or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › Xbox Area › The Official Xbox One thread...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Official Xbox One thread... - Page 94

post #2791 of 14783
Quote:
Originally Posted by samendolaro View Post

They need to be careful here as well. Not everyone reads these forums or is up on the console specs so they also risk alienating a great many more potential buyers. I have no issues with Kinect 2, it was one of the main features I was looking forward to.
For me the problem is the always connected requirement and the online authorization. If I buy a game disk, I want to be able to install and run a single player game without the need for a connection and be able to do it 20 years from now if I choose to.

If MS were to compile a video tutorial trying to convince me how I don't understand the benefits of this policy it would most likely drive me further away. So education isn't the problem here (at least for my concerns)

They change these policies and I purchase one , they don't and I hold off . It may be them that needs to be educated.

I can say with 100% certainty that in twenty years I will have zero desire to be using an archaic Xbox One or PS4. Assuming I'm even around in twenty years.
post #2792 of 14783
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd2003 View Post

Azure isn't anything special, it's one amongst many. They've got a bunch of choices, Amazon web services comes to mind immediately. It's really not that difficult to spin up a few remote servers nowadays.

Developers will not take the mantle and use any cloud computing on their own. You expect developers to fund their own initiative? Sony is just saying this as a "me too" to distract people. If you don't make it a company directive, it doesn't happen. Sony is not particularly good at software. They have some amazing studios making amazing games. But infrastructure stuff is not their strength.

Microsoft has many reasons for using Azure and advertising the fact that Azure will be behind the new Xbox Live. If anything, as a showpiece to prospective (non-gaming) clients what Azure is capable of and what it's about. Microsoft has talked about synergy and finally leveraging all parts of the company together. Microsoft is offering this cloud compute free of charge to developers and that's only possible because of the long-term good for Microsoft businesses. There are lots of Microsoft technologies they're pushing through the Xbox One from Windows to Skydrive to Skype to Azure and so on and so on. It's previously been a big company with many different parts that operated independently. One arm didn't know what the other arm was doing. Office people didn't want to deal with Windows people. They're hoping to change that.
post #2793 of 14783
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

You can have as many HDMI devices connected to your TV as you want. Just use an HDMI switch. In my main setup I use several HDMI switches connected to some of the eight HDMI ports I use on my iscan DUO.

Of course you can.

But the meaning of my post was an obvious one. Now that we know that anything can be routed through this, the HDMI input on this might come in handy in certain instances if you're short of an HDMI input even if you're completely disinterested in their live tv "enhancements".

As long as it passes the signal through even when the system is idle so you don't unnecessarily need it to be on just to do something else, it saves you from having to buy an HDMI switch and other complications on the off chance you just happen to be short 1 HDMI input for your needs.
Edited by Leo_Ames - 6/16/13 at 9:42pm
post #2794 of 14783
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlysublime View Post

Developers will not take the mantle and use any cloud computing on their own. You expect developers to fund their own initiative? Sony is just saying this as a "me too" to distract people. If you don't make it a company directive, it doesn't happen. Sony is not particularly good at software. They have some amazing studios making amazing games. But infrastructure stuff is not their strength.

Microsoft has many reasons for using Azure and advertising the fact that Azure will be behind the new Xbox Live. If anything, as a showpiece to prospective (non-gaming) clients what Azure is capable of and what it's about. Microsoft has talked about synergy and finally leveraging all parts of the company together. Microsoft is offering this cloud compute free of charge to developers and that's only possible because of the long-term good for Microsoft businesses. There are lots of Microsoft technologies they're pushing through the Xbox One from Windows to Skydrive to Skype to Azure and so on and so on. It's previously been a big company with many different parts that operated independently. One arm didn't know what the other arm was doing. Office people didn't want to deal with Windows people. They're hoping to change that.

Where has it been stated that they're offering it free of charge? I haven't read anything of the sort. I'm sure Microsoft published games won't have to pony up (for obvious reasons), and exclusive games like titanfall may have gotten sweetheart deals if not a free ride. But I haven't read anything about them telling all devs that they have Carte Blanche to go wild with the cloud servers. Even if they did, it's probably just the first taste for free.
post #2795 of 14783
I think that was wires getting twisted as I was typing fast. free to use was what I meant to say (though I will do a google hunt because possible costs is interesting).

more on the cloud...

http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/21/xbox-one-azure/

With the debut of the new Xbox One gaming system, we could focus on many things: hardware, flashy games, and entertainment options. But one aspect really gets me fired up: Developers should now be able to use Microsoft Azure’s cloud computing platform to make games more powerful than ever.

