Improving the Problems of Xbox One

[Keith Wallace]

Now, I am willing to conceded a point here. If developers know that every Xbox One owner has a Kinect, that is a meaningful incentive to develop Kinect controls, I agree. However, that does not explain the requirement to plug the Kinect in to use the console. What is the logic in that? Someone might say that knowing the Kinect is plugged in is incentive to code for it as well, but I disagree. Just as owning a Kinect isn't a guarantee I will use it, nor is plugging it in. I'll still use my controller, and ignore the Kinect altogether, whether it's in my console or in my closet. I mean, if we're talking about incentivizing developers through proven use (in this hypothetical that this is why plugging the Kinect in is required), then why isn't Microsoft requiring Kinect input to play everything?

I can coneded including the Kinect, but I think that Microsoft should take out the plugging-in restriction. I mean, if my Kinect falls off of my TV or entertainment stand at 10 PM, and I typically play games until 2 or 3 AM, I dosn't want to be forced to stop playing games until the follwing afternoon because nowhere in-town is open to sell me a Kinect past 9 PM.

 

[ncxcstud]

To be fair, except for a fingerful of games, games on the Kinect have not been very good. Nor have the games that are supplemented with Kinect features been that compelling.

Developers have been limited by 2 things:
1) The original Kinect is not the Kinect that was shown at E3 4 or 5 years ago. I was BLOWN AWAY by the things they could do. But, to reduce the cost of the Kinect they removed some of those things that made it potentially great in that press conference. The first Kinect, apart from hearing me say "play, pause, stop" (which is great btw) hasn't been that good.
2) The developer didn't devote a lot of time to Kinect because they couldn't count on a majority (or any) of their users actually being able to use it. So, what's the point of putting any effort into it?

Because of those two short-comings, games made with Kinect weren't that great (because of the devices own short comings) and games (made better with Kinect) were just tacked on features.

So, we base our views of Kinect solely on the fact that games using the Kinect haven't been that great so far (though, I dare someone NOT to have fun with "The Gunstringer" or the Kinect version of Fruit Ninja or the Raving Rabbids game - all of those are awesome). Developers haven't put much effort into incorporating it so the result hasn't been very fun.

However now with the XBOX One we have the potential to see some really good things coming down the pipe because the device is EVEN BETTER than what was originally shown at E3 and because now that every XBOX One user will have a Kinect, it is worth the time and effort to find ways to enhance the gameplay of users.

So, we worry about someone yelling out commands as we're playing our games (friends can be jerks right?) Doesn't matter. The Kinect knows who the user playing is and only listens to the person holding that controller. Awesome.
The 'lag' that we witnessed during the first Kinect is pretty much gone. Seriously - watch some videos of the improvements this Kinect has.
The sensor is so good now that it can detect the fluctuations in your face - it knows when you're engaged to a game (or looking at your phone, etc...), it can track your pulse by just looking at you.

Now, you can have a game like say dead space or resident evil that can tell if you're a little 'tense' because of the atmosphere in the game and can make that even BETTER by triggering eerie music - or no music - to heighten the suspense.

As you're in a driving game, it can track your eyes and see you look into the rearview mirror to see what is behind you and does that accordingly (no longer having to hold a trigger and use the right stick like you currently have to do in Forza 4 or Horizon). You're engaged in the game even more than you were before.

Those are just two of the ways that me - a pretty uncreative person - can see improvements to make the gameplay better than what we have now and enhances the game we are playing.

Yes, the Kinect up to now has been pretty lackluster (though the 3 games I highlighted are really great). However, the potential that we can get is amazing.

 

[Reflexx]

My concern with this idea of a verification switch is this:

Say I have all of my games set to "offline," meaning I have to use the disc to play. Now, say I go to a friend's to play a game with him. When I get to his house, I import my profile, and set all of my games to "online," meaning I need to disc. I then give up all of the licenses to my friend, meaning he is now the "owner" of the games and their licenses. He then leaves them all "online," meaning no disc needed. I then go home, and my Xbox One has not signed in since I changed the licenses to "online" and gave them to my friend. I never connect my Xbox One to the Internet to update that action, meaning my offline Xbox One thinks that I possess the license, so long as I use the disc. I play my games offline at-will with the disc, and my friend plays them online at-will with the online-verified license. My Xbox never gets told that I don't own the license, and my friend's Xbox never asks for the disc, so we have just made it so that I can use the disc to play and he can play through the online service, without ever having bought the disc.

