I'd rather the ability to run Xbox games directly on my PC. Heck, it's a fairly generic x86 box these days, and my PC is significantly more powerful. I'd even be okay with requiring a special USB licencing dongle for DRM purposes if they're worried about piracy.
This sounds awful. I really don't want my PC to be an Xbox. I want mouse/keyboard support, higher resolution, ultra wide aspect ratios, etc. If no port is required then developers and publishers will just get lazy and PCs would largely loose many of its best features.
You're not going to get any of that stuff with this streaming method either. There's also nothing stopping the PC "emulation" layer from bumping up the resolution.
I agree that a native port would be more useful, but many games are console exclusive (and many ports just suck). I'd rather have the option to play the console game on my PC than not be able to play it at all.
If Microsoft bundled Windows 10 with a super-locked-down Xbox One VM, it would probably boost uptake significantly. The XP and 7 gaming holdouts would have a solid (and easily communicated, try explaining why Windows 8 is a better platform for VR due to its different compositor sometime) incentive up upgrade, and the knock-on effect of technically savvy children pestering parents to upgrade who would normally be ignorant of, or indifferent to, new OS releases.
Technically it'd be just as tricky as any other emulator though. The XB1's little chunk of on-die memory in addition to the casually shared pool of GPU/CPU RAM is going to be tricky to replicate with a PC's split pools linked via PCI-E. And you can be sure developers are using architecture quirks and timing tricks just as heavily as previous generations.
Agreed. That doesn't even take into account the Tensilica DSPs or the other custom hardware, such as the four Move engines.
Yet it's still probably easier to emulate with 100% precision than a Saturn. :D Even Yabause isn't perfect. Thankfully they built Saturns really solid, mine still works.
I'd like that too, but this is still cool. Obviously it would be nice to be able to go the OTHER way too, PC to Xbox!
Regarding the notebook comments in the article, well SOME notebooks run games fantastically, just unfortunately people keep buying low end stuff (although even there they'll often run a lot).
Wolfpup, are you inferring laptops unable to 'run current, AAA games' @ 60fps consistently is 'low end stuff?' Those that 'run a lot' actually are quite bad ass machines. With the addition of HiDPI displays, Intel's dedication to the iGPU, PCIe SSD storage options approaching 2Gb/s read/write speeds, all in a package that weighs less than two, three or four pounds. Lasts 'all day', objectively (proven) and damn well pay the bills 'faster' if you're using it as your business partner! Those laptops you're inferring as being low end and expensive (usually) sport a reason for the expense. Most of us outgrow PC gaming, or if we don't, build a home rig/pre-packaged gaming machine. Laptops used to 'make money' hardly need the ability to whack zombies at 203fps ( on a display that's refreshing 60x a second. Doesn't make sense does it? --- oh, yeah '4K' which incidentally 'plays back' much better on a Quadro GPU but the zombies will 'get ya' if you're gaming) or last 48 minutes while doing so Gaming rigs are STILL (for the most part) very heavy --- Razer & boutique/unique companies aside (as well as Lesser throttling) --- they're 8, 10, 12 --- 15 pounds if you're carrying your wall wart to the LAN party! Make it twenty, you've got the case and Red Bull;) BUT, if you're paying your mortgage with your laptop, those expensive, low end computers are fascinating. I'm ambidextrous, use both OSes daily, OS X 10.10 and Windows 8.1. I enjoy both but stranded on the island...OS X, for sure. That said, regardless of the OS, excellent and well priced models do exist. Dell's new XPS or the MacBook line up, from Air to Pro --- not a single one that can give me 60fps of 'Witcher 3 Fun' on a > 4K display in native resolution. But it's irrelevant because it absolutely CAN edit my 4K video in speed demon mode with disc access (R/W), After Effects is a joy, as is many dozen layer, high resolution still shot manipulation in Photoshop. The games that you're enjoying are incredibly enjoyable to code on a display that doesn't blow your eyes out in two hours, enjoys day long vacations from 110v and actually 'gets things done'. Gaming is such a niche market these days. I hope it sticks around but I've not donated since picking up my 3DFX Voodoo GPU for my Pentium 233MHz rig. Consoles are fine if I get the itch and unbelievably, my iMacs, MacBook Pro, even my wife's 11" MBA actually 'play' the games we enjoy. Of course, at 44 years old...they measure my faves in megabytes. And even cooler, many of the great titles have been given new life on mobile (iOS, Android, Win Phone, et al). Honestly at $1, $2, 5, even $10 a game on my iPad ...I enjoy gaming even more than I did when arcades were how you 'gamed!' Short, quick sessions. Long, extended mission oriented games that allow cloud saving and immediate return to where you left off. Even earlier mentioned productivity aspects like media creation and writing, enjoying media and social media. Checking email, Twitter or compiling spreadsheets. All doable on a single pound device that again, 'lasts all day'.
