I wonder how they will handle voice commands issued by someone not currently playing because it looks like the Xbox will capture any sound.
Also, I hope that they didn't hinder usual controller-based commands because I usually have issues with speech recognition. In English, my French accent gets in the way. And in French, the recognition is less accurate. So I end up not using it at all.
"The first time you set up the system, it takes you through a 30-second process where you log in to your Microsoft account. Kinect then builds a personal profile it will associate with that account based on facial recognition but also the camera's basic skeletal model of your body. This process forms a unique biometric ID that the Kinect uses to automatically identify a user, logging them in to Xbox Live and bringing up a personalized menu that includes their recent apps and favorite items."
That doesn't sound very good. I remember all the complaints from Apple just taking your fingerprint - this is taking your picture, skeletal model of your body, and linking it to a record of everything you watch or play, along with always on camera and audio recording.
I don't think I'd put one of these things in my house even if you paid me. I'll stick to Steam, I guess.
Kinect is optional. Also to be frank, our electronic gadgets are just a privacy leak devices. Apple has biometric system profiles, Google Now is always capturing voice, Kinect is also the same. Our facial profiles are already in some database through social media. Voice signatures through Skype and Cell talks.
It is bundled, but you can choose to not plug it [1]. Kinect is useful in games like fitness and rival sports, besides obviously being used to add other functionality. Obviously, privacy implications are huge.
The biometric info isn't stored in the cloud (applies to both the Xbox and iPhone), so that helps reduce the risk.
I have set up Kinect profiles for my family with the Xbox 360, but it is a bit hit and-miss, and signing in and out becomes a hassle. If the recognition works as seamlessly as described in the article it would be a great improvement.
"The biometric info isn't stored in the cloud (applies to both the Xbox and iPhone), so that helps reduce the risk."
I'd bet they store their version of "meta-data" in the cloud. That way they can target ads to specific users based on attributes derived from people's physical attributes and characteristics. I also expect to see Microsoft (and others) explore the concept of 'pay-per-view' where an increase in viewers for media content results in an increased viewing fee using facial-detection to establish the cost.
This is going to sound flip, but I really don't know the answer: So what? Am I meant to get het up that advertisers will know that (in a very generous information-sharing scheme) a skinny guy five feet nine inches tall exists somewhere in America?
Maybe it's anonymized .... maybe it's not anonymized enough ... or maybe they change their policies to share this information more-liberally. Take OnStar ... one day they decided they were going to start sharing information about vehicles equipped with their technology even when the owner wasn't an OnStar subscriber. These consumers had no agreement with OnStar so they had no agreement that was being violated. Only when the public outcry and government investigations ramped up, did they backtrack.
Personally, I believe that meta-data collection is an interim-step towards more-aggressive sharing of this information. What does that mean? It means that your FitBit, Withings Scale, Nike Fuel, and Kinect Exercise regimen will one-day be sold to your health-care provider. Initially it'll be opt-in ... consumers can choose to reduce their rates if they share such data with an insurer --- but eventually it'll be mandatory. The XBOX One's early press boasted that the new Kinect sensor is so amazing it can detect your pulse. What would that data be worth to insurers?
Same goes for autos. OnStar opened the door showing that there's value in the data they collect. Progressive has a product called "Snapshot" ( http://www.progressive.com/auto/snapshot/ ) that feeds driving-data to the insurance company in order to inform how they adjust the policy rates they offer to you. Automatic ( http://www.automatic.com/ ) has their dongle that collect similar info. Cars will all be connected one-day, and it won't require extra hardware to collect and transmit this information. All of this data will be sold to insurers. First, it'll be opt-in ... but eventually it'll be required.
Is any of this paranoid? Sure - but the past 6 months of revelations about the level of data-collection taking-place wherever and whenever possible confirms that wherever there is data - it will be collected and sold to anyone that's buying. Just look at the $10 million+ that AT&T makes selling data to the NSA.
So yeah - I am concerned that information is being shared and sold on my behalf for no apparent personal gain.
It can trivially be requested though. Moreover this doesn't really matter much if you can send distributed queries to the consoles. You'll be able to identify and locate more than 50% of males between 18 and 30.
To each his own. I'm always impressed when I or my wife walk in front of the xbox and it figures out who we are during a kinect game. There's a wonderful sci-fi like feeling the Kinect produces that no other tech of mine does. It really does feel magical sometimes.