Now, what if you had this occur between 5 or 10 friends, they'd give up the licenses from someone else's Xbox, then leave their Xboxes offline as long as they wanted only to play offline. You could essentially share that license amongst an indefinite number of people, by simply giving up the license from a different console than your own, and never signing yourself into Xbox LIVE with YOUR console again. You could then use this method to swap licenses as you wanted.

I've actually submitted an idea similar to this to some people I know at Microsoft early yesterday.

My solution would be that you have one console registered as your HOME console. If a particular game is set to "offline", then it is only playable on that HOME console.

It also doesn't have to be disc based. Even digital games could be set to "offline". And you CANNOT set them to "online" from anywhere other than your HOME console.

 

[Mystictrust]

I've actually submitted an idea similar to this to some people I know at Microsoft early yesterday.

My solution would be that you have one console registered as your HOME console. If a particular game is set to "offline", then it is only playable on that HOME console.

It also doesn't have to be disc based. Even digital games could be set to "offline". And you CANNOT set them to "online" from anywhere other than your HOME console.

That sounds like it would solve the problem! There would HAVE to be a way to reset it though if, say, the console broke/failed in some way - and that method would also need careful checks to ensure people won't just abuse it. Perhaps the games could be unlocked from a Microsoft Repair Facility once they receive your console? That way, you could play from a friend's console after that point. Problem is, what if the console broke and you can't afford to fix it AND it is out of warranty? Then what?

 

[NaNoo123]

See, if you require the disk in the drive, then there are really no positives to get vocal about... It's just a 360 with better graphics.

Eliminating the disk requirement allows you to share your games with people in your "family." I can share a game with my brother 3 hours away and he can play it without the disk, likewise he can buy a game and share it with me. Not possible when the disk is the DRM.

I'll take that option every single time.

im saying disk in drive only if you want/need to play it off line.
You still have all the other good stuff, when online including drm.
there's been other ways mentioned that i also like the sound off.

I think being online is going to be so compelling you will be dealing with edge cases, but ones that i don't see any reason to ignore.

The main problem from my view is check in. People will soon learn trade ins etc isn't blindly ruled out.

 

[Keith Wallace]

That sounds like it would solve the problem! There would HAVE to be a way to reset it though if, say, the console broke/failed in some way - and that method would also need careful checks to ensure people won't just abuse it. Perhaps the games could be unlocked from a Microsoft Repair Facility once they receive your console? That way, you could play from a friend's console after that point. Problem is, what if the console broke and you can't afford to fix it AND it is out of warranty? Then what?

That's my concern with the solution to the first problem as well. The required "HOME" matter would be a fine solution, if consoles were incapable of breaking. However, if you live in India, and have to wait 6 days for a console to arrive at the repair center, you're without any chance to game for a week until Microsoft could receive the damaged hardware and verify it as a legitimate problem?

I guess the solution is that all sharing within your family and yourself is still possible with a game set to "offline" on your home console. HOWEVER, a game cannot be traded in while it is registered as "offline" on the home console. However, Microsoft can override the "offline" setting if it verifies damage to a console. So, if your console breaks, you either can continue playing the "offline" games with your profile on other consoles, but the license cannot be unlocked from your profile until Microsoft receives the broken console. Therefore, if you cannot afford the repair, you are not allowed to trade in games, but you are still free to play and share them among your ten "family" members.

 

[Keith Wallace]

im saying disk in drive only if you want/need to play it off line.
You still have all the other good stuff, when online including drm.

there's been other ways mentioned that i also like the sound off.

I think being online is going to be so compelling you will be dealing with edge cases, but ones that i don't see any reason to ignore.

The main problem from my view is check in. People will soon learn trade ins etc isn't blindly ruled out.

Yeah, see, I don't get why the console can't just say "24-hour ping OR 24-hour disc," and make it an individual matter for each game on the console. If you want to play Halo offline for a few days (or if the Internet goes out), you must put the disc in within 24 hours. If you do not, you are locked out of THAT game until the disc is provided (or an Internet connection is re-established).

 

[WasteSomeTime]

Why can't they employ a serial key system? Or offer a digital download for $20 less or something like that. If you bought a game through digital download, there would not be a reason to check for verification for that game.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Well, that's correct. If they'd offer digital purchases at a meaningfully-lower price than the hard copies, that would be true. The question of why they don't baffles me.