Most peeps the world over are FLAT FLOORED by the performance of 'current gen' (hate the continued use of 'next get' ...should be like the Xbox 2 and PSV, right? Anyways.....) consoles. Especially if you've been playing on last gen's gear. 360, PS3 or the Wii. The XB1/PS4 are extraordinary devices and fly when playing games. I've seen the screen shots. The 'comp shots' between computer and the two systems but NO ONE is looking at the terrain closely enough to EVER notice the extra leaf, passing shadow or water ripple. Not sure why I'm laying in to you but you should know, I'm no longer a real 'gamer'. I've got to go to work, raise my kids, pay the bills and most importantly, not piss my wife off having a Falcon NW, $9,000 gaming computer showing up at the front door. I hate to admit all of this as I enjoyed gaming as a kid with my Apple IIe, early 80s and it 'schooled' the '2600' IMHO. Playing Microsoft Flight Sim in fact, before 'Windows' and on an Apple lol. Times. They change. But to consider ...and I'm sure there's examples of the low life, crap shoot boutique computers But the mainline of computer sales is essentially 'get what you pay for'. You may put more stock into gaming. So the Titan is for you. For 99% of folks, the latest iGPU Iris Pro possibly --- possibly with a dGPU sidekick with 2-4GB of VRAM & the PCIe solid state wicked fast storage is going to BLOW them away MUCH faster than adding another ten frames per second in Doom, Quake or Witcher 3. The speed of the computer 'waking up' and being ready. Just booting to life. Shutting down, installing software updates (it's a hoot to see the speed of the unzipped 350mb Office update installs!) --- multi tasking and changing between apps, the TRUE definition of 'speed' to gen pop's perception is literally ALL in the storage. Sandy, Ivy, Haswell and Broadwell are nearly the same 'speeds' with not a whole lot of increase necessary. They're focus has been in the GPU circuitry as well, the second MOST important buying decision, efficiency. My 2012 15" MacBook Pro gets about four hours off AC if I'm working ...seven if I'm just casually browsing or letting it rest My 2014, easily seven hours of 'real work' on the same machine. 9-10 hours in the background. Add 50% and you've got the MacBook Air. With the fastest available storage available in a ultrabook, two pounds and up to 15 hours of use, what's not to like? Step up for a hundred more bucks configured identically, you can buy the retina MacBook Pro, the 13". Just examples of I'm sure your idea of overpriced, underpowered. But honestly the LAST thing I want to own is another ten pound laptop with two hour battery life. No thanks. Game mobile on your phone or tab. Game at home on your console or desktop. Laptops today are faster than anything you could buy just five years ago, MUCH faster, with better everything. Including comparing laptops of today to the desktop of yesterday. But again, you get what you pay for in most cases. We've all got different desires, but for the masses, those high prices on the low end gear that lasts and lasts and lasts....and actually SLAMS performance wise, is supported by amazing peeps and weighs in at just a couple of pounds. That's. Sweet.
I'd bet most folks ...even those of us here, would be JUST fine on the new core M processor ...the 4.5watt Intel chip in more and more laptops, including a fanless two pound 4K MacBook (with balding fast storage and a display that will bend your mind!)
I want to see it stream games the other way around.. Stream Games from my PC to my xbox. That way i get the best of both worlds.. Better Graphics, Wireless Controller with rumble, better frame rates.
"So they are not the first, but one of the nice things about streaming from the Xbox to a PC is that, especially these days, most PCs are not capable of running games."
This is one of the most depressing things I've read all day. While I understand the movement to 'good enough' and in fact herald it, I feel we have gone too far. Two year old hardware sold at the $300 price point shouldn't be more powerful than a new $400 - $500 dollar laptop.