This whole "THE NSA HAS OUR MEMES!!" is a bit over the top. Being overly paranoid hurts innovation and limits what we can do. Also, if you think Gabe Newell and his people aren't storing all sorts of stuff about you, I think you have an overly rosey view of non-MS companies. Most of us a carry senor-laden devices that make the Kinect look like a potato in our pocket everyday.
Imagine if Tim-Berners Lee was on the receiving end of this in the 90s? "YOU WANT TO STORE COOKIES ON MY COMPUTER? YOU'RE STORING IP ADDRESSES AND USER-AGENTS?!?!?! RUN SCRIPT IN THE BROWSER???"
Yeah, the web wouldn't exist then. We'd have "GNU Privacy Gopher" and no one would use it other than Richard Stallman.
If your government is fascist then fix it. Don't blame the guys trying to make great games.
This statement is ridiculous. The web was not originally designed to be an application platform, it moved that way because business pushed it in that direction. I know the vast majority of sites I visit don't use cookies or javascript for anything important, because I have both of those turned off by default anyway. It seems very obvious that the majority of cookies and javascript these days are being used for tracking purposes, i.e. things that don't benefit the user in any way and should probably be blocked for practical purposes.
>Being overly paranoid hurts innovation and limits what we can do.
This statement is also ridiculous. Being concerned about your own privacy isn't paranoia, it's self-preservation. We have all the reason to expect these companies to think twice before going forward with some innovation that could be potentially harmful, but it appears you want to encourage them not to do that. What you're actually saying is "companies having to worry about ethical issues limits what we can do," which is absolutely true, and this is not a negative thing.
To me the reality of this technology is more Idiocracy than anything. The marketing hype is that it's somehow a futuristic sci-fi fantasy device. It's just another way to sit on the couch watching TV and playing games.
>To me the reality of this technology is more Idiocracy than anything.
You're aware we're discussing a game system designed for children, right? Its not some critique on society. Its mindless entertainment by design.
>but it appears you want to encourage them not to do that.
No, as I said this is a government regulatory issue. Attack your government for allowing these policies. I find it hugely hypocritical as well. You have a mobile OS duopoly by companies that are both horrible, horrible corporate citizens, yet the Kinect automatic person detector, which is stored locally for a game, is the thing people go apeshit over. This level of emotional reasoning isn't pretty, its counter-productive, and I suspect falls into politically correct and geek friendly MS bashing while Sony, Apple, and Google get largely free passes. I also feel there's this libertarian bent here in which we don't discuss proper regulations as solutions but wring our hands over the status quo of corporations being under-regulated and do this schoolmarm-ish "They shouldnt be doing that!" Guess what, they will because it makes money. This is what low regulation looks like.
I've heard more paranoid theories about Kinect, with zero proof, than real concern over google tracking me and storing my wifi passwords. Or the various hacks and leaks like Adobe and Linode, which affected and arguably victimized me legitimately.
There's this "contrails in the sky" hysteria when it comes to the kinect which is 100% irrational. Let's not contribute to it.
It's not "just a government issue," by saying this you complete sidestep from the real issue which is privacy in general. The government is really not the only party that anyone should be worried about spying on them. I personally would say that any company that amasses personal data on users, as well as distributes locked devices, DRM, proprietary software, etc, is not one that anyone should support. I'm not singling out this device, all locked-down devices like this with curated "online experiences" have just as much potential for abusive data harvesting, censorship, predatory business practices, dodgy vendor lock-in strategies, and all that other good stuff that these companies love.
I agree that, as users, complaining publicly to these cathedral-like entities serves little purpose. The responsible thing to do is to be aware of it and to either avoid as much of it as possible, or to be very cautious about what you do around it (and before you go taking that to mean something specific, I mean in a general sense). I would say this matters even more when children become involved, the fact that this is an entertainment device marketed towards them is somewhat of a trojan horse. This is the reality of what you must do to retain privacy. It's perfectly feasible, it just warrants some of your attention.
That's a fair point. Personally, though, I see biometric data collection as an inevitable, uncontrollable future, so I figure the solution to it is going to have to be a social one. Why spend all my time being afraid of people collecting it? It's how they use it that I care about.
At some point we should stop being overly concerned about potential privacy issues as it would prevent alot of cool products otherwise.
Your smartphone probably has more useful data about you than the Xbox ever will.
Imo you americans should fix your government and let companies continue to built great and innovative products.
I understand the concerns about an always on camera and audio recording (even if I think your phone is probably a bigger danger in that regard), but I'm having a hard time envisioning what the actual danger would be for having a machine track my skeletal model. The issue with fingerprint scanning is (1) that you can build a fake finger to bypass authentication and (2) you leave your fingerprints everywhere.
At the moment, I don't really think anyone is building fake skeletons to hack my Xbox account. It might make for some creepy Minority Report-style advertising if Kinect cameras become ubiquitous and the data is uploaded to the cloud, but I don't think we're anywhere near that yet.
"And switching inputs is death for gamers, because it cuts them off from their community. As soon as you turn inputs on the TV, you're no longer getting game invites, multiplayer invites, leaderboard change notifications, or invitations of any sort. You are cut off."
I've always wondered: how prevalent is this kind of hyper-social gamer? I've played my fair share of games, but I've never been flooded with requests of all sorts, and switching inputs to quickly do something else never caused me to cry out in anguish.
Also, this is a 2006 Xbox 360 problem, not a 2014 Xbox One problem. Hi, Microsoft, I have a computer in my pocket. If I'm watching tv, just send me a notification to that. Chances are I'm on it if I'm on the couch anyway.
Console + TV in one is still better than having to switch inputs. Also, with SmartGlass, Microsoft will probably do very interesting things combining your phone + tv + Xbox.
I used to feel the same way, then my son suggested I get an xbox so we could play some grand theft auto 5 together (and lately it's battlefield 4). Since then I've come to really appreciate when I turn on my xbox knowing that whether he's already playing. And it's sort of annoying having to turn on my xbox just to see if he is available.
Over time I started joining parties with his friends, and adding them to my friends list, and chatting with them independently. For all of them, the normal routine is to hop on the xbox and join whatever friends you have online doing what they're doing. From the people I've talked to online, the number one factor about whether they will use ps4 vs xbox one has to do with which one their friends are going to be using.
So I'd say that the hyper social gamer is a very common creature indeed. You just need one good game and one good friend, and before you know it you're making memories together online and having a great time.
Oh yeah, I understand the fun that's had by playing with friends. I have 2 or 3 friends I play games with regularly...and I can find out if they want to play Borderlands by texting them, 'Want to play Borderlands?'
I realize my own experience can't invalidate the entire idea of needing consoles to be so 'community' centric. I'm just wondering if it's true that a significant amount of gamers (or even an insignificant amount) are getting so many messages and invitations over Xbox Live or PSN that switching inputs for a second completely destroys their experience.
You're not going to text 24 friends and see if they want to play Borderlands. What I'm talking about is more like "Cheers": there's a place that everybody you know hangs out, and you show up, and there's people already there. You chat with them, do stuff, catch up. That's the currently reality of console gaming for tons of people, and it's very common.
It sounds like it's depressingly close to true now that consoles are better at multitasking while gaming than PCs are. Steam overlays are only so good. At least most games are now adopting fullscreen-windowed modes so that alt-tabbing isn't an exercise in frustration anymore.
Two of my favourite game series are very stable to alt-tabbing. The X series, X3: Terran Conflict never gets close on my system just tabbed out of. Same goes for Tropico games. Tropico 4 was open on my computer once and I got through the entire campaign just tabbing out when needed.
There's something about those German developers, because my usual greeting to a tabbed out game is "noooo!" I remember leaving X3 running for a weekend and when I got home my wife had tabbed out. It was the first time tabbing out and thinking I'd have lost like 60 hours of auto trading, but no it tabbed right back and didn't even skip a beat to reload graphics.
For me, the simple ability to tab out of a game will gurantee me as a player. Total War games seem semi-stable usually just a long reload time every time you do it.
I had a chance to play with a set in local store. Controller is massive improvement regarding rumble and grip. Simple touch of coloring the letters ABXY and not whole buttons looks so appealing. Nice to see such a beautiful UI. We (me and roommates) use 360 for TV, netflix, Play-To, and games. This will be nice upgrade, especially with UI being beautiful. I was hoping that the internals would be powerful, I want to see 4K games 5 yrs later. I do not think present internals will be able to push that many pixels. But Dead Rising 3 and Killer Instinct are addicting games. Will pick it up after Titanfall launches. I could totally connect with the use-cases shown in the video, as each one of us has different preferences and it becomes a hassle signing in and out. Will be nice to see it switching preferences on-the-fly. Here's to next-gen.
I was hoping that the internals would be powerful, I want to see 4K games 5 yrs later. I do not think present internals will be able to push that many pixels.
pretty sure they wont, but i think that's sort of the point, and it speaks to the fundamental difference in how they see the market evolving vs. sony with their ps4.
i get a sense that microsoft views this as the last 'console' (in the traditional sense) they'll release.. everything from the architecture, to the internals, to even the naming, makes me think that this is meant to be just a 'box' - the one and only box you'll need - which will grow (in features and power), with more-and-more of the resources offloaded to the cloud over time...
i think their original policies around 'always on' speak to that vision, but that's just my guess, and is why i'm more excited about the xbox one long-term.
Also they're making a very transparent play away from games being the primary focus. IMO it's a very sensible move as long as gaming doesn't get neglected.
Me too, but I'd rather have the console generation lifetime be shorted. Why not a new Xbox after 3 years? The 360 was released almost 9 years ago. How is this the norm?
I'd love to see us PC gamers given some level of competition here. I can't tolerate 360 graphics unless they're super cartoony. It just looks like a PC game from 2004 or so.
Incremental updates work for things like phones and tablets. I mean, people line up by the Apple store near me for a couple blocks (downtown Chicago) for a slight bump in hardware specs. Not sure why we can't have a faster update schedule with consoles.
To be fair, we did get lots of incremental upgrades to the 360, they just didn't change the name. The 360 selling now is much different than the one I bought 9 years ago.
You got power and noise/fan savings and hardware fixes. In almost 9 years you went through 3-4 generations of video card technology, yet the 360 I buy today has similar performance of the one that shipped in 2005.
My PC from 2005 would be a joke to game on.
I think a lot of this shows the lack of competition in this area and plain greed. Why redesign when we can milk the current design? Our only real competitor feels the same and those critical of this will just buy PC games. Seems like console gamers are being abused a bit by these policies and the gaming world is always many years behind on consoles.
I don't think it shows a lack of competition and greed. As far as I can tell, it illustrates a fundamental attribute of consoles: They are a fixed target. Game developers can hyper-optimize for the specific hardware in a console because 100% of the people using that console will be using that hardware configuration.
With PCs, there's the question of how well your computer will play a game. With consoles, this question is instead binary: Either your Xbox 360 will play the game exactly as well as all the others or it will not play the game.
>Either your Xbox 360 will play the game exactly as well as all the others or it will not play the game.
That's not the case, or at least it shouldn't. PC's aren't magic. You can ship a game with low res textures and high. So if you have the Xbox1 2013 you get the low, but if you have the Xbox1 2015 you get the high and maybe a bump in resolution.
This is a solved problem in the PC world. I understand its different than the status quo, but its silly to think it can't be done.
I suspect the console makers are simply scared to make the early adopters have a worse experience than the kid with the new box and it serves them to make the generation last as long as possible from an economic pov.
Regardless, I hope someone disrupts this duopoly. I had higher hopes for android gaming devices, but who knows, its still early in the game. I could see a deviation on the steambox really shake things up.
I also imagine the economics get better as time goes on and you don't make a profit until sale # x million. Considering how much cheaper hardware is nowadays, I wonder if this formula still applies. You can make a gaming box that beats these next gen consoles for not that much.
Nintendo seems to be doing this with their handheld line. But the issue is Nintendo always makes money off its consoles.
Microsoft and Sony typically lose money per console for a good portion of the sales cycle. So either cost has to be driven down dramatically, or you have to expect people to pay significantly more per console and then expect them to update more frequently.
I think in the future we'll see it where you'll be able to upgrade a console, like a gen .5 where you just connect a pack into an expansion bay and it boosts CPU/RAM/GPU to allow the game to run with better graphics
In my opinion the major reasons for longer console cycles are development cycle time frames and hardware compatibility issues.
Graphics improved over the life of the last console generation until they plateaued. To do that many game developers and game engines have to get down and write code at the hardware level to optimize as much as they can. Add on the 1-5 year development time frame of many games and you're in a scenario where updating hardware regularly actually becomes a big middle finger to many of your game developers.
Things that could change this:
- Newer Super Powerful hardware allows consoles can stay in the sub $500 price range and is strong enough to allow hardware level optimization to be done away with so that a 3-5 year game can work on multiple console versions (past or future).
- Revolutionary game development software that some how magically lets super AAA titles be made in months instead of years while also drastically dropping the price of a new release from $60 into the phone "app" range.
- Instead of hardware becoming substantially more powerful it becomes substantially cheaper and smaller. If you could buy next gen consoles for under $200 it would be a hassle, but possible to own multiple generations so that you can play your 3 year old games as well as your new ones.
TLDR: Hardware is not the reason for long console release cycles, the games are.
I've often wondered if the feedback provided by Kinect could be used to induce trance states. As an amateur magician I spent some time studying stage hypnotism and NLP. It seems that a lot of the cues used for that could be detected through the Kinect in its current state.
Please understand that I don't mean hypnotizing someone to be an assassin or cluck like a chicken every time they hear the word 'avocado'. I'm talking about making some people more prone to suggestion than they would normally be.
With voice commands, what happens during a spouse/sibling fight over channel selection or other uses? If one person is playing a game, can another person that has the biometric ID set up come in and take over? Is there a hierarchy in control or total chaos?
I suppose it would be similar to the existing scenario: the person already playing a game or watching TV gets pissed off at the person changing the channel or pausing their game. I can totally see this with kids and their siblings, but is this really a common issue between spouses? Not that I have tons of faith in people, but I would really imagine most adults were above that.
47 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 88.0 ms ] threadAlso, I hope that they didn't hinder usual controller-based commands because I usually have issues with speech recognition. In English, my French accent gets in the way. And in French, the recognition is less accurate. So I end up not using it at all.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/8/5075216/xbox-one-tv-micros...
That doesn't sound very good. I remember all the complaints from Apple just taking your fingerprint - this is taking your picture, skeletal model of your body, and linking it to a record of everything you watch or play, along with always on camera and audio recording.
I don't think I'd put one of these things in my house even if you paid me. I'll stick to Steam, I guess.
[1] - http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/12/4615586/xbox-one-no-longer...
I have set up Kinect profiles for my family with the Xbox 360, but it is a bit hit and-miss, and signing in and out becomes a hassle. If the recognition works as seamlessly as described in the article it would be a great improvement.
I'd bet they store their version of "meta-data" in the cloud. That way they can target ads to specific users based on attributes derived from people's physical attributes and characteristics. I also expect to see Microsoft (and others) explore the concept of 'pay-per-view' where an increase in viewers for media content results in an increased viewing fee using facial-detection to establish the cost.
Personally, I believe that meta-data collection is an interim-step towards more-aggressive sharing of this information. What does that mean? It means that your FitBit, Withings Scale, Nike Fuel, and Kinect Exercise regimen will one-day be sold to your health-care provider. Initially it'll be opt-in ... consumers can choose to reduce their rates if they share such data with an insurer --- but eventually it'll be mandatory. The XBOX One's early press boasted that the new Kinect sensor is so amazing it can detect your pulse. What would that data be worth to insurers?
Same goes for autos. OnStar opened the door showing that there's value in the data they collect. Progressive has a product called "Snapshot" ( http://www.progressive.com/auto/snapshot/ ) that feeds driving-data to the insurance company in order to inform how they adjust the policy rates they offer to you. Automatic ( http://www.automatic.com/ ) has their dongle that collect similar info. Cars will all be connected one-day, and it won't require extra hardware to collect and transmit this information. All of this data will be sold to insurers. First, it'll be opt-in ... but eventually it'll be required.
Is any of this paranoid? Sure - but the past 6 months of revelations about the level of data-collection taking-place wherever and whenever possible confirms that wherever there is data - it will be collected and sold to anyone that's buying. Just look at the $10 million+ that AT&T makes selling data to the NSA.
So yeah - I am concerned that information is being shared and sold on my behalf for no apparent personal gain.
This whole "THE NSA HAS OUR MEMES!!" is a bit over the top. Being overly paranoid hurts innovation and limits what we can do. Also, if you think Gabe Newell and his people aren't storing all sorts of stuff about you, I think you have an overly rosey view of non-MS companies. Most of us a carry senor-laden devices that make the Kinect look like a potato in our pocket everyday.
