Come join us all in the PC Super race. It's great here.
I've already got a home in PC land. I'm just assessing the viability of a holiday bungalow.
Which gets lower all the time, considering that roughly 80% of the features mentioned in the presentation are either US only, or useless in Australia. Including voice recognition, which inevitably won't work unless you pretend to have an American accent.
Does that mean disc based games will work exactly as digital content does now? (Anyone can use it on the console where it was purchased and the account holder can use it anywhere)
Does that mean disc based games will work exactly as digital content does now? (Anyone can use it on the console where it was purchased and the account holder can use it anywhere)
I don't know about the latter part with the account holder being able to use it everywhere, but the rest of it, yes. Discs basically install the game to your HDD, and as far as I know, are not required after the first play/installation - unless you delete it off your HDD and want to re-install, I guess, unless they're providing a download option there.
Does this mean MS is trying to move away from disc based game sales? Because it sounds like the disc is going to be nothing more than a faster way to download the game.
Why am I suddenly reminded of the ill-fated DIVX system of one use movies?
It's really interesting. Nintendo gave up the hardcore for the mainstream. But the mainstream they went for were families and people who still consider video games to be toys you buy your kids on Christmas.
Microsoft is now again abandoning the hardcore for the mainstream. But the mainstream they are going for are the millions who play Madden and Call of Doody and abandoning everyone else.
Well, yeah, because that's where the money is. Indies are going to be far better at serving the niche market of the hardcore, who will bitch and whine every time you don't just pump out more counterstrike or NS2 with different texture packs. Why not just cut their losses on a whiny, never-satisfied niche market, and go for the millions who DO flock to the Maddens and CODs in droves, give you plenty of positive word-of-mouth, and ignore the relatively dry well of gaming Grognards who are already well-served by others whom they're generally quite faithful to?
Well, yeah, because that's where the money is. Indies are going to be far better at serving the niche market of the hardcore, who will bitch and whine every time you don't just pump out more counterstrike or NS2 with different texture packs. Why not just cut their losses on a whiny, never-satisfied niche market, and go for the millions who DO flock to the Maddens and CODs in droves, give you plenty of positive word-of-mouth, and ignore the relatively dry well of gaming Grognards who are already well-served by others whom they're generally quite faithful to?
Because the long tail is big money in the digital world. In the world of physical goods you want to sell greater quantities of fewer things so the economy of scale works for you. If you sell the same quantity, but over a greater variety of products, your profits will be much much less.
In the digital world, what do you care which bits are downloaded? Everything is bits. If you are the middleman who doesn't have to actually make the bits, you are happily taking a cut of all the bits. Allowing more people to make more bits available for purchase on your platform only makes you money. 1000 indie games that sell 1000 copies each is as good as one game that sells a million copies if you are the platform, and not the developer.
I was also reading something about MS allowing you to "trade in" your digital games to them for possibly discounts on new games. This is genius because you know MS will never resell a traded in digital copy. It allows them to give the gamer what they want (trade in value towards new games) while also giving the developer what they want (force everyone to buy new).
Yeah... I'm definitely going back entirely to primarily PC gaming with the next gen. I've found that most of the console exclusives I'm a big fan of tend to be stuff from the PS2 generation or earlier, which I can easily play on a PC with an emulator anyway. Heck, the #1 reason why I was a big console gamer, JRPGs, don't even do it for me that much anymore since I'm not a fan of the vast majority of post-PS2 JPRGs anyway.
I've already decided that instead of buying a next gen console, I'll finally just get around to building a HTPC. The one sticking point was that my $600 receiver (at the time, although a modern equivalent still would cost about the same) didn't do HDMI, but then I saw Monoprice selling HDMI->SPDIF/TOSLINK adapters for $40, so that settles that issue.