Very, VERY rare to find one rant does. Haswell just dropped their laptop 'performance' processors. Ya know, the 35-45 watt silicon? Even the dGPUs are significantly more efficient (& less powerful because of TDP) tan their desktop brethren. Same, 25-40 watt dGPUs. I think the big ones, the 15/17" laptops currently on the market are realistically drawing half that, maybe 60%. I believe my 15" 2014 MacBook is pulling 90watts at full tilt in Compressor or Handbrake (more than the supplied brick can deliver though---I believe it's a 90watt, and thermally they're (Macs) well cooled for consistency and lack of thermal induced throttling) You're talking gaming rigs. 140watts for a full blown PC (assuming you're talking desktop, right?) won't post. That's just about enough to juice the mama board and CPU. Not graphics or HDD/SSD or modems, ports, radios or sound;) About 250/300 watts is as small a draw you'll see from today's low end or slight builds. But you're right. It's 'not much'. It makes me laugh seeing these 12, 14, 1600 watt power supplies!! That's nearing a dedicated 15amp circuit if you fill it with SLI or Crossfire graphics, extensive storage, CPU(s), etc. notebook draw power off the CPU and iGPU is down to 4.5watts. SSD storage is efficient, especially the 'NAND' or PCIe SSD solutions we're seeing now in the likes of the new Samsung S6 or Apple's new drives. They're kissing read/write (larger file transfers) speeds of 2,000Mb/s!! While eating less energy, more efficient and higher DPI/resolute displays --- 140 watt draw on a laptop built today is either A) a POS, B) gaming specific 10 pounder or C) Professional Workstation. All three of which mandate close proximity to an outlet.
I'm a little disappointed that Brett failed to compare the Xbox solution with Sony's efforts in streaming. Sony's been working on this since the days of the PS3/PSP streaming. Honestly, they didn't nail it until the PS4/PSVita, but now that they've got PS Now up and running, they've taken the idea of streaming to the next level.
I'm glad to see Microsoft catching up, though. Maybe this will push Sony to allow more than the Xperia mobile devices to connect to the PS3/4. Or, maybe it will get Sony to come up with a sequel to the PSVita.
Hopefully MS will do a better job. Sony's PS4/Vita streaming still isn't smooth and the picture is blurry. Even with direct connect, bypassing the wifi router.
Can't compare it to PS Now though, since it's still in beta for the EU Region.
That's definitely cool, though this seems cooler since you can do it with ANY PC, various screen sizes, a full Xbox controller, etc....but that's still very cool.
"I did ask about being able to stream games while someone else is using the Xbox for media (like Netflix or live TV) and unfortunately this is not going to be the case, at least not initially. It is basically mirroring the display on the Xbox to the PC, so the Xbox is well and truly tied up during any sessions." That quote to me is the crux of the streaming issue as it stands today. I currently use a PC as my primary gaming machine and media server. I play my games on the "big screen" with all the PC bells and whistles by simply connecting my PC to the TV itself. The primary TV is connected to a receiver with a decent surround sound system and subwoofer, which I wouldn't really want to game without. Casual gaming is all I really do on other devices, and even the NUC upstairs has the horsepower on its own to run those. Why you would want to stream a 3D game to another device, that fully locks the primary device is beyond me. Just use the primary device then. I've played around with Steam streaming a fair amount, and can play 3D games upstairs on the NUC, but that of course locks up the main PC downstairs as well. So I always ask myself, why wouldn't I just use the PC downstairs directly and also enjoy the improved experience from the surround sound system? I think this technology will only hit it's stride when the gaming aspect doesn't prevent you from using other functionality in the system. The situation that usually arises is, someone is watching a Blu-ray on the main TV (due again, to the surround system) but I would still like to game on the other system. As it stands now, that isn't possible. The Xbox sounds like it will have the identical issues. Xboxes are decent gaming machines and consumers seem to like to hook them up in living rooms as opposed to gaming PCs because of the reduced cost, appearance, and who knows. But again, the Xbox is usually located on the main TV with the best sound system typically. If someone is watching a Blu-ray on the main system and someone else wants to game somewhere else, you're still out of luck. So I'm not sure how useful this feature is going to be.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
17 Comments
Back to Article
Gigaplex - Thursday, April 30, 2015 - link
I'd rather the ability to run Xbox games directly on my PC. Heck, it's a fairly generic x86 box these days, and my PC is significantly more powerful. I'd even be okay with requiring a special USB licencing dongle for DRM purposes if they're worried about piracy.dalingrin - Thursday, April 30, 2015 - link
This sounds awful. I really don't want my PC to be an Xbox. I want mouse/keyboard support, higher resolution, ultra wide aspect ratios, etc. If no port is required then developers and publishers will just get lazy and PCs would largely loose many of its best features.Gigaplex - Thursday, April 30, 2015 - link
You're not going to get any of that stuff with this streaming method either. There's also nothing stopping the PC "emulation" layer from bumping up the resolution.I agree that a native port would be more useful, but many games are console exclusive (and many ports just suck). I'd rather have the option to play the console game on my PC than not be able to play it at all.
