Ok... here is an idea where the XBox might be different from the PC version....
Linking Non-Tutorial Creative Maps together and Survival Maps together, and allowing a player to move from one map to the next through a spawned Port that appears on the shore somewhere in the world (or will spawn in a world if the world is traveled to from an outside world). hard Drive Maps would be linked to other Hard Drive Maps, Cloud Maps would be linked to other Cloud Maps
Either there would be a Ship that you climb aboard at dock, or a Villager that you talk to that allows you to go to an interface to leave this map and go to another map on your Hard Drive or in the Cloud, or a special Block that you click on to activate.
This interface (however worked) brings up a screen similar to the Load Screen, giving you the option to 'Explore a New Realm' (ie. create a new world), or travel to an existing Saved World.
When traveling to an existing Saved world, it deposits your character in the port for that world (and spawns one in the world if a Port is not currently present).
This would allow the movement of Blocks and supplies between worlds.
Saving the Game would save the world changes to that world file, but character changes (including the characters current visited map) would be saved to the original home world file. Leaving a world does a world save for the left world (and location: Port-to coordinate in the traveled to world), followed by a world load for the traveled to world.
If you quit & save the game in a world other than your home world, in order to reopen that game, you have to open your home world file (opening the file of the world you traveled to will result in you loading as the character that is native to that world).
If the world file that you had last saved in gets damaged or deleted, then you will respawn with all your gear at your home-world's spawn point.
I can see that some people may not want to cross contaminate certain worlds, and in that case, they could select isolated map when the world is created and a port would not spawn in their world, nor would it be visible in the list to travel to from other world Ports. Maybe even offer a shared port option to link to other player profile maps tied to the same XBox Console. Or even Public Ports to link to other Players worlds online (same home-spawn rules apply as above if the game was saved while you were in another player's world and that world is no longer accessible at your next game load, or the connection was lost).
Really? Damn.... Any chance you have a link on that article? I'd like to read up on their reasoning for rejecting the idea.
Not really (I'm flying just by memory here, and I'm older so it has some holes...). I think a link to a tweet or something was originally put on here by Mustache_Guy, so perhaps if search here for posts by him made maybe 8 months to a year ago now?? I know this topic/suggestion has come up several times in various iterations and with various methods for overcoming issues like multiplayers existing different worlds in the linked chain and linked worlds being deleted piecemeal.
Personally, I feel the simplest solution would be not to link the worlds and perhaps just to give in and allow players to carry their inventory from whatever their previously played world was into the next world they open. Yes,this would allow people to bring creative items into survival worlds (but to a max of stacks that can be carried in one inventory... at least at a time). Perhaps bringing an inventory in could also deactivate the leaderboards and achievements (with a warning of course and a toggle opportunity to dump the inventory before entering and preserve the world's survival only status. Personally, bringing items from creative into survival doesn't bother me because in my own worlds because I don't give a lick about the leaderboards. I also have no issue with reacquiring inventory in new worlds (i.e. it's just not that hard to close one world and open another manually and there are 9,000+ diamonds in every one so I don't feel the need to carry them across.) I LIKE having separate worlds preserved as completely separate "rounds" of the game with various different players.
That said, I know saving inventories with the player and allowing them to go from world to world is also allowed in other games (like Terraria)... but certainly many others would object.
I typed my reply in another thread and an admin went and locked it on me before I could post... dang it, well... I'm gonna post it here as it is partially relevant anyway.... and I didn't know that a game spawned map was considered "User Created Content" specifically, I thought that rule applied to actual program affecting Mods... but ahh well, but anyway, my rebuttal was going to be as follows:
I don't know if this is possible but I would love for this feature to be made available to the Xbox minecraft players. Me and my friends all have awesome buildings on eachothers' consoles and it's annoying not being able to have your console being used by your buds when you want to play something else.
Friends using your console while you're playing a different game on that same console is not really possible. The Xbox just doesn't have the additional RAM needed to run Minecraft in the background and run another game at the same time.
Sharing the map would not require running the game remotely off the friend's console, it would only require the game map to load from the remote site to the local XBox... which is done all the time in Multiplayer maps.
