Quantcast
Xbox Scarlet Rumor: Traditional and streaming consoles at launch.

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Xbox Scarlet Rumor: Traditional and streaming consoles at launch.

lightningfunk said:
this will be done by sony also

the Big part is how they structure their subscription service

Actually SONY has one before it called PS Now and Vita TV , hell you can play PS Now on PC and TV alone (some modern new SONY 4K TV) 



Around the Network
BraLoD said:
Why not fit both in the same package, as promissed for the One back in 2013?
Also, yes, there will be "this game only runs on XB4", just with "if you are offline" added ahead.
PS will reign with little competition again, MS is already trying to shoot its own feet with 2 different systems to mess consumers mind.

Actually , in my opinion it's  smart move, the streaming device will be a super cheap one. I can see PS will follow the same suit because PS already has the foundation with PS Now and they had one before with PS Vita TV



drkohler said:
Here's my question:
If that streaming box is not a powerful console, wouldn't a generic XBox1S already be powerful enough? So why would one need to buy this streaming box at all if one owned an XBox1S?

If that thing about collision detection done locally is true (which implies game logic running locally), then I guess at least same or similar CPU is required to be in cloud box as well in full offline box.



Mar1217 said:
Pemalite said:

Erm. Maybe you missed the part where the "traditional" console is retained?
Have garbage internet? Then the streaming box ain't for you, buy the console that isn't meant for streaming.

But since the streaming box is probably made with budget sensitive people in mind. You would  think that most of them don't have the bugdet for neither the traditional version or good internet and data cap which is necessary for the streaming box.

So in other words they are a market that isn't going to buy any next gen console or games? I know there are people in that situation, but really they are not a profitable market for anyone to target.



HollyGamer said:
lightningfunk said:
this will be done by sony also

the Big part is how they structure their subscription service

Actually SONY has one before it called PS Now and Vita TV , hell you can play PS Now on PC and TV alone (some modern new SONY 4K TV) 

I know

i was talking about the downloading games part of XBOX GAME PASS



Around the Network

Boy, do I see a rocky launch. Two devices with incredibly different prices, but both say XB2, while there's only one PS5, which will probably be priced in between them (I see the streaming device launching for $199 and the console for $499.) My guess is parents will either go with the simple PS5 option, or buy the cheap XB2, thinking that they got a deal. Of course, for the latter, once low/middle class parents realize that they brought in a data monster and are tied to the Xbox Store, instead of being able to pick up cheaper games on Amazon/Walmart, I don't think they'll be too happy with the purchase.



Mar1217 said:
Pemalite said:

Erm. Maybe you missed the part where the "traditional" console is retained?
Have garbage internet? Then the streaming box ain't for you, buy the console that isn't meant for streaming.

But since the streaming box is probably made with budget sensitive people in mind. You would  think that most of them don't have the bugdet for neither the traditional version or good internet and data cap which is necessary for the streaming box.

Then buy a last gen console or wait for prices to drop.

Ganoncrotch said:
I mean... for this to best the X1X you're going to need native 4k streaming ability.. that's not going to happen on the majority of the worlds internet right now, unless there is something I'm missing this is a machine which is going to be bouncing around the resolutions like a copy of Wolfenstein 2 on the Switch when the action kicks off... except it's not going to be determined by action on screen but by your housemates desires to download something.

1) The Xbox One X doesn't render every game at 4k.
2) Resolution doesn't equate to a games graphics fidelity in it's entirety.
3) A dynamic video resolution will likely be employed, if you have a 15Mbps~ internet connection, then 4k is more than feasible with h.265, only got 2mbps? Then stiff. 720P it is.
4) The streaming box would be an option to buy, you aren't forced to buy that in place of a "traditional" styled fixed-home console.

setsunatenshi said:
Mnementh said:
That sounds indeed interesting. If they nail the latency issues and have a good price on their streaming stuff, I might own my first XBox.

@bold: I agree, if they somehow manage to bend the laws of physics that would indeed be impressive :D

They aren't trying to break the laws of physics?
Not everything rendered in a games scene is actually rendered/calculated at the same time... Because an individual isn't going to notice if something like the games weather system is 10 seconds behind the games tick rate rather than 1 second.

drkohler said:
Here's my question:
If that streaming box is not a powerful console, wouldn't a generic XBox1S already be powerful enough? So why would one need to buy this streaming box at all if one owned an XBox1S?

They may have updated the video decode blocks on the SoC (H.266?) so it can more efficiently decode the streams compression algorithm, decoding video can actually be extremely demanding on hardware, especially next-gen video coding.
Another aspect is that it might feature a significantly beefier CPU at the expense of GPU and RAM counts in order to handle some more localized, time-sensitive tasks.

HoloDust said:

If that thing about collision detection done locally is true (which implies game logic running locally), then I guess at least same or similar CPU is required to be in cloud box as well in full offline box.

Shouldn't have any reliance on hardware in that regard, you aren't having identical tasks being done on both machines, only more time-sensitive tasks done locally.
Although... Some Azure servers are running 8-core Haswell CPU's @ 3.2ghz... Which completely and utterly decimates the Jaguar chips... Only CPU AMD has that could compete with that is Ryzen.





If a streaming console is a portable device with 5G support, then yes, it looks interesting. Other than that, I don’t see a reason why would anyone choose it instead of a traditional console.



 

Its a smart move and can offer a cheap base rate console. If MS can live up to reducing the Input Lag etc than this will do extremely well. MS have the infrastructure with Azure, something which will be hard to match by there competitors.
Ill clearly buy there traditional console but I can see a dirt cheap Streaming box fitting right in with the modern gamer/family.



HollyGamer said:
BraLoD said:
Why not fit both in the same package, as promissed for the One back in 2013?
Also, yes, there will be "this game only runs on XB4", just with "if you are offline" added ahead.
PS will reign with little competition again, MS is already trying to shoot its own feet with 2 different systems to mess consumers mind.

Actually , in my opinion it's  smart move, the streaming device will be a super cheap one. I can see PS will follow the same suit because PS already has the foundation with PS Now and they had one before with PS Vita TV

PSNow is not a world wide service. From what I believe PSNow runs off Gaikai which is only used in some parts of the world. From memory Gaikai cost Sony roughly $500m. Now if you put that into comparison with Azure, that cost MS $30b which is accessible world wide. Something I don't think Sony can afford unless they rent out Amazon or something. I will be curious to see how Nintendo and Sony imitate and implement this rumoured Xbox direction. Nintendo could possibly rent the servers out from MS and have there own access but I don't see Sony doing that as there relationship with MS isn't the same.