edzieba - Friday, May 1, 2015 - link
If Microsoft bundled Windows 10 with a super-locked-down Xbox One VM, it would probably boost uptake significantly. The XP and 7 gaming holdouts would have a solid (and easily communicated, try explaining why Windows 8 is a better platform for VR due to its different compositor sometime) incentive up upgrade, and the knock-on effect of technically savvy children pestering parents to upgrade who would normally be ignorant of, or indifferent to, new OS releases.Technically it'd be just as tricky as any other emulator though. The XB1's little chunk of on-die memory in addition to the casually shared pool of GPU/CPU RAM is going to be tricky to replicate with a PC's split pools linked via PCI-E. And you can be sure developers are using architecture quirks and timing tricks just as heavily as previous generations.
Alexvrb - Friday, May 1, 2015 - link
Agreed. That doesn't even take into account the Tensilica DSPs or the other custom hardware, such as the four Move engines.Yet it's still probably easier to emulate with 100% precision than a Saturn. :D Even Yabause isn't perfect. Thankfully they built Saturns really solid, mine still works.
Wolfpup - Thursday, May 7, 2015 - link
I love my Saturn. *sigh*Wolfpup - Thursday, May 7, 2015 - link
I'd like that too, but this is still cool. Obviously it would be nice to be able to go the OTHER way too, PC to Xbox!Regarding the notebook comments in the article, well SOME notebooks run games fantastically, just unfortunately people keep buying low end stuff (although even there they'll often run a lot).
akdj - Friday, June 12, 2015 - link
Wolfpup, are you inferring laptops unable to 'run current, AAA games' @ 60fps consistently is 'low end stuff?' Those that 'run a lot' actually are quite bad ass machines. With the addition of HiDPI displays, Intel's dedication to the iGPU, PCIe SSD storage options approaching 2Gb/s read/write speeds, all in a package that weighs less than two, three or four pounds. Lasts 'all day', objectively (proven) and damn well pay the bills 'faster' if you're using it as your business partner!Those laptops you're inferring as being low end and expensive (usually) sport a reason for the expense. Most of us outgrow PC gaming, or if we don't, build a home rig/pre-packaged gaming machine. Laptops used to 'make money' hardly need the ability to whack zombies at 203fps ( on a display that's refreshing 60x a second. Doesn't make sense does it? --- oh, yeah '4K' which incidentally 'plays back' much better on a Quadro GPU but the zombies will 'get ya' if you're gaming) or last 48 minutes while doing so
Gaming rigs are STILL (for the most part) very heavy --- Razer & boutique/unique companies aside (as well as Lesser throttling) --- they're 8, 10, 12 --- 15 pounds if you're carrying your wall wart to the LAN party! Make it twenty, you've got the case and Red Bull;)
BUT, if you're paying your mortgage with your laptop, those expensive, low end computers are fascinating. I'm ambidextrous, use both OSes daily, OS X 10.10 and Windows 8.1. I enjoy both but stranded on the island...OS X, for sure. That said, regardless of the OS, excellent and well priced models do exist. Dell's new XPS or the MacBook line up, from Air to Pro --- not a single one that can give me 60fps of 'Witcher 3 Fun' on a > 4K display in native resolution. But it's irrelevant because it absolutely CAN edit my 4K video in speed demon mode with disc access (R/W), After Effects is a joy, as is many dozen layer, high resolution still shot manipulation in Photoshop. The games that you're enjoying are incredibly enjoyable to code on a display that doesn't blow your eyes out in two hours, enjoys day long vacations from 110v and actually 'gets things done'.
Gaming is such a niche market these days. I hope it sticks around but I've not donated since picking up my 3DFX Voodoo GPU for my Pentium 233MHz rig. Consoles are fine if I get the itch and unbelievably, my iMacs, MacBook Pro, even my wife's 11" MBA actually 'play' the games we enjoy. Of course, at 44 years old...they measure my faves in megabytes. And even cooler, many of the great titles have been given new life on mobile (iOS, Android, Win Phone, et al).