I've already decided that instead of buying a next gen console, I'll finally just get around to building a HTPC. The one sticking point was that my $600 receiver (at the time, although a modern equivalent still would cost about the same) didn't do HDMI, but then I saw Monoprice selling HDMI->SPDIF/TOSLINK adapters for $40, so that settles that issue.
Uh, how is that supposed to work exactly? Your HTPC has one HDMI cable coming out of it. That cable carries the audio and the video. If you convert that HDMI to optical, and send that to the receiver, you lose the video. Does that converter also have an HDMI output, so you can still send the video to the TV? Does it fuck up the HDCP? Does it introduce an audio delay?
Do what I do, it's much simpler. Send HDMI directly to your TV without any audio whatsoever. Then just use an optical cable from the optical output on the HTPC sound card to the receiver. Ta-da! No adapter needed. Almost every motherboard these days includes a built-in sound card with TOSLINK output.
However, because my "receiver" is a Logitech Z5500 it only has one optical input. I have like 3 things that output optical audio, so I have an optical audio switcher with remote control. Works great. I used to have the cheaper one with a physical switch, but it was a piece of junk that broke.
I'm not sure that is what that is saying, MS won't answer that question. Seems to me, if the answer was no, they would just come out and say it.
The game companies have outright said they don't care for the second hand game market. So I'll bet this is something they really want to do. And in their defense, I can't blame them for not liking that on games that they have to maintain servers for.
Because the long tail is big money in the digital world. In the world of physical goods you want to sell greater quantities of fewer things so the economy of scale works for you. If you sell the same quantity, but over a greater variety of products, your profits will be much much less.
In the digital world, what do you care which bits are downloaded? Everything is bits. If you are the middleman who doesn't have to actually make the bits, you are happily taking a cut of all the bits. Allowing more people to make more bits available for purchase on your platform only makes you money. 1000 indie games that sell 1000 copies each is as good as one game that sells a million copies if you are the platform, and not the developer.
Yep, and that's what XBLA is for - independent titles that will sell tiny numbers like that, MS gets a cut, and you're all good to go. The Grognards were not buying the console in the first place, so why would they try serve them with their primary distribution? And the people who are buying indie games on XBLA are still part of the base that they're serving, for the most part - The Grognards, I'd suspect, actually buy indie games through XBLA at a far lower rate than anyone else, because these indie games are either not the tiny handful they enjoy, or are available on PC. So why bother pushing hard to serve them there, either?
Seriously, if I was in Microsoft's position, I'd give zero shits about the Grognards sitting around bitching about my console and it's lineup too, and negative shits about jettisoning them from my intended market. I mean, it's not like they're going to buy a console without some crazy incentives well above and beyond any other section of the market, and they were not going to buy the games that the mainstream audience are going to buy that make up the majority of the lineup, they're hardly going to touch XBLA and when they do, they're going to buy tiny numbers of a tiny amount of games, IF they can't get them on their preferred platform, which is generally PC - nowdays with smaller indie titles, that's a big if.
So if they're not going to give you money, it's going to cost a lot more to get them to give you their money, then fuck it, let them sit around on their forums bitching about how K+M is better than controllers and how people with consoles are stupid dooty heads, and how they're so much better than them. They're an incredibly tiny niche market, not a problem to lose them, frankly, they're not even worth a second thought.
I've already decided that instead of buying a next gen console, I'll finally just get around to building a HTPC. The one sticking point was that my $600 receiver (at the time, although a modern equivalent still would cost about the same) didn't do HDMI, but then I saw Monoprice selling HDMI->SPDIF/TOSLINK adapters for $40, so that settles that issue.
Uh, how is that supposed to work exactly? Your HTPC has one HDMI cable coming out of it. That cable carries the audio and the video. If you convert that HDMI to optical, and send that to the receiver, you lose the video. Does that converter also have an HDMI output, so you can still send the video to the TV? Does it fuck up the HDCP? Does it introduce an audio delay?
