Will you be getting a PS4 or an Xbox One ?

[Owain Taggart]

Because they want to know if you're drinking Coca Cola or Pepsi while gaming so that they can do demographic research to sell on to marketing companies. They want to know what adverts hold your attention while watching live TV. They want to know how many people are in the room so that you don't invite too many friends over to watch a downloaded movie. This isn't crazy conspiracy material, Microsoft literally has patents on all this stuff. Kinect has the potential to be a marketing goldmine.

Not to mention that they've warned people that they would get banned for cussing via Kinect. I think it might of been mentioned in this thread

How could they do that? Why would they do that?

It's true. They have a patent that would technically allow them to prevent more than the allowed number of people watching a movie. Here's an article that refers to it. It's an older article, yet it's likely more relevant now given the new Kinect's features:

http://kotaku.com/5958307/this-kinect-patent-is-terrifying-wants-to-charge-you-for-license-violation

The important part:

Basically, when you buy or rent something like a movie, you'll only be granted a "license" for a certain number of people to watch it. If Kinect detects more people in the room than you had a license for, it can stop the movie, and even charge you extra.

 

[Kruezerman]

From the patent itself, the relevant part I believe:

[0037] Once the presentation begins at 326, the users in the field of view may change over the course of the presentation. Users may enter or leave the display area of a display device, for example. At 328, the display area for the display device is re-scanned. At 330, a determination is made as to whether the consuming user count has changed. Again, the content provider based on information provided to the content provider by the display device may perform step 330. In such embodiments, the content provider performs step 330. At 332, a comparison of the user count and any view or performance limitation against that allowed by the license is again made. If the license is exceeded, the process moves to step 338 to offer an opportunity to change the license terms. If the count has not changed, a determination is made at 334 whether performance of the content has been completed.

So let's say it works, because God knows that something like this is going to wonderfully difficult, how is MS going to charge these licenses then? You see, I don't know how this would work. I really don't, does this mean I can't watch a movie with four people in the same room or that I can't share the movie via the cloud with four people? Without the information necessary to understand what really is going to happen with digital distributed media, we are left in the dark with Microsoft!

 

[Lance]

I see that Microsoft's stellar marketing blitz (to apparently try and ensure the failure of their product and the permanent tarnishing of their brand) is still continuing unabated. Whatever next? No toilet breaks lest you incur the wrath of the almighty Kinnect?

PLAYER: This is a great game, but I need a dump.

KINNECT: No one said you could leave the room!

 

[TheGodBen]

Meh, I like change when it comes to technology and the like. That's why I like WIndows 8. Different.

Difference doesn't always lead to improvement though. Change that makes things better is a good thing, change for the sake of change is a waste of resources.

Modern automobiles don't just get you to Point B anymore. They do entertainment and fun.

But if you're looking for a family entertainment system you don't buy a car, even if that car has entertainment features. You buy a car because you want a car, the entertainment stuff is just a bonus. The same holds true for games consoles, people buy them because they're looking for something to play games on, the media functionality is something extra. Not many non-gamers were going to purchase an Xbox One for its media functionality, but that seems to have been MS's strategy in the beginning.

I find the Kinect far superior, at least I don't need a damn wand and mine follows me just fine.

I guess this might be a preference thing. I prefer wands, wands have buttons, and buttons are irreplaceable for most games.

Google and Facebook and even the BBS does that job easilly, it is illogical to assume that they would use the Kinect to do the same job that computers and web servers can do without it. How could they do that? Why would they do that? Through games. Not stuff like this.

Kinect, theoretically, would be way, way more valuable to advertisers than tracking cookies. A tracking cookie can't monitor a users emotional state or heart rate while viewing content, the new Kinect supposedly can. Trackers can't monitor your eyeballs to determine whether an ad attracts the user's attention or not, while Kinect supposedly can. Trackers can't tell how many people are in the room, nor hear and analyse what they're talking about, while Kinect can. Advertisers would love to have access to the data from such a device.

I have, on my computer, a webcam, as many of us do. Do I believe that somebody at Samsung, Skype, Facebook, or Microsoft can hack it and watch me type this? Yes. Anybody can hack anything if they want to. The question is why.

I've already said that I don't believe MS would bother to actually watch its users using the camera. But the Kinect is not a normal camera, and unless you have a really expensive webcam the two things don't compare. Kinect doesn't just capture images, it analyses them and can determine mood and behaviour. I've already provided a short list of ways in which MS could use this to collect reams of data to sell to advertisers, so there is a potential motive for why for why they would.