Any sort of map sharing would have to involve allowing a friend to save your world again on their console (with a transfer of the "ownership" tag of that map over to them). This would mean that you would have to absolutely remember to transfer it all back again to your console when you wanted to play or the progress made by your friend playing when you weren't would not be saved. Personally, I would like to legitimately be able to transfer ownership of a file to a friend or have a system of "joint ownership" of maps saved to the cloud (i.e. a joint ownership of some cloud storage space by multiple friends); but transferring a file save back and forth between two or more consoles in order for each of us to play the same world while the other is offline seems to be more hassle than it would be worth.
Disagree... although the map content (game files) would have to (at least temporarily) move over from the remote system to the local system to be played on the local system, the actual ownership of the game file does not have to be relinquished if the designers did not want the ability to fully copy maps from one system to another, although that too 'could' be an option, it isn't necessarily required.
If ownership of the world is not relinquished, then the game could just terminate at the last save point when the remote player/owner goes offline for longer than a certain period of time, or forces a save/quit if the player/owner on the remote side quits out of their game normally.
It's doable from a programmatic standpoint and a strategy that I had suggested in an another thread where I had suggested crossing saved game files (by way of a spawned port') to make for a bigger 'world' to explore without significantly increasing the system memory demands and processor requirements.
Edit: The only real reason I posted here was because I otherwise feel like i wasted my time typing my response from earlier.
Not really (I'm flying just by memory here, and I'm older so it has some holes...). I think a link to a tweet or something was originally put on here by Mustache_Guy, so perhaps if search here for posts by him made maybe 8 months to a year ago now?? I know this topic/suggestion has come up several times in various iterations and with various methods for overcoming issues like multiplayers existing different worlds in the linked chain and linked worlds being deleted piecemeal.
Well... I give up... I'm just not finding anything on a cursory search and I've already spent more time digging than I had wanted to.
Anyway, it is already problematic to generate a world that has all the current Biomes... and a Village...and other structures (like abandoned mineshaft). If the world size is not significantly increased by some fashion or strategy, then the amount of Biomes and other things that you can possibly experience with in the same game will become increasingly more limited as more Biomes and structures are added in moving forward.
The xBox360 has a marked limitation to the word size that it can load, but it is capable of saving vast tracts or real estate to hard disk, taking advantage of this can greatly expand on the world size that Players can get lost in.
To re-visit an old thread... and with version 1.7 looming around the corner, some strategy should be investigated to allow for more biomes to be generated in the smaller consoles.
And deviating a bit from the 'port' idea to move between game worlds, I like the idea of a more contiguous (seamless) map anyway, so with that in mind, the following quote struck me as particularly pertinent to the ideas shared in this thread:
Well, I can honestly say I don't play the 360 version much anymore, mainly just at times when a few select friends whom haven't made the jump to xbox one yet are online and wish to play. Truth is xbox one maps are big enough to support all the new biomes, i believe its 4x4 in maps, so 16x bigger then 360 size, though don't quote me on that as i really haven't explored it yet, only bits and pieces while looking for a desert.
I've always said from the get go that we need a way to create a map, with the biomes that we want, and how much of each biome, this is kinda important to 360/ps3 users. The way I figure it, is that 4J could create a small program that the player would run, it would let them select what biomes and the percentage size of that biome should take up in the map. It could then generate a map with those biomes and allow the user to 'preview it' or save it, once saved they could then launch and play on that map. Its just a thought, but it would work.
There is another way, but its more complicated to explain, we know that seeds generate the terrain, and from the terrain a map can be generated, we also understand that 360 maps are always centered at 0,0 of the seed. We also know that the seed is quite capable of generating bigger maps but the 360/ps3 under memory constraints can't handle anything bigger. Final fact is that we know that seed generation is very similar to PC generation at given versions. I can verify this as I usually play on PC version 1.6.4, and the maps currently generating are nearly identical on the xbox one/360 version that we are currently on. Given this, suppose that us console versions could 'offset' our maps starting chunk, so instead of starting at 0,0 we could offset to 32 chunks north and 50 chunks east. I mention this because there are little programs that one can run on the pc right now that allow you to enter your seed, it then will generate a HUGE map some 50,000 chunks square, and thus users could actually look at there seed in this program, offset or snap an area of where they would like their map, enter offset cords when generating the map and get nearly everything they want. I hope this makes since, Its kinda like generating a world using your seed bug selecting where in that world you will play.
