Old Microsoft Patent Suddenly Makes Sense. o.O

[Jfswift]

Are the factors 'low market penetration' and 'optional use' going to affect the Xbox One too? I mean, it's not selling great and the Kinect 2.0 or whatever it's called is optional too. Also, what were they going to do with it- make it so that only 3 people could watch the game or something? How would that benefit Microsoft in any way?

I think you are misunderstanding what Microsoft means by optional? What they mean is you don't actually have to use it to control the system. You don't have to talk at it or wave your arms at it. But in order for the system to work. To boot up. It has to be there. And if its there it will be listening and watching.

I wonder if you can just throw a blanket over the kineck? Will the Xbox not turn on if it can't see?

 

[Something Amyss]

The gist of it was that Microsoft filed for a patent that, though not mentioning the Kinect by name, spoke of using a camera- one capable of separating individuals from the background- to determine how many people were consuming the content, as it were, such as a pay per view fight.

Which makes as much sense now as it did then. I don't get the title.

 

[SeventhSigil]

The gist of it was that Microsoft filed for a patent that, though not mentioning the Kinect by name, spoke of using a camera- one capable of separating individuals from the background- to determine how many people were consuming the content, as it were, such as a pay per view fight.

Which makes as much sense now as it did then. I don't get the title.

xDD That was a bit vague, yes. I mean that when I first read the article last year, one of the first things that had popped into my head was that, at the time, the Kinect wasn't really a wide-spread peripheral, and its sales had kind of sputtered. So even if such a patent was filed, it wouldn't have had that much reach relating to a product that nobody seemed terribly interested in getting, and the same applied to just designing a similar camera-based feature. What else could you design for a television that had a smart camera designed to essentially monitor you? How could you convince people to buy it in the first place? In the end, basically dismissed it as a patent that Microsoft had filed for some uncertain, 'what-if' future, since there didn't seem any way they could really take advantage of it.

It wasn't until recently, where I've seen more than a few threads in another forum asking either why the Kinect is being sold mandatory (which could be explained as 'to offer a sizable install base to tempt developers, admittedly') and/or why there isn't even the option of physically disconnecting it while using the console (the closest idea, true or false, being 'because the controller's wireless receivers are in there,' which wouldn't explain why it was built that way to begin with,) that my memory got jogged about the article. It just hadn't occurred to me, a year ago, that MS would essentially foist the device on people.

In essence, a patented process for a device that wasn't widely purchased suddenly looks a lot more feasible when the device in question is instead packaged with a more desirable item, such as a game console. Considering some of Microsoft's officials were prattling about how they anticipated the entertainment features would 'double the potential market,' and were predicting one billion sold next-gen consoles, across all three available brands, during the generation, (these statements being made before the console's reputation started to sort of, er, stagger,) then it begs the question of what happens if, despite the past few weeks of Microsoft-y drama, the X1 DOES end up becoming a wide-spread device, even if purchased as an 'entertainment platform' more than anything else.

 

[faefrost]

Are the factors 'low market penetration' and 'optional use' going to affect the Xbox One too? I mean, it's not selling great and the Kinect 2.0 or whatever it's called is optional too. Also, what were they going to do with it- make it so that only 3 people could watch the game or something? How would that benefit Microsoft in any way?

I think you are misunderstanding what Microsoft means by optional? What they mean is you don't actually have to use it to control the system. You don't have to talk at it or wave your arms at it. But in order for the system to work. To boot up. It has to be there. And if its there it will be listening and watching.

I wonder if you can just throw a blanket over the kineck? Will the Xbox not turn on if it can't see?

My suspicion is you will get a rash of calibration errors. "Please Move Couch" to quote "Frances"

 

[Something Amyss]

I mean that when I first read the article last year, one of the first things that had popped into my head was that, at the time, the Kinect wasn't really a wide-spread peripheral, and its sales had kind of sputtered.

Touché. That makes more sense. Although they may have been hoping for a more ubiquitous reception, as it was filed originally only a couple months after Kinect's launch. Although it describes features that may fit Kinect 2.0 better. Then again, it also talks about wireless transmission and mobile devices, so I don't know.

 

[SeventhSigil]

I mean that when I first read the article last year, one of the first things that had popped into my head was that, at the time, the Kinect wasn't really a wide-spread peripheral, and its sales had kind of sputtered.

Touché. That makes more sense. Although they may have been hoping for a more ubiquitous reception, as it was filed originally only a couple months after Kinect's launch. Although it describes features that may fit Kinect 2.0 better. Then again, it also talks about wireless transmission and mobile devices, so I don't know.

Aye, true. However, there is also the matter of the timing; the Kinect was launched in 2010, but the patent wasn't even filed til 2011, much less finalized until 2012. It seems odd that they wouldn't have considered this application during development, although it could be argued that the device's initial success in the half-year or so after launch, with three quarters of a million sold during Black Friday 2011, made them consider more widespread applications.

On the other hand, 2012 was the time that rumors and news about the Xbox One, then codenamed Durango, began to filter from the woodwork, suggesting that developers were getting prototype dev kits to work on, so clearly development of the newest console was puttering along quite nicely by this point. If they had begun to consider such applications of the Kinect beforehand, and in designing a console, a year isn't too large a gap from conceptualization to research to prototype construction, and then realized that the key would be to make sure it was suitably widespread throughout their market to actually enforce any such policies...

Well, think about the 24 hour check-in. It was supposed to check in with home base, so to speak, and help fight piracy. Might not have just been game piracy.

Eh. In all honesty, the problem with this sort of stuff is that you can come up with a number of legitimate surface reasons (one person pointed out to be that such a technology would be useful in a home product using pay per view, to prevent a bar from hooking it up to the TV for Fight Night, as apparently bars are expected to pay through the nose for the service, and this would theoretically prevent them from abusing it,) and a number of somewhat less cheery ones. But both the nefarious and the understandable ones have holes. The bar scenario, for example, not taking into account that a suitably determined businessman could find ways around the Kinect, even if it means turning it the other way, and having one guy paid to sit in front of like the 'proper audience.' Or that such restrictions would theoretically apply to a large Superbowl party in a frathouse just like they would a crowded bar.

It could be said the mention of wireless transmission and mobile devices means they weren't considering the Kinect; it could mean they were thinking of extending it to other devices or applications as well as the Kinect; it could just be a smokescreen to conceal any intentions they had, as spelling out 'It's For The Kinect' would be a terrible idea. Unless the patent is actually used, and content becomes moderated in this way, we'll probably never know for sure. xP It is enough, however, to convince me not to get an X1, at least as nothing but an Exclusive-Only platform down the line.