Do what I do, it's much simpler. Send HDMI directly to your TV without any audio whatsoever. Then just use an optical cable from the optical output on the HTPC sound card to the receiver. Ta-da! No adapter needed. Almost every motherboard these days includes a built-in sound card with TOSLINK output.
I should've clarified. If my HTPC doesn't have TOSLINK output for some reason, then I'd use the HDMI adapter (which does have HDMI out for video, etc., so it would address most, if not all, of your concerns). I haven't spec'ed one out, but I had assumed (incorrectly, apparently), that TOSLINK was a semi-obsolete tech that no one is shipping with anymore. If I can get an HTPC with TOSLINK out, then I'm golden.
However, because my "receiver" is a Logitech Z5500 it only has one optical input. I have like 3 things that output optical audio, so I have an optical audio switcher with remote control. Works great. I used to have the cheaper one with a physical switch, but it was a piece of junk that broke.
I'll have to check out that switcher. My receiver is 14 year old Yamaha that has two optical inputs (which is enough for me at the moment), but in case I want to plug in anything else that uses optical, an optical switcher may not be a bad idea to get at some point.
Why is that the console don't do backwards compatibility? Is it a technological reason? A business reason? A cost issue?
Easy: The Xbox 360 uses a PowerPC CPU. The Xbox One uses an x86 CPU.
In theory, I suppose you could emulate the 360's PowerPC on the One's x86, but we don't know if the performance of the emulation would be high enough to have proper backwards compatibility.
If one console had backwards compatibility and the other didn't, wouldn't the one that did have a huge advantage?
Backwards compatibility is a relatively new thing. The SNES wasn't backwards compatible with the NES, for example (despite having a CPU that could run NES code unmodified by booting it up in 8-bit mode, although it's possible the non-CPU hardware wasn't compatible). The N64 also wasn't backwards compatible with what came before, and neither was the Game Cube.
The only consoles that had backwards compatibility were:
Sega Genesis, although this was by accident as the Genesis's audio co-processor, the Z80, happened to be the same as the Sega Master System's CPU and its video display processor (VDP) was an enhanced version of that in the Master System.
Sony PlayStation 2, mostly because its MIPS-based CPU was basically the PS1's CPU on steroids
Sony PlayStation 3, depending on the generation. It used a PowerPC-based CPU instead of a MIPS CPU, so for PS2 compatibility, which they later removed, it had to include basically a miniaturized PS2 on its motherboard. The hardware itself was beefy enough to run PS1 games via emulation after they dropped the PS2 compatibility.
Nintendo Wii, but I think it's mostly due to the underlying hardware being nearly identical to that of the GameCube.
Xbox 360, via software emulation as the original Xbox had an x86 CPU. This is also probably why not every old game would work on it.
I think the Atari 5800 and 7200 could also play 2600 games.
Everything else ever on the market had absolutely no backwards compatibility whatsoever.
Why is that the console don't do backwards compatibility? Is it a technological reason? A business reason? A cost issue?
If one console had backwards compatibility and the other didn't, wouldn't the one that did have a huge advantage?
Tech: they are going from PowerPC to x86.
Edit: Ninja'd by Lou
Backwards compatibility is relatively new and primarily came about because when the industry moved away from carts to optical discs from a consumer standpoint it seemed right.
"If the media looks the same why can I not play it on the new system?"
Look at the evolution of CDs. Every new iteration has been back compatible with what came before. A DVD player will play CDs and BD player will play DVDs and CDs. Consumers see this in that market, see similar media format in consoles and expect the same thing.
I challenge you to find a modern motherboard on Newegg that does NOT have a built-in soundcard with a TOSLINK output.
edit: I cliked on 8 random motheboards. Only one did not have it.
That's what I get for searching for "TOSLINK" on NewEgg instead of just browsing motherboards. :P Then again, I fully admit I wasn't trying hard.
Mac mini also has it, if you go that route. They have an optical output hidden inside of the normal audio out port on the back, and you use this kind of cable to get it out.