Why Azure?

Microsoft has been building Azure’s cloud computing capabilities for a long while. Azure has been mostly known as a platform-as-a-service that (primarily .NET) developers use to make the process of app development easier.

Microsoft opened up Azure for pure cloud infrastructure use in June. It now competes with top dogs like Amazon Web Services, Rackspace, and Google Compute Engine.

Steven Martin, the general manager of Azure’s operations team, told us this past October that Azure users are consuming more compute capacity than the entire world used in 1998. As of December, Azure’s cloud storage holds more than 4 trillion objects. It also handles an average of 270,000 requests processed per second, with a peak of 880,000 requests per second.

Azure applications in gaming

Now, let’s see what you could do with all that power.

The first and most obvious application of Azure on Xbox One is making Xbox Live more powerful and useful. All your downloaded games and achievements would be synced and available wherever you are. You would also have dedicated servers for every multiplayer game you participate in. Multiplayer matches would be able to host up to 128 gamers in a single session.

Xbox Live currently runs on 15,000 servers, but it will soon move to a stunning 300,000 servers later this year for the Xbox One launch. That’s a lot of power dedicated to making Xbox Live better.

Second (and this is a bit more crazy), developers can offload computational tasks to the cloud instead of relying on physical hardware to do the heavy lifting. Necessary game computations for physics, rendering, and the like could be immensely enhanced with a connection to powerful virtual servers in the cloud.

“It’s not like on day one, everyone will have figured out how to take advantage of that power,” Microsoft interactive entertainment CMO Marc Whitten told Wired. “It’s just one of those stakes we’re placing.”


http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2013/05/28/xbox-one-cloud/1

Boyd Multerer, partner director of development at Microsoft's Xbox division, confirmed Greenawalt's claims. 'Next gen isn’t just about having lots of transistors local, it’s also about having transistors in the cloud,' claimed Multerer. 'Now you start throwing in servers that are just one hop away and that can you can start doing things like…you look at a game and there’s latency-sensitive load and there’s latency insensitive loads. Let’s start moving those insensitive loads off to the cloud, freeing up local resources and effectively over time your box gets more and more powerful. This is completely unlike previous generations.'

These comments follow those made by Microsoft's Jeff Henshaw in an interview with Official Xbox Magazine, in which it was claimed that each Xbox One console will have access to cloud computing resources equivalent to three times its local compute performance. 'For every physical Xbox One we build, we're provisioning the CPU and storage equivalent of three Xbox Ones on the cloud,' said Henshaw. 'We're doing that flat out so that any game developer can assume that there's roughly three times the resources immediately available to their game, so they can build bigger, persistent levels that are more inclusive for players.'


http://windowsitpro.com/windows-azure/azure-future-microsoft

Azure Is the Future of Microsoft

What I'm about to suggest will be controversial in some circles. But it's a message that IT pros need to hear now so they can prepare for the future. And it goes like this: The market for on-premises servers and infrastructure is coming to an end. The future—the end game, if you will—isn't on-prem, and it's not even really a hybrid model, although there will of course be some of that. It's the cloud. And for Microsoft, that means Azure.

Now before you find the pitchforks and light the torches, give me a second. I didn't arrive at this conclusion lightly.

In fact, given my general embrace of cloud computing, you might be surprised to discover that I've been studiously ignoring Windows Azure, Microsoft's cloud OS platform, for the past few years. Frankly, I've always found Azure to be a bit overwhelming. But as part of my continuing move away from on-premises computing services, I've begun evaluating Azure this year again with fresh eyes. And it's starting to make sense to me.

When Microsoft announced Windows Azure and SQL Azure at the October 2008 PDC, functionality was fairly limited compared to the amazing array of services it now offers. On the Windows Azure side, what Microsoft initially created was a new platform, analogous to Windows Server, which allowed businesses to deploy applications to the cloud instead of to their on-site servers. A key scenario included so-called "spiky workloads," where buying, provisioning, and servicing enough on-prem servers for, say, a retail store's temporary annual holiday sales explosion would be prohibitively expensive. But doing so in the cloud would let the store pay only for those resources they needed, when they needed it. Bingo: Problem solved.

