This is a simple, yet cool, added feature of the XBONE DVR. I'm not sure that I'll really get much out of this, but I suppose I would have when I was younger and had more time to devote to my favorite habi... err... I mean hobby.

I can see, however, how this would be excellent for anyone who's into posting their videos on youtube or twitch.tv.

This article just goes to show that:

A) There's a TON of money to be made in the "gaming" or digital entertainment industry; and
B) The business risks of failure are both high and expensive -- that is, relatively speaking, with regard to "AAA" developers (e.g., developers who incur costs in excess of... say, several million dollars);

While I have yet play GTA 5 (believe it or not, the ONLY thing that's stopped me is my 4gb HD and 8gb flash drive... well, there's also school and work, too), I think I can safely say that Rockstar has -- yet again -- raised consumer expectations with regard to production values, aesthetics, and scope of pretty much any supposed "AAA" next-gen game. Keep in mind that this was not only achieved at a $60 price-point (a target which has proven to be cost-prohibitive many properties), but at the twilight of the current generation of console hardware. What this means -- in my opinion, of course -- is that while we get one hell of game, this will directly diminish developer's willingness to stray from tried-and-true formulas and established franchises in order to reduce costs, mitigate the risk of both critical and consumer rejection, and (of course) assure business-sustaining profit margins.

Consequently, I wouldn't be surprised to see developers narrow the scope of their catalog (in terms of genres), because the risk of consumer rejection will be too high for said developer to compete with Rockstar's $200+ million dollar sandbox juggernaut on a measly $20+ million dollar budget... eventually, guys, this either means increased or decreased competition per genre (I'm not sure which way the pendulum swings just yet). For analysis purposes, it would be useful to have some data on how similar offerings (e.g, Saints Row 4) have performed in terms of costs, risk and reward, but also any distinguishing factors that make a similar, however, commercially successful alternative. I love the Saints Row franchise and I've willing to purchase them, despite also being a paying customer of the Grand Theft Auto franchise, but I'm under no illusion that many other "gamers" are as willing (or able, in some cases) support more than one genre offering.

I expect that much of the creative, unique experiences (this doesn't necessary translate into "fun") will come from the small, low risk:reward "indie" development houses that are able to take advantage of the increasingly streamlined game engines/SDKs (e.g, Unity 3D, which makes cross-platform development -- Mobile/PC/Console -- a realistic prospect). Moreover, speaking of cross-platform development, I think it's ALSO safe to assume that we'll start to see these big-budget games being developed for not only both consoles, but the PC and Mobile platforms (simultaneously) as well... again, this will all be done in and effort to reduce the (likely) risk of financial disaster.

Thoughts?

@Vienreich @Ernesto_basic Admittedly, there's some bias in that sentiment, my friend.

@justinthorne76 The fact that you have to preface your thinly-veiled racist diatribe speaks volumes of your ostensibly low self-esteem. Justin, I suggest you expand your mind a little, buddy. The way in which you make these broad, all-encompassing statements about "white people" -- your verbiage, not mine -- is both offensive and symptomatic of the lingering, yet dissipating racial tensions which result from ignorance in this country.

@Vienreich @Ernesto_basic I won't get into what I thought of the case, but I will say that while our legal system isn't perfect, I do believe it's the best in the world (China is modeling theirs after our own, for instance). Also, I will say that in a situation like the Martin case -- a situation where a kid dies and an adult believed that deadly self-defense was necessary -- there's nothing but tragedy on both sides of the argument. Lastly, I both understand and appreciate the degree of emotional outcry that comes from such a tragedy, but at the same time, advocate the independent, objective and unbiased approach to jurisprudence.

@Vienreich @Ernesto_basic

Under these facts, the jury (fact-finder) will have to determine whether your beliefs were "reasonable" as per the "reasonable person standard."

Under this standard, they will determine whether a "reasonable person" in the defendant's circumstances (see note below) could have come to the same conclusion -- that is, that they were faced with either imminent serious bodily injury or harm.

Note -- IT DOES NOT matter if "serious bodily injury" or death were, in fact, possible. All that matters is if the defendant "reasonably" believed that it was.

Note -- What's important here, are the attendant circumstances -- that is, the jury would have to factor in the location, time, context and physical capabilities (in relation to you, the defendant). These are very subjective criteria, which is why law is not a simple mathematical formula that one can re-create through software.

@Vienreich

Note -- Also, if the facts suggest any applicability of the "felony murder" doctrine -- a very pro-prosecutor rule -- then the defendant can be convicted of 1st degree murder much, much easier.

@Vienreich Actually, yes, deadly-self defense DOES mean that you have the right to protect your life if:
1) You "reasonably" believe that either "serious bodily harm" or "death" is "imminent"; and

2) You "reasonably" believe that the use of deadly force is required to prevent the harm; and

3) You CANNOT flee without injury to your person. (Note -- only some jurisdictions)

Note -- depending on the facts of the case (e.g., the attendant circumstances), this defense may fail, resulting in a homicide conviction for the defendant (varies by jurisdiction, but typically 1st degree homicide, as this requires some form of premeditation and intent).

Note -- the "reasonable person" standard is the abstract standard in which the defendant's (claiming self-defense) actions will be judged by the fact-finder (usually the jury).

Note -- the elements -- that is, "reasonable" belief, "serious bodily harm" or "death", and "imminence" MUST be satisfied.

Note -- there is a difference between non-deadly self-defense and deadly self-defense (the Martin case hinged on deadly self-defense).

@zintarr Well said, bud -- while jurisdictions have their subtleties when it comes to both self-defense and deadly self-defense, the Martin case seemed to adhere to the common law approach. Laymen, such as the author of this article, would be wise to abstain from sensationalizing the case and drawing poorly constructed connections from one related, however disparate, criminal law doctrine.

Honestly, I think it's irresponsible to allude to the Stand Your Ground Doctrine when it was in no way germane to the Zimmerman case. Moreover, without an adequate understanding of the jurisprudence of the aforementioned doctrines, much less the "reasonable person" standard, this amounts to little more than superficial rabble rousing.

From all of the coverage I've seen thus far, I've come to two (yet to be proven) opinions:

1) Rockstar looks poised to not only redefine the genre it created, but also prematurely set the "bar" significantly higher as to what consumers will come to expect from "AAA" titles; and

2) These screens likely aren't in-game, production shots running on current-gen Xbox and/or Playstation hardware.

When I look at what we -- that is, gamers -- have to look forward to in the next six months, this one stands FAR above the rest on my list.