So... instead of a port, if a larger world is enabled on the last gen consoles, players would be able to 'shift' their map center as they moved around in the playable area, boundaries would still exist, and a map shift would take place unless all players on the map were actively in the same shifted map section (typical last gen map size, including boundaries, is 64x64 chunks, extending 32 chunks from each side of the centerpoint). The Map's center point could shift at every 16 chunk interval.
Host privileges could then be used to toggle whether or not map shifting was allowed in the game, that way players could move around a map to find their center point, and then freeze the map at that location, or open it up again for further exploration.
As stated above, players would have to be all on the same 54x54 map grid (not in or outside any of the boundary regions) before a map shift could take place (basically, on the same side of the previous map from the center, North, South, East, West), and even more so when playing split screen (if a P2P server strategy was used as was suggested from above, then multiple consoles could theoretically share load and allow players to be able to run further afield).
I like the idea of linking together two or more worlds since this provides a legitimate (i.e.- Survival-based) way to access all biomes, if they ever come, but the multiplayer aspects of the game make this problematic.
Then the idea of "map-shifting" intrigued me since it would presumably load new areas of the same same seed... but then the player would need to sit through a load screen every time they moved 16 blocks in one direction. I'm old enough to remember the days of small area-maps and long load times, and I'm not too eager to return to them.
So I'm going to have to sh!t in everyone's mouth and call it a sundae.
The 360 and PS3 are on their way out. They have maybe a year left before they lose all relevance. Rather than trying to find ways of expanding the world to accomodate the new biomes, I'd much prefer if that feature were left solely to two higher-end consoles. The 360 and PS3 could instead receive a "Crafting-update" in which all the new blocks from 1.7+ become available through crafting rather than exploration. Over the course of the next year 4J can concentrate on stablizing the game, fixing the redstone bugs and mob-cap issues, at which point I'd be perfectly fine if they stopped low-end console updates entirely. I paid my 20 bucks over two years ago and got more value than I ever expected. 4J doesn't owe us any more... in fact, we probably owe them, and I'm more than willing to pay another 20 or so dollars to get the PS4 version.
Then the idea of "map-shifting" intrigued me since it would presumably load new areas of the same same seed... but then the player would need to sit through a load screen every time they moved 16 blocks in one direction. I'm old enough to remember the days of small area-maps and long load times, and I'm not too eager to return to them.
Actually, this would only occur if the player moved so that a new quarter map would need to load, so the intervals would be every 16 chunks toward a map edge, not 16 blocks, (or 256 blocks), and would not reverse the load back unless you went over three times the distance back again.
Most players wouldn't even notice the load intervals (as long as they stayed inside one map space, 54 chunk x 54 chunk region) unless they were traveling very long distances in the same direction.
This strategy does employ a chunk loading/unloading strategy similar to what the Java/PC side uses, but does it at much greater intervals to avoid doing it too often.
Consequence: Players would not be able to move more than 48 to 54 chunks away from each other in either the X or Z directions on split screen and unless a P2P strategy is employed, not for online multiplayer either.
To re-visit an old thread... and with version 1.7 looming around the corner, some strategy should be investigated to allow for more biomes to be generated in the smaller consoles.
And deviating a bit from the 'port' idea to move between game worlds, I like the idea of a more contiguous (seamless) map anyway, so with that in mind, the following quote struck me as particularly pertinent to the ideas shared in this thread:
So... instead of a port, if a larger world is enabled on the last gen consoles, players would be able to 'shift' their map center as they moved around in the playable area, boundaries would still exist, and a map shift would take place unless all players on the map were actively in the same shifted map section (typical last gen map size, including boundaries, is 64x64 chunks, extending 32 chunks from each side of the centerpoint). The Map's center point could shift at every 16 chunk interval.
Host privileges could then be used to toggle whether or not map shifting was allowed in the game, that way players could move around a map to find their center point, and then freeze the map at that location, or open it up again for further exploration.