That initial Microsoft offering is what cloud computing guys call Platform as a Service, or PaaS. This lets you do things like deploy web-based apps, supporting cloud services, SQL (or third-party) databases, and other components directly to Azure. This model is interesting because it bypasses the complexity of the underlying server—you no longer need to maintain the underlying server in a VM—and lets you focus directly on the task at hand.

Since the initial release of Azure, a lot has changed. SQL Azure has since been renamed to Windows Azure SQL Database, which I think is important. (More on that below.) Azure has been extended with tons of additional services, including some in the Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) model, where the primary use case here is creating a virtual machine that runs on Azure, deploying applications or other code to that virtual server, and then running it from the cloud, standalone, in tandem with other cloud-hosted VMs and services, or in tandem with your own internal servers and services. Microsoft offers Windows Server-based VMs, of course, but also Linux and UNIX VMs too. It's a big, happy, heterogeneous family.

Separately but not coincidentally, Microsoft has also embraced the so-called private cloud model where what I think of as "units of computing"—servers in a data center, for example—can be managed from a single pane, such as is possible with Windows Server 2012 and the new Server Manager. Critics mope that private cloud is nothing more than a rebranding of on-premises computing, but that's not fair or accurate. Private cloud, instead, is a formalization of practices from public cloud computing applied to the data center, and it includes the underlying infrastructure as well as management capabilities (perhaps System Center-based in the Microsoft view). As important, Microsoft supports a hybrid model in which organizations can maintain infrastructure on-prem and in the cloud, and interoperate as required; the formalization of private cloud computing will also enable these organizations to more easily move to "pure" public cloud systems when possible, or at least put more and more of their infrastructure offsite over time.

When I look out over the transformations that are sweeping Microsoft internally right now—check out "The Microsoft Transition and How It Will Affect You" for a recent rundown—I see the makings of a change that will eventually reflect in its own corporate makeup. That is, it's only a matter of time before Microsoft realigns its internal businesses around devices and services. And this new Microsoft will not be split evenly between those two businesses. I'm thinking 75 percent of it will be services.

Azure sits at the top of that Microsoft Services heap. It is, in other words, the primary business of the company going forward.

Today, we have Windows Server and the various Microsoft servers, most of which have cloud analogs. Windows Server and Azure. SQL Server and SQL Azure. System Center and Windows Intune. Office and Office 365. And so on. To ease the transition to the cloud for its customers, Microsoft has created hybrid solutions in these and other businesses. For the short term, the on-premises solutions will be bigger businesses than the cloud services. But that will quickly flip until on-premises servers are deemphasized and then disappear in some cases. Think about the migration away from 32-bit Microsoft servers and use that as a guide for this change. I expect it to happen similarly. (Microsoft is already moving to a model where cloud services get new features more quickly than their on-prem alternatives. Expect that trend to continue too in the meantime.)

Microsoft is a devices and services company. The services part is the biggest part. Azure is the king of Microsoft services. Azure is the future of Microsoft.

Azure is so key to Microsoft's future, in fact, that I'm starting to question the use of the name Windows on that brand. In many ways it doesn't make sense to call such a thing Windows at all. Azure's a nice name. (And Azure SQL Database rolls off the tongue a lot more easily than does Windows Azure SQL Database. Just saying.)


http://winsupersite.com/cloud/need-know-windows-azure

Need to Know: Windows Azure

In late 2008, when Microsoft announced sweeping plans to move its server product line to the cloud, few outside the company's Windows Server division even understood what this change in strategy meant for the company and its customers. Now, just over a year later, Microsoft has delivered the first non-beta versions of its core cloud server products, Windows Azure and SQL Azure.

Here's what you need to know about Windows Azure.

It's a new platform

Put simply, Windows Azure is the Windows Server operating system redesigned as a cloud-based service. At a very high level, Windows Azure is much like Windows Server, except that it's hosted by Microsoft at its datacenters and not on-premise at your own company. That is, it provides a platform on which developers can create hosted applications and companies can run hosted applications and store data in the cloud.

