News & Rumors: Xbox One (codename Durango)

Status
Not open for further replies.
What if you could run a secure sandbox on a desktop in your house, lets say Win 10 contains provisions to allocate secured resources with a QOS, it registered itself with Azure/Live, meets whatever requirements are for some or all games.

you start a game on the console and it talks to Azure/Live and sees this current games cloud usage is possible locally, some clever key exchanges done with Azure acting as a broker to ensure trust to and from both the console and the sandbox. The game can then talk to the sandbox and you have additional local compute. Content would probably need to be sent from the console and encrypted in a per usage session to prevent tampering and also allow easy update via the console.

Although I doubt this would ever happen (development/testing costs, potential security issues), it would be a fantastic idea.

My PC sits completely unused except for the occasional music recording session. I'd absolutely love to have it serving up local cloud compute to my Xbox.

Taking the example of powering Crackdown from a local cloud rather than Azure, as well as reducing latency you'd also reduce ISP data and bandwidth usage.

For those with spare PC capacity hanging around the house, it's an all-round win. It could extend/expand the life of Xbox hardware, ease load on Azure itself, provide a unique selling point for the Xbox ecosystem.

The concept itself and installation/configuration of server resources are probably out of the average console gamers comfort zone, for enthusiasts it has massive potential.
 
I originally thought that's what you meant, but your description seemed much more in keeping with people having shared resources. That's networked workload. We saw that as possible on PS3's running GT (and possibly PS2s). But it still doesn't change what Cloud can do and hence what the local resources can provide you with.

Or basically, I'd wait to see cloud computing actually doing something before wondering about how that can be moved to local resources. ;) Conceptually it'd be possible.
 
Whats the possibility of moving all non gaming functionality server side or to a local window based PC and streamed to your XB1 remotely so that the cpu and gpu resources devoted to games can be maximized during gameplay.
 
Last edited:
If you want a laugh, get a coffee and take a few minutes to read this MS developer account of his experience ;)

"How can independent/unknown developers make better, decent, and far more superior applications than Microsoft?"
Superb, very interesting read all the way through, from the beginning to the end. Thanks for this. But since this is the console forum, this part really caught my attention:

Here's the biggest shift of all: Windows and Office are obviously not going to be the main things paying the bills in the near future. They're not going away, but they are definitely changing. Windows will change the most -- Microsoft desperately wants to be selling Windows devices instead of Windows licenses to OEMs. They want to sell you an Xbox or a WinPhone, not another desktop license, for a variety of (mostly good) reasons.
 
So Mary-Jo has a rumor of a VR Helmet being at the show tomorrow? (Helmet = headset or did they really mean helmet?)

Patent does go back a bit - http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2401956,00.asp

Mary-Jo Link here

So they revive PC gaming with a helmet? Xbox just gets an app? Tomorrow might be fun afterall!

I was really hoping for Project Fortaleza instead of a VR experience. The former would seem more economical on my wallet & would help differentiate it from competitors instead of looking like a "me too" product.

Tommy McClain
 
So Mary-Jo has a rumor of a VR Helmet being at the show tomorrow? (Helmet = headset or did they really mean helmet?)

Patent does go back a bit - http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2401956,00.asp

Mary-Jo Link here

So they revive PC gaming with a helmet? Xbox just gets an app? Tomorrow might be fun afterall!

Sony has its head set which from what we know only works with the ps4

Occulus has its head set that only works with the pc.

I would be interested in a headset that would work with my pc and my console
 
I was really hoping for Project Fortaleza instead of a VR experience. The former would seem more economical on my wallet & would help differentiate it from competitors instead of looking like a "me too" product.
Then general flop of Google Glass and social rejection of it makes AR seem less valuable than the currently undisproven and still hyped VR. For gaming, VR is the better choice. For lifestyle, both seem questionable to me. Maybe VR with virtual social worlds as per Facebook's vision will prove popular?
 
A Windows10 event would be a really weird place to launch VR. VR could probably have it's own show if they went into detail. I'm sure talking about Windows10 in the server, desktop, mobile and console(possibly) environments will take a lot of time in itself. I am wondering if Kinect for PC will make an appearance.
 
Rare has had a very interesting twitter feed as of late.
"It would seem that today is Squirrel Appreciation Day". Would they really announce game titles here?
https://twitter.com/RareLtd

edit: Speculation will only lead to disappointed and crushed dreams. I will say that MS has really gotten their marketing act together though. Talk about being able to generate tons of hype via all their available channels

double edit: today is actually squirrel appreciation day.
 
Last edited:
Then general flop of Google Glass and social rejection of it makes AR seem less valuable than the currently undisproven and still hyped VR. For gaming, VR is the better choice. For lifestyle, both seem questionable to me. Maybe VR with virtual social worlds as per Facebook's vision will prove popular?

That's a bit misleading. VR has been rejected time and time again, at least on the PC side of things where major industry wide attempts have been made going back into the 90's. The current attempt (Occulus and Morpheus) mark yet another attempt. Whether it succeeds or gets rejected by the general public again, remains to be seen. The level of immersion will be vastly better than attempts before them, but both still require you to wear a bulky HMD which is likely to turn off a lot of consumers.

AR has been rejected on it's first major incarnation. At least first that I know of, as I never got too excited over it and thus never really paid attention to AR. Google Glass fails due to a myriad of things. You have to wear something (VR you have to wear something even larger). It needed something to show an actual benefit that didn't also potential pose a health hazard to the one wearing it and navigating the real world simultaneously. Etc.

Room based AR hasn't really been attempted in a major way as of yet. It has some nice benefits in that it doesn't require anything to be worn. It doesn't pose a potentially significant health risk. But it does have its own drawbacks. Projection equipment may be expensive. Setup may be complicated. Effects can't be quite as vivid as wearable AR glasses. How do you deal with a person's body potentially occluding part of the AR experience? Etc.