As stated above, players would have to be all on the same 54x54 map grid (not in or outside any of the boundary regions) before a map shift could take place (basically, on the same side of the previous map from the center, North, South, East, West), and even more so when playing split screen (if a P2P server strategy was used as was suggested from above, then multiple consoles could theoretically share load and allow players to be able to run further afield).
What happens, say, if one of the players dies and his bed (respawn) point is in a now downloaded section of the map?
What happens, say, if one of the players dies and his bed (respawn) point is in a now downloaded section of the map?
To handle this, the world spawn could be set to be floating such that it shifts relative to a map shift. If a player is out of range for their personal spawn (bed) because they ventured too far away, they would default to the world spawn for the map that they are currently on.
However, on the converse this would open up the possibility of having multiple personal spawn points for each full map length....or just overwrite the previous spawn, depending on developer choice.
Actually, this would only occur if the player moved so that a new quarter map would need to load, so the intervals would be every 16 chunks toward a map edge, not 16 blocks, (or 256 blocks), and would not reverse the load back unless you went over three times the distance back again.
Most players wouldn't even notice the load intervals (as long as they stayed inside one map space, 54 chunk x 54 chunk region) unless they were traveling very long distances in the same direction.
This strategy does employ a chunk loading/unloading strategy similar to what the Java/PC side uses, but does it at much greater intervals to avoid doing it too often.
Consequence: Players would not be able to move more than 48 to 54 chunks away from each other in either the X or Z directions on split screen and unless a P2P strategy is employed, not for online multiplayer either.
Sorry, I knew you meant 16 chunks, not blocks. I mistyped horribly. Sorry for the confusion.
I like this idea. I really do (despite my cynical post earlier). But to make the loading barely noticeable would require a general re-write of the way the game handles loaded chunks. That's why I assumed it would take you to the splash screen you get when you load your save. IOW, the game would reload a "new" 64x64 chunk map, just shifted 16 chunks in one direction.
Sorry, I knew you meant 16 chunks, not blocks. I mistyped horribly. Sorry for the confusion.
I like this idea. I really do (despite my cynical post earlier). But to make the loading barely noticeable would require a general re-write of the way the game handles loaded chunks. That's why I assumed it would take you to the splash screen you get when you load your save. IOW, the game would reload a "new" 64x64 chunk map, just shifted 16 chunks in one direction.
Again, my apologies for misunderstanding.
On the plus side, you'd only be dealing with half a map worth of data at a time, so while yes, there would be the occasional load screen, the game would only have to save (unload) one 16 chunk x 64 chunk strip and load the next 16 chunk x 64 chunk strip)... the most annoying time would be if you were going directly diagonal, requiring this to be done twice, once for a N/S shift and again for an E/W shift at nearly the same time.
Probably not going to happen now that the new Gen consoles are out... but it allows for a sort of psuedo-loading and unloading of chunks that is a bit of a compromise over the current fixed map as compared to the way it is done on the Java Side.
Probably not going to happen now that the new Gen consoles are out... but it allows for a sort of psuedo-loading and unloading of chunks that is a bit of a compromise over the current fixed map as compared to the way it is done on the Java Side.
I noticed you said 'new' Gen consoles, as opposed to the other "n" word.
Back on-topic. It's a cool concept, and I agree. 4J would likely not invest their time implementing it on 360. I see it as something they could potentially introduce down the road for the One/PS4. Then again, by the time people have thoroughly explored and drained those larger worlds of resources, an XB3/PS5 would have the ability to handle an exponentially bigger world size. And the cycle continues ...
I noticed you said 'new' Gen consoles, as opposed to the other "n" word.
Back on-topic. It's a cool concept, and I agree. 4J would likely not invest their time implementing it on 360. I see it as something they could potentially introduce down the road for the One/PS4. Then again, by the time people have thoroughly explored and drained those larger worlds of resources, an XB3/PS5 would have the ability to handle an exponentially bigger world size. And the cycle continues ...
I anticipate the "new" gen consoles of having at least a 10 year lifespan before the "next new" gen comes out. You think MC will still be a hot item in that time?
