You're right, somehow it feels like it's been 2-3 months just due to the sheer volume of news between the unveil, E3, and all the topics/discussions on the policies.
There was loads of rumours months before the consoles were officially shown. It turned out the rumours were right.
There was loads of rumours months before the consoles were officially shown. It turned out the rumours were right.
Yeah, no kidding.
This is a game console we're talking about, a little tin-foil talk never hurt anyone, and it has proven time again it was right.
It's not like we're making crazy theories about lizard overlords, we're making theories about MS and it's newest device, based upon past history and current issues MS has with Skype, Prism, NSA, Market-Share, etc.
I have a hard time siding a company who only stopped their plans to screw me over because I screamed loudly enough for them to hear me in their corporate towers. Still getting a PS4.
I saw him do an impromptu interview with Angry Joe, and he came across as such an asshole, when Joe suggested they could reverse it. He came back with, "are you a Microsoft engineer?" Really? A good software developer, would create these checks as a function. Add 'return true' to the top of the function... done. Obviously, there are a few other changes, but as far as the 24hr check, that SHOULD have been all that was necessary
Reminds me of that time when maxis said creating an offline mode for simcity 5 would be too complicated, and that ending up with someone finding a debug-mode that could run the game offline with no issues
Replies
http://kotaku.com/the-xbox-one-believers-513819282
TBH, I could see this helping BIG-TIME with Sports Games.
Daily updates to injuries, player stats, or roster moves. If a player turns it up IRL, he'll be turning it up in the game.
It could also stand to use the public as a HUGE beta-test service like Battle.net, so studios can balance games on the fly, or balance overpowered classes/weapons, and give boosts to nerfed characters (Especially important to the Killer Instinct Launch).
I dunno... seems more interesting framed in the right mind-set.
There is plenty of potential in the system Microsoft has put together in preparation for the XBox One. I was listening to a podcast where a Microsoft engineer was explaining their "cloud" a bit more accurately. The persistent shared data that will be available to all games for the system sounds like one of the big strengths.
One of Microsoft's big failings at this E3 was their innability to properly explain why a feature like this is useful for games. (or indeed explain the feature at all) On the PS4, games won't have this shared data by default. Publishers and developers would have to construct and implement such a system themselves. Still quite possible, but less likely to be incorporated regularly. (due to the expense and trouble) Microsoft making always-online a requirement also insures that publishers/developers will be able to rely on that shared data being accessed and updated regularly.
This lends credence to the theory that Microsoft's hand has been forced somewhat by the launch of the PS4. I suspect that a lot of XBox One titles are a lot earlier in development than anyone is willing to admit. Many of them probably haven't fully come to grips with how they are going to be implementing some of the XBox One's on-line features. With titles further along in development, Microsoft probably would have had more use-cases they could have held up as examples of why their new on-line policies are necessary.
Add an "annual" variable to the shared data. Now in order to access the shared data for the new year you have to purchase the new annual version of the game. Otherwise your game will simply cap off at the current year's data and advance no further. This sort of system gives publishers a ton of control. They can add in new features, but they can also gate things off however they please. Remember that this whole thing was designed from the ground up with publisher's in mind, not consumers.
Not necessarily. They would need a wrapper to convert the Nvidia commands to the AMD. But didn't they use like a custom version of directx in the original xbox? That would make any emulator on the system possible.
Justin.. What I am saying is there is a way here to at least make the system slightly more appealing. There were a few games on the xbox that were memorable. Like Steelbattalion, Mech Assault, Conkers Bad Fur Remake, Simpsons, Futurama, these are the ones off the top of my head from someone who doesn't even do consoles.
It's nothing that hasn't already been done for years, including on the 360. All this 'cloud' functionality is largely just a bunch of dedicated servers, and the occassional online database.
Microsoft cant give a massive cloud servers over to developers for free for games which have no continued monetary system. Microsoft is a publicly traded company someones going to look at the data and the amount of money they are wasting on the cloud and do something about it eventually.
Like probably get rid of the games that arent getting them any money. Like you wont be able to play Forza 5 when Forza 6 or 7 comes out. Great for them not that great for consumers.
Well exactly, I'm only quoting them. But I doubt Microsoft will allow developers to use their own servers. They've said they've done all this so third parties don't have to use their own servers and they like exclusivity and control. Maybe that's the strategy, get everyone using their servers then start charging or they shut it down.
So I suspect studios will pay to use these databases, and the rates will scale, based on the storage usage. I'm sure, to maintain costs, studios will drop support of old/less profitable games, when the database scales to high. Take that for what you want, but in my mind, it means that games over a few years old, will die.
http://www.house.gov/capuano/news/2013/pr061313.shtml
If it turns out to be true, I would be willing to bet that it is happening because of pressure from Microsoft's stockholders.
posted in ps4 vs xb1 thread. Pretty crazy, didn't expect this to happen!
http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/update
Actually kind of pissed I can't share within my "family" circle anymore. That was a HUGE plus for me. Obviously it makes sense for them, but for me personally I'm disappointed with that change specifically.