What I find it interesting that the Xbox One has taken DRM to the next level.
The fact that the Kinect camera is mandatory, means that you can never lend your games to someone else, or trade/ sell accounts. Which people seem to like to do.
And The Kinect 2.0 will be compatible with Windows 8.
Have yet to see any game worth buying an Xbox one for (dumb name).
At this point I'm not really keen on any of the new consoles, I'm going to wait and see more details about what the final PS4 and Xbox1 hardware/software will actually do. I have enough games already to keep me going for a couple years while the new consoles prove themselves to me. Plus, most of the games for the next couple years will still come out for PS3 and Xbox360, just weaker versions.
Mac mini also has it, if you go that route. They have an optical output hidden inside of the normal audio out port on the back, and you use this kind of cable to get it out.
Not gonna go with a Mac Mini. The only reason to buy a Mac, IMHO, is to run Mac OS, and any HTPC I build will almost certainly run a flavor of Windows just cause there's more hardware/software support for HTPC-ish stuff on it. Even for my main computer, I'm going with a regular PC desktop, though I'll probably also pair it up with a MacBook Air as my ultra-lightweight laptop that I can still do my Mac-based programming hobbies on. Anyway, I'm not going to upgrade my "regular" hardware for a while now, so I'm not super concerned as to what I do there. I'm more likely to get a HTPC in the near future than a new desktop.
Either way, it'll be interesting as it's been probably about 15 years since I last built a PC from parts, so I'm probably rusty as hell. Not that it's rocket science, of course, but it's been a while.
How are you connecting the kinect camera to lending games?
Each game requires an installation, and has a license key associated with your Live profile. The Kinect camera is what signs you into your account and allows you access to your purchased content.
If I lend you my physical copy of the game, and you put it in your console, you will ahve to go through the installation process, but the license is already associated with my account, so you won't be able to play it.
Unless I take my body to your house and sign into my account (via Kinect) you will not be able to play with my disc.
At least this is what I understand from what I've read.
Comments
Which gets lower all the time, considering that roughly 80% of the features mentioned in the presentation are either US only, or useless in Australia. Including voice recognition, which inevitably won't work unless you pretend to have an American accent.
Why am I suddenly reminded of the ill-fated DIVX system of one use movies?
Microsoft is now again abandoning the hardcore for the mainstream. But the mainstream they are going for are the millions who play Madden and Call of Doody and abandoning everyone else.
In the digital world, what do you care which bits are downloaded? Everything is bits. If you are the middleman who doesn't have to actually make the bits, you are happily taking a cut of all the bits. Allowing more people to make more bits available for purchase on your platform only makes you money. 1000 indie games that sell 1000 copies each is as good as one game that sells a million copies if you are the platform, and not the developer.
I've already decided that instead of buying a next gen console, I'll finally just get around to building a HTPC. The one sticking point was that my $600 receiver (at the time, although a modern equivalent still would cost about the same) didn't do HDMI, but then I saw Monoprice selling HDMI->SPDIF/TOSLINK adapters for $40, so that settles that issue.
Do what I do, it's much simpler. Send HDMI directly to your TV without any audio whatsoever. Then just use an optical cable from the optical output on the HTPC sound card to the receiver. Ta-da! No adapter needed. Almost every motherboard these days includes a built-in sound card with TOSLINK output.
However, because my "receiver" is a Logitech Z5500 it only has one optical input. I have like 3 things that output optical audio, so I have an optical audio switcher with remote control. Works great. I used to have the cheaper one with a physical switch, but it was a piece of junk that broke.
4x2 Remote Control Digital Optical TOSlink Audio Fiber Optic Selector Switch Switcher Splitter
The game companies have outright said they don't care for the second hand game market. So I'll bet this is something they really want to do. And in their defense, I can't blame them for not liking that on games that they have to maintain servers for.