I still don't actually believe they would, it would be a legal and PR minefield. But it's definitely something I can understand being wary of.

I really don't, does this mean I can't watch a movie with four people in the same room or that I can't share the movie via the cloud with four people? Without the information necessary to understand what really is going to happen with digital distributed media, we are left in the dark with Microsoft!

MS have said they have no intention of implementing such a system, and tech companies patent things like this all the time so as to prevent their rivals from patenting it first. But it is an example of how Kinect could be abused in the future, theoretically.

One thing holding MS back would be that the Kinect still isn't good enough to determine how many people are in a room or not. This segment of the Giant Bomb livestream last week is telling as the Kinect mistook a lamp for a person. I'd hate to have to pay more to watch a movie because of my lamp.

I see that Microsoft's stellar marketing blitz (to apparently try and ensure the failure of their product and the permanent tarnishing of their brand) is still continuing unabated. Whatever next? No toilet breaks lest you incur the wrath of the almighty Kinnect?

PLAYER: This is a great game, but I need a dump.

KINNECT: No one said you could leave the room!

If you haven't seen it, try viewing an episode of Black Mirror called 15 Million Merits. It's set in a dystopian future where everyone lives in a room surrounded by screens while monitored by cameras at all times. If a person closes their eyes or refuses to look at an ad, an alarm goes off until they resume watching. The episode was inspired by Kinect and the creeping gamification of society.

 

[Owain Taggart]

So let's say it works, because God knows that something like this is going to wonderfully difficult, how is MS going to charge these licenses then? You see, I don't know how this would work. I really don't, does this mean I can't watch a movie with four people in the same room or that I can't share the movie via the cloud with four people? Without the information necessary to understand what really is going to happen with digital distributed media, we are left in the dark with Microsoft!

The only people that know for sure would be those at Microsoft. But the way I understood it was that when you rent a digitally downloaded movie, it would have an allowed number people in the license, so let's say for example, it allowed 4 people. Then a buddy drops by, and then suddenly you have 5 in the room together which the Kinect can see and says: "Sorry Dave, I can't let you do that!", stopping the movie.

So, MS has no intention of using it now, but the scary part is that it's been thought about at all. That's pretty draconian.

Kinect, theoretically, would be way, way more valuable to advertisers than tracking cookies. A tracking cookie can't monitor a users emotional state or heart rate while viewing content, the new Kinect supposedly can. Trackers can't monitor your eyeballs to determine whether an ad attracts the user's attention or not, while Kinect supposedly can. Trackers can't tell how many people are in the room, nor hear and analyse what they're talking about, while Kinect can. Advertisers would love to have access to the data from such a device.

You know, putting it that way, it sounds like the Nielsens would love it for being able to track people's reactions when watching TV. Would be a very valuable vector of information. Imagine if this version of Kinect were available during last season's Game of Thrones' Red Wedding? Also useful during sweeps weeks and season/series finales.

 

[Kruezerman]

We won't know until we see it actually happen. Maybe it's my optimism but I doubt that it would happen how you would describe.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Yeah, in fact, they might never end up using that, but it's the fact that it was even thought about and patented that makes it a scary proposition.

 

[Kruezerman]

The US, British, French, Russian, Chinese governments, et al. contemplated thermonuclear war and have the ability. They are now working to limit and eventually destroy that ability. Now obviously this is a dramatic comparison but it shows that just because somebody can have the ability to do something, and even planned it out, doesn't mean they will.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Oh definitely, I agree on that point. Let's just hope it doesn't come to that. Sometimes ideas are simply just that.

 

[Kruezerman]

Now to convince the rest of the internet.

Advocating patience and pragmatism to these people is like trying to fly a jet through jelly.

 

[soapp]

Where's the option for None of the above?

Pay to play... no thanks, sticking with PC gaming.

I never was much of a console gamer, but the invasion of privacy and none backwards compatible and a bunch of other things just don't make them interesting to me.

But I'd love to get the "Xbox one not the first one but the third one" for the watching TV achievement! I mean I really need to have that! (sarcasm anyone?)

If other people like the consoles that's perfectly fine, won't rage... but I don't want them myself.

like when everyone kept buying Red Rings of Death machines... enjoy, I'll pass.

 

[TheGodBen]

like when everyone kept buying Red Rings of Death machines... enjoy, I'll pass.

Hey, I only bought 2!