Linking Non-Tutorial Creative Maps together and Survival Maps together, and allowing a player to move from one map to the next through a spawned Port that appears on the shore somewhere in the world (or will spawn in a world if the world is traveled to from an outside world). hard Drive Maps would be linked to other Hard Drive Maps, Cloud Maps would be linked to other Cloud Maps
Either there would be a Ship that you climb aboard at dock, or a Villager that you talk to that allows you to go to an interface to leave this map and go to another map on your Hard Drive or in the Cloud, or a special Block that you click on to activate.
This interface (however worked) brings up a screen similar to the Load Screen, giving you the option to 'Explore a New Realm' (ie. create a new world), or travel to an existing Saved World.
When traveling to an existing Saved world, it deposits your character in the port for that world (and spawns one in the world if a Port is not currently present).
This would allow the movement of Blocks and supplies between worlds.
Saving the Game would save the world changes to that world file, but character changes (including the characters current visited map) would be saved to the original home world file. Leaving a world does a world save for the left world (and location: Port-to coordinate in the traveled to world), followed by a world load for the traveled to world.
If you quit & save the game in a world other than your home world, in order to reopen that game, you have to open your home world file (opening the file of the world you traveled to will result in you loading as the character that is native to that world).
If the world file that you had last saved in gets damaged or deleted, then you will respawn with all your gear at your home-world's spawn point.
I can see that some people may not want to cross contaminate certain worlds, and in that case, they could select isolated map when the world is created and a port would not spawn in their world, nor would it be visible in the list to travel to from other world Ports. Maybe even offer a shared port option to link to other player profile maps tied to the same XBox Console. Or even Public Ports to link to other Players worlds online (same home-spawn rules apply as above if the game was saved while you were in another player's world and that world is no longer accessible at your next game load, or the connection was lost).
Thoughts?
Really? Damn.... Any chance you have a link on that article? I'd like to read up on their reasoning for rejecting the idea.
Not really (I'm flying just by memory here, and I'm older so it has some holes...). I think a link to a tweet or something was originally put on here by Mustache_Guy, so perhaps if search here for posts by him made maybe 8 months to a year ago now?? I know this topic/suggestion has come up several times in various iterations and with various methods for overcoming issues like multiplayers existing different worlds in the linked chain and linked worlds being deleted piecemeal.
Personally, I feel the simplest solution would be not to link the worlds and perhaps just to give in and allow players to carry their inventory from whatever their previously played world was into the next world they open. Yes,this would allow people to bring creative items into survival worlds (but to a max of stacks that can be carried in one inventory... at least at a time). Perhaps bringing an inventory in could also deactivate the leaderboards and achievements (with a warning of course and a toggle opportunity to dump the inventory before entering and preserve the world's survival only status. Personally, bringing items from creative into survival doesn't bother me because in my own worlds because I don't give a lick about the leaderboards. I also have no issue with reacquiring inventory in new worlds (i.e. it's just not that hard to close one world and open another manually and there are 9,000+ diamonds in every one so I don't feel the need to carry them across.) I LIKE having separate worlds preserved as completely separate "rounds" of the game with various different players.
That said, I know saving inventories with the player and allowing them to go from world to world is also allowed in other games (like Terraria)... but certainly many others would object.
I typed my reply in another thread and an admin went and locked it on me before I could post... dang it, well... I'm gonna post it here as it is partially relevant anyway.... and I didn't know that a game spawned map was considered "User Created Content" specifically, I thought that rule applied to actual program affecting Mods... but ahh well, but anyway, my rebuttal was going to be as follows:
From: Forum Index > Minecraft: Xbox 360 Edition > MCX360: Suggestions > MAP SHARING ON THE XBOX?
Sharing the map would not require running the game remotely off the friend's console, it would only require the game map to load from the remote site to the local XBox... which is done all the time in Multiplayer maps.
Disagree... although the map content (game files) would have to (at least temporarily) move over from the remote system to the local system to be played on the local system, the actual ownership of the game file does not have to be relinquished if the designers did not want the ability to fully copy maps from one system to another, although that too 'could' be an option, it isn't necessarily required.
If ownership of the world is not relinquished, then the game could just terminate at the last save point when the remote player/owner goes offline for longer than a certain period of time, or forces a save/quit if the player/owner on the remote side quits out of their game normally.
It's doable from a programmatic standpoint and a strategy that I had suggested in an another thread where I had suggested crossing saved game files (by way of a spawned port') to make for a bigger 'world' to explore without significantly increasing the system memory demands and processor requirements.
Edit: The only real reason I posted here was because I otherwise feel like i wasted my time typing my response from earlier.
Well... I give up... I'm just not finding anything on a cursory search and I've already spent more time digging than I had wanted to.
Anyway, it is already problematic to generate a world that has all the current Biomes... and a Village...and other structures (like abandoned mineshaft). If the world size is not significantly increased by some fashion or strategy, then the amount of Biomes and other things that you can possibly experience with in the same game will become increasingly more limited as more Biomes and structures are added in moving forward.
The xBox360 has a marked limitation to the word size that it can load, but it is capable of saving vast tracts or real estate to hard disk, taking advantage of this can greatly expand on the world size that Players can get lost in.
See also: Forum Index > Minecraft: Xbox 360 Edition > MCX360: Suggestions > LOAD ZONES FOR A LARGER MCX360 WORLD.
And deviating a bit from the 'port' idea to move between game worlds, I like the idea of a more contiguous (seamless) map anyway, so with that in mind, the following quote struck me as particularly pertinent to the ideas shared in this thread:
So... instead of a port, if a larger world is enabled on the last gen consoles, players would be able to 'shift' their map center as they moved around in the playable area, boundaries would still exist, and a map shift would take place unless all players on the map were actively in the same shifted map section (typical last gen map size, including boundaries, is 64x64 chunks, extending 32 chunks from each side of the centerpoint). The Map's center point could shift at every 16 chunk interval.
Host privileges could then be used to toggle whether or not map shifting was allowed in the game, that way players could move around a map to find their center point, and then freeze the map at that location, or open it up again for further exploration.
As stated above, players would have to be all on the same 54x54 map grid (not in or outside any of the boundary regions) before a map shift could take place (basically, on the same side of the previous map from the center, North, South, East, West), and even more so when playing split screen (if a P2P server strategy was used as was suggested from above, then multiple consoles could theoretically share load and allow players to be able to run further afield).
Then the idea of "map-shifting" intrigued me since it would presumably load new areas of the same same seed... but then the player would need to sit through a load screen every time they moved 16 blocks in one direction. I'm old enough to remember the days of small area-maps and long load times, and I'm not too eager to return to them.
So I'm going to have to sh!t in everyone's mouth and call it a sundae.
The 360 and PS3 are on their way out. They have maybe a year left before they lose all relevance. Rather than trying to find ways of expanding the world to accomodate the new biomes, I'd much prefer if that feature were left solely to two higher-end consoles. The 360 and PS3 could instead receive a "Crafting-update" in which all the new blocks from 1.7+ become available through crafting rather than exploration. Over the course of the next year 4J can concentrate on stablizing the game, fixing the redstone bugs and mob-cap issues, at which point I'd be perfectly fine if they stopped low-end console updates entirely. I paid my 20 bucks over two years ago and got more value than I ever expected. 4J doesn't owe us any more... in fact, we probably owe them, and I'm more than willing to pay another 20 or so dollars to get the PS4 version.
Actually, this would only occur if the player moved so that a new quarter map would need to load, so the intervals would be every 16 chunks toward a map edge, not 16 blocks, (or 256 blocks), and would not reverse the load back unless you went over three times the distance back again.
Most players wouldn't even notice the load intervals (as long as they stayed inside one map space, 54 chunk x 54 chunk region) unless they were traveling very long distances in the same direction.
This strategy does employ a chunk loading/unloading strategy similar to what the Java/PC side uses, but does it at much greater intervals to avoid doing it too often.
Consequence: Players would not be able to move more than 48 to 54 chunks away from each other in either the X or Z directions on split screen and unless a P2P strategy is employed, not for online multiplayer either.
What happens, say, if one of the players dies and his bed (respawn) point is in a now downloaded section of the map?
To handle this, the world spawn could be set to be floating such that it shifts relative to a map shift. If a player is out of range for their personal spawn (bed) because they ventured too far away, they would default to the world spawn for the map that they are currently on.
However, on the converse this would open up the possibility of having multiple personal spawn points for each full map length....or just overwrite the previous spawn, depending on developer choice.
Sