Xbox Series X - $499/£449 or $35pm/£28.99 via All Access Nov 10

[Captain Flint]

Originally Posted by dyne

Also why get into this now when your biggest market is having it's internet ruined by getting rid of Net Neutrality and whatever that future holds? Typical MS. They always have a good idea at the wrong time.

I was thinking this same thing and it's going to be a huge problem in the long run. Internet costs as of right now aren't even that favorable, especially in rural areas such as mine (not very reliable services either, internet cuts out constantly). The speeds required for streaming a game are going to require an upgrade which means I'd be paying out the ass for faster internet, Game Pass subscription and Xbox Live Gold. It's more cost efficient to just buy the traditional console with a disc drive for the long run.

Also, streaming a game takes that license away from the consumer. The game isn't actually yours. The only thing you "own" is the subscription.

Game servers already crash regularly just from log-ins and data traffic, how do you think they're going to fare when thousands if not millions of people launch a stream of the same game at the same time? Do ISP's and Microsoft have that kind of server space?

I have tons of reservations about game streaming, but thankfully it sounds as if Microsoft isn't ready to go full 100% game streaming yet (if ever). I'm just going to stick with the old way of playing games off of a disc as long as I can until I'm convinced internet speeds and reliability aren't going to be an issue and that streaming games has its advantages over playing off of a disc (which all signs point to no). Millions in the U.S. don't have access to high speed internet and monopolies still rule with an iron fist in lots of places (mine included) and there's also the issue of Net Neutrality being dead which raises even more concerns. I just don't see game streaming as viable as of right now.

[dyne]

Originally Posted by Captain Flint

Do ISP's and Microsoft have that kind of server space?

MS has been growing Azure pretty aggressively under Nadella's watch. They basically want to take on Amazon in that regard.

[R3P0]

Yeah MS can suck it i wont buy a streaming console

[dyne]

Well it’s a good thing then that this isn’t all they’ll offer.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by dyne

Well it’s a good thing then that this isn’t all they’ll offer.

I can tell you right now, the full specced model is not in MS' long term plans. It's only to appease the hardcore gamers at launch. I guarantee you the streaming model is what they'll push.

[Captain Flint]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

I can tell you right now, the full specced model is not in MS' long term plans. It's only to appease the hardcore gamers at launch. I guarantee you the streaming model is what they'll push.

And I can tell you right now, for the reasons I listed and many more, they won't push it as hard as you think they will. It won't sell at this point in time. Plus, none of this is even confirmed. It's all just rumors.

[x7q3]

Many people have mediocre Internet service, so I don't see how these people could use a streaming Xbox well.

When my brother lived in rural Ohio, I think all he could get was satellite Internet, and it wasn't reliable to say the least.

I could only imagine being in the middle of a streaming game, and it buffering a lot or not playing at all. That would be practically unplayable, all due to your Internet speed or connection not being up to par.

[dyne]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

I can tell you right now, the full specced model is not in MS' long term plans. It's only to appease the hardcore gamers at launch. I guarantee you the streaming model is what they'll push.

I see it as the X and S situation right now. Even if they see a dip in sales for a traditional machine they'll have the sales of the stream box to buoy profits. Both can survive and both cater to different needs and wants.

I think traditional and powerful hardware is in their future. They're banking on the term "most powerful" right now and will continue to do that for the foreseeable future. I don't think making that claim will be a one off for them.

[R3P0]

Originally Posted by Captain Flint

And I can tell you right now, for the reasons I listed and many more, they won't push it as hard as you think they will. It won't sell at this point in time. Plus, none of this is even confirmed. It's all just rumors.

LOL and thats what everyone said about the Xbox One MS wont push hardware or account locked titles. Sure as shit what did they do at E3 they pushed it, it wasn't until a full 2-3 weeks after E3 when MS saw the pre order numbers that MS decided to abruptly change policy and disable the code which locked your games to the console. Hate to break it to you streaming and cloud based integration is 100% on MS plans, they did not invest billions into Azure not for it to be on the table. MS is fully invested in the cloud, as per their CEO statement when he took over Microsoft 2 years ago.

[dyne]

Nobody is saying it's not going to happen. We're all just saying it's not an all or nothing approach.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by dyne

Nobody is saying it's not going to happen. We're all just saying it's not an all or nothing approach.

It won't be at first, but I do believe this is the future they want.

[Mavrick]

Originally Posted by dyne

I see it as the X and S situation right now. Even if they see a dip in sales for a traditional machine they'll have the sales of the stream box to buoy profits. Both can survive and both cater to different needs and wants.

I think traditional and powerful hardware is in their future. They're banking on the term "most powerful" right now and will continue to do that for the foreseeable future. I don't think making that claim will be a one off for them.

Think outside the (X)box!

The hardware makes them nothing for a very long time, it's all sold at a loss. It's the service subscriptions that is the money maker, they could care less about hardware numbers as long as people are lapping up their service subscriptions.

Gold/Games Pass and whatever they will call the service you need to subscribe to in order to use "Scarlett Cloud" that's where all the profit lies.

The streaming service also opens up other revenue streams from customers that don't even own an Xbox device. As long as their hardware meets a specific spec they could just as easily open up subs to millions of non Xbox owners.

It's just another step towards a games as a service future.

[dyne]

I'm aware of all of this and have said it numerous times, most recently when people bemoaned Play Anywhere and 1st party games coming to PC.

As long as the US internet infrastructure is the way it is it would be extremely stupid to go whole hog on streaming. The US will not have the required speeds to most of the country while any of us are still alive. People keep saying things can change in <5 years. Not internet deployment. These companies spend pennies on deployment and upgrades. Also with the FCC the way it is now and NN gone there's the very real possibility of data caps actually being enforced.

Then take a look at US cellular. Sure there's unlimited plans that are finally back again but they throttle your speeds down to <2G after so many GB's. I'm sure people will be real excited about streaming Xbox games for the first couple of days a month and then shelling out for more GB's when their plan throttles.

Maybe the two companies looking into high speed satellite internet might shake up the status quo but if I was running a games division I certainly wouldn't hedge my bets on it.

[Steelmaker]

Wouldn't having a traditional model in the wild along with the streaming model sort of negate one of the proposed advantages of game streaming? With pure game streaming, you can develop a game based on any hardware configuration you want. Go as powerful as you want. However if you introduce a traditional console in the mix and guarantee parity between the two, aren't you limiting yourself to having to develop to whatever the traditional hardware is?

[dyne]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

Wouldn't having a traditional model in the wild along with the streaming model sort of negate one of the proposed advantages of game streaming? With pure game streaming, you can develop a game based on any hardware configuration you want. Go as powerful as you want. However if you introduce a traditional console in the mix and guarantee parody between the two, aren't you limiting yourself to having to develop to whatever the traditional hardware is?

Slightly off topic, I would have to think that the traditional hardware would be able to do the streaming as well.

I see what you're asking and I have to think that people who stream aren't concerned with the best graphics. Yes, you can throw all the best hardware into the servers and have the best looking games but when what's being rendered is eventually compressed into a 720p video file what's the point?

But that's the beauty of the way console games are now being created. They're like the PC in that they're forward compatible. The games will run improved graphic settings based on the hardware it's played on. Digital Foundry had a video about a recent 360 game brought to back compat. Usually these games do not exceed the original framerate. This one does and it's because of the way it was coded. It happened to be very gpu dependent and because of that it went from 30fps on 360 to 60fps on the X with no additional coding needed to be done. You can already see improved AA and other features that are just baked into the hardware and emulator in these games and that's just in the ones that weren't made with the future in mind.

So no. I don't think they'll have an issue having the same code perform on both a traditional console or the Azure server racks. In fact the only thing I think they'll have to alter is the streaming game to better accommodate the "magic sauce" that the article talked about as far as to what portion gets run where and it sounds like that won't be a full code rewrite.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by dyne

Slightly off topic, I would have to think that the traditional hardware would be able to do the streaming as well.

I see what you're asking and I have to think that people who stream aren't concerned with the best graphics. Yes, you can throw all the best hardware into the servers and have the best looking games but when what's being rendered is eventually compressed into a 720p video file what's the point?

But that's the beauty of the way console games are now being created. They're like the PC in that they're forward compatible. The games will run improved graphic settings based on the hardware it's played on. Digital Foundry had a video about a recent 360 game brought to back compat. Usually these games do not exceed the original framerate. This one does and it's because of the way it was coded. It happened to be very gpu dependent and because of that it went from 30fps on 360 to 60fps on the X with no additional coding needed to be done. You can already see improved AA and other features that are just baked into the hardware and emulator in these games and that's just in the ones that weren't made with the future in mind.

So no. I don't think they'll have an issue having the same code perform on both a traditional console or the Azure server racks. In fact the only thing I think they'll have to alter is the streaming game to better accommodate the "magic sauce" that the article talked about as far as to what portion gets run where and it sounds like that won't be a full code rewrite.

Ugghhh, do you think that will be the max resolution for the streaming model, or are you just using that as an example?

[dyne]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

Ugghhh, do you think that will be the max resolution for the streaming model, or are you just using that as an example?

I think they'd have to have a toggle like Twitch does (Source, 480, 720, 1080, Best) to accommodate lower bandwidths. 4K streaming is 25Mb/s according to Netflix but then you have to factor in that it's not just a video signal and that inputs are being registered and sent back. I think upload speeds will be just as important and in most of the US they're pretty anemic.

On the other hand it's completely plausible they send a 720 signal to your box and then the stream box upscales it. Of course that could cause latency then.

[Steedeel]

I think some of you are missing a quite big factor in all this. MS (in my opinion) seems to be pushing gaming on mobile with their ‘2 billion people play games, but many only have a mobile device’ comments. I would consider the Scorpion but the thought of the future consisting of prodding a touch screen on a mobile device makes me want to vomit.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by dyne

I think they'd have to have a toggle like Twitch does (Source, 480, 720, 1080, Best) to accommodate lower bandwidths. 4K streaming is 25Mb/s according to Netflix but then you have to factor in that it's not just a video signal and that inputs are being registered and sent back. I think upload speeds will be just as important and in most of the US they're pretty anemic.

On the other hand it's completely plausible they send a 720 signal to your box and then the stream box upscales it. Of course that could cause latency then.

Netflix has gotten better with 4K. Caps out at 15.26MB now. Though I’d imagine gaming would require more communication to & from servers as you say.

I honestly like this approach that MS is doing. Always consumer friendly to have a choice. Net speeds are only going to get better. What’s more important for me is bandwidth. I can get 150MB/s speeds but that means notta when others share net.

[dyne]

I think this may be a good alternative for younger players since you wouldn't have to wait around for massive updates anymore.