Imagine if Tim-Berners Lee was on the receiving end of this in the 90s? "YOU WANT TO STORE COOKIES ON MY COMPUTER? YOU'RE STORING IP ADDRESSES AND USER-AGENTS?!?!?! RUN SCRIPT IN THE BROWSER???"
Yeah, the web wouldn't exist then. We'd have "GNU Privacy Gopher" and no one would use it other than Richard Stallman.
If your government is fascist then fix it. Don't blame the guys trying to make great games.
This statement is ridiculous. The web was not originally designed to be an application platform, it moved that way because business pushed it in that direction. I know the vast majority of sites I visit don't use cookies or javascript for anything important, because I have both of those turned off by default anyway. It seems very obvious that the majority of cookies and javascript these days are being used for tracking purposes, i.e. things that don't benefit the user in any way and should probably be blocked for practical purposes.
>Being overly paranoid hurts innovation and limits what we can do.
This statement is also ridiculous. Being concerned about your own privacy isn't paranoia, it's self-preservation. We have all the reason to expect these companies to think twice before going forward with some innovation that could be potentially harmful, but it appears you want to encourage them not to do that. What you're actually saying is "companies having to worry about ethical issues limits what we can do," which is absolutely true, and this is not a negative thing.
To me the reality of this technology is more Idiocracy than anything. The marketing hype is that it's somehow a futuristic sci-fi fantasy device. It's just another way to sit on the couch watching TV and playing games.
You're aware we're discussing a game system designed for children, right? Its not some critique on society. Its mindless entertainment by design.
>but it appears you want to encourage them not to do that.
No, as I said this is a government regulatory issue. Attack your government for allowing these policies. I find it hugely hypocritical as well. You have a mobile OS duopoly by companies that are both horrible, horrible corporate citizens, yet the Kinect automatic person detector, which is stored locally for a game, is the thing people go apeshit over. This level of emotional reasoning isn't pretty, its counter-productive, and I suspect falls into politically correct and geek friendly MS bashing while Sony, Apple, and Google get largely free passes. I also feel there's this libertarian bent here in which we don't discuss proper regulations as solutions but wring our hands over the status quo of corporations being under-regulated and do this schoolmarm-ish "They shouldnt be doing that!" Guess what, they will because it makes money. This is what low regulation looks like.
I've heard more paranoid theories about Kinect, with zero proof, than real concern over google tracking me and storing my wifi passwords. Or the various hacks and leaks like Adobe and Linode, which affected and arguably victimized me legitimately.
There's this "contrails in the sky" hysteria when it comes to the kinect which is 100% irrational. Let's not contribute to it.
I agree that, as users, complaining publicly to these cathedral-like entities serves little purpose. The responsible thing to do is to be aware of it and to either avoid as much of it as possible, or to be very cautious about what you do around it (and before you go taking that to mean something specific, I mean in a general sense). I would say this matters even more when children become involved, the fact that this is an entertainment device marketed towards them is somewhat of a trojan horse. This is the reality of what you must do to retain privacy. It's perfectly feasible, it just warrants some of your attention.
Imo you americans should fix your government and let companies continue to built great and innovative products.
At the moment, I don't really think anyone is building fake skeletons to hack my Xbox account. It might make for some creepy Minority Report-style advertising if Kinect cameras become ubiquitous and the data is uploaded to the cloud, but I don't think we're anywhere near that yet.
I've always wondered: how prevalent is this kind of hyper-social gamer? I've played my fair share of games, but I've never been flooded with requests of all sorts, and switching inputs to quickly do something else never caused me to cry out in anguish.
Over time I started joining parties with his friends, and adding them to my friends list, and chatting with them independently. For all of them, the normal routine is to hop on the xbox and join whatever friends you have online doing what they're doing. From the people I've talked to online, the number one factor about whether they will use ps4 vs xbox one has to do with which one their friends are going to be using.
So I'd say that the hyper social gamer is a very common creature indeed. You just need one good game and one good friend, and before you know it you're making memories together online and having a great time.
I realize my own experience can't invalidate the entire idea of needing consoles to be so 'community' centric. I'm just wondering if it's true that a significant amount of gamers (or even an insignificant amount) are getting so many messages and invitations over Xbox Live or PSN that switching inputs for a second completely destroys their experience.
