• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Next XBOX To Be Revealed May 21st

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
I find it funny that the majority of XBLA games that were big hits have already have been released on PC, thus defeating the argument that porting to x86 architecture is too difficult/time consuming/etc.

Most XBLA games were developed with the XNA Framework which means they were first developed on the PC and then ported to the Xbox 360. But usually, when developers want to push the envelope or develop console specific features this development pattern shifts to a cross-compilation model very similar to how iPhone and especially Android development works.

In this model, the games are ran directly on standard (not XDK) Xbox 360's and tested from there using Visual Studio and XNA. This allows developers to write specific DirectX code that would only work on the 360 because it implements a very particular version of DirectX that is not compatible with either DX 9.0c or DX 10. There are also many operating system API calls that are specific to the 360 that would require rewrites.

When these games are ported to the PC, those API calls both operating system and drawing calls, are rewritten for Windows and DX 9/10. At that point they are recompiled for the x86 Windows 32-bit platform and then released. It is a process, and it isn't something that Microsoft can circumvent. It is more efficient for the burden to be on the developers and the publishers to recompile, test, bugfix, and the re-release their titles after a substantial QA before placing them back on the XBLA.

Also, while the Xbox One is an x86 platform, it isn't running Windows 7/8 but a modified version of Windows CE that Microsoft has under the umbrella of Windows 8. So the software API calls are not compatible.

Fuck you Microsoft, the majority of those indie publishers already built it for x86 architecture. Cocksuckers.

Agreed Fuck Microsoft, but building an application for the x86 architecture does not mean it will run on every x86 computer. You develop a game, say SimCity, release it on Steam - but now Steam users who use Linux are saying "WHY WON'T IT WORK ON MY PC?!"

It's x86, it's 64-bit, what gives? Well, because there's more to architecture then just hardware - software makes up the other 50% of the equation. If it didn't, Microsoft's stranglehold on the PC gaming market would've never existed. That was the whole point of DirectX, to stop development companies from writing games for Apple or Linux or even DOS platforms. There was absolutely nothing wrong with OpenGL. But here we are 15 years later.

Simply put, this one right here isn't on Microsoft.
 
It would be great if everyone who is complaining about this system decides to not pre-order so I have no issue getting one if I want one. I'm excited about the HDMI pass through and I'm hoping they are able to integrate the technology and succeed in the spots where googleTV ultimately failed.
 
It would be great if everyone who is complaining about this system decides to not pre-order so I have no issue getting one if I want one. I'm excited about the HDMI pass through and I'm hoping they are able to integrate the technology and succeed in the spots where googleTV ultimately failed.

I'm not pre-ordering, so you can have mine. ;)
 
Im going to wait until e3 before I panic. XBox hasnt steered me wrong in the past. I dont think they plan on it in the future.
 
http://www.vg247.com/2013/06/06/xbox-one-needs-to-be-online-every-24-hours-will-support-used-games/

Xbox One must go online every day, will do used games
Story by Brenna Hillier Thu, Jun 06, 2013 | 23:38 BST


Microsoft has broken its Xbox One silence to answer the most burning questions. Yes: you need to be online very day. No: the Kinect won’t record you. Maybe: you can have some used games.

In a series of Xbox Wire posts, Microsoft has put paid to various misconceptions about the Xbox One – and confirmed other details. The first of these is that the console will need to go online every single day if you want to keep gaming. Microsoft justified this decision by pointing out the many advantages of a networked console, and said it is preparing for a “connected future”.

“While a persistent connection is not required, Xbox One is designed to verify if system, application or game updates are needed and to see if you have acquired new games, or resold, traded in, or given your game to a friend. Games that are designed to take advantage of the cloud may require a connection,” the platform holder said.

“With Xbox One you can game offline for up to 24 hours on your primary console, or one hour if you are logged on to a separate console accessing your library. Offline gaming is not possible after these prescribed times until you re-establish a connection, but you can still watch live TV and enjoy Blu-ray and DVD movies.”

Microsoft recommends a minimum broadband Internet speed of 1.5Mbps, which it rates well below Akami’s estimated average global Internet speed of 2.9 Mbps, and possible on mobile broadband.

You’ll notice that one of the things the Xbox One does during its daily Internet check-ins is determine whether you’ve traded a game in; the console does indeed employ a licensing system for games.

“In our role as a game publisher, Microsoft Studios will enable you to give your games to friends or trade in your Xbox One games at participating retailers. Third party publishers may opt in or out of supporting game resale and may set up business terms or transfer fees with retailers,” Microsoft confirmed.

“Microsoft does not receive any compensation as part of this. In addition, third party publishers can enable you to give games to friends. Loaning or renting games won’t be available at launch, but we are exploring the possibilities with our partners.”

The licensing system has benefits; anybody using your console can access anything you’ve purchased for it, whether you or they are logged in, and you can also access any of your content on other Xbox One consoles – say, at a friend’s house – just by logging into your online profile.

Finally, Microsoft addressed concerns over Kinect’s erie always-on listening, and the fact that it is theoretically capable of reporting whether you are watching a commercial, for example.

“You are in control of what Kinect can see and hear: By design, you will determine how responsive and personalized your Xbox One is to you and your family during setup,” Microsoft said.

“When Xbox One is on and you’re simply having a conversation in your living room, your conversation is not being recorded or uploaded.

“You are in control of when Kinect sensing is On, Off or Paused: If you don’t want the Kinect sensor on while playing games or enjoying your entertainment, you can pause Kinect. To turn off your Xbox One, just say ‘Xbox Off.’ When the system is off, it’s only listening for the single voice command – ‘Xbox On,’ and you can even turn that feature off too.

“You are in control of your personal data: You can play games or enjoy applications that use data, such as videos, photos, facial expressions, heart rate and more, but this data will not leave your Xbox One without your explicit permission.”


Microsoft gave a few examples of where that data might be used in games, and made no mention of advertising or similar exploitation of the data.
 
The licensing system has benefits; anybody using your console can access anything you’ve purchased for it, whether you or they are logged in, and you can also access any of your content on other Xbox One consoles – say, at a friend’s house – just by logging into your online profile.

The 360 is already like this.
 
Yeah that doesn't really sound like a benefit. "Guess what! If you a buy a game, everyone who uses your console can play it!" But isn't that how it's always been? "Fuck you!"
 
Microsoft says it won't record us, but, how do we know when their XBLive platform is closed source and encrypted end-to-end? We have to trust Microsoft that they won't be recording. And they say there's no uploading while the Xbox is off, okay, but what about when it turns on? The 360 recorded every game you played, and then uploaded that data without your permission to Microsoft Security to determine if you would be added to the ban list. This wasn't a part of the EULA, but they did it anyway.

Now we're supposed to believe that Microsoft won't do something similar? I just don't think so. I think Microsoft sees a means of harnessing valuable data, and like Google or the NSA, they will abuse that power.
 
I'm most intrigued by the different approaches Sony and Microsoft have taken to DRM. From what I understand -- Sony says, "We don't require DRM" implying that game companies can use it at their discretion, whereas Microsoft says "3rd party publishers can allow you to trade in games at participating retailers, if they so choose".

It seems like 2 different ways to express the same thing, but one is consumer friendly while the other is borderline insulting. So, my question is -- does this imply that Microsoft has more restrictive DRM policies under the table or are they just ignorant of the way potential buyers are perceiving them?
 
I'm most intrigued by the different approaches Sony and Microsoft have taken to DRM. From what I understand -- Sony says, "We don't require DRM" implying that game companies can use it at their discretion, whereas Microsoft says "3rd party publishers can allow you to trade in games at participating retailers, if they so choose".

It seems like 2 different ways to express the same thing, but one is consumer friendly while the other is borderline insulting. So, my question is -- does this imply that Microsoft has more restrictive DRM policies under the table or are they just ignorant of the way potential buyers are perceiving them?

It seems like the same thing because I think you may be misunderstanding what Microsoft and Sony are saying. Sony's position is that the PS4 supports DRM, in very much the same way the PS3 does. If companies like EA wish to use one-time activation codes, they are allowed to do so and the PS4 EULA will support this functionality. Sony Online however will not be an authentication server, and Sony will have nothing to do with it.

Microsoft is saying something completely different. They're saying the Xbox One itself must go online to perform across-the-board authentication of your entire system. What have you been playing, has anyone reported your games as having been traded in, has anyone used your library remotely, etc - every 24 hours. As far as used games, I seriously doubt used games will be useful on the 360 considering the amount of the fees associated with resale. To charge $50 for a used game means most people will likely just buy the game new, or opt for the digital download that would likely be $50 anyway. For publishers who opt-out of Microsoft's used game system, their games simply cannot be resold. You're either in the system (allows resale) or you're not (no resale), because Microsoft controls what games are authenticated, not the third-party servers.

What Microsoft is doing is eliminating the middle man, from Walmart to Gamestop. They're removing the incentive to buy/sell/trade games, and also the incentive to leave your home to buy original games. This means more money for Microsoft and developers/publishers - this is undeniable, but it also means less freedom for end users.

Eventually, Microsoft will likely deploy a used game store, either buying back games or placing them on consignment in an Amazon-esque marketplace. I'm certain this is in their plans as they stated yesterday they are developing a means of trading/selling games between users. At this point, there would be no reason whatsoever for users to go to Walmart/Gamestop for games other than to own physical copies.

I think Microsoft is taking a big gamble with this approach, and it will likely backfire in time. I don't think most end-users will want to deal with the restrictions imposed by the Xbox One, and simultaneously dealing with vastly inferior graphics (the difference this time around will be quite noticeable).
 
Last edited:
I think Microsoft is taking a big gamble with this approach, and it will likely backfire in time. I don't think most end-users will want to deal with the restrictions imposed by the Xbox One, and simultaneously dealing with vastly inferior graphics (the difference this time around will be quite noticeable).

Unless they have a killer line-up of exclusive games to reveal at E3, I just can't imagine the Xbox One beating the PS4. It's like Microsoft went out of their way to make sure every decision they made pissed as many people off as possible with this console. Not sure that's the best business strategy, but whatever.

I can't wait to see Sony's E3 counter: a device that literally swings out and hits you in the nuts every time you turn your console on!
 
I think Microsoft is taking a big gamble with this approach, and it will likely backfire in time. I don't think most end-users will want to deal with the restrictions imposed by the Xbox One, and simultaneously dealing with vastly inferior graphics (the difference this time around will be quite noticeable).

It is a big gamble, but I can maybe see the thought-process behind it. Microsoft thinks disabling/discouraging used game sales means more money for them and for developers. Developers like more money, so they prefer to work with Microsoft. Gamers like games, so they buy an Xbox One because more games are being developed for it.

Not saying that's how it will play out, but I feel like it works as a motive.
 
If Playstation comes out and says "we're doing the exact opposite of what Microsoft is doing" they won't be able to meet preorder expectations.
 
If Playstation comes out and says "we're doing the exact opposite of what Microsoft is doing" they won't be able to meet preorder expectations.

That sounds like one of those good problems.
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/06/07/the-xbox-one-might-let-sonys-ps4-win-by-default/


The Xbox One Might Let Sony's PS4 Win By Default
6/07/2013 @ 9:09AM Paul Tassi, Contributor

Last night, Microsoft MSFT +2.06% dumped a pile of information into our laps about some of the more controversial specifics of the Xbox One. We heard confirmation about its practices for always on, used game resale, and game ownership in general. Some of the highlights:

- Your Xbox must check in via the internet once every 24 hours, if not, you won’t be able to play games

- It is up to publishers whether or not you can resell your games or gift them to friends

- Discs have nothing to do with ownership, and are only use for installation purposes. Games are simply licensed now

As I read through this list and the expected internet outrage that followed, I had to wonder what Sony Sony must be making of all this.


There are two options for Sony and the Playstation 4. They can march arm in arm with Microsoft backwards in time with practices that actually make gaming less accessible and fun, or reject all of it and possibly win the next console war before it’s even started.

Sony has been eerily silent about all of these issues to date, at least in any official capacity. Yes, in interviews they’ve given us supposed comforts like “no, the PS4 doesn’t need to be always on,” or “yes, the PS4 plays used games.” But both of those things don’t mean what they used to. You might also say given this new information that the Xbox One isn’t ALWAYS on, but it does have to be connected to the internet once a day. Microsoft will say even people with unstable internet can manage that, right? You could say the Xbox One DOES play used games, but “used games” does not mean what it once did because of everything simply being licensed now. So what’s Sony talking about here? I’m not convinced we can say for sure yet.

The truth is we don’t know the full scope of Sony’s plans, despite what they’ve said in interviews so far. The definition of always on and used games have changed so drastically, a sentence or two about either isn’t enough of an explanation. I don’t think we can officially rule out that Sony could have similar policies to Microsoft, in some form or another, but we can hope that isn’t the case.

Sony needs to be learning from what’s happening with the Xbox One right now. The console, as it exists, simply has more cons than pros at this point, something that is almost unfathomable for a new system. It used to be a lot more simple. This is a new video game console. It will play better looking versions of all your favorite games, and give you some cool new ones too. Buy it.


And people did.

But what if all the new features actually became reasons not to buy a new console instead? Yes, it still promises better games, but there are a ton of caveats attached now. In order to access these games, you must put up with a laundry list of restrictions like the ones listed above. Something that’s supposed to be a benefit, the Kinect, is now being seen as an almost Orwellian listening device that much be attached to the console at all times.

So really, what are the selling points for the Xbox One at this point? There are its TV tuning abilities via Kinect control, but as cool as those were in the reveal demo, when you really sat down and thought about it, are you wasting that much time pressing the “input” button on your remote control? Is this solving a problem that actually exists? I don’t believe so.

So what we’re really left with is games, and we haven’t seen many so far. Microsoft’s two big staple franchises are Halo and Gears of War, and I would argue those are the only two that could actually sell systems on their own. The rest of its top titles are shared with Sony, even Call of Duty, though Microsoft seemed to forget that when they made it the grand finale of their Xbox One announcement. They couldn’t even keep Bungie around, and that studio’s next blockbuster, Destiny, is being showcased at the PS4 event during E3.

All of this leaves Sony in a very unique position. If they simply stick with the tenets of the video game industry that have been the norm for years, offline play, used game selling/buying and physical game ownership, they could see a large amount of Microsoft loyalists flood to the PS4 simply because they want a console that can play games easily and without restriction. They’d only have to sacrifice a handful of exclusives to do so. Sony could even promote digital distribution for those who like the convenience, so long as they kept physical discs as an option when it comes to game ownership.

I own both a PS3 and an Xbox 360, and have been called a fanboy of both brands at one time or another. But given the current state of things, the Playstation 4 appears to be shaping up to be the better gaming machine. Sony’s exclusives are more numerous and generally of higher quality than Microsoft’s. Sony touted their technical specs in their reveal while Microsoft masked theirs with mumbo jumbo, implying Sony may have the more powerful machine.

Rather, Microsoft’s ace in the hole was supposed to be that the Xbox One was a glorious “entertainment box.” A revolutionary device that everyone would want to have in their living room. But so far, we haven’t seen it do anything that a combination of a cable box and a PS4 can’t do, other than adding gesture and voice control. Perhaps there are more aspects to it we haven’t seen, but being able to switch inputs by talking to your TV or seeing your fantasy sports stats onscreen is not enough to declare an entertainment revolution.

When it’s all said and done, if Sony rejects the sorts of policies that Microsoft officially put forth last night, they might win the console war, at least in the near future. I have a hard time believing that many people will buy an Xbox One over a PS4 simply to play Halo and Gears of War, or for Kinect’s TV tie-in abilities. And even those advantages might be dramatically outweighed by the internet connection and game ownership policies that so many have claimed to despise.

I don’t know if Sony will seize on this opportunity. It might be too late, and the system has simply been designed to work similar to the way the Xbox One does. In that case, if the two systems end up having more or less the same policies, then it’s just going to be a free-for-all where consumers have two pretty similar choices in front of them, sort of like this past generation. Only this time, consumers will lose as both major companies have colluded in order to eliminate true game ownership or the ability to play offline. Should that happen, maybe Nintendo Nintendo might finally see some wind in the Wii U’s sales, provided it’s released any worthwhile games by then. Perhaps we haven’t given Nintendo enough credit for staying true to the traditional practices of old.


At this point, the Xbox One seems to be fumbling so badly from a PR perspective, it almost seems like Sony would be remiss to not seize on the opportunity. Microsoft’s steps forward appear as backward movement to many, and Sony could win by simply standing still and watching its biggest competitor sink under its own weight. Or they may tie their fortunes together, and it will be the consumers who drown in higher prices and obtrusive restrictions.

Both companies are staying mum until E3 now. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top