Scale Matters: Windows Azure, Windows Store & Xbox One

[PhoenixSoul]

Scale matters: Windows Azure, Windows Stores & Xbox One - The Official Microsoft Blog - Site Home - TechNet Blogs

Great article

Now, E3 wasn?t without its controversies related to our pricing and licensing policies. I?ve read some tough stories about potential near-term consequences, but, fundamentally, we are focused on driving hard to the digital gaming future. Any big shift can provoke controversy, but I thought this ars technica story based on an interview with Yusuf did a good job of highlighting the tension that exists as the gaming industry evolves.

There are times when what is really needed is incremental improvement of a product. There are companies who play that role in gaming right now. And there are times when a vision for the future demands a leap. That?s what we?re doing with Xbox One.

One of my favorite stories about Xbox is the reaction of so many when they saw we?d put an Ethernet port in that original device. People laughed?broadband? In 2001? We were living in a dial-up world. So who would ever connect a game console to a broadband network? More than 48 million connected devices later, that seemingly inconceivable notion is not only accepted, it?s imitated.

We have a vision for the future of entertainment and of gaming that are expressed in Xbox One, Kinect, the new controllers and all the new games on display this week. We?re leading, not following the industry forward, just as we did when we put that Ethernet port on the back of the original Xbox and launched Xbox Live in November 2002.

I don?t know if persistence is scalable, but I do know there?s no shortage of it here within the section of campus where our Xbox team works.

 

[Keith Wallace]

May I ask WHY this is a great article? All this says is "we have a reason for what we do." It doesn't tell us WHAT the plan is, or why it's better than before. It doesn't tell us why it all has to happen right here, right now, instead of in those incremental progressions he mentioned. I mean, it seemed like some fairly typical corporate speak that didn't offer much meaningful information.

I don't think that this guy understands why people are reacting negatively. We (well, at least, I) get that there's a vision. I don't like that there is little transparency with that vision, and that there is little highlighting to positives that come with the negatives. If this is about "scale," what IS the scale he's talking about? He doesn't mention a long-term plan to allow asynchronous play across all Microsoft devices or a possible migration to x86 phones that can use cloud computing to allow the playing of Xbox One titles on Windows Phone seamlessly or anything of that nature.

This seems more like a statement of "trust us, we know what we're doing." I'm doing that with Windows Phone, because I can see the potential much more clearly with it than with some of these Xbox One features that I don't like. I don't feel like this article gave a whole lot of information to help ease my concerns, but I have a feeling that we'll get some of that information by the end of the summer (if not the month).

 

[PhoenixSoul]

Relax ... I just came across that article and just wanted to share it with you guys. I'm more of a lurker ... not really into debates so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Nothing to relax about. I'm just wondering what you saw that made you think it was a great article, because I didn't. I am asking in case you (or another person) interpreted something from this that I missed.

 

[iBandar]

Nothing to relax about. I'm just wondering what you saw that made you think it was a great article, because I didn't. I am asking in case you (or another person) interpreted something from this that I missed.

What's great about the article is, it shows Microsoft is thinking forward and not just going with the trend. Once again they will revolutionize the way we enjoy entertainment in our living room. connectivity is everything, 24 hr check in allows them to do lot more than average person can think of. It enables subscription base services. Even games are turning into services now. This is just first step for getting people ready for what's next in the future. In 3-4 years we will be talking about games that are ALWAYS online and using cloud computing to its maximum potential.
There is a reason they are investing billion on Azure servers.
@OP great share, thanks.

 

[Keith Wallace]

I don't know about that. I mean, it CLAIMS that they are forward-thinking, but like I said, we aren't given any insight into that as a fact. I can think of plenty that a check-in can allow Microsoft can do, both good AND bad. That "3-4 years" comment, that is kind of back to my ORIGINAL point about all of this: Why force us now? Why don't they use this console as a means to ease us into that planned future? I guess the answer is partially because 3-4 years from now will still be in the Xbox One life cycle, possibly (though the original Xbox only lasted 4 years, the Xbox 360 is going to have its windows as the flagship Microsoft console be 8 years). Still, I don't like this idea of sweeping change and locking things down in such a sudden manner like this. I think they could have done a LOT of damage control by either rolling these features out over the next 3-4 years, as you cite as when you believe we'll start to see MAJOR benefits. For example, they could have added the Kinect requirement (both with a purchase and as a console functionality requirement) with some major OS update in 2 years. They could have offered a $400 console without the Kinect now (along with the $500 one with it), then once production costs have dropped, start including the Kinect with ALL consoles in 2 years (when that update rolls out), and keep it at that $400 price point at that time (because production costs should have lowered enough to warrant a with-Kinect price drop to $400 by then anyway). I feel that there were better methods of doing this, either through gradual changes over the One's life cycle or with more blatant explanation of this stuff in its entirety. The secrecy method of a reveal has its downsides.

 

[smoledman]

There is quite a boldness to having only one XBox One SKU(with Kinect) in 2013.

 

[NaNoo123]

I was thinking maybe they could throw forza or gold membership in for free, what kind of bundles they'll have.

For these new type of games that aren't single or multiplayer, do you need gold account for them?
Developers are telling us that the lines are blurring, connected worlds etc, where does it leave gold moving forward?

 

[Keith Wallace]

There is quite a boldness to having only one XBox One SKU(with Kinect) in 2013.

I agree with that, though I don't see why you left that comment in here.

 

[TechAbstract]

Xbox One is made heaven for the developers because all Xbox One will have Kinect and internet. Can't wait to see what they can do with this.

 

[Keith Wallace]

I was thinking maybe they could throw forza or gold membership in for free, what kind of bundles they'll have.

For these new type of games that aren't single or multiplayer, do you need gold account for them?
Developers are telling us that the lines are blurring, connected worlds etc, where does it leave gold moving forward?

There are games that will require you to be always-online. I am guessing that in those instances, a Silver account will suffice for the solo play, while the Gold requirement will be only for online multiplayer.

I've never cared for bundling games as an incentive, as it assumes everyone wants the same game(s). If you throw in Forza, that doesn't do much for someone who doesn't like racing games. I think a year of Gold would make sense, though I think they'll give you a month or something. One thing I had considered is that they could work with content providers like Netflix and Hulu for a cheaper subscription cost (like $6.99/month instead of $7.99/month for Netflix) if you sign up through your console/Microsoft account.

 

[NaNoo123]

Some games don't have single or multi player options any more.
You can play it as single player but go to public areas if you choose to. I think titanfall works like that.
So would games lock out those areas, or just don't go online at all?

What if you have a game that benefits from their cloud computing, do you get access to it on silver if its single player?

 

[Keith Wallace]

There's no way of knowing until they announce it. I imagine that the cloud computing stuff is secondary additions to most games that use it (if not all), so a game might be fine to function on a Silver account, with the cloud features turned off. It might be that such a statement is NOT true, but cloud computing is not considered a Gold feature, or that you must have Gold to play the game. Defiance is out on Xbox 360 right now, and it will not function without an Xbox LIVE Gold membership. It's a good game (I have it), but not worth getting a Gold subscription solely for, in my opinion. If Titanfall works like Defiance (which is an MMO shooter--think of it like World of Warcraft with guns, if it helps you get how it functions), then the connection will obviously be required, along with a Gold subscription. It's simply a game model that doesn't work with offline play as an option. I guess it depends on if "public areas" are separate experiences entirely from the campaign, or if it's simply that you CAN play alone, but you are constantly in an open, multiplayer world (like WoW and Defiance). Since I haven't read much about the game, I cannot say without knowing more about the way the game works.