Microsoft Xbox Reveal Event - May 21, 2013

Status
Not open for further replies.
Depends on how you read it. He says "should your Internet connection go down", "when your Internet connection may be interrupted".
Those are prepared phrases, a reader can read that and believe that's it's o.k. if the network never comes back. But he doesn't say that explicitly at all, what he said is gramatically correct even if it's about temporary loss of connection. So he weaseled out a couple of sentences that are coherent with the 24 hour limit (or even with a 24 hour limit for games, no limit for bluray, set expiration date for downloaded video files)

Yes, it is ambiguous, but is your argument the truth or mine? you can defend the "it will be 24hrs!" and I can defend the "it is not" with the same argument. Then, why not to wait some days until E3?

About the edit, yes I belive all games will need some activation proccess, but maybe they can implement some "offline mode", just like Steam.
 
Single player games have to be associated with a gamertag online before they can be played (and the XB1 has to periodically revalidate your license online) so while some single player games that don't rely on cloud computing may continue to work for some period after your net drops, Bluray is the only thing that will function if your new Xbox is never, or even irregularly connected online. The PS4 will let you play single player titles even if you have never been online.
You don't know either of these things. Microsoft has not specified anything beyond that they have a plan for used games. (Knowing how often theoreticals get taken as for-real by execs, I wouldn't take anything Phil Harrison said as gospel yet.) And Sony was just as confused, with different execs saying different things.
 
A terribad reveal if there is one...reminds me of a combination between Sega Saturn system planning failure and Win8 stubborn-ness.
 
You don't know either of these things. Microsoft has not specified anything beyond that they have a plan for used games. (Knowing how often theoreticals get taken as for-real by execs, I wouldn't take anything Phil Harrison said as gospel yet.) And Sony was just as confused, with different execs saying different things.

Used games policy is different from an online requirement. Sony has been explicit that the PS4 can work with the net. MS has been explicit that the Xbox One will only tolerate brief network interruptions, and many features and activities will simply not be possible offline. That contradiction Astrograd thinks he caught me in isn't mine. It is still what the official XB1 FAQ says.
 
A terribad reveal if there is one...reminds me of a combination between Sega Saturn system planning failure and Win8 stubborn-ness.

I thought the hardware reveal itself was good. The instant switching between TV, apps and games with presumably much more accurate voice and gesture recognition is quite awesome. The box is neat enough. Kinect 2 has real potential now they've cut the lag, and it can at least see hands.


This DRM confusion is the only downer, and that we'll have to wait for E3 to see the games.
 
A terribad reveal if there is one...reminds me of a combination between Sega Saturn system planning failure and Win8 stubborn-ness.

Saturn was weaker than PSX, especially in 3D, and Xbox 1 is weaker than PS4, but I don't believe it's a reason to say the hardware is a failure and especially a Saturn class failure.

The Sega Saturn was just monstrous due to eight or so processors (have fun using only assembly, no tools and crappy documentation, as was common on consoles), useless 2D hardware (but 2D fighters used it) and quadrilaterals instead of triangles.
PSX was more straightforward, easier to use and more "standard".

In contrast Xbox One and PS4 use the same hardware (only difference is Xbox One has EDRAM, unless there's some slightly weird stuff with the PS4's CUs. and accessory stuff).
The same hardware is being launched on PC (Jaguar APU ; there are the Radeon 7790 and 8790M GPUs as well which are the same as in consoles)
 
Used games policy is different from an online requirement. Sony has been explicit that the PS4 can work with the net. MS has been explicit that the Xbox One will only tolerate brief network interruptions, and many features and activities will simply not be possible offline. That contradiction Astrograd thinks he caught me in isn't mine. It is still what the official XB1 FAQ says.

For me, this:

Does the PlayStation 4 always need to be connected to the internet, I asked? "You can play offline, but you may want to keep it connected," he suggested. "The system has the low-power mode - I don't know the official term - that the main system is shut down but the subsystem is awake. Downloading or updating or you can wake it up using either the tablet, smartphone or PS Vita."

Or this:

Michael Denny So I think two of the other pillars we talked about in-terms of design were simplicity and immediacy. Even taking back a step from here, PlayStation 4 can still be enjoyed old school without an Internet connection at all. So it depends what level you want to use these feature sets at.

Are the same than MS words, ambiguous.
 
Sega Saturn had 4 games at launch and cost $100 more than PS1.

MS will do very well with this, if they don't drown in DRM, or price it at >£300.
 
How is this:

PlayStation 4 can still be enjoyed old school without an Internet connection at all.

ambiguous?

And how is this:

No, it does not have to be always connected, but Xbox One does require a connection to the Internet.

ambiguous?

And how can anyone conclude they are saying the same thing?
 