There's something about those German developers, because my usual greeting to a tabbed out game is "noooo!" I remember leaving X3 running for a weekend and when I got home my wife had tabbed out. It was the first time tabbing out and thinking I'd have lost like 60 hours of auto trading, but no it tabbed right back and didn't even skip a beat to reload graphics.
For me, the simple ability to tab out of a game will gurantee me as a player. Total War games seem semi-stable usually just a long reload time every time you do it.
Some videos: 1) Giantbomb impressions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXwud8fSNhs
2) Xbox UI walkthrough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhe6jV-APwM
pretty sure they wont, but i think that's sort of the point, and it speaks to the fundamental difference in how they see the market evolving vs. sony with their ps4.
i get a sense that microsoft views this as the last 'console' (in the traditional sense) they'll release.. everything from the architecture, to the internals, to even the naming, makes me think that this is meant to be just a 'box' - the one and only box you'll need - which will grow (in features and power), with more-and-more of the resources offloaded to the cloud over time...
i think their original policies around 'always on' speak to that vision, but that's just my guess, and is why i'm more excited about the xbox one long-term.
Me too, but I'd rather have the console generation lifetime be shorted. Why not a new Xbox after 3 years? The 360 was released almost 9 years ago. How is this the norm?
I'd love to see us PC gamers given some level of competition here. I can't tolerate 360 graphics unless they're super cartoony. It just looks like a PC game from 2004 or so.
Incremental updates work for things like phones and tablets. I mean, people line up by the Apple store near me for a couple blocks (downtown Chicago) for a slight bump in hardware specs. Not sure why we can't have a faster update schedule with consoles.
My PC from 2005 would be a joke to game on.
I think a lot of this shows the lack of competition in this area and plain greed. Why redesign when we can milk the current design? Our only real competitor feels the same and those critical of this will just buy PC games. Seems like console gamers are being abused a bit by these policies and the gaming world is always many years behind on consoles.
With PCs, there's the question of how well your computer will play a game. With consoles, this question is instead binary: Either your Xbox 360 will play the game exactly as well as all the others or it will not play the game.
That's not the case, or at least it shouldn't. PC's aren't magic. You can ship a game with low res textures and high. So if you have the Xbox1 2013 you get the low, but if you have the Xbox1 2015 you get the high and maybe a bump in resolution.
This is a solved problem in the PC world. I understand its different than the status quo, but its silly to think it can't be done.
I suspect the console makers are simply scared to make the early adopters have a worse experience than the kid with the new box and it serves them to make the generation last as long as possible from an economic pov.
Regardless, I hope someone disrupts this duopoly. I had higher hopes for android gaming devices, but who knows, its still early in the game. I could see a deviation on the steambox really shake things up.
I also imagine the economics get better as time goes on and you don't make a profit until sale # x million. Considering how much cheaper hardware is nowadays, I wonder if this formula still applies. You can make a gaming box that beats these next gen consoles for not that much.
Microsoft and Sony typically lose money per console for a good portion of the sales cycle. So either cost has to be driven down dramatically, or you have to expect people to pay significantly more per console and then expect them to update more frequently.
I think in the future we'll see it where you'll be able to upgrade a console, like a gen .5 where you just connect a pack into an expansion bay and it boosts CPU/RAM/GPU to allow the game to run with better graphics
Graphics improved over the life of the last console generation until they plateaued. To do that many game developers and game engines have to get down and write code at the hardware level to optimize as much as they can. Add on the 1-5 year development time frame of many games and you're in a scenario where updating hardware regularly actually becomes a big middle finger to many of your game developers.
Things that could change this: - Newer Super Powerful hardware allows consoles can stay in the sub $500 price range and is strong enough to allow hardware level optimization to be done away with so that a 3-5 year game can work on multiple console versions (past or future). - Revolutionary game development software that some how magically lets super AAA titles be made in months instead of years while also drastically dropping the price of a new release from $60 into the phone "app" range. - Instead of hardware becoming substantially more powerful it becomes substantially cheaper and smaller. If you could buy next gen consoles for under $200 it would be a hassle, but possible to own multiple generations so that you can play your 3 year old games as well as your new ones.
TLDR: Hardware is not the reason for long console release cycles, the games are.