I don't think the problem is your connection, but anything could go wrong on their side. Hell XBL was DDOSed the early on in its life. I'm glad the option is there but an always online console is dumb.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
[Rumor] Brad Sams: Xbox Scarlett Cloud box information leaked (Next-gen; Traditional system as well)
- Thread starter Iichter
- Start date
As a PS4 guy due to exclusives, this is AWESOME for a person like me(and others that I play with). This would allow me to purchase the cloud based console on the cheap to play the games I want from the Xbox brand. Gotta say, I miss the Forza franchise so I would be more than happy to purchase the cloud machine on day 1 for that alone.
I know quite a few people that wouldn't buy a full price console from Microsoft but would jump at the opportunity for this cloud machine. Sounds like a great way to get the larger base they are after.
I know quite a few people that wouldn't buy a full price console from Microsoft but would jump at the opportunity for this cloud machine. Sounds like a great way to get the larger base they are after.
I'm not surprised at all. I expected a traditional console and I expected a streaming system. The signs have been there forever. They even mentioned multiple hardware not too long ago. There's only so many different types of hardware you can have.
Even in some of the moderately well populated cities here in Florida, all the ISPs are horribly unreliable. I don't know if some of the cities in the US are going to be able to support streaming like this in 2020. Between Playstation Now, Share play, and other streaming, online gaming via streaming seems... questionable for many right now. Obviously the tech should get better, but are we expecting an improvement in some of these ISPs by then?
I suppose the fear is that what happens if people buy this thinking they can stream it only to find out latency is bad, and the performance is suboptimal. Are they more reluctant to accept streaming in the future? Weird times
I suppose the fear is that what happens if people buy this thinking they can stream it only to find out latency is bad, and the performance is suboptimal. Are they more reluctant to accept streaming in the future? Weird times
More PS4s have been sold since it was cheaper than $400 than when it was $400. There's your answer.
Nobody is forgetting it, it's the same with psnow.
But it also seems you don't understand cloud computing. If a computer is down, there will be another one taking the same role.
It sounds like remote play. The only thing is it sounds like they're baking something into hardware to improve the latency. Ie, you'll need a special Xbox tablet to get the best experience.
Are you surprised? This is the future with a streaming device. It's a great time to introduce it as we slowly transition over in the generations from now.
I dunno man. All my games are digital copies. I game share too so when my connection goes down, a lot of my games arent playable.
Different strokes I guess, but 98% of my playing is online multiplayer. If the service goes down I'll just do something else.
That's not going to solve anything. Still major latency and bandwidth restraints (yes, even with the reduced bandwidth requirements).
Also, "acceptable frame rate". Uh-huh.
I am not much familiar with this but i guess you have to actually buy the game first to be able to stream it,right?
I also think it could be a particularly attractive offering for publishers if Microsoft really does manage to tap into the non-traditional console audience like Spencer talked about. That's an audience who wouldn't be buying the game on console or PC anyway, so it could be a pretty big increase in who a publisher could market their games to that isn't served by a traditional console. For example a person who just plays cellphone games and travels a lot. They buy this box and bring it with them, and now that person might be in the market to buy and stream Assassin's Creed X that they heard about, rather than that person previously having no interest or way to play it.
Even when the service is up, streaming is not the same as native rendering. There is image compression from the streaming, as well as input delay due to latency. If you are okay with those that's cool, I am sure a lot of people will be. Just making sure you're aware it is different than playing a locally rendered game that is always online.
Separate but related topic...
This device would most certainly mean that changes are coming to Xbox Live pricing for next gen. Folks who buy a $100-$150 streaming device won't be super inclined to pay $60 for Gold and then X amount for game streaming on top of it. I suspect an "all in one" Xbox subscription will be on the horizon that just bundles everything.
This device would most certainly mean that changes are coming to Xbox Live pricing for next gen. Folks who buy a $100-$150 streaming device won't be super inclined to pay $60 for Gold and then X amount for game streaming on top of it. I suspect an "all in one" Xbox subscription will be on the horizon that just bundles everything.
If you read the OP, it says they've figured out a way to deal with the latency (they had it pretty low back in 2013 if I remember correctly when they were playing Halo 4 on a phone). Not everyone has to worry about the bandwidth restraints and the ones that do can get the normal box. Personally, I think this is pretty interesting.
Yeah all these video streaming services have not done well due to poor internet speeds....
If ms can solve the lag and clarity issue of game streaming and they include it in game pass it will be a game changer.