Seriously, if I was in Microsoft's position, I'd give zero shits about the Grognards sitting around bitching about my console and it's lineup too, and negative shits about jettisoning them from my intended market. I mean, it's not like they're going to buy a console without some crazy incentives well above and beyond any other section of the market, and they were not going to buy the games that the mainstream audience are going to buy that make up the majority of the lineup, they're hardly going to touch XBLA and when they do, they're going to buy tiny numbers of a tiny amount of games, IF they can't get them on their preferred platform, which is generally PC - nowdays with smaller indie titles, that's a big if.
So if they're not going to give you money, it's going to cost a lot more to get them to give you their money, then fuck it, let them sit around on their forums bitching about how K+M is better than controllers and how people with consoles are stupid dooty heads, and how they're so much better than them. They're an incredibly tiny niche market, not a problem to lose them, frankly, they're not even worth a second thought.
If one console had backwards compatibility and the other didn't, wouldn't the one that did have a huge advantage?
edit: I cliked on 8 random motheboards. Only one did not have it.
In theory, I suppose you could emulate the 360's PowerPC on the One's x86, but we don't know if the performance of the emulation would be high enough to have proper backwards compatibility. Backwards compatibility is a relatively new thing. The SNES wasn't backwards compatible with the NES, for example (despite having a CPU that could run NES code unmodified by booting it up in 8-bit mode, although it's possible the non-CPU hardware wasn't compatible). The N64 also wasn't backwards compatible with what came before, and neither was the Game Cube.
The only consoles that had backwards compatibility were:
- Sega Genesis, although this was by accident as the Genesis's audio co-processor, the Z80, happened to be the same as the Sega Master System's CPU and its video display processor (VDP) was an enhanced version of that in the Master System.
- Sony PlayStation 2, mostly because its MIPS-based CPU was basically the PS1's CPU on steroids
- Sony PlayStation 3, depending on the generation. It used a PowerPC-based CPU instead of a MIPS CPU, so for PS2 compatibility, which they later removed, it had to include basically a miniaturized PS2 on its motherboard. The hardware itself was beefy enough to run PS1 games via emulation after they dropped the PS2 compatibility.
- Nintendo Wii, but I think it's mostly due to the underlying hardware being nearly identical to that of the GameCube.
- Xbox 360, via software emulation as the original Xbox had an x86 CPU. This is also probably why not every old game would work on it.
- I think the Atari 5800 and 7200 could also play 2600 games.
Everything else ever on the market had absolutely no backwards compatibility whatsoever.Edit: Ninja'd by Lou
Backwards compatibility is relatively new and primarily came about because when the industry moved away from carts to optical discs from a consumer standpoint it seemed right.
"If the media looks the same why can I not play it on the new system?"
Look at the evolution of CDs. Every new iteration has been back compatible with what came before. A DVD player will play CDs and BD player will play DVDs and CDs. Consumers see this in that market, see similar media format in consoles and expect the same thing.
eForCity Digital Optical Audio TosLink to Mini TosLink Cable M/M, 12 FT / 3.7 M, Black
The fact that the Kinect camera is mandatory, means that you can never lend your games to someone else, or trade/ sell accounts. Which people seem to like to do.
And The Kinect 2.0 will be compatible with Windows 8.
Have yet to see any game worth buying an Xbox one for (dumb name).
Either way, it'll be interesting as it's been probably about 15 years since I last built a PC from parts, so I'm probably rusty as hell. Not that it's rocket science, of course, but it's been a while.
I don't want to run my TV stuff through it. PS3 already has BD. PS3 has apps for all of my video streaming services.
MS is late to the living room.
If I lend you my physical copy of the game, and you put it in your console, you will ahve to go through the installation process, but the license is already associated with my account, so you won't be able to play it.
Unless I take my body to your house and sign into my account (via Kinect) you will not be able to play with my disc.
At least this is what I understand from what I've read.
http://majornelson.com/2013/05/21/xbox-one-and-used-games/