Honestly at $1, $2, 5, even $10 a game on my iPad ...I enjoy gaming even more than I did when arcades were how you 'gamed!' Short, quick sessions. Long, extended mission oriented games that allow cloud saving and immediate return to where you left off. Even earlier mentioned productivity aspects like media creation and writing, enjoying media and social media. Checking email, Twitter or compiling spreadsheets. All doable on a single pound device that again, 'lasts all day'.
Most peeps the world over are FLAT FLOORED by the performance of 'current gen' (hate the continued use of 'next get' ...should be like the Xbox 2 and PSV, right? Anyways.....) consoles. Especially if you've been playing on last gen's gear. 360, PS3 or the Wii. The XB1/PS4 are extraordinary devices and fly when playing games. I've seen the screen shots. The 'comp shots' between computer and the two systems but NO ONE is looking at the terrain closely enough to EVER notice the extra leaf, passing shadow or water ripple.
Not sure why I'm laying in to you but you should know, I'm no longer a real 'gamer'. I've got to go to work, raise my kids, pay the bills and most importantly, not piss my wife off having a Falcon NW, $9,000 gaming computer showing up at the front door. I hate to admit all of this as I enjoyed gaming as a kid with my Apple IIe, early 80s and it 'schooled' the '2600' IMHO. Playing Microsoft Flight Sim in fact, before 'Windows' and on an Apple lol. Times. They change. But to consider ...and I'm sure there's examples of the low life, crap shoot boutique computers
But the mainline of computer sales is essentially 'get what you pay for'. You may put more stock into gaming. So the Titan is for you. For 99% of folks, the latest iGPU Iris Pro possibly --- possibly with a dGPU sidekick with 2-4GB of VRAM & the PCIe solid state wicked fast storage is going to BLOW them away MUCH faster than adding another ten frames per second in Doom, Quake or Witcher 3. The speed of the computer 'waking up' and being ready. Just booting to life. Shutting down, installing software updates (it's a hoot to see the speed of the unzipped 350mb Office update installs!) --- multi tasking and changing between apps, the TRUE definition of 'speed' to gen pop's perception is literally ALL in the storage. Sandy, Ivy, Haswell and Broadwell are nearly the same 'speeds' with not a whole lot of increase necessary. They're focus has been in the GPU circuitry as well, the second MOST important buying decision, efficiency. My 2012 15" MacBook Pro gets about four hours off AC if I'm working ...seven if I'm just casually browsing or letting it rest
My 2014, easily seven hours of 'real work' on the same machine. 9-10 hours in the background. Add 50% and you've got the MacBook Air. With the fastest available storage available in a ultrabook, two pounds and up to 15 hours of use, what's not to like? Step up for a hundred more bucks configured identically, you can buy the retina MacBook Pro, the 13".
Just examples of I'm sure your idea of overpriced, underpowered. But honestly the LAST thing I want to own is another ten pound laptop with two hour battery life. No thanks. Game mobile on your phone or tab. Game at home on your console or desktop.
Laptops today are faster than anything you could buy just five years ago, MUCH faster, with better everything. Including comparing laptops of today to the desktop of yesterday. But again, you get what you pay for in most cases. We've all got different desires, but for the masses, those high prices on the low end gear that lasts and lasts and lasts....and actually SLAMS performance wise, is supported by amazing peeps and weighs in at just a couple of pounds. That's. Sweet.
I'd bet most folks ...even those of us here, would be JUST fine on the new core M processor ...the 4.5watt Intel chip in more and more laptops, including a fanless two pound 4K MacBook (with balding fast storage and a display that will bend your mind!)
Morawka - Thursday, April 30, 2015 - link
I want to see it stream games the other way around.. Stream Games from my PC to my xbox. That way i get the best of both worlds.. Better Graphics, Wireless Controller with rumble, better frame rates.loki1725 - Friday, May 1, 2015 - link
"So they are not the first, but one of the nice things about streaming from the Xbox to a PC is that, especially these days, most PCs are not capable of running games."This is one of the most depressing things I've read all day. While I understand the movement to 'good enough' and in fact herald it, I feel we have gone too far. Two year old hardware sold at the $300 price point shouldn't be more powerful than a new $400 - $500 dollar laptop.
OrphanageExplosion - Friday, May 1, 2015 - link
A PS4 draws a max of 140W from the mains during gameplay. Not sure I'd like to my $400-$500 laptop to have that kind of power draw.Wolfpup - Thursday, May 7, 2015 - link
Notebooks can draw MORE than that, potentially. 140 watts for a full blown PC isn't very much.akdj - Friday, June 12, 2015 - link
Very, VERY rare to find one rant does. Haswell just dropped their laptop 'performance' processors. Ya know, the 35-45 watt silicon? Even the dGPUs are significantly more efficient (& less powerful because of TDP) tan their desktop brethren. Same, 25-40 watt dGPUs. I think the big ones, the 15/17" laptops currently on the market are realistically drawing half that, maybe 60%. I believe my 15" 2014 MacBook is pulling 90watts at full tilt in Compressor or Handbrake (more than the supplied brick can deliver though---I believe it's a 90watt, and thermally they're (Macs) well cooled for consistency and lack of thermal induced throttling)You're talking gaming rigs.
140watts for a full blown PC (assuming you're talking desktop, right?) won't post. That's just about enough to juice the mama board and CPU. Not graphics or HDD/SSD or modems, ports, radios or sound;)
About 250/300 watts is as small a draw you'll see from today's low end or slight builds. But you're right. It's 'not much'. It makes me laugh seeing these 12, 14, 1600 watt power supplies!! That's nearing a dedicated 15amp circuit if you fill it with SLI or Crossfire graphics, extensive storage, CPU(s), etc.
notebook draw power off the CPU and iGPU is down to 4.5watts. SSD storage is efficient, especially the 'NAND' or PCIe SSD solutions we're seeing now in the likes of the new Samsung S6 or Apple's new drives. They're kissing read/write (larger file transfers) speeds of 2,000Mb/s!! While eating less energy, more efficient and higher DPI/resolute displays --- 140 watt draw on a laptop built today is either A) a POS, B) gaming specific 10 pounder or C) Professional Workstation. All three of which mandate close proximity to an outlet.
knightspawn1138 - Friday, May 1, 2015 - link
I'm a little disappointed that Brett failed to compare the Xbox solution with Sony's efforts in streaming. Sony's been working on this since the days of the PS3/PSP streaming. Honestly, they didn't nail it until the PS4/PSVita, but now that they've got PS Now up and running, they've taken the idea of streaming to the next level.I'm glad to see Microsoft catching up, though. Maybe this will push Sony to allow more than the Xperia mobile devices to connect to the PS3/4. Or, maybe it will get Sony to come up with a sequel to the PSVita.
cazmia - Saturday, May 2, 2015 - link
Hopefully MS will do a better job. Sony's PS4/Vita streaming still isn't smooth and the picture is blurry. Even with direct connect, bypassing the wifi router.Can't compare it to PS Now though, since it's still in beta for the EU Region.
Wolfpup - Thursday, May 7, 2015 - link
That's definitely cool, though this seems cooler since you can do it with ANY PC, various screen sizes, a full Xbox controller, etc....but that's still very cool.ajlueke - Tuesday, May 5, 2015 - link
"I did ask about being able to stream games while someone else is using the Xbox for media (like Netflix or live TV) and unfortunately this is not going to be the case, at least not initially. It is basically mirroring the display on the Xbox to the PC, so the Xbox is well and truly tied up during any sessions."That quote to me is the crux of the streaming issue as it stands today. I currently use a PC as my primary gaming machine and media server. I play my games on the "big screen" with all the PC bells and whistles by simply connecting my PC to the TV itself. The primary TV is connected to a receiver with a decent surround sound system and subwoofer, which I wouldn't really want to game without. Casual gaming is all I really do on other devices, and even the NUC upstairs has the horsepower on its own to run those. Why you would want to stream a 3D game to another device, that fully locks the primary device is beyond me. Just use the primary device then. I've played around with Steam streaming a fair amount, and can play 3D games upstairs on the NUC, but that of course locks up the main PC downstairs as well. So I always ask myself, why wouldn't I just use the PC downstairs directly and also enjoy the improved experience from the surround sound system?
I think this technology will only hit it's stride when the gaming aspect doesn't prevent you from using other functionality in the system. The situation that usually arises is, someone is watching a Blu-ray on the main TV (due again, to the surround system) but I would still like to game on the other system. As it stands now, that isn't possible.
The Xbox sounds like it will have the identical issues. Xboxes are decent gaming machines and consumers seem to like to hook them up in living rooms as opposed to gaming PCs because of the reduced cost, appearance, and who knows. But again, the Xbox is usually located on the main TV with the best sound system typically. If someone is watching a Blu-ray on the main system and someone else wants to game somewhere else, you're still out of luck. So I'm not sure how useful this feature is going to be.