Interesting. I don't think we should overly rely on the internet though. Also not everywhere has the greatest internet speeds but that's why you give consumers options. I do understand the cheaper SKU but I don't really think consoles are that expensive these days. The question is how much will the quality graphically and latency will be sacrificed, cause I love where games are at right now and don't want to take a step back.
It's obvious that the cloud box is for those who don't care about latency (you know, those strange people who don't enable Game Mode on their TV). The console is for us.
This cloud box seems great. Assuming I stick with Sony as my primary, this makes getting an Xbox for exclusives a cheap and easy thing to do.
Interesting point however irrelevant. My internet is not changing leading to the same problem unless Microsoft greatly improves the delivery which is possible of course but I fail to see how.
Based on their Azure platform, I don't trust Microsoft with cloud anything. I work in IT and have constant issues with Azure. I look forward to the mass hysteria when people can't sign in or there is maintenance and they can't play their Xbox for the whole day
Very interesting, especially their solution to latency. A $99 is a very strong entry point as well, and I think this low price allows them some flexibility to go for a more risky pricing of their traditional console - following the 1X and going for $499.
At E3 this year, both Ubisoft and EA publicly talked about their interest in cloud streaming of games. For developers, the positives vastly outweigh the negatives - having your game accessible to a wider audience, means higher potential sales and interaction. On top of that, a "streaming" version would likely just be an Xbox version running off Azure servers.
I expect an "Xbox Scarlet" game to be required to be able to be playable on both devices.
At E3 this year, both Ubisoft and EA publicly talked about their interest in cloud streaming of games. For developers, the positives vastly outweigh the negatives - having your game accessible to a wider audience, means higher potential sales and interaction. On top of that, a "streaming" version would likely just be an Xbox version running off Azure servers.
I expect an "Xbox Scarlet" game to be required to be able to be playable on both devices.
Like I said, there are physical limitations to latency. It's not something that can be fixed.
Yeah, some of them. I think with GeForce Now you can both play games that are included with your subscription, as well as Steam games that are in your library. So you'd still have to play full price for some games.
This may not be for you yet then. Similarly people were very put off by disc access speeds 20 years ago. It doesn't make the entire endeavor fruitless though.
After your last post I was already thinking that you would not have a civilized conversation. Yes, other computer take the job, but still we have all those gaming cloud problems, because unlike others cloud tech, they're very demanding. Not just some upload datacenter or backup, they still have to worry about input lag, latency, disconnect. Common problems of PSnow if you're not familiar.
Still, its good they have two machines and not just forcing one full cloud. Countries like Brazil always lack in that departament.
I don't mind having to wire it up to an ethernet connection but not interested AT ALL unless there is literally no difference in IQ and gameplay.
Worth noting that latency in a game is a much bigger deal than in a movie or other media, for rather obvious reasons.
I LOVE this Microsoft move. This feels like the best of both workd AND the customer has the ability to choose between the 2 options. Can't wait.
"MS thinks they have all this stuff figured out" in regards to latency. Curious how they'll overcome the physical layer hurdles. I'll believe it once I test it out for myself. ;)
And of course the cloud portion would be much further along since they've already had Azure running for a while now.
And of course the cloud portion would be much further along since they've already had Azure running for a while now.
I'm OK with this as opposed to what they were trying to pull in 2013.
If you're going to have a traditional system with a disc drive, it needs to be a traditional system. No online check-in every 24 hours, no DRM preventing me from reselling something I legitimately own.
Likewise, if you're going make an always-online system, be up front about it, and just make everything about it online. Essentially the Google Chromebook of consoles. That approach is not for me, but I don't see the harm in offering a choice. The market should get to decide which is better, not you.
If you're going to have a traditional system with a disc drive, it needs to be a traditional system. No online check-in every 24 hours, no DRM preventing me from reselling something I legitimately own.
Likewise, if you're going make an always-online system, be up front about it, and just make everything about it online. Essentially the Google Chromebook of consoles. That approach is not for me, but I don't see the harm in offering a choice. The market should get to decide which is better, not you.
Based on the proposed pricing, I'm thinking the answer might be "no". I just don't see how the streaming device would be more powerful than the One S in 2020 while being even close to profitable at that price. That's good news for Microsoft and consumers, as it could give all customers of the "One" family entry into next-gen without additional hardware.
Not a 'way' to fix, just a 'way' to reduce some of the latency problems. Still have others limitations to consider.