Hacker News Reader

Comment by unphasable | Hacker News Reader

Too bad this future will be an afterthought now that the Kinect is not included with every system. Most devs will certainly prefer the 8% increase in processing power by disabling kinect in their game as opposed to adding a kinect feature that only some users might be able to enjoy.

The future of kinect is now going to be carried out on PC, can't wait to see what people cook up with the v2.

Kinect + Leap Motion + Oculus + Control VR gloves. This set up could deliver some serious immersion, at least in the aspect of accurately bringing the user's hands into a virtual space.

View on HN

A buddy of mine is looking to work with the rift + body sensors to develop training / therapy simulations that incorporate biofeedback. They are not a gaming company so if anyone happens to be interested in something like this feel free to get in touch with them at redkiteproject.com

I know of several companies that are already doing that, for example I know the founders of this one:

http://www.doctor-rehab.com/

They're already on clinical trials.

This is more emotional / therapeutic stuff, but thanks for the cool link.

Ahh, I hadn't thought of that angle :).

Kinect is a really cool enabling technology, I've seen several interesting applications, and I'm sure there are a lot more.

I guess Rift is going to do the same.

I thought Kinect had about 30% of an Xbox One's processing power reserved for it?

I think that's for the whole OS and UI that runs constantly in the background or on the side of the screen. The kinect only takes up part of that.

The OS takes 30 percent of the processing power with a game running? That's crazy if true. It would show how silly the whole idea of "one OS everywhere" really is. It would be much better to have a more stripped down OS that just does the basics and gets you inside a game, and then gets out of the way, instead.

But this shows once again the conflictual nature of Microsoft's two strategies with the Xbox One. It's like the gaming part is more of an afterthought, and what they really want is for Xbox to become everyone's streaming box - a $400 streaming box.

This notion of "one OS everywhere" is what we'll get us a Windows 8 smartwatch with 2GB of RAM and a Celeron processor - because who wouldn't want that?!

But this shows once again the conflictual nature of Microsoft's two strategies with the Xbox One. It's like the gaming part is more of an afterthought, and what they really want is for Xbox to become everyone's streaming box - a $400 streaming box.

For now. But they also have a perfectly capable $179 streaming box that blows e.g. the Apple TV out of the water performance-wise and has a large number of popular game titles.

The XBox One is apparently popular enough to sell a couple of million devices (roughly in the same ballpark as most other streaming boxes) and packs enough punch to gently go from $400 to the 360's price point.

What I wonder about is what's in it for Microsoft. First of all, the music + movie + some apps market is much larger than the hard core gamer's market. And they make it awfully hard for people to buy into their ecosystem. A $50 streaming box would make that Windows Phone (which cannot stream to Apple TV or Chromecast) much more interesting for a lot of people than having to buy a game console for streaming.

> What I wonder about is what's in it for Microsoft.

I've always thought of video games for Microsoft as a vanity project in the same way family sedan car companies build supercars. It provides a high-performance focal point for development that trickles down useful technologies everywhere else in the manufacturing process.

DirectX, for example, probably wouldn't have ever happened if Microsoft just cared about making office productivity software.

> The OS takes 30 percent of the processing power with a game running? That's crazy if true. It would show how silly the whole idea of "one OS everywhere" really is. It would be much better to have a more stripped down OS that just does the basics and gets you inside a game, and then gets out of the way, instead.

Isn't that 30% made to take care of the social features, like "sharing a clip of the last frag I just achieved" in a FPS or something like that ? If you want to have these advanced features, you need a number of tasks to run in the background and I would not be surprised by the 30% CPU time.

I don't know what the breakdown is (what number of cores goers to OS,number of cores for the games), the the Xbox One has a rather low performance 8-core AMD unit; the cores are provisioned amongst the OS and games as needed.

Since the CPU is low performance, the OS could easily eat 50% of its total performance, leaving scant little for games.

It'd be interesting to know the figures for the PS4 - whether the OS has a significant footprint or not when games are running. Is there any source for the PS4 available anywhere?

It's not just the social stuff - from my understanding it's running a modified Hyper-V to capture the core console OS. Presumably this segregates off the ability to do background downloads, implement the encryption for HDMI, and so on and so forth from the XBox gaming portion.

If you believe the rumours Dave Cutler worked on the hypervisor of the Xbox.

Kinect had 10% of the GPU bandwidth reserved for it: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/06/microsoft-software-upd...

Meanwhile, the OS on an Xbox One eats 3Gb of RAM, even when games are running: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/07/report-os-overhead-tak...

PS4 has a similar memory overhead for the OS.

Modern consoles are nothing like the old-school ones where once a game was running it had nigh on total control of the underlying hardware.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com