Leaked Document Hints At Augmented Reality Glasses For Future Xbox

An anonymous reader writes "A 56-page leaked document details Microsoft's plans to build a Project Glass competitor. Kinect Glasses is marked as a 2014 project designed to connect to a future Xbox 720 console. The document also includes potential pricing for the next Xbox — $299 with a Kinect 2."

Comments

Re:Old Product Roadmap?

[mister2au]

Try again with formatting !

Seems interesting but worth remembering this is on old product roadmap from August 2010 which broadly outlines:
2011 - TV App for Xbox 360
2012 - Pay TV App for Xbox 360
2013 - Xbox 720 & Kinect V2
2014 - Glasses (WiFi / Living Room)
2015 - Glasses (Mobile)

Seems like a useful product for gaming input, potentially 3D display in glasses & maybe augmented reality for say PvP in room rather then on-screen. The mobile glasses concept seems a bit ambitious but it was a 5-yr roadmap

I'd read this as a head-mounted display, mic & headphones etc .. interesting but not revolutionary ... And may be completely out of date too ????

Had this gameplay as a kid

[houghi]

As a kid, we already had Augmented Reality in game-play.

We played soldiers, cowboys and Indians and any other game.
OK, instead of a 17 button game console controller, we used a stick and instead of Augmented Reality Glasses we used our imagination, but still.

Now get of my lawn.

Re:Bye bye Sony

[Anonymous Coward]

How many months was Xbox Live inactive for? How much personal information did Microsoft make available to malicious parties?

Is Xbox Live mandatory or an optional extra?

Re:Bye bye Sony

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Being a loss leader doesn't require a monopoly, only lots of money.

Re:Competitor?

[Haxagon]

Actually, these documents are years old-- before Project Glass was ever revealed. You should RTFPowerpoint before thinking this is some kind of knee-jerk reaction to Google.

Re:Bye bye Sony

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like playing online. Fuck online, I want to play split-screen with my friends. A close friend at EA has told me that split-screen is being phased out of new titles because online is more profitable - it helps kill the 2nd hand game market, which is one of EA's strategic goals.

My bad:

http://www.cracked.com/article_16196_the-7-commandments-all-video-games-should-obey.html

Thou shalt let us play your game with real-life friends.

Violators:
Grand Theft Auto IV, MotorStorm, Shadowrun, etc.

Quick, tell us what the following games all have in common. We'll give you a hint, one thing is that they were all among the top 10 most popular games of 2007:

Wii Sports
Wii Play
Guitar Hero III
Super Mario Galaxy
Madden NFL 08
Guitar Hero II
Mario Party 8

But what else? If you answered, "None of them contain male frontal nudity" then, well, you haven't gotten the 122nd star in Mario Galaxy. If you said that these games all have multiplayer that's intended to be played with friends in the same room, you're right.

Likewise, what's at the top of sales in 2008? Smash Bros. Brawl.

The advantage that consoles have over, say, PCs, is that you can play from your comfy sofa. The reason the sofa is considered the pinnacle of furniture technology is because there's room for other people on it.

Yet, here's Grand Theft Auto IV, boasting about its robust multiplayer, and if you think "multiplayer" means inviting the gang over to play, get drunk, laugh and high-five each other until the break of dawn, too bad. You can't do that. Want to play with friends, they must be kept at arm's length, faceless at the other end of a broadband connection. Grand Theft Auto IV multiplayer is a world without hugs.

They'll say that GTA IV's vast open world makes split-screen impossible. OK, what about MotorStorm? It's a goddamned racing game, and they won't let you play a real-life friend on a split screen. A racing game.

Sorry, you know damned well that technical limitations aren't the reason everyone is dropping split screen. Every previous generation had it, in times with much less powerful systems and few widescreen TVs.

You're dropping it because four players on a split screen are playing off one $60 copy of the game. Four players playing online need four copies ($240).

And these are the same people who're baffled about how the Nintendo Wii was able to depants the whole industry with its cheap, underpowered little machine. Hey, maybe it's because they're the one company that still seems to realize humans need interaction with other humans. Real interaction, not trash talking over a headset behind fake names.

By the way, some of you are scratching your heads about having the obviously single-player Mario Galaxy up there on the list. Well, it turns out Nintendo included an option so that at any moment, a friend can pick up the second controller and, with the pointer, help the first player collect items and shoot at enemies. It's a small thing, but it means a guy can get his girlfriend in on the action and cut off her complaints that his gaming is taking away from his time with her.

So when she comes over, do you think he's going to put on his GTA IV headset, or pop in Mario Galaxy? Here's a hint: The second choice gets him closer to touching boob.

Re:Except you had absolutely nothing similar

[YttriumOxide]

I was tempted to mod this interesting (because it is, although I disagree), but then thought I'd rather reply with my disagreement instead.

If you're talking only the child's own imagination, you're right. However in the real world of imaginary play that the GP was referring to, children play with other children. The "story" is being told by all participants actively, and each can be considered the "artist".
Each child experiences what the others convey from their imagination through their actions; and then combines that with their own imagination in to the actions they then perform. I don't see this as being that different from your author as artist scenario (other than being significantly more active).

I'd also have to disagree with your statement "Everyone gets the experience just as intended by the artist ". I'd say everyone gets to experience something of what the artist was able to convey to them; and not necessarily what the artist intended. How often do you find yourself or someone else has read something and failed to comprehend the author's intention? As someone who (unfortunately) has to produce documentation from time to time, I'm well aware of misunderstandings of my own written text. The people reading my text certainly did not "get the experience as intended by the artist" but only the experience I was able to successfully convey to them.

Re:Competitor?

[exomondo]

Can't we just be grateful that Microsoft shills continue to post on /. so that we can all have something to bitch about?

Microsoft shills? Wow, now even someone confusing Smart Glass with Project Glass is called a Microsoft shill...getting a bit ridiculous now aren't we?