Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft XBox (Games) Games

Xbox One Game Streaming Service Project xCloud Goes Public in October (polygon.com) 20

Microsoft's Xbox One game streaming service, Project xCloud, will get a public preview test in October, letting select testers play games like Gears 5 and Halo 5: Guardians on phones and tablets. From a report: The public preview of Project xCloud will initially be limited to players in the United States, United Kingdom, and Korea. Halo 5: Guardians, Gears 5, Killer Instinct, and Sea of Thieves will be playable as part of the preview, and Microsoft says it will add more titles over time. Testers won't need to own the Xbox One games available during the Project xCloud preview in order to play them. Players interested in taking part in the Project xCloud public preview can register for the closed beta based on their country. Microsoft says it will roll out invitations in a phased approach, starting with a "small number of participants," and opening it up to more players over time. Project xCloud's public preview test will initially be limited to Android devices running Android 6.0 or higher with Bluetooth 4.0. Participants will also need a Microsoft account and a Bluetooth-enabled Xbox One wireless controller. Project xCloud will be compatible with WiFi and cellular networks, and Microsoft says it's working with a number of cellular providers worldwide: SK Telecom in Korea, T-Mobile in the U.S., and Vodafone in the U.K.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Xbox One Game Streaming Service Project xCloud Goes Public in October

Comments Filter:
  • Touchscreens suck for gaming - how am I supposed to compete with a Gears 5 player playing using a controller and...

    Participants will also need a Microsoft account and a Bluetooth-enabled Xbox One wireless controller.

    Never mind...
    If successful this is going to be a radical shift though. I still don't think that high twitch/action games requiring input to a central server then a render command then a stream back to the display is going to work as well as having the console RIGHT THERE. But you effectively have that problem with multiplayer games anyway so maybe that's a moot point.

  • *signs up for service with company clearly going to financially rape you*

    I know... I will just call someone in government to solve my problem!

    The story of the average, weak, impulse based, American consumer. Because going without to get businesses to change is just "out of the question".

    A fool and their money are soon parted.

    • I don't get it. How are they financially raping you? My guess is this will be cheaper than buying games for a lot of people.

      • They made him buy loot boxes so he could look cool in Fortnight?
        • yea, that goes into my people getting congress critters to legislate game mechanics.

          It's just another sign of how weak people are. As long as they are advertising the truth about the chances on the loot boxes I don't care. People just need to control their children better and if an adult wants to blow all of his cash on stupid shit like that you cannot save these kinds of people they have to fall on their face to get the message. Meanwhile we take all sorts of steps to insulate people from their problems

      • Itâ(TM)s all a scam. Canâ(TM)t pay? Lose everything. Donâ(TM)t agree to changes in the tos? Lose everything. Donâ(TM)t agree to changes to the privacy policy? Lose everything. Donâ(TM)t agree to future price increases? Lose everything.
      • The raping usually comes after the lock in or some form of monopolization of it. Take a look at the current butt hurt gamers are having over the Modern Warfare exclusive with PS4 for 1 year.

        The financial raping comes from all the people that have pre-purchased the game only for their money to be held hostage if they don't also go and buy a copy for the ps4 to play it and possibly a PS4 console it requires to operate plus any necessary subscription fees to fully play the game.

        It just takes enough willpower,

      • I don't get it. How are they financially raping you? My guess is this will be cheaper than buying games for a lot of people.

        In 100% complete isolation, where it's essentially a Netflix-like ability to rent games that are also available for purchase, which are then playable on one's own hardware with nothing but subscription checks, then you're right. It's probably fine.

        But I have exactly 0% trust in that being the case.

        We are talking about a group of companies for whom a $60 retail price just isn't enough anymore. We have 'games' with multiple special editions, DLC, season passes, loot boxes, microtransactions, rather than just

        • "The instant it takes off, you'll have subscription-only titles. Then, you'll have nested subscriptions - to play a new Fallout, you'll have to subscribe to Bethesda Unlimited, *and* xCloud, which of course only works if you have XBL already...and you'll *still* end up with DLC, season passes, and microtransactions."
           
          Doesn't that happen already? I am not a gamer, but doesn't MS already have all this nested subscriptions?

    • The devil is in the details. IF comcast, my only local choice for internet, didn't suck, then this would be intriguing. I'd pay a monthly fee to instantly rent games, particularly if they worked on a portable device, like my switch. I'd pay monthly for a better gaming experience on simpler hardware. I am skeptical this won't suck, but I am sure it can be done by rendering some on the server and some on the client if you had a fast enough connection.

      Doubts aside, rape is pretty hyperbolic. If this su
      • It may provide a promising new model for playing games and inspire your local ISP to improve your bandwidth

        Of course, the ISP can improve the instantaneous bandwidth, for a price.

        hoping to get in on the action

        They want to get in on the revenue. ISPs can impose a surcharge on both ends of the connection to be routed over a link not affected by congestion by choice [slashdot.org]. And a captured [wikipedia.org] FCC led by a former Verizon lawyer will let them.

        • But that is created by the BS logic that considers ISP's to be natural monoplies. It was a lie back then and still remains a lie now. But it sure does keep the FCC in business and the revolving doors between the industry and regulators well greased and spinning fast.

          We don't need regulators... that is the first fallacy. There needs to only be laws... and when they break them... people get criminally prosecuted. No fines, companies just bill customers for them, government & lawyers are enriched inste

          • But that is created by the BS logic that considers ISP's to be natural monoplies. It was a lie back then and still remains a lie now.

            A competing ISP building out a parallel physical layer would probably have to tear up and rebuild roads. As the owner of roads, a city indeed has some measure of monopoly on that. Some anarcho-capitalists want to solve this by transferring ownership of roads into private hands[1] and then presumably negotiating with each individual landowner to bury cable under his, her, or their property. I don't see how that's practical. Perhaps a more politically viable workaround to the city's monopoly on tearing up its

    • by Njovich ( 553857 )

      Not sure what the price point will be, but I don't think the $10 or so per month is going to bankrupt you.

  • Say hello to >200ms input lag.

  • What kind of dumb bullshit it that.

    What would I have any devices that run android?

"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."

Working...