"PlayStation 4 can still be enjoyed old school without an Internet connection at all. So it depends what level you want to use these feature sets at."

That's pretty explicit. The Sony guy says you can play games with the "insert disc" method (with maybe a HDD installation) but wants you to connect the console anyway to get some benefits such as preloading games, bugfixes, online trophies, chat, social crap but more importantly advertising of news games/add-ons, and purchases (i.e. a revenue stream for Sony)
 
To validate games just the once for offline use, like steam, would be fine. That requires a connection to the internet. It's what I assumed was happening, mandatory installation and no disc required.
 
To validate games just the once for offline use, like steam, would be fine. That requires a connection to the internet. It's what I assumed was happening, mandatory installation and no disc required.

That's fine with me, and we don't know yet if MS will implement something like that.

Seriously. We can't keep having this conversation. You might as well be refuting modus ponens.

I'm playing the same game than your.

EDIT: I will wait until E3 for the last word from MS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
why couldn't MS just make it so any disc games could be played offline if you have the disc in the tray but if you are online and validate that you are the owner can play from HDD without disc in tray?

am I not thinking that through... it's late here. :)

Also if you know you are not gong to be able to be connected *which honestly I still do not understand why you wouldn't except for the sake of argument) you simply don't buy DD games.
 
Nope this is big corporations that doesn't give a f*ck about anything else but their profit, that is pure evil in my world. They don't care at all about their customers unless it makes them money or costs them money. And for some strange reason many people thinks it's "allright" because money makes the world go around and nothing else matters. Nintendo is actually one of the few companies that has principles that cost them money but matters to them because of moral issues, at least from the outside. Sony and Microsoft couldn't care less, as long as it's within the law they will milk every last penny from their beloved customers.

But, as a customer and purchaser of a game i am entitled to owning that game and doing whatever the hell i want with it, including selling it to gamestop. Now just because Gamestop made a business on used games the world shouldn't stop. In capitalistic sense they should applauded for building a business on other peoples work, it's all about money after all and they did something smart.. right?
It would be the easiest thing in the world for Sony and Microsoft to compete with Gamestop.

But because someone made a smart move the consumer has to pay with time limited games that can't always be played and has very low resale value?

No thanks, then rather spend money on a platform where i can just "take my games" that i am perfectly entitled to own. And about steam, i have 2 PC's in offline mode so that the kid can play his Lego games even if i am logged in. I guess that is wrong if you ask the same people that wants to ban used games.. but it works, and it's been offline for a long time. That is sensible Online DRM. What Microsoft is suggesting is crap compared to that. In 5 years some people will own many games, maybe 30 games.. but if something happens, unpaid bill, internet down, hacker attack (it's bound to happen) then there is no way that person can play his collection because ET can't phone home. In 20 years every XBOX One game could potentially be useless. And to take it to the extreme, from this generation on there will be no cultural history kept for the next generations when it comes to games (there goes the tax break). If ONE and FOUR does this, so will the next generation. I would say we need the lawmakers to protect our cultural history, including the games.

But hey, when everyone just eats whatever it's served and even defends stupid consumer limiting technologies like this we can just wait for the next step. Games that only works for a limited number of days, how could anyone expect to buy(license) a game and just keep on enjoying it for months. It costs millions to create that game and in order to recoup the costs gamers that enjoy the experience should obviously pay for the second playthrough. It's not like it was meant to be used for unlimited hours.

I pretty much agree with everything you said.

Unfortunately, gamers are a fickle bunch without restraint. If there are games for it they want, they'll buy the damn thing. And once Sony and Nintendo see that this is okay and accepted, they'll all do it.

It will be a sad time.

At least steam has an offline mode, and competition. Not to mention they are FAR more trustworthy than Microsoft.
 
The comparisons there are reliant on rendering differences between the platforms. The more relevant aspect is the fidelity of the dynamic animations in the game world and the load relief you can get from using dynamic (but slightly latent) lighting for static scenes computed in the cloud vs between frames locally. From a purely visuals perspective I mean. I'm concentrating on that atm. A lot of games feature static lighting that is computationally intensive only because the devs find it easier to let it be computed dynamically as they author the scene, etc. That still takes up a good bit of the GPU computing though iirc.



So your theory is MS just made some gratuitously large investment in their cloud computing infrastructure...so they could give fanboys something to brag about on videogame forums? Does that really seem rational to you? REALLY? :???:

I find it interesting that you assert there are all these 'unresolved issues'. How would know if they are 'unresolved'? Have you honestly convinced yourself that somehow you are in a better position to speak to the challenges and solutions of something like global cloud computing than Microsoft is?! You act like MS has no clue what's going on with this 'cloud stuff' and they are willing to just throw billions of dollars around on a whim without researching it at all. How realistic do you honestly think that scenario is? Come on now...