However, I'll note that the Internet we have is crap, 3Mbps DSL. If the games are about where I would expect in size (12-15 GB), then that works out like this:

12 GB is 12,000,000,000 bytes. That's 96,000,000,000 bits. My Internet runs at 3,000,000 bits per second. The download would take 32,000 seconds. 32,000 seconds is 533 minutes 20 seconds. That comes out to 8 hours 53 minutes 20 seconds. That's under ideal conditions, with the full bandwidth available at all times. That's never the case, so it's more like it takes 10-12 hours to download a digital copy.

Though that is not what you are talking about, that is one issue with digital purchases--some of us have plain crappy Internet. That's not Microsoft's fault in the slightest, not complaining about them because of it, just stating that fact. It would suck if on launch day, I wanted to buy 3 games, but I had to wait a day and a half to access them all.

 

[Mystictrust]

However, I'll note that the Internet we have is crap, 3Mbps DSL. If the games are about where I would expect in size (12-15 GB), then that works out like this:

12 GB is 12,000,000,000 bytes. That's 96,000,000,000 bits. My Internet runs at 3,000,000 bits per second. The download would take 32,000 seconds. 32,000 seconds is 533 minutes 20 seconds. That comes out to 8 hours 53 minutes 20 seconds. That's under ideal conditions, with the full bandwidth available at all times.

Technically, you're looking at approximately 9.54 hours to download under perfect (unachievable) conditions. You used the "marketing math" for conversion of 12 GB into bytes

I'll also add that I don't expect all games to utilize the entire 12-15 GB range you're suggesting. Well, not until more developers get used to developing super large games that take advantage of Blu-Ray space. Even then, until we all get Fiber at a good price, your slow internet speeds are going to be precisely why physical media will stay alongside digital for the foreseeable future. PARTICULARLY when the games start to actually get large.

 

[vertigoOne]

I am also on a 3Mbit connection where I live. I would pay maybe $10 for physical media otherwise I would deal with the inconvenience of my 'slow' connection.

Also, we need to remember that these games will be streamable, and therefore will not need to be completely downloaded before play can begin.

 

[CoopII]

Also, we need to remember that these games will be streamable, and therefore will not need to be completely downloaded before play can begin.

Was just about to say that. Games does not need to be fully downloaded before you could start playing it. They were saying even you may even notice on digital downloads they will only DL the first two levels of a game and as you finish level one start to DL level three for example so you are always up to date but not tying up Bandwidth as your trying to play.

CoopII

 

[Keith Wallace]

I am also on a 3Mbit connection where I live. I would pay maybe $10 for physical media otherwise I would deal with the inconvenience of my 'slow' connection.

Also, we need to remember that these games will be streamable, and therefore will not need to be completely downloaded before play can begin.

Yeah, but streaming eats bandwidth just the same. You'd have to have enough of a buffered amount of the game installed to where your play wouldn't catch up to the already-installed portion, causing it to run very slowly as the install and stream were running simultaneously. World of Warcraft can stream hotfixes while you play, and it will allow you to play while the rest of a patch streams, but I've done this on my DSL, and it's pretty crappy to deal with.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Technically, you're looking at approximately 9.54 hours to download under perfect (unachievable) conditions. You used the "marketing math" for conversion of 12 GB into bytes

I'll also add that I don't expect all games to utilize the entire 12-15 GB range you're suggesting. Well, not until more developers get used to developing super large games that take advantage of Blu-Ray space. Even then, until we all get Fiber at a good price, your slow internet speeds are going to be precisely why physical media will stay alongside digital for the foreseeable future. PARTICULARLY when the games start to actually get large.

I know I did that, I just tend to assume that all consumer products using those measurements use the base-10 calculations, not the binary ones.

As for the size of the games, I disagree. RAGE and L.A. Noire are two examples of games on the 360 that took up 3 discs. Also, remember that these are dual-layer Blu-Ray discs, which total 50 GB of storage space. So even a 20GB game doesn't REALLY take advantage of "that" Blu-Ray space (since it would fit on a 20GB, single-layer disc). Skyrim took 6 GB or more to install onto my Xbox. Halo: Reach is a 6.57GB install. Halo 4 is 7.19 GB. Defiance requires a 10GB install before you can even play the game. On PC, when I got my free copy of DiRT 2 with my video card, it was something like 11-12 GB to install, and that was back in 2009. Expecting 12 GB 3 years later, on a platform that now had 50GB physical media, isn't a stretch.

Considering the MASSIVE jump in graphical technology (7 years of GPU upgrades from the two chips in the 360 and One), I think 12 GB is the low-end of what to expect from these game installs, at least for the graphically-intensive ones like Call of Duty and Halo. I wouldn't expect any truly next-gen game to come in under 10 GB.