Microsoft



  • (Actually, this thread should be called "XBox One", but that wouldn't line up so nicely with the Google thread.)

    So, after Microsoft presented the XBox One, reception seems to be less than stellar. But aside from all the typical George Orwell style conspiracy theories (as a developer, it's interesting to know that a vast part of today's consumers are apparently physically incapable of turning devices off if they only have a standby switch), there is an interesting patent Microsoft apparently registered last year. What do you think about that?

    In other news, I'm thrilled by one of the lesser-known killer features, according to (For up to two apps at the same time) I never thought I'd see the day!



  • The users consuming the content on a display device are monitored so
    that if the number of user-views licensed is exceeded, remedial action
    may be taken.
    So does the XBox One come with its own .357 IMI Desert Eagle?



  • Why the fuck is version four called One?



  • @Ben L. said:

    Why the fuck is version four called One?

    My guess is that they wanted to "start anew" with their Xbox brand, since Microsoft changes their strategy, corporate identity, and brand names every 6 months.

    I'll quote (part of) an old post of mine

    So now your MSN account Microsoft Passport .NET Passport Windows Live ID Microsoft account will let you log in to MSN Messenger Windows Live Messenger Skype to send instant messages, use Hotmail Outlook.com to receive mail, and get great software such as Microsoft AntiSpyware Windows Defender Windows Live OneCare Microsoft Security Essentials Windows Defender or Windows Live FolderShare Windows Live Sync Live Mesh Windows Live Mesh SkyDrive.

    I'll be surprised if the Xbox brand survives 2 more console generations. Also that wasn't a mistake: Windows Defender got superseeded by MSE which was renamed again to Windows Defender.



  • @PSWorx said:

    So, after Microsoft presented the XBox One, reception seems to be less than stellar. But aside from all the typical George Orwell style conspiracy theories (as a developer, it's interesting to know that a vast part of today's consumers are apparently physically incapable of turning devices off if they only have a standby switch), there is an interesting patent Microsoft apparently registered last year. What do you think about that?

    I think I'd sellotape a passport photo of my face just in front of the webcam :-)

     



  • @Ben L. said:

    Why the fuck is version four called One?

    Probably for the same reason Windows internal and customer-facing version numbers don't match: they're trying to make the numbers more closely match the average potential buyer's IQ.



  • @spamcourt said:

    So now your MSN account Microsoft Passport .NET Passport Windows Live ID Microsoft account will let you log in to MSN Messenger Windows Live Messenger Skype to send instant messages, use Hotmail Outlook.com to receive mail, and get great software such as Microsoft AntiSpyware Windows Defender Windows Live OneCare Microsoft Security Essentials Windows Defender or Windows Live FolderShare Windows Live Sync Live Mesh Windows Live Mesh SkyDrive.

    I wish they'd stuck with the "Windows OneCare" brand.  It sounds so appropriate when said in a hammy fake French accent ;-)



  • @Ben L. said:

    Why the fuck is version four called One?

    They are trying to make the Xbox the center of the living room: game console, media center, skype, tv tuner. So that's the best concept marketing came up with (One Xbox to rule them all).



    I have to say, with Xbox video, Netflix and Smartglass, it's getting there.



  • @Ben L. said:

    Why the fuck is version four called One?

    Wait... what was version 3?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Ben L. said:
    Why the fuck is version four called One?

    Wait... what was version 3?


    xbox


    xbox 2


    xbox 360


    xbox One

    Or was there no xbox existing around the time the ps1 came out?



  • @Ben L. said:

    xbox 2

    What is a "Xbox 2"?

    Or, to cut through the crap, why should anybody give a shit what you have to say about game consoles when you know NOTHING about them, you idiot?



  • @Ben L. said:

    Or was there no xbox existing around the time the ps1 came out?

    If by "around", you mean "around the time it was superseded by the PS2, seven years later".



  • @Salamander said:

    @Ben L. said:

    Or was there no xbox existing around the time the ps1 came out?

    If by "around", you mean "around the time it was superseded by the PS2, seven years later".

     

    OP is correct, it's release 4. MS'ses consoles were (in order of release by name they were released under):

    1) Microsoft Colecovision

    2) Microsoft Original XBox

    3) Microsoft Red Ring 

    4) Microsoft XBox One

     

     



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    1) Microsoft Colecovision

    I call BS.



  • @ekolis said:

    @Lorne Kates said:
    1) Microsoft Colecovision

    I call BS.

     

    Oops, you're right. That should be the Microsoft Intellivision.



  • @Ben L. said:

    retarded blathering about xbox 2
    <a href=http://lmgtfy.com/?q=xbox+wiki&l=1>lmgtfy


    I'd think you were trolling, if only you haven't previously proved yourself to be an absolute braindead moron.



  • @Ben L. said:

    Or was there no xbox existing around the time the ps1 came out?
    the playstation (ps1) competed with the nintendo64 (and sega saturn?) Sony took the technology that they developed with nintendo (for a cancelled snes CDROM addon,) and turned it into the playstation; nintendo essentially created their own competitor through their misdealings with sony. microsoft didn't jump on the console bandwagon with the xbox until the next generation which started with the dreamcast, followed by the ps2, (the gamecube was in there somewhere). The xbox 360 came out a year before the wii and ps3, which collectively make up the currently ending console generation. This new console generation nintendo was the company to release its new console a year early, (and presumably both xbone and ps4 get released this year).



  • @esoterik said:

    lmgtfy

    Could not reproduce. Typing anything into the form field removes the I'm Feeling Lucky button.



  • @esoterik said:

    @Ben L. said:
    Or was there no xbox existing around the time the ps1 came out?
    the playstation (ps1) competed with the nintendo64 (and sega saturn?) Sony took the technology that they developed with nintendo (for a cancelled snes CDROM addon,) and turned it into the playstation; nintendo essentially created their own competitor through their misdealings with sony. microsoft didn't jump on the console bandwagon with the xbox until the next generation which started with the dreamcast, followed by the ps2, (the gamecube was in there somewhere). The xbox 360 came out a year before the wii and ps3, which collectively make up the currently ending console generation. This new console generation nintendo was the company to release its new console a year early, (and presumably both xbone and ps4 get released this year).
     

     

    I was always fond of the now defunct Game console company, ShoveitUp!. Their premiere product, designed to compete with the Sega Saturn, was the ShoveitUp! Uranus. Needless to say it did not work out well and what ended up happening was the governments of the world teamed up to create a super-science team to recreate the big-bang and thus start the universe over from scratch, this time sending into the next universe physical laws preventing ShoveItUp! From ever existing. Sadly, a side effect was that we have lolcats. The jury is still out as to which one is worse.



  • I honestly don't know what new features gamers actually wanted with
    the new XBox. I can't think of any features even remotely related to
    gaming that would add value to playing games using the console. PS4 got
    rediculed for all hell with the "Share" feature, which I would think is
    useful/cool in a very situational sense (It gives us another sense
    whether we want to buy a game or not, since downloading the demo isn't
    instantanious), but barring that, any possible game-related features
    have already been done. I'm sure there may be more, but... Gamers just
    don't seem to know what they want.

    What were they supposed to do,
    bring out a new console with updated hardware and no new features?
    Wouldn't that be commercial suicide?



  • @Adanine said:

    What were they supposed to do,
    bring out a new console with updated hardware and no new features?
    Wouldn't that be commercial suicide?
     

    Not if they released games that utilized the hardware. In fact, the games should rely on the increased power of the new hardware. Kinda like how PCs already do it. Except you're basically paying a premium to have Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo pick and thoroughly test the One True Configuration for you.

    Hell, that's all I want from the next generation of consoles (which I may or may not buy three years down the road when they become dirt cheap).  All I want is for Sony to say "Here's the PS4.  It's a souped up PS3. It'll play your entire PS3 library, but with better framerates. There's some extra hardware in there that the PS3 games can't touch because they weren't programmed to. Like, let's say, the Install to Hard Drive feature. PS4 games will use all the new hardware 100%."  Same thing I'd want Microsoft to say about the XBox. More RAM, better processors, upgraded to gigabit ethernet. A sufficient, stable configuration good for at least the next 5 years.

    Make it more powerful, more energy efficient, backwards compatible, and throw a couple expansion ports on there for when they dream up the porn version of the Kinect. 



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    Make it more powerful, more energy
    efficient, backwards compatible, and throw a couple expansion ports on
    there for when they dream up the porn version of the Kinect. 

    While I 100% agree with you on this personally, I don't think a
    marketting team will agree. It's very hard to sell something because of
    improvements under the hood. I bought a 360 because it's online
    capabilities outshown the previous generation of games. The graphics
    improvement wasn't really a factor until after I bought it.

    Their
    job isn't just to make sure the XBox One sells, but that it sells in
    it's first financial year, to discourage exactly what you want to do -
    wait and buy one in a few years when it's cheap. But everyone knows that
    a new console needs to wait for the games designed for it to be
    released, and until then there's no real reason gaming-wise to do this

    I
    honestly can see why they marketed the XBox One as an all-in-one
    device, because that would open the target audience bracket. But what I
    don't understand is why gamers are so upset/disapointed in this. I was
    hoping for more time on games, and more games covered, and I was also
    hoping for backwards compatibility (but I didn't expect it at all), but I
    don't think it deserves what everyone is saying.

    I dislike that
    there's so much pressure on making graphics more and more realistic,
    when the best games I've played haven't actually had realistic graphics.
    I'm more excited about the increase for the the potential for AI and
    other areas, then graphics.

    I'm also not really interested in any
    console. I'm aware that this should increase the quality of PC games
    released in all areas, so maybe that might result in something.



  • @PSWorx said:

    Multitasking! With no load times! (For up to two apps at the same time) I never thought I'd see the day!
     

    They use three operating systems on two core groups to make it happen. The joke being that the xbone has such shit specs that this is necessary.






  • @PSWorx said:

    But aside from all the typical George Orwell style conspiracy theories (as a developer, it's interesting to know that a vast part of today's consumers are apparently physically incapable of turning devices off if they only have a standby switch), there is an interesting patent Microsoft apparently registered last year. What do you think about that?

    I'm thinking it's far less interesting for Europeans (who are undoubtedly going to end up being shafted on the subject of the XBOne's TV services anyway) than the fact that Microsoft's proposed 'end solution' to the used games market flies in the face of a recent ruling from the European courts. Said ruling reinforces the right of Europeans to sell on their physical copies of software products including any attached licenses and warranties. This apparantly includes free and subscribed upgrade plans as well.

    The courts really frown upon any attempts to subvert EU law or rulings (iirc there is actually legislation which makes that an offense in and of itself...) and given how popular Microsoft already is with the EU, well--- anyone care to pass me the popcorn?



  • @Ragnax said:

    anyone care to pass me the popcorn?

    With the new KinectOne, you can only eat popcorn if you have a subscription to Microsoft Popcorn 2013. If you don't, it plays a constant loud alarm and calls the police.



  • @Ragnax said:

    I'm thinking it's far less interesting for Europeans (who are undoubtedly going to end up being shafted on the subject of the XBOne's TV services anyway)

    There's a big difference between "US only at launch" and "US only". In any case, if Europeans want TV features, Europeans need to come up with cablecard or something similar so companies can implement the damn thing. There's no technical reason the Xbox One can't work in every country, the only reason is: Europe makes everything a fucking pain in the ass.

    @Ragnax said:

    Microsoft's proposed 'end solution' to the used games market

    What are you talking about? The only thing Microsoft's about the Xbox One's used game situation is that a particular game can only be played on one console at a time. So you can't install the game on your HD, then go and sell it at GameStop and still be able to play it. (If you install on someone else's machine and they want to play after you remove the disk, they can purchase on-the-spot without having to re-download the game.)

    There's no fucking way in hell the European courts have an issue with that. I mean, fuck, other than the "instant purchase without download" bit it's identical to how the Xbox 360 operates today-- and the Euroweenies are ok with that, right?

    You're full of shit.



  • @Ben L. said:

    Or was there no xbox existing around the time the ps1 came out?

    Go home, kid. The adults are talking now.



  • @Ragnax said:

    The courts really frown upon any attempts to subvert EU law or rulings (iirc there is actually legislation which makes that an offense in and of itself...) and given how popular Microsoft already is with the EU, well--- anyone care to pass me the popcorn?

    Meanwhile in the "Apple doesn't matter since they're smaller then Microsoft" department, the iPhone still gets away with requiring the special dock connector 2.0 instead of the EU standard Micro USB.



  • @mikeTheLiar said:

    Filed under: Why is it called N64?

    Because when you see it you turn 64 degrees and walk away.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    There's a big difference between "US only at launch" and "US only". In any case, if Europeans want TV features, Europeans need to come up with cablecard or something similar so companies can implement the damn thing.

    That problem has been solved for quite a while, you know.

    @blakeyrat said:

    What are you talking about? The only thing Microsoft's about the Xbox One's used game situation is that a particular game can only be played on one console at a time. So you can't install the game on your HD, then go and sell it at GameStop and still be able to play it. (If you install on someone else's machine and they want to play after you remove the disk, they can purchase on-the-spot without having to re-download the game.)

    The issue is that Europeans are entitled to sell their purchased copy of a particular piece of software to another legal person at which point the corresponding license, warranty, and any upgrades or other online services to which the original owner of the copy was entitled are transfered to the new owner of the copy. (European law considers the copy a product, which has a license for use attached to it. In effect that makes all software and licenses transferable no matter what the end user license agreement states, because Europe has laws that state EULAs can not diminish the rights granted to consumers by law.)

    Microsoft's proposed business model for XBOne software requires a fee within the area of the original retail price to activate a used game under a new owner's account, in effect stripping the used copy of the software and/or the physical medium on which it is stored of its salable value. It's hard to objectively deny that this by itself is not already an attempt to subvert the recent EU ruling. However, by the recent ruling the sale of a copy of piece of software should not only transfer ownership of the license, but also of any services attached to the license by the software's copyright holder or other related bodies. That includes software activation services, online play, etc. In other words, Microsoft would be strong arming Europeans out of money for something they've already paid for and actively own and for which Microsoft is legally bound to offer them service.

    (Actually the same thing holds true for services like Origin, UPlay, Steam, or any digital distribution network relying on non-transferable licenses bound to user accounts. The only reason we've not yet heard anything about this is because no disgruntled customer has stepped up to start a lawsuit yet. You can bet though that a company like Valve has already been silently adding the requisite functionality to transfer ownership to the Steam client, ready to activate once shit does hit the fan and ride the wave of good will all the way to the bank. Just like they did before with the whole non-invasive DRM shtick vs DRM schemes like Starforce at the time...)



  • @Ragnax said:

    Microsoft's proposed business model for XBOne software requires a fee within the area of the original retail price to activate a used game under a new owner's account,

    Bullshit.



  •  @blakeyrat said:

    @Ragnax said:
    Microsoft's proposed business model for XBOne software requires a fee within the area of the original retail price to activate a used game under a new owner's account,

    Bullshit.

    That's what reporters for several gaming news websites took from the original press statement. Maybe Microsoft was testing the waters and after the initial backlash has "added a bit of nuance" to their statement. That I am not sure of, however it seems like something that would fit right up their alley.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Ragnax said:
    Microsoft's proposed business model for XBOne software requires a fee within the area of the original retail price to activate a used game under a new owner's account,

    Bullshit.

     

     There are a lot of stories about this, but they are mostly speculation, although some claim to have information from "key retail partners who have been briefed by Microsoft".

    Selling a game:  http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/publishers-to-receive-cut-of-xbox-one-pre-owned-sales-at-retail/0116137  @Some Euro Website said:

    A gamer walks into a retailer and hands over the game they wish to
    sell. This will only be possible at retailers who have agreed to
    Microsoft’s T&Cs and more importantly integrated Microsoft’s
    cloud-based Azure pre-owned system into its own. The game is then registered as having been traded-in on Microsoft’s
    system. The consumer who handed it over will subsequently see the game
    wiped from their account – hence the until now ambiguous claim from Phil
    Harrison that the Xbox One would have to ‘check in’ to Microsoft’s
    servers every 24 hours. The retailer can then sell the pre-owned game at whatever price they
    like, although as part of the system the publisher of the title in
    question will automatically receive a percentage cut of the sale. As
    will Microsoft. The retailer will pocket the rest .

    There are also reports that you can give a game to someone else and they can install it if they pay a fee

    @Another Source of Questionable Reliability said:

    Microsoft did say that if a disc was used with a second account, that
    owner would be given the option to pay a fee and install the game from
    the disc, which would then mean that the new account would also own the
    game and could play it without the disc.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    1) Microsoft Colecovision

    I love you.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @El_Heffe said:

    although as part of the system the publisher of the title in
    question will automatically receive a percentage cut of the sale

    This is actually great. This was kind of the main problem with used games that caused publishers to implement shitty one-time-use codes.



  • @MiffTheFox said:

    @mikeTheLiar said:
    Filed under: Why is it called N64?

    Because when you see it you turn 64 degrees and walk away.

     

    falls over item on display next to it



  • MORBIUS. Hi, I would like to buy one pound of Tofurky® Brand Soy-based Verisimilitudinous Ham Proxy.


    DHROMED. Just a moment.


    «dhromed carefully weighs one pound of Tofurky® Brand Soy-based Verisimilitudinous Ham Proxy on the scale.»


    DHROMED. Alright sir. Anything else today?


    MORBIUS. No, that will be all, thank you.


    «morbius picks up the neatly-wrapped Tofurky® Brand Soy-based Verisimilitudinous Ham Proxy and pays dhromed the amount shown on the scale's screen.»


    EXIT MORBIUS, STAGE RIGHT


    ENTER BLAKEY, STAGE RIGHT


    BLAKEY. I'm here to demand my payment for the Tofurky® Brand Soy-based Verisimilitudinous Ham Proxy you just sold.


    DHROMED. Who, may I ask, are you?


    BLAKEY. I am a member of the Tofurky® Brand Soy-based Verisimilitudinous Ham Proxy marketing board. I was commissioned by the person who sold that Tofurky® Brand Soy-based Verisimilitudinous Ham Proxy to the person who sold that Tofurky® Brand Soy-based Verisimilitudinous Ham Proxy to the person who sold that Tofurky® Brand Soy-based Verisimilitudinous Ham Proxy to the person who sold that Tofurky® Brand Soy-based Verisimilitudinous Ham Proxy to the person who sold that Tofurky® Brand Soy-based Verisimilitudinous Ham Proxy to the person who sold that Tofurky® Brand Soy-based Verisimilitudinous Ham Proxy to the person who sold that Tofurky® Brand Soy-based Verisimilitudinous Ham Proxy to the person who sold that Tofurky® Brand Soy-based Verisimilitudinous Ham Proxy to you. As it said in the contract you never saw,


    «blakey wheezes»


    DHROMED. Sir? Are you alright?


    BLAKEY. Yes, yes. As it said in the contract you never saw, I get 15% of all profits from sales of that Tofurky® Brand Soy-based Verisimilitudinous Ham Proxy.


    DHROMED. That is absurd! This Tofurky® Brand Soy-based Verisimilitudinous Ham Proxy does not belong to you. Your client owned this Tofurky® Brand Soy-based Verisimilitudinous Ham Proxy eight sales ago, but as soon as they sold it, they stopped being the owner.


    BLAKEY. It says right here in the contract--


    ENTER BEN L, STAGE RIGHT


    BEN L. Do you mean to say that you are a morbidly obese ostrich with a business in autopsies?


    DHROMED and BLAKEY, in unison. No--


    BEN L. Okay, just checking.


    EXIT BEN L, STAGE LEFT


    BLAKEY. Give me my money.


    DHROMED. This store owned the Tofurky® Brand Soy-based Verisimilitudinous Ham Proxy that I just sold to that man. You owned no part of it. Tell me, how is the money yours?


    BLAKEY. When you put it like that, it all seems so absurd!


    EXIT BLAKEY, STAGE RIGHT


    «dhromed waits until blakey has left and retrieves a violet phallus from under the counter.»


    DHROMED. now...


    END OF ACT 7



  • @Ben L. said:

    MORBIUS. Hi, I would like to buy one pound of ham.

    Good post, but should have been "one pound of Tofurky® Brand Soy-based Verisimilitudinous Ham Proxy."



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Ben L. said:
    MORBIUS. Hi, I would like to buy one pound of Tofurky® Brand Soy-based Verisimilitudinous Ham Proxy.

    Good post, but should have been "one pound of ham."

    I think this might be another multithreading issue.



  • My understanding, based on the Wired Q&A, is that the system works like this:

    1) Whatever console most recently installed the game "owns" the game.
    2) The console that "owns" the game can re-download it and do whatever. (This was specifically called-out in the Q&A-- you can install the disk once then throw it in the trash and still have access to the game for the lifetime of the console.)
    3) You can take your game disk to a friend's house and install it on their console, which will cause their console to "own" the game, until you take the game back home and install it on your own Xbox One, which will deactivate your friend's copy.
    4) If your friend has a deactivated copy and they want to play the game, they can immediately pay for the game and play it without needing to re-download or buy a disk.

    Now I might be misunderstanding, I admit fully that there's a little bit of read-between-the-lines there. But that's almost exactly what the current Xbox 360 system is: whoever owns the disk owns the game.

    The differences from the Xbox 360: 1) the most recent console that installed a game can play it without the disk in the drive, 2) *all* games will be in the online store from day 1. Other than that, it's the same goddamned thing.

    Microsoft has never said that there will be a fee for playing a used game. I think those rumors came from a misunderstanding of point 4 above. Because it's well-established that games journalists can't fucking read and are morons.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.