I'm a PC and console gamer, but consoles are just easier. My PC has had two HDDs crap out on it. My graphics card encountered a weird bug where it randomly stopped working with my monitor. My replacement graphics card had a persistent bug for years where it would cut out for a second every couple of minutes, something I only managed to fix by underclocking it just slightly. My DVD drive no longer works, but I haven't bothered to replace it as I don't use DVDs much any more. My monitor just stopped working one day and needed replacement. I had to pay to upgrade my OS to Windows 7, then reinstall from scratch. Earlier this year, my CPU began to overheat and I had to clean out the heat sink and apply new thermal compound. I also can't be sure that the latest games will run on my PC and I sometimes resort to pirating them to check before purchasing.

But when I buy a console game there's very little hassle, I put in the disc and it works. There's no system requirements to check, there's no messing around in graphics settings, there's no compatibility issues with controller support. The games don't look as good and there's less variety, but sometimes that's a trade-off I'm willing to make.

I love my PC, it's the only platform on which to play proper strategy and simulation games, and it's home to a lot of unique indie games that just wouldn't be made for consoles. I don't foresee myself ever not being a PC gamer. But I'm also a console gamer, and I don't foresee myself giving that up either.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

There's no system requirements to check, there's no messing around in graphics settings, there's no compatibility issues with controller support. The games don't look as good and there's less variety, but sometimes that's a trade-off I'm willing to make.

Me too. It's why I like this.

 

[Kelthaz]

I don't like consoles, PCs, or handhelds. I like games. I find games that I want to play and then I buy the required systems to play those games. The idea of identifying yourself as a *insert system here* gamer is baffling to me.

 

[FPAlpha]

About the only drawback games wise is that they lack good strategy games.. the only one i know of and play regularly is XCom and it works because it's turn based.

So far every RTS type strategy game really sucked and the PC still rules that genre (even if it lost much of its market share in recent years).

But action games of any kind are just far more comfortable on a console and as has already been said much less hassle.

 

[RoJoHen]

I don't like consoles, PCs, or handhelds. I like games. I find games that I want to play and then I buy the required systems to play those games. The idea of identifying yourself as a *insert system here* gamer is baffling to me.

I don't like PC gaming because I don't like sitting at a desk when I'm playing a game. I don't like XBOX because I think the controller is an awkward shape.

Therefore, I am a Playstation gamer.

 

[TheGodBen]

But action games of any kind are just far more comfortable on a console

That's how I feel too. For action games, I just want to slump in my chair with my feet up, staring at a big screen, while my hands are using a controller. For strategy and simulation games, I want to sit up straight at my desk and keep a close eye on everything. I know I could technically do both with my PC, but it's just easier to to have a PC and a console.

 

[JarodRussell]

I can't stand first person shooters on consoles though. Mouse and keyboard is far more efficient there.

And I would play games like GTA V on a console if I didn't know how much the graphics sucked on the PS3 compared to a current PC.

Good thing I haven't seen one of the Assassin's Creeds on PC. And I better never take a look at it.

 

[TheGodBen]

And I would play games like GTA V on a console if I didn't know how much the graphics sucked on the PS3 compared to a current PC.

But GTA5 shows yet another advantage of consoles; the best-selling game this year, and one of the best-selling of all time, isn't out on PC yet. It's pretty common for PC versions of games to come out weeks or months later than the console versions, and they're also typically ports that are unoptimised and buggier than the console versions. So yes, when the PC version of GTA5 comes out it will look much better, but it's late and you're going to need a beefy machine to run it (if it's anything like the GTA4 PC port).

The console versions don't look as nice, but console games typically receive more attention from developers and come out sooner. It's a trade-off that I'm willing to make for many games.

 

[JarodRussell]

And I would play games like GTA V on a console if I didn't know how much the graphics sucked on the PS3 compared to a current PC.

But GTA5 shows yet another advantage of consoles; the best-selling game this year, and one of the best-selling of all time, isn't out on PC yet. It's pretty common for PC versions of games to come out weeks or months later than the console versions, and they're also typically ports that are unoptimised and buggier than the console versions. So yes, when the PC version of GTA5 comes out it will look much better, but it's late and you're going to need a beefy machine to run it (if it's anything like the GTA4 PC port).

The console versions don't look as nice, but console games typically receive more attention from developers and come out sooner. It's a trade-off that I'm willing to make for many games.

The wait doesn't really bother me, because I usually wait a year before I buy a game, no matter if console or PC. I saved 100-120 bucks on Assassin's Creed 3 that way, and I got the complete and patched game at once.