Jump to content

Xbox Series X | S


djbhammer
 Share

Recommended Posts

If they have solved the latency issues and other streaming issues and all games and services are offered in the streaming console on the same quality, which will also cost much cheaper, what would be the meaning of the proper console? Just to ask those who don't have enough money for a proper broadband to pay double or triple the price to enjoy their games? :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Uncle Mike said:

 

Sure, so a slightly cheaper console in the home.

 

But it's not some new revolution, as far as I can see, is what I'm saying. We already have streamed games. They're OK already. Doing a pass of anti-aliasing and running maybe some internal wireframe version of the game might be better, I guess? But if the logic is being run in the cloud (and all these streaming solutions already typically run pretty close to the end user) then you're still open to the cloud game thinking the enemies are in one place whilst you're seeing them in another. It's basically opening up every game to the sort of lag you see in a PVP game?

 

But in online games (and surely PVE is a closer analogy than PVP, as with PVP you've got double the latency as the server has to wait for the input from the other player before sending the info on) there are so many clever tricks now that you don't really notice the latency. Utilising these online gaming tricks, such as rendering the reaction to player input locally so it feels as snappy as possible, sounds like a great way forward.

 

It certainly sounds better than sending the player input to the server then waiting for the video to come back and be decompressed and rendered before showing anything at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Talk Show Host said:

If they have solved the latency issues and other streaming issues and all games and services are offered in the streaming console on the same quality, which will also cost much cheaper, what would be the meaning of the proper console? Just to ask those who don't have enough money for a proper broadband to pay double or triple the price to enjoy their games? :unsure:

I'm guessing only the full console will support VR/AR/MR headsets. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Talk Show Host said:

If they have solved the latency issues and other streaming issues and all games and services are offered in the streaming console on the same quality, which will also cost much cheaper, what would be the meaning of the proper console? Just to ask those who don't have enough money for a proper broadband to pay double or triple the price to enjoy their games? :unsure:

Well, the pricing model would be different as instead of running everything locally you'd be constantly hammering Azure, so it's about giving people a lower buy-in, but higher ongoing costs on a subs model.

 

I'd still rather outright buy a small amount of games to run at the highest possible quality rather than pay a more hefty ongoing subscription.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's going to be about playing anywhere though, isn't it? The big benefit of streaming is that you can do it on a phone or tablet or whatever device you have, you can access those games from anywhere.

 

If you want to do all your gaming on a dedicated PC or console in one room, well you still can, but I think the success of the Switch and Fortnite show the market's shifting away from that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US of A is still an important market for the Xbox I assume? One thing to keep in mind that they seem to be going backwards in a big way when it comes to the joys of the internet. Aren't data caps making a major comeback under the current administration? That would surely limit the appeal of a 100% streaming console in a bigly manner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd much rather the big three did more in terms of making their products and services readily available to countries outside of Europe, Japan and North America before they start excluding everyone that doesn't have a shit hot internet connection. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Pob said:

Well, the pricing model would be different as instead of running everything locally you'd be constantly hammering Azure, so it's about giving people a lower buy-in, but higher ongoing costs on a subs model.

 

I'd still rather outright buy a small amount of games to run at the highest possible quality rather than pay a more hefty ongoing subscription.

 

Imagine using this line to sell it in the store. Instant fail. It sounds a bit complicated and videogame mainstream audiences don't generally get or like different choices like that. Two different Xboxes, with different pricing models, different broadband requirements and possibly different quality results?

 

You can't get a better recipe for disaster than that if your aiming for a mainstream console to battle Sony imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are reasons for the "proper" console, outside of the inherent issues with streaming.

 

What if you have a bandwidth limit? Or live more rurally and can't get a good enough connection? I live in greater London but my connection is garbage.

 

It's too early to go all in on streaming, but there's probably a market for it, especially across devices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kiwi Cake said:

There are reasons for the "proper" console, outside of the inherent issues with streaming.

 

What if you have a bandwidth limit? Or live more rurally and can't get a good enough connection? I live in greater London but my connection is garbage.

 

It's too early to go all in on streaming, but there's probably a market for it, especially across devices.

