News & Rumors: Xbox One (codename Durango)

I see this QoS stuff mostly as a method to run all kinds of gimmick services in the background not affecting the foreground game experience. Services nobody but some hipster or marketing drone require to justify their job.

 

It is interesting research but not practical for a console currently for quite a number of reasons.

The largest obstacle is going to be the fact that this is very latency intolerant. Which means it requires very low latency between when the user's view shifts and when the display is updated. Which leads to the following issues...

[1] It requires an eye tracking system with very low latency. In this test they had to use a Tobii TX300 with an average eye tracking latency of 7-10 ms (image capture, processing, and then submitting to the PC). This isn't an inexpensive piece of hardware. The Tobii TX300 also has a limit of approximately 26". Fine for desktop work, not so much for a living room TV. A system that could not only accurately track a person's eyes AND do it quickly enough to provide the necessary low latency is going to be quite expensive.

[2] Rendering latency was 8-18 ms. As it approaches 18 ms, the quality of the rendering starts to suffer with the illusion breaking as you get to the point where the foveated center region falls out of the center of your view enough that it appears to "pop" in as the user's eyes move. That doesn't sound as bad as it could be since you gain some performance in saved rendering time. But not in saved gameplay (physics, AI, etc.) time. So it's "bad" but not that bad. 60 FPS allows less graphics rendering time savings allowed for increased graphics rendering than does 120 FPS.

[3] Scan out latency also varied from 2-8 ms.

[4] But the biggest potential deal breaker is that at the end of that chain you have the latency of the display itself. Considering that Microsoft won't be able to control what TV a user will use that latency can range anywhere from a low 3-6 ms (you basically need a relatively specialized TV for this) to as high as over 100 ms (TV video processing, A/V passthrough and potential processing there as well). The test used a PC monitor with a measured latency of 6 ms.

All of that means...

[1] is going to be prohibitive from a cost and implementation perspective.

[2] will put very hard constraints on the time a game can spend for rendering, AI, physics, etc. Basically it will require games to have a mandatory 60-120 FPS rendering performance. No more 30 FPS games.

[3] is the easiest to deal with and is just down to making sure the right graphics hardware is chosen for the console.

[4] is something that neither the game developer nor the console manufacturer will be able to control. And all that effort will go to waste if your average console player uses an average LCD TV.

This tech could do wonders on PC, however. Where gamers are used to picking monitors specifically with an eye towards a low latency display. It also makes eye tracking easier as the user is usually sitting within two to three feet of their display.

Very nice tech, but impractical in the living room currently and for the near (5-10 years) future.

Oh and forget multiplayer games on the same console with something like this. Forget having other people in the room watching you play as well, as their eyes are not likely to track the same as the user's eyes.

Regards,
SB

 

How do you come to that conclusion? If you're suggesting they could have released a set top box without the gaming capabilities then no, they could not. Gaming and especially casual / party gaming will still be the main draws of the system. Its just that the other functions will more then counterbalance the lack of core gaming power.

 

We use it at work, I get new credit assigned automatically. I can blow through 10 euro in an hour thanks to international calls in particular even if they are just within Europe. But of course lots of cheap calls from Skype to Skype, with more and more people having it available.

 

Excuse my intervention, but besides the fact I´m agree with you when you say durango is the answer to google and apple´s attempt to gain the living room, the fact is when the vast majority of resources of durango´s hardware are not aiming exclusively to games -I mean, there are evidences ponting other functions like display planes, bewtween others functions-, then is not a console... in the traditional meaning of term.

Maybe Durango is set to make a new segment in market.

Quite interesting this porpousal of MS in this age of entertainment. IMO I do believe this (Durango) is the beggining of death of the traditional consoles.

 

Did you read the patent or are you only saying this based on the Yukon lea, which also seemed to have the concept shown in the target sketches? The patent goes out of its way to specifically not the gaming applications.

 

Just wanting to clarify for you and others reading...my comments there are less about using the foveated research stuff in Durango and more about trying to glean from that research some rough idea of what the display planes might bring to the table. I don't necessarily agree/disagree with your concerns there, but again, pretty much none of them are relevant to the display planes concept (which has nothing to do with the eye tracking end of things).

That foveated tech is just mentioned as a highly ambitious implementation of that same concept. I'm only meaning to use it as a broader reference to help us forge a useful context in discussing these display planes (alongside the patents for the display plane stuff).

With any luck VGLeaks will report about those this coming week.

 

Excellent article, the guy is talking about the virtualized textures as a main focus for the 720 since January 5.

http://translate.google.com.do/tran...com/2013/01/05/dando-forma-a-durango/&act=url

 

'low end' sku is your terminology. I said consumer sku. Microsoft wants to compete with Apple/Google for the living room, you're right. Which means gaming takes a back seat, which to me, seems exactly what has happened with the recent specs if legitimate. To me, it seems like they are taking a 'good enough' approach. Granted again, my technology knowledge is basic at best.

Now the consumer sku is basically what was seen in Yukon pdf dated 2010, minus the multiple cpus/gpus. It's a $299, or less, box that is 'good enough' for the average consumer. The people that are going to spend a lot of time using the media features rather than the gaming features. Basically the audience being aimed at by Apple/Google. The people that would be happy that they can play call of duty or their sports games or what not. don't care what resolution, don't get pissed at frame drops, screen tearing etc.

The consumer sku will be aimed at the average consumer who are the majority of the market, which a $299 or lower price makes since.