Now they need to:
Lower the price
remove the mandatory Kinect bullshit
optimize the OS for more allocated ram to games
hell, an overall hardware overhaul would be nice.
also would be nice if they expecte higher quality games from devs? no? ya? eh.
Still getting a PS4. I just, mmmm, i dunno, i just feel like SONY respects the consumer more.
http://kotaku.com/microsoft-is-removing-xbox-one-drm-514390310?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Facebook&utm_source=Kotaku_Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow
it wasn't, here let me post that for you man!
http://kotaku.com/microsoft-is-removing-xbox-one-drm-514390310?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Facebook&utm_source=Kotaku_Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow
http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/update
Well done MS. You actually listened.
Of all those, lowering the price is easily the most important. Removing the Kinect requirement ties directly into lowering the price, but I'm honestly sure that's the right way to go. Some of the Kinect voice-control features are actually going to be a major selling point for the XBox One.
The optimization of the OS for more game power isn't really necessary. While more power is good, it's never been a requirement for success in this industry. Overhauling the exterior hardware would be more important. The current iteration looks like a beast, especially stacked up against either the PS4 or Wii U.
I'm still a little puzzled over the $100 price difference. And that, more than anything else, is why I think Microsoft is being forced to jump the gun on releasing the XBox One. The PS4 is going to be smaller, more powerful, and cheaper? That says to me that Sony has been working on designing the PS4 for a lot longer than Microsoft has been working on the XBox One. The expense of the Kinect could account for the $100 difference, but I still feel its not enough. (the PS4's camera peripheral will be sold for less than $100)
I strongly suspect that Microsoft had to rush the final hardware design of the XBox One, and ended up with a box that was less efficient in terms of production cost. (as well as possibly rendering power) You can throw money at putting power in a box, but it takes time and engineering to do it in a tighter form factor that is cheaper to produce.
And all it took was nearly the entire worldwide gaming community screaming at the same time, for several months
I still pronounce it as Ex-Bone.
well, I guess if we get red rings again, that would prolly confirm it being rushed.
You're right, somehow it feels like it's been 2-3 months just due to the sheer volume of news between the unveil, E3, and all the topics/discussions on the policies.
It's probably the first thing most people will turn off, because it's flakey as fuck and was never a good idea in the first place - as demonstrated by kinect owners having issues with MS' live streams the first time around.
It also still only supports English to any real extent, and can't handle the slightest of accents.
Now they just need to stop talking about ***tHePoWerOfThEcLoUd*** and I'll be happy. It's going to be interesting to see all these so-called "cloud powered" single player games magically working just fine even without the mandatory connection (like the Forza Drivatars being what they've always been, that is to say, an optional feature reading player data from a server, simply replaced by regular AI if no connection is detected.)
Interesting times !
I, as well as a large group of my friends, were really excited for the game sharing, and now we basically have an XBOX 360 with better graphics. I hope they can somehow figure out a way to have that be optional again, as that was one of the big benefits to me. It still has all the exclusives I want, as well as the media center functionality, but I'm still bummed.
That was the root of the problem really - none of the "always on" feature were ever necessary, yet Microsoft claimed they were. All these features are perfectly fine as options, and could very well make their way to the PS4 too. Good stuff !
Pffft
They aren't going to stop any of their previous on-line plans. All of their vaunted "cloud" functionality is still going to be around, and will be available for whatever games need it. And the XBox One is still going to have a low-power mode, and will download and apply patches automatically anytime they are available.
The only thing that is really changing is the constant on-line validation, and the need to have a disc in the drive when playing a game. That's pretty much it. Microsoft's willingness to cave on the issue just proves that the whole thing was just a convoluted DRM scheme from the beginning, with no real benefits to the end-user.
The problem now is, I can not possibly in my right mind as a consumer reward Microsoft for this bad behavior by buying their system now. An illustration maybe to better relay my feelings. They acted like a spoiled child in the market screaming and throwing it self on the ground because their parent would not buy them the expensive toy, but only the cheap toy. And then when the parent gets frustrated telling the child that "no you are getting the cheap toy or no toy" the parent starts to leave the store, only to have the child realize that it will no longer the anything so it stops it's tantrum and acts sweet and kind to the parent as it is walking out of the store asking for the cheap toy.
I would not get that child any toy in that situation, and likewise I will not reward Microsoft for their bad behavior and then expect us to give them what they want when they start acting the way they should have from the beginning.
The hubris of this company also turned me off. Mainly the "we have an offline concole its called the 360" comment. I have internet, I never don't have internet, but the balls on someone to tell the consumer that they don't deserve their product if they don't have the internet...
Sorry for the rant that is my feelings on the matter.
There was loads of rumours months before the consoles were officially shown. It turned out the rumours were right.
not really required.
This is a game console we're talking about, a little tin-foil talk never hurt anyone, and it has proven time again it was right.
It's not like we're making crazy theories about lizard overlords, we're making theories about MS and it's newest device, based upon past history and current issues MS has with Skype, Prism, NSA, Market-Share, etc.
Don't even call the function
Reminds me of that time when maxis said creating an offline mode for simcity 5 would be too complicated, and that ending up with someone finding a debug-mode that could run the game offline with no issues