But Windows Azure is not simply the current version of Windows Server modified to work in the cloud. Yes, Microsoft did of course start with a Windows Server core to create Windows Azure, but the system was also designed from the start to work as a cloud-hosted service. As such, Windows Azure and Windows Server both have capabilities that are unique to one that are not available in the other. According to Microsoft, the company will continue developing each product separately, all while bringing the respective capabilities of each system closer together. That said, because of their unique focuses, it's likely that they will never truly mirror each other fully.

Another important aspect of Windows Azure is that it works within Microsoft's notion of a hybrid computing model, allowing companies to utilize on premise servers for those tasks that need to be hosted onsite and cloud-hosted services that do not. So your company may choose to host some of its applications and data in the cloud but retain other on premise applications and data as needed. This system can also be utilized to slowly move resources to the cloud over time as you evaluate the cost, effectiveness, and convenience of such a strategy.

Why Windows Azure?

If Windows Azure were simply a hosted version of Windows Server, the value proposition would be simple to understand but basic in functionality. But as alluded to earlier, Windows Azure provides a set of benefits that are unique to this platform.

One such benefit involves so-called "spiky" workloads. The canonical example is an online store that experiences typically predictable traffic during most of the year but then far more unpredictable ("spiky") traffic during the holidays. The traditional responses to such a problem are problematic. You could purchase additional computing resources to handle the spike loads, but then these resources would sit ideal for much of the time. You could partially offset the spiking by moving to a virtualized infrastructure where many workloads were typically virtualized but then migrated to physical hardware when required; this requires architecting, deploying, managing--and paying for--a very complex infrastructure, however.

For those interested in the hybrid approach, Windows Azure also supports a new composite application model via the Windows Azure platform AppFabric technologies. Through AppFabric, developers can build and manage applications that run on premise but access and cache Azure-based resources.
post #2796 of 14783
Thanks for that very thoughtful & insightful post. As a company you don't invest 9.6 billion dollars into something that you don't see as the future of your business.

MS seems to be very focused on their vision. For the XB-1 to a major player in that vision is a sign to me that it will be a vibrant platform Next Generation.

MS does gaming very well & I expect that to continue. November can't get here soon enough

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta
post #2797 of 14783
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

I can say with 100% certainty that in twenty years I will have zero desire to be using an archaic Xbox One or PS4. Assuming I'm even around in twenty years.

I still play my PS1 games (on my PSP) and some of those are 17 years old. I'm also considering getting a Sega classic game bundle that includes some games from the Sega Genesis era (specifically for Phantasy Star 4) many of which are over 20 years old.
post #2798 of 14783
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuSoardGraphite View Post

I still play my PS1 games (on my PSP) and some of those are 17 years old. I'm also considering getting a Sega classic game bundle that includes some games from the Sega Genesis era (specifically for Phantasy Star 4) many of which are over 20 years old.

But how many people want to go back and play the games that they played twenty years ago? Other than for nostalgia, it might be interesting for me to see them but I wouldn't want to play them. It would just show me how bad the games looked back then. I've trashed all the systems I've had from back then. At some point I'll trash my 360 consoles too.
post #2799 of 14783
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlysublime View Post

Microsoft is offering this cloud compute free of charge to developers and that's only possible because of the long-term good for Microsoft businesses.

First I've heard of that one, citation please? I haven't read anything from MS or others that hinted that it be a free service.
post #2800 of 14783
I have not gone back and played any of my xbox games. I did however loan my xbox and all its games to a friend of mine who had a good time with it, and his wife couldnt argue about it because it was all free. I am a little more leary of giving up the 360 but thats probably because they are going to still support it. Yet I find it hard to believe I would still be playing it or its games in 20 years. HOWEVER, the xbox one is supposed to be the "future" or at least that is how they are selling it. So I think it is a very legitimate question on what happens to the games in 10-20 years. I also had not thought about the people that get banned. Though Major Nelson says they will get to keep playing their game I am not sure how that happens. Xbox live is required....they are banned from xbox live....how do they still play games.
post #2801 of 14783
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

But how many people want to go back and play the games that they played twenty years ago? Other than for nostalgia, it might be interesting for me to see them but I wouldn't want to play them. It would just show me how bad the games looked back then. I've trashed all the systems I've had from back then. At some point I'll trash my 360 consoles too.