I'm more interested in room based AR myself. Assuming it doesn't require you to actually move your body into the scene to interact with it, thus posing problems with potentially occluding and thus ruining the illusion of the scene. Not a big fan of actually having to wear something cumbersome (my definition of cumbersome is anything like Active shutter 3D glasses and up or lighter weight glasses tethered to a bulky processing/battery pack).

Regards,
SB
 
Google glass is exiting the incubation in google x and will be proposed as a real product with a real price, so at least some interest in AR exist.
Fortaleza anyway is a different kind of AR.

What about the inclusion of kinect redux in any laptop/tablet?
 
edit: Speculation will only lead to disappointed and crushed dreams. I will say that MS has really gotten their marketing act together though. Talk about being able to generate tons of hype via all their available channels

double edit: today is actually squirrel appreciation day.

wf7VU.jpg


bah.

I can only imagine what sort of stuff they'd be able to pull with modern HW after what they did with Live & Reloaded... assuming there's anyone left from even those days.
 
VR has been rejected time and time again, at least on the PC side of things where major industry wide attempts have been made going back into the 90's. The current attempt (Occulus and Morpheus) mark yet another attempt. Whether it succeeds or gets rejected by the general public again, remains to be seen.

Tablets were also tried before and met with commercial failure. Arguably the technology, both hardware and software, weren't ready. It clearly is now. The same may be true for VR.

Or It may need a while longer. You mentioned batteries and I agree mobility (or being tethered to the device) may be an issue.
 
That's a bit misleading. VR has been rejected time and time again, at least on the PC side of things where major industry wide attempts have been made going back into the 90's. The current attempt (Occulus and Morpheus) mark yet another attempt. Whether it succeeds or gets rejected by the general public again, remains to be seen. The level of immersion will be vastly better than attempts before them, but both still require you to wear a bulky HMD which is likely to turn off a lot of consumers.

AR has been rejected on it's first major incarnation. At least first that I know of, as I never got too excited over it and thus never really paid attention to AR. Google Glass fails due to a myriad of things. You have to wear something (VR you have to wear something even larger). It needed something to show an actual benefit that didn't also potential pose a health hazard to the one wearing it and navigating the real world simultaneously. Etc.

Room based AR hasn't really been attempted in a major way as of yet. It has some nice benefits in that it doesn't require anything to be worn. It doesn't pose a potentially significant health risk. But it does have its own drawbacks. Projection equipment may be expensive. Setup may be complicated. Effects can't be quite as vivid as wearable AR glasses. How do you deal with a person's body potentially occluding part of the AR experience? Etc.

I'm more interested in room based AR myself. Assuming it doesn't require you to actually move your body into the scene to interact with it, thus posing problems with potentially occluding and thus ruining the illusion of the scene. Not a big fan of actually having to wear something cumbersome (my definition of cumbersome is anything like Active shutter 3D glasses and up or lighter weight glasses tethered to a bulky processing/battery pack).

Regards,
SB

I think I had my first set in the mid-90's and the resolution was so awful I wondered why I had ever bought them. The good sets were all $10k and above, and I did try out a pair and was impressed. So I think that is why I have been waiting for good sets, so I am excited to see VR done right. For me VR makes sense for flight/combat sim, space sim, racing sim - games where something like TrackIR already adds to the experience. I think I would have hard time with a first person game, mainly because I would try and walk!

I played around with shutter glasses in the early 00's, but for me they just sucked. I hated the flicker, but I will admit Half-Life was rather fun.

However, I am not convinced we are there yet. Resolution still needs a bump, as does FPS (+90 please). Not to mention the strain you get on your eyes and head. I woke up last night and thought about the helmet idea - and honestly while it would look stupid, it really makes sense from a comfort point. Not to mention you would have an easier time adding headphones into the concept, plus being able to distribute the weight around. I think the media and other outlets would laugh it off stage and we would never see it again (IMO). I would be really surprised if Project B is a true helmet, or if we even see it today. Rumors have been around long enough that we know they are playing with something (see patents/purchases).

Anyone know what Project A is? (was it Kinect)

@eastmen -- I think AR might be going slower due to the eyestrain/headaches some are reporting. Google Glass is releasing 2.0 in a few months, so it will be interesting to see what they have changed. Would love to see what stereo AR MS was working on, seems interesting by the leaks we have heard from time-to-time from developers.

I still want to see more home automation, I love that I can use my WinPhone to control my t-stat with voice. Works great when you wake up cold, grab the phone and say "set temperature to 73". Taking this a step further and allowing Kinect devices that are sitting at idle to hear you and control those devices would be great. Something like the open-source project V-Crib. OT I know, but I still want MS to show us why they hired that Home Automation guy.

I will end this here, before I type more that gets me off-topic. ;)

I've been waiting for MS to productize this .. it's been ready for almost 1+yrs now :)
https://twitter.com/josefajardo/status/507286877678739456

Intel is releasing something similar no? Maybe MS was waiting on Win10/Windows Mobile to be ready before rolling out devices with it. Surface Pro 4?
 
That's a bit misleading.
I'm talking about this current technological generation. Regardless who's tried what before, right now we have a couple of latest techs - AR and VR. AR (in it's current incarnation) has had a limited response, perhaps because phones cover the same ground in a more socially acceptable format (for the moment). VR has more noise about it and more positivity, perhaps because it's spending a lot longer in incubation and is only being exposed in measure doses enough to excite but not enough to prove itself no good. ;)
 
New Devices mentioned by Terry Myerson, plus new experiences.

Edit: Universal Apps to Xbox One

Edit 2: Device family is expanding
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top