We are talking about "MS promised to us, and the devs, that they provide 3x the X1 computing power", so at the moment we think it is about an equivalent of 24 Jaguar 1.6GHz cores...which is just not that much. It may be just right enough to close the theoretical gap to the overall PS4 performance, or exceed it a bit.

But this is exactly what I think is amusing...because we already discussed here and concluded that no one in the world (except DF comparison) will see a (minor) difference between the X1 and PS4 mutliplat games with respect to graphics tec anyway due to the 33% increase in GPU.

- So why bother with the cloud to help rendering? No one cares...no one will see the difference of X1 vs PS4 vs X1+cloud?!

- I discussed with Shifty that it might(?) be possible to use enhanced high fidelity fluid simulation in the cloud with substantial effort by the devs...but again, will Joe Gamer see and appreciate the difference compared to the standard stuff? Is it really worth it? Only if it is a substantial part of the gaming experience and central to the game.

- I did not say that MS just invested in the cloud for the MS fans to have something to scream about...this sounds a bit weird astrograd, don't know how someone can come to this conclusion??? I am certain that MS has a really cool plan with the cloud, I am certain that they will increase the overall experience with the cloud, but it is also my opinion that graphics enhancement is not their number one priority. It is my opinion that graphics enhancement is what most fans jump on because they are a bit disappointed by the slightly lower X1 specs.

- I guess that the cloud offers a base for new game ideas (see the only example with cloud computing we have at the moment, the strategy game galactic reign http://www.wpcentral.com/galactic-reign-windows-8-impressions).

Which unresolved issues? There are a lot of unresolved issues in my opinion I already asked right after the show. So far, no answer to these questions:

If a dev wants to use the cloud for his game: Does he have to pay extra for it? Is this covered by higher price of games that support the cloud?
Is all of this covered by your Gold account?

This seems to be an odd issue as devs that don't use the cloud and devs that use it would be treated differently. Or maybe we get a Gold+ account (lol to myself for the +) where only + subscribers (again: lol) can use the cloud features. But than, this would mean that devs have to make a plus version and a standard version.

and

Hm, are you sure about this?

I wonder how they do this. You cannot build 300.000 server infrastructure over night, that is for sure. So this means that they already have big junks of this installed and working with more servers up and running over the next month. If they are just dedicated to Xbox Live and not integrated into a bigger framework like Azure...are they idling around all the time until X1 takes off? This scenario seems rather unrealistic to me. They currently only need 15.000 servers to run Live they said in the presentation, so this would be a dramatic waste of resources.

I am really interested in how they pull this off. 300.000 is such a large enterprise...just huuuuuuge!

and

Siri does need an internet connection to work.


What about Xbox voice recognition? Is this what the cloud is being needed as well? Always on for voice recognition?

add to this:how much resources does voice recognition take?

And

One question: do I understand you correctly ERP that Azure (=300.000 server cloud?) is used for lots of other services at the moment as well, not only by MS but others as well?

Associated questions:

- So how many of those 300.000 servers are available and allocated for the Xbox?

- The load of the Xbox services, especially gaming related stuff will be highly dynamic depending e.g. on time of day. How do you manage the dynamic load balance? How do you manage load across countries and continents? Lag?

- Do you allocate a fixed amount of resources for Xbox? Then you risk and accept that lots of resource are idling around while potentially other paying users are moaning about not getting compute time.

- How do you cope with peaks? HALO releases...in the first week 5mill player on board, all trying it out...cloud breaks? Two weeks after this only the core of 100.000 remains, constant load, constant part of the resources dedicated from now on to HALO with occasional peaks when DLC releases.

- ...

I am just curious about the strategy MS follows. I am curious how they solve all the different problems. I am curious as part of my research deals with this as well, ExaScale computing is the actual hot topic and the big buzzword you get funding for.
 
We are talking about "MS promised to us, and the devs, that they provide 3x the X1 computing power", so at the moment we think it is about an equivalent of 24 Jaguar 1.6GHz cores...which is just not that much. It may be just right enough to close the theoretical gap to the overall PS4 performance, or exceed it a bit.

Heh it really depends on the application for this, as the 3x X1 computing CPU power provides a extra 302?~ GFLOP/s but the difference in power between the two is ~ 600GFLOP/s (assuming vgleaks is correct, as they have been so far on everything) so it will help makeup for it, but I don't see it closing the gap.
 
why couldn't MS just make it so any disc games could be played offline if you have the disc in the tray but if you are online and validate that you are the owner can play from HDD without disc in tray?
That's the proper way of handling diskless play of disc based games.
am I not thinking that through... it's late here. :)

Also if you know you are not gong to be able to be connected *which honestly I still do not understand why you wouldn't except for the sake of argument) you simply don't buy DD games.

Not sure I follow, we play DD games offline all the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top