And there's the crux of it ..

Up until this very moment it has always been your choice.
You will still be able to play your single player 360 games after they shut those MP servers down in a few years if you choose to. At the end of the ONE's life cycle MS may just unlock the console , but will the games still be retrievable and installable from the cloud ? You can amass more then 500gb of data in the next 10 years .

You take away someones choice and you will always get resistance. the artful way to have done this would have been to give people a choice but make one of them more appealing and cost effective.

Sell BF4 on the XB1 for 59.99 on disc and $30 for DD. Show the people that they are not going to give up one thing and get nothing in return. You'll be surprised how many people go for the DD. After a time when the DD is fully adopted the sale of discs will stop.

The problem is that until they see it no one believes that prices are going to change in they have no choice. Without choice there is nothing to keep the prices in check.
MS decided to skip a step here and what you see is the result.
post #2802 of 14783
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHDTVDiet View Post

I have not gone back and played any of my xbox games. I did however loan my xbox and all its games to a friend of mine who had a good time with it, and his wife couldnt argue about it because it was all free. I am a little more leary of giving up the 360 but thats probably because they are going to still support it. Yet I find it hard to believe I would still be playing it or its games in 20 years. HOWEVER, the xbox one is supposed to be the "future" or at least that is how they are selling it. So I think it is a very legitimate question on what happens to the games in 10-20 years. I also had not thought about the people that get banned. Though Major Nelson says they will get to keep playing their game I am not sure how that happens. Xbox live is required....they are banned from xbox live....how do they still play games.

I think there is an important distinction between being banned from Xbox Live and being banned from multiplayer. I would assume people still have rights to all the movies/tv shows they purchased even if they are banned from Xbox Live multiplayer. In the same way Free/Silver members can still buy content from Xbox Live without having the ability to play multiplayer.
post #2803 of 14783
Quote:
Originally Posted by spid View Post

I think there is an important distinction between being banned from Xbox Live and being banned from multiplayer. I would assume people still have rights to all the movies/tv shows they purchased even if they are banned from Xbox Live multiplayer. In the same way Free/Silver members can still buy content from Xbox Live without having the ability to play multiplayer.

Right, but what about those people banned from Live for having raciest\sexist comments or advertising in their profile page.
Note I am only aware of these people because I read the "problems" thread on xbox.com (it can be amusing). Sometimes the "racist/sexist" comments they get banned for are song lyrics or their favorite sayings. Often these are short bans but if someone is persistent it can turn into a long term or perma-ban.
post #2804 of 14783
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHDTVDiet View Post

Right, but what about those people banned from Live for having raciest\sexist comments or advertising in their profile page.
Note I am only aware of these people because I read the "problems" thread on xbox.com (it can be amusing). Sometimes the "racist/sexist" comments they get banned for are song lyrics or their favorite sayings. Often these are short bans but if someone is persistent it can turn into a long term or perma-ban.

That would fall under the same logic. The only ban that might be an issue is someone who gets their console banned, normally for hacking the console to play pirated games. I am not sure I have much sympathy for those people.
post #2805 of 14783
Quote:
Originally Posted by samendolaro View Post

And there's the crux of it ..

Up until this very moment it has always been your choice.
You will still be able to play your single player 360 games after they shut those MP servers down in a few years if you choose to. At the end of the ONE's life cycle MS may just unlock the console , but will the games still be retrievable and installable from the cloud ? You can amass more then 500gb of data in the next 10 years .

You take away someones choice and you will always get resistance. the artful way to have done this would have been to give people a choice but make one of them more appealing and cost effective.

Sell BF4 on the XB1 for 59.99 on disc and $30 for DD. Show the people that they are not going to give up one thing and get nothing in return. You'll be surprised how many people go for the DD. After a time when the DD is fully adopted the sale of discs will stop.

The problem is that until they see it no one believes that prices are going to change in they have no choice. Without choice there is nothing to keep the prices in check.
MS decided to skip a step here and what you see is the result.

I agree and MS needs to offer an incentive to go full digital so people don't have preconceived notions of what physical ownership is of a disc. Take the confusion out of it. MS probably could have avoided all of this if they had gone with a full digital download service and offered retail unlock cards. It'd keep retail relevant by having something they can merchandise next to the actual console, ease confusion once people buy the game because it would be clearly laid out for them once they opened the case, and allowed the all digital nature of the console to take effect. This could be an issue for people in areas where broadband is slow but if they console allows you to play while the game downloads maybe this wouldn't be an issue. I think it's a better solution than offering an install disc (which these are now) and facing backlash from confused customers who think the game disc is still somehow relevant. It'd be a bold move for sure. Who knows they might still go to something like that. Maybe they could make retail unlock cards 50 bucks and the purely digital version 40. You're paying for the comfort of buying from traditional retail and it would gear people towards being comfortable with digital purchases.
post #2806 of 14783
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcweber111 View Post

I agree and MS needs to offer an incentive to go full digital so people don't have preconceived notions of what physical ownership is of a disc. Take the confusion out of it. MS probably could have avoided all of this if they had gone with a full digital download service and offered retail unlock cards. It'd keep retail relevant by having something they can merchandise next to the actual console, ease confusion once people buy the game because it would be clearly laid out for them once they opened the case, and allowed the all digital nature of the console to take effect. This could be an issue for people in areas where broadband is slow but if they console allows you to play while the game downloads maybe this wouldn't be an issue. I think it's a better solution than offering an install disc (which these are now) and facing backlash from confused customers who think the game disc is still somehow relevant. It'd be a bold move for sure. Who knows they might still go to something like that.

I don't think this would work because of data caps. I have a 10 GB/mo data cap, so I wouldn't be able to download a full game. More and more people are getting caps, and they've tried to make a big deal that you only have to have a sliver of an internet connection to get the thing to work as is. I think this would alienate just as many people as it appeased.
post #2807 of 14783
people keep stating that MS won't be charging developers anything. Not sure where that came from but here is a statement directly from a developer

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/06/16/dayz-creator-considering-ps4-xbox-one-after-pc-has-an-early-fa/

"Sony lets you self-publish and they don't make you pay for updates," Hall told Eurogamer. "Microsoft requires you to have a publisher. They have no digital distribution strategy and they require you to pay $10,000, or whatever it is, for updates."
post #2808 of 14783
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_P_A View Post

I don't think this would work because of data caps. I have a 10 GB/mo data cap, so I wouldn't be able to download a full game. More and more people are getting caps, and they've tried to make a big deal that you only have to have a sliver of an internet connection to get the thing to work as is. I think this would alienate just as many people as it appeased.

True and that's an issue. I really hate the state of broadband in North America. Just when we're getting products that really take advantage of fast internet we're getting choked off by greedy companies that charge out the ass for service that never improves yet is more and more monetized. I think we're gonna hit a point where data caps either won't make sense anymore and the public outcry will force telcos and cable companies to change or they'll simply up the caps and it won't be much of an issue.
post #2809 of 14783
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcweber111 View Post

True and that's an issue. I really hate the state of broadband in North America. Just when we're getting products that really take advantage of fast internet we're getting choked off by greedy companies that charge out the ass for service that never improves yet is more and more monetized. .....

I'll give you an AMEN on that one!
post #2810 of 14783
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcweber111 View Post

Just when we're getting products that really take advantage of fast internet we're getting choked off by greedy companies that charge out the ass for service that never improves yet is more and more monetized.

You can't blame the internet providers.

As more and more people enter the marketplace for HS internet the backbones are the same . They haven't laid new fiber in a long time and the dark fiber is evaporating.
The Internet providers need to guarantee service to everyone, having PC's, TV's downloading movies and a few million consoles downloading 60gb games was never part of the forecasting. Unfortunately data Caps are the solution until larger backbones are available. These caps are usually about 250 to 300 gb ( much smaller on phones)

Remember MS and Sony are using another companies infrastructure to deliver its DD services , there is no reason everyone should suffer because of it so expect caps to be enforced more and more over the next decade


EDIT: The IP's Increasing your DL speed allows you to get your data quicker so there are less simultaneous users at any given time . This allows more people to use the system without having congestion. Faster speeds were never intended to be a per user constant (although their marketing would suggest it)
Edited by samendolaro - 6/17/13 at 7:42am
post #2811 of 14783
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHDTVDiet View Post

I have not gone back and played any of my xbox games. I did however loan my xbox and all its games to a friend of mine who had a good time with it, and his wife couldnt argue about it because it was all free. I am a little more leary of giving up the 360 but thats probably because they are going to still support it. Yet I find it hard to believe I would still be playing it or its games in 20 years. HOWEVER, the xbox one is supposed to be the "future" or at least that is how they are selling it. So I think it is a very legitimate question on what happens to the games in 10-20 years. I also had not thought about the people that get banned. Though Major Nelson says they will get to keep playing their game I am not sure how that happens. Xbox live is required....they are banned from xbox live....how do they still play games.

XBLive CS on twitter has stated that you will lose all licenses as a result of a ban from LIVE; which contradicts Major Nelsons comment Maybe he was talking about Live MP bans?. Let's hope they beef up their support and don't make too many mistakes if thats how they're going to roll.

Bans are few and far between, and I have no doubt most get what’s coming to them. But the idea that you lose all your licenses with no way to transfer them to a new fresh account is troubling. Not really owning something or having control over it can be somewhat worrisome.
post #2812 of 14783
Quote:
Originally Posted by samendolaro View Post

You can't blame the internet providers.

As more and more people enter the marketplace for HS internet the backbones are the same . They haven't laid new fiber in a long time and the dark fiber is evaporating.
The Internet providers need to guarantee service to everyone, having PC's, TV's downloading movies and a few million consoles downloading 60gb games was never part of the forecasting. Unfortunately data Caps are the solution until larger backbones are available. These caps are usually about 250 to 300 gb ( much smaller on phones)

Remember MS and Sony are using another companies infrastructure to deliver its DD services , there is no reason everyone should suffer because of it.

Nah I'll go ahead and blame the ISPs because there's little reason for them to upgrade and innovate their services and they know it. You don't think they have the money and power to make significant upgrades to alleviate these issues? They forecast, they know what's needed to improve service for an expanding number of devices yet they hold all the cards and act like it. Funny how someone like Google coming into a market can change their tune (free wifi in Austin for TW customers, improved speeds from Comcast in KC, etc.). My care cup is bone dry for them because they choke and squeeze every penny they can from their customers (and local municipalities) with little regard to the changing landscape. Again they're not stupid they know what needs to be done. Like I said, greed greed greed and little regard for their customers.

edit Also, about using other companies infrastructure, well yeah what else are they gonna use?! I don't get that argument at all. All you need to see to know that's a bunch of b.s. is VOD. Funny TW can whine and complain about Netflix and others soaking up their bandwidth yet they have no problem separating their VOD out from caps. The same amount of bandwidth is used for either services, why complain about Netflix?

edit 2 Anyway I don't want to get too off track from the point of the thread though so that's all I'll say about that. I still stand by my assumption that eventually MS will go the DD-only route and I could see it happening within this generation.
Edited by pcweber111 - 6/17/13 at 7:49am
post #2813 of 14783
My complaint is ISPs charging more and more for the same service, or in some cases gradually degrading service. Their prices go up, but they don't invest in infrastructure upgrades, and as more and more people use their service for high BW applications, the overall quality is dropping. I'm on satellite because the DSL in the area got so bad that it's no better than dial up. AT&T finally put an administrative cap on it because the service was so poor, and yet they have no plans of improving the infrastructure because it doesn't fall within a three year ROI. The people already on the service are just SOL.

But you are correct, MS and Sony are using someone else's infrastructure to profit.
post #2814 of 14783
Here's a question

If I have an Xbox live account for XB1 and I have multiple users on that system , MS has already said all of them can use the same live account.

Now if I install a game does that game get attached to the avatar which I install it under or does it get linked to the Live account ? I know that the avatars can be unlinked and moved to other accounts but will the games follow that user if it wasn't the primary account ?
post #2815 of 14783
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_P_A View Post

My complaint is ISPs charging more and more for the same service, or in some cases gradually degrading service. Their prices go up, but they don't invest in infrastructure upgrades, and as more and more people use their service for high BW applications, the overall quality is dropping. I'm on satellite because the DSL in the area got so bad that it's no better than dial up. AT&T finally put an administrative cap on it because the service was so poor, and yet they have no plans of improving the infrastructure because it doesn't fall within a three year ROI. The people already on the service are just SOL.

But you are correct, MS and Sony are using someone else's infrastructure to profit.

As is Netflix, HULU, Amazon Prime, Google... Heck, anyone that utilizes the internet as a delivery vehicle for a service. I don't blame anyone for this.

How many companies have gone under trying to find the happy medium of profit to pay for the investment in infrastructure improvement? On how many backs are the Comcast's, verizons and AT&T's of the world walking on using that infrastructure that they purchased pennies on the dollar at auction? Again, I am not blaming anyone. It is just that the innovation is currently outstripping the available online capacity. It may be a slow ride until we get the next tech jump and infrastructure upgrade.
post #2816 of 14783
If I build a toll highway and all of sudden Mexico wants to start bringing HUGE transport trucks full of commercial product through my highway to Canada; slowing it down and wrecking it for others, why wouldn't I want to start charging mexico so I could A) make improvements and B) not be left profitless from them profiting using my highway.


2nd of all. It's been a long time I've seen any figures but last I checked blu-ray was around 50gb. Are you telling me, we're going to be downloading 50gb games? It takes long enough to download 10gb+ games (think Halo 4).

What happens when a 50gb COD or Halo 5 launches and you have 15 million people all trying to download it once. Can even the mighty Microsoft servers take that kind of beating? For the gold subscription + cost of the game,they better. Can my ISP take that kind of beating. I don't know about you guys but during the E3 days I noticed the internet to be really slow to point I couldn't watch netflix in the evening (think after school) and I'm on cable for the record.

With all this talk of the cloud something I saw someone pick up on earlier, who's name I can't recall (sorry) pointed out. Maybe microsoft will move the whole game into the cloud and we will just be using the xbox as controller and video output device. This would sure mean a lot of bandwidth through............
post #2817 of 14783
Thread Starter 
I'm pretty sure it will be just like Steam where you perorder the game and queue it for download. You'll then download it well in advance of the actual release. So not everyone needs to download all at once or even quickly.
post #2818 of 14783
If a game is 50gb I am not seeing the issue. You have a choice to get it on disc. As far downloading in general this has been going on with PC. You have games on Steam clock in at 26gb. Or you buy it in retail.
post #2819 of 14783
Quote:
Originally Posted by samendolaro View Post

You can't blame the internet providers.

As more and more people enter the marketplace for HS internet the backbones are the same . They haven't laid new fiber in a long time and the dark fiber is evaporating.
The Internet providers need to guarantee service to everyone, having PC's, TV's downloading movies and a few million consoles downloading 60gb games was never part of the forecasting. Unfortunately data Caps are the solution until larger backbones are available. These caps are usually about 250 to 300 gb ( much smaller on phones)

Yeah, I’ll blame them. They’re granted quasi-monopoly status because of the barriers to entry and costs of maintaining and creating new infrastructure. That they don’t is a major oversight issue with our governments; Federal and State.

If they’re going to be dragged into the 1st century kick and screaming, we should just make all internet infrastructure a public good as we do with roads, water, and major electricity lines for the most part. Allowing anyone to use the infrastructure as a service provider will keep costs down, allow competition, and drive innovation. That’s how they do it in places not called USA for the most part, and everyone benefits for it. It’s akin to the government building the roads and taxing the people that use it for upkeep; while freight companies spring up to transport goods on those roads as efficiently as possible.

When it takes a behemoth with the cash on hand of Google (KC fiber and little concern of recouping the costs near-short term) to get a ISP to worry and actually innovate and provide better service, something is wrong. They’re granted special exemptions and support for a reason.
Edited by TyrantII - 6/17/13 at 8:45am
post #2820 of 14783
Funny...

If someone lays down the capitol and builds something that works it should be take over by the government but if it fails well that's on them...

Any time you want you can purchase a dedicated T3 . That 43mbps with no cap, you'll pay through the $$$ for it but it would be all yours. The ISP's only need to maintain their infrastructure if they wish. But they aren't obligated to increase it .

The thing missing in most cities is competition . But there are always options if you have the cash
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Xbox Area
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › Xbox Area › The Official Xbox One thread...