But there are still millions of people out there that are not an average consumer. People you consider enthusiasts who do not want 'good enough' hardware, but want top of the line hardware. They might be pushed away by the general consumer/casual approach where gaming is the back seat. So that is where the enthusiast sku is. You start with the same base as the consumer sku + an additional gpu or something or other.

A modular console was exactly what the Yukon was suppose to be, my idea is simply a more permanent approach.

 

According to Yukon, the 3 soc machine was the $299 machine. The set-top box would have been just the APU.

 

Effects that cross the boundaries are going to look pretty jarring and I know that I don't constantly look at the centre of the screen even in a fps.

 

That is exactly the thinking which has led to Apple TV and Google TV (the two mentioned set top box competitors) basically having little to no success. They are a set top box first with gaming taking a back seat.

Microsoft is approaching it from another direction entirely. Depending on how someone wants to think of it. It is either...

[1] Gaming and set top box functionality share equal importance.

or

[2] Gaming is still the top priority but set top box functionality is a very close second.

In either case, gaming doesn't take a backseat because gaming is the biggest potential game changer in attempting to create mass consumer adoption of a set top box ecosystem.

You can think of it in another way.

You use Xbox and console gaming combined with an advanced and well polished living room media and application experience. It's enough to get people to jump in on a set top box experience because they aren't limited to just a set top box experience with crappy games.

Now, those people, just like with Kinect, will want to show it off to their friends, assuming they did a good job with the non-gaming aspect. That might convince some more people to get the Xbox, but that isn't the point.

The point is that it'll hook some people that in the past have been unsatisfied with Apple TV, Google TV, or any other of the plentiful Linux/Windows set top boxes. Or have never tried a set top box. But they may not be gamers, and may not be interested in the gaming experience and think why pay so much money?

That's when 6 - 12 months later it'll be an opportune moment for Microsoft to release a set top box without the gaming functionality assuming they did a good job with that functionality in the Xbox.

IMO, that's a much more likely scenario for how Microsoft intends to approach the set top box market.

In many ways you can think of this as similar to the PS2 and PS3. In those cases the console was a medium to drive adoption of DVD and BluRay, but gaming never took a back seat to those things even though in the case of PS3 it likely impacted design decisions (cheaper RSX versus a more proficient GPU, for example). While Durango won't be trying to drive adoption of some optical media, it could be attempting to drive adoption of Microsoft backed set top boxes of the future.

That set top box without the console gaming bit (it'll likely still have the casual game app type stuff you can find in the Microsoft, iOS, Android marketplace) could bear the Xbox branding as well. Which fits in nicely with the rumors of multiple Xbox branded devices. Similar in many ways to how Zune was re-envisioned as Xbox Music. There's also the possibility, however small, of an Xbox branded Windows HTPC with the same set top box UI combined with the ability to play proper PC games. I find the last pretty unlikely but it would be neat if it happened, IMO.

Regards,
SB

 

Are you saying this:

PANE#1: 480p DOF background 'painting' (cant think of a better word for it) scaled to a full 1080p frame. This pane is only visible when parts of PANE#2 and PANE #3 are transparent on the same pixel.

PANE#2: 720p Primary Game graphics PANE scaled to a full 1080p frame and overlaid on top PANE #1. Transparent pixels on this PANE show what is on PANE#1.

PANE#3 1080P HUD overlaid on top of PANES #1 and #2.

Was there some custom hardware for a robust scaling engine that could handle all these resolution modifications for the multiple panes?

 

Good info.

I used the term 'microscopic' loosely. A more accurate term would be 'very high resolution'. That or a zoom camera. The Tobii system is a 'desktop' unit to be placed a few feet in front of the user, who remains stationary. Kinect's wide-angle camera wouldn't be up to the job. Potentially MS could add a zoom camera on a motorised mount and track the eyes, but that's a lot of cost. You also have to consider the value of a system designed around a one-player experience for its intrinsic optimisations, especially if you bundle in Kinect for its social aspects.

Brit's covered that for me.

 

The palatability of a belief does not determine it's truth value.

You have to ask yourself, since MS and Sony did not know what each other were doing - how likely is it that both machines will end up 'equal', besides the rare situation this gen it has usually been the case that consoles in a particular gen differ in capabilities.

MS wanted 6-8x the power of 360 and something that can run Win 8 apps, IE, Skype, DVR, Smartglass etc in the background and come with Kinect as a pack in, all while being affordable and not sold for a loss.

The rumoured Durango specs will achieve those goals perfectly.

 

Isn't it a problem for foveated rendering, that to everyone else watching, besides the player, the game might look crap?

 

You keep missing the point. The hardware they have chosen for Durango is too expensive for your scenario to be plausible, its not going to make them any profit at under 299 dollars, i have doubts it would make them profit even at 299 dollars given the esram and Kinect 2

It makes no sense for them to use custom hardware like this if they wanted a 200-249 dollar console, they could easily have chosen off the shelf hardware that would perform enough for their target audience and still make Microsoft profit from day 1

 

according to the Yukon pdf, the estimated cost was about $225 bucks, and that's a 3xSoc design.

They would be making a profit even at a $249 pricepoint. I think you are over-estimating the cost of the parts that is going to be in the Durango.

From what we have seen of the gpu, if legitimate, is very comparable to a HD7770. Very inexpensive GPU, especially if MS would be buying parts in bulk + the removal of unnecessary stuff like vram.

 

225 for the 3 SoC is no where near realistic. How is 3 SoC cheaper then the ps3 and 360 it would be huge ?