 

There is a market for it, sure. But paying for a full blown console three times the price of a streaming one just because you have a broadband limit sounds like a good idea to move, not buy a new machine. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Talk Show Host said:

 

There is a market for it, sure. But paying for a full blown console three times the price of a streaming one just because you have a broadband limit sounds like a good idea to move, not buy a new machine. :P

 

Haha, sure, but I could afford a new console this afternoon. It'll be a while before I can afford a new home. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SMD said:

Of course the more they push for a platform agnostic model, eventually they'll end up paving the way for non gaming companies to come in and eat their lunch.

 

Patents + Microsoft are already a non-Gaming company looking for uses for Azure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, bear said:

I'm guessing only the full console will support VR/AR/MR headsets. 

 

You could use a similar solution for VR surely? Put the thin client on the HMD itself to handle latency-sensitive stuff like head tracking and stream the rest wirelessly, either from the powerful base unit or even from the cloud directly to the HMD. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, footle said:

 

Patents + Microsoft are already a non-Gaming company looking for uses for Azure.

 

Oh I'm sure it's in Microsoft's interests to stop having to put out new hardware every cycle, less so Nintendo and Sony though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Talk Show Host said:

 

There is a market for it, sure. But paying for a full blown console three times the price of a streaming one just because you have a broadband limit sounds like a good idea to move, not buy a new machine. :P

 

Consumer choice surely.  

 

Either pay for the higher priced console or get non metered broadband? (Anyone know how much data these streamed games use? Would you NEED uncapped broadband to play it?)

I guess it depends on the prices as always.  It would be a disaster if the full fat console was $800 and the cloud one $300.

Sony come along with a $350 machine and wipe the floor with them 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rafaqat said:

 

Consumer choice surely.  

 

Either pay for the higher priced console or get non metered broadband?

I guess it depends on the prices as always.  It would be a disaster if the full fat console was $800 and the cloud one $300.

Sony come along with a $350 machine and wipe the floor with them 

 

Thing about the cloud one is that it’s a case where a targeted subsidy *would* work, because your users are then actually locked into buying a subscription in future years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, footle said:

 

Thing about the cloud one is that it’s a case where a targeted subsidy *would* work, because your users are then actually locked into buying a subscription in future years.

 

True.  I'd certainly be temped to try it out. I wonder if they'd offer an option to pay a higher monthly fee to then also rent the console. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rafaqat said:

 

Consumer choice surely.  

 

Either pay for the higher priced console or get non metered broadband? (Anyone know how much data these streamed games use? Would you NEED uncapped broadband to play it?)

I guess it depends on the prices as always.  It would be a disaster if the full fat console was $800 and the cloud one $300.

Sony come along with a $350 machine and wipe the floor with them 

 

Yeah, I see your point. But I'm having doubts that a mainstream user will look further than price and brand. A double choice with so many parameters will only confuse people and they may just opt for PS, especially now that the brand is again the top dog in the industry.

 

Microsoft should just give up all these things and concentrate on a solid offer imo: a great machine (stream or otherwise, doesn't matter) and, of course, games, first and foremost. Nothing else matters in the end. They are in no position to create another confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Talk Show Host said:

Microsoft should just give up all these things and concentrate on a solid offer imo: a great machine (stream or otherwise, doesn't matter) and, of course, games, first and foremost. Nothing else matters in the end.

 

Thing is though.  It sounds like the full fat console will pretty much be that.  A console that'll be roughly the same price as the PS5 at around the time that games should start to appear frmo their new studios (plus the usual suspects like Forza/Gears etc).    If they position that as their primary device they'll be fine. 

 

Maybe even introduce the cloud based version at a later date rather than launch at same time to keep the message simple.  Risky I know but one of them's gotta try it at some point. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, rafaqat said:

 

Thing is though.  It sounds like the full fat console will pretty much be that.  A console that'll be roughly the same price as the PS5 at around the time that games should start to appear frmo their new studios (plus the usual suspects like Forza/Gears etc).    If they position that as their primary device they'll be fine. 

 

Maybe even introduce the cloud based version at a later date rather than launch at same time to keep the message simple.  Risky I know but one of them's gotta try it at some point. 

 

 

 

Sure, that makes more sense. But a parallel release of a proper one at a high price and a streaming one at 1/3 of the price (which they will have to market as ''a device that offers the same as the proper one'' for it to have any real success) would be kind of a disaster.

 

Generally, for me, anything that splits the consumer base is bad. There is a difference between offering an improved release of your own console and actually putting out a competitor of your own console with a cheaper price. And if the streaming box customers are unsatisfied there is NO way they will go for the proper machine and spend more money. You lose these customers for ever.

 

All this double thing seems to me that they will have to shift the core of their marketing and general focus so much towards the cloud that I doubt anyone would see it as a worthwhile move (or even understand much of it) next to a PS5 bundled with a new Uncharted or God of War.

 

They need to return to their 360 thinking and gain a foothold with great franchises before they decide they have a strong base to follow them into whatever new venture or revolution they want to bring. Of course it all depends on what they really want to do and, right now, that isn't entirely clear in my book. They fucked up the message of this gen so bad that they can't really afford another weird ''tech-gaming-revolution-living room-portable'' debacle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, since the current Xbox was called Xbox One as in one device for everything (except games, lolololololol).... will this next-gen Xbox, given its cloud leanings,  be called Xbox Everywhere?*

 

Spoiler

*except where the games are lololololol

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big unknown here is just how much extra making a streaming box or television Scarlett compatible would cost. 

I'm assuming MS are going to try to create a solution that the likes of Qualcomm and Intel can support in a way that lets a future Surface Go work with the Scarlett service. 

Getting Apple or Amazon to support it on their TV boxes would be a stretch but if MS can get the likes of Samsung to put it in Smart TVs and phones then they are on to a winner.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mr. Gerbik said:

I have amazing broadband but every time I've given streaming a go, I was able to see the video artifacting. And it's shit. Most people probably don't notice, persumably the same people who don't notice when the image tears itself to hell and framerate drops like a stone. So for most people it will probably be fine, but I worry that I will never get on with streaming even if they manage to eliminate input lag completely (which so far nobody has). What happens when streaming becomes the only available option to play the new games? I'll probably be the grumpy grandpa sitting in his mancave with his retro consoles grumbling about how we used to have sharp, clear images and responsive controls 'when I was young' - and the young kids will think it's funny because artifacting is 'more cinematic' and grandpa is way behind the times.

 

As Netflix and Spotify and mobile phone photography have proven, people care more for convenience than absolute quality, price it right and the possibilities are enormous in terms of potential audience.

 

 

In terms of this new Powered by the Cloud console they are proposing to release, it'll be interesting to see how they've reduced the latency as that is the big advancement it has over current solutions and will those benefits only work with the dedicated console and not work if you use any other device to access the streaming, assuming they aren't tying it to a dedicated box?

 

I saw some comment from a game dev about this, seems John Carmack was right, you'd really need to do a paradigm shift on how you make games to really do Cloud only gaming which can replicate a locally generated game. This Microsoft solution is still a band-aid to making games designed for local rendering work better remotely as the article says the exact same game will run on the Xbox Two and the Xbox Cloud with no differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, mushashi said:

 

As Netflix and Spotify and mobile phone photography have proven, people care more for convenience than absolute quality, price it right and the possibilities are enormous in terms of potential audience.

And when it comes to movies and music I'm one of those people. It's convenient and more than good enough. But for mah games I want absolute quality! Streaming is just not good enough and given the current state, I don't think it ever will be for connoisseurs ( :P ) like me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SMD said:

Streaming sounds shite to be honest but it'll be good for the people who live in areas with amazing broadband I guess.

 

Of course the more they push for a platform agnostic model, eventually they'll end up paving the way for non gaming companies to come in and eat their lunch.

I think we'll get there eventually, this is a nod to the future. It may not even rely on traditional underground wires if low-earth-orbit satellite broadband pans out. 

 

And yeah, this is definitely another step on the road to Xbox as a Service (apologies for the aaS). I mean, eventually, the dedicated hardware could be a PC, and the guts of whatever device you're on (e.g., smart tv) serves as the streaming device. It's been telegraphed for a while, but pieces are falling into place. I wonder at what point the economics would cause a dedicated Xbox console not to be worth creating if a specific number of people streamed instead? Same question to Sony of course, given PS Now/Gaikai. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.