AbsolutSurgen

Of course. But, in a streaming world, the hardware is almost irrelevant. You don't need to be tied to a MS console. You can create an app that will run on an Amazon Fire, smart TV, or even create your own $20 streaming box. That said, I still think that streaming of games is further away than a lot of people think.

Yes. There are differences between PS4 Pro and XB1X games -- the biggest typically being resolution. Whether you consider them "significant" is something different.

Yes. But they won't want to do that through Microsoft. The publishers will want to own the streaming platform. Why give 30% to MS if you can own it all?

Agreed. I think it is most likely that you will need to buy individual games that you can use with your streaming package, rather than publisher specific "all you can eat" packages.

Yes. I think that is what this what this would essentially be -- except it would have options for access to all/most new releases.

I preordered this months ago on GMG.

There is likely to be a mandatory subscription, that will include a number of games, similar to gamepass. I would be surprised if they would even stream "purchased games" without a subscription. But, I suspect you are correct in that you will need to "buy games" as well -- I would be surprised if EA/Activision/Ubi/etc. would be willing to include their new releases as part of a MS subscription.

Wow -- in my gaming life those games were a lifetime apart. I still remember seeing Karate Champ for the first time at Chuck E Cheese's arcade -- and not being able to quite figure it out.

Microsoft’s streaming Xbox will split up games to keep latency low "Last month, we learned that Microsoft is developing a pair of new Xboxes for release in 2020 under the codename Scarlett. One system will be a full console; the other will be a cloud-connected system for streaming games. Today, Brad Sams at Thurrott.com has more to say about that streaming box. We know Microsoft has been interested in developing a streaming service for many years. At this year's E3, the company reaffirmed that it's working on a streaming service that will allow games to be run in the Azure cloud and streamed to a relatively simple set-top box. This makes the end-user hardware much cheaper, but it has a consistent problem: latency. Every button press on the controller has to travel over the Internet to the server before it can be processed, and every frame of video similarly has to make the reverse trip before it can be seen. For games that don't rely on twitch reactions (RPGs or turn-based games, say) this is no big deal. But for games like first-person shooters, it's a huge problem. According to Sams, Microsoft's solution is that the Scarlett Cloud box (as one person called it) will have some amount of processing power of its own. Not enough to run full games, but enough to do collision detection, input handling, and some amount of graphical processing locally without having to wait for the remote server. To do this, games are split into two parts (referred to as "slices" or "splices")—one part runs in the cloud; the other runs on the console. The result is that Scarlett Cloud is apparently suitable for a wide range of games, even those that would normally be considered too latency-sensitive to be streamable. In fact, Sams reports that every Scarlett game will run on every Scarlett device, so streaming gamers won't be left out. The downside to this approach is that it makes the hardware more expensive than if it was purely a dumb streaming device, but it's still markedly less expensive than a full console would need to be. Streaming games will of course require some kind of a subscription to play. This recurring revenue is a big part of why the company is interested in streamed games in the first place." I still believe that the internet is not read for the streaming of games: 1) Too many people don't have the bandwidth to stream high quality games 2) Data caps are still too low for hard core gamers 3) Not sure if internet connections are stable enough to reliably stream games. I seem to get too many "hiccups" that are annoying on video, but would be disastrous for gaming. However, all signs are pointing to the next generation starting no later than 2020.

My Dad brought home an Atari 2600 pretty early on -- and it all started with playing Combat.

Will watch this tonight.

Unfortunately after a couple of bombs in a row, studio heads will lose their jobs. Hopefully he will land on his feet.

If you're comparing it to a KB/M -- a controller will never be as accurate for a FPS/TPS. You "get used" to it, and console shooters generally have tons of autoaim to help. But it will never be as accurate as a KB/M. If you're comparing it to a PS4 controller, you'll get used to it. They're pretty interchangeable in my mind (although I prefer the symmetrical design and ergonomics of the PS4 controller).

Actually I spent more time "reinstalling Windows 10" because my controller drivers had become corrupted and crashed my computer whenever I tried to play a game with a controller.

Read the headline.

Now you're nitpicking. Apparently EGM has more lives than a cat -- I believe its been killed numerous times.

You still have time to come to your senses! (I'm apparently not the only one who hates it.)

When I read the reviews about No Man's Sky -- the game appeared to be pretty consistent with my (low) expectations. At the time I was always confused about why some people thought the game would be more than it was.

FEH?

I am confused by this.

That is one hideous looking console.

This weekend it will be more Watch Dogs 2 and Wolfenstein 2. I apparently like sequels to games that begin with "W".

huh?

Reminded me of this:

You have a 1-track mind! I would love that. My son keeps stealing my Elite to play Halo. It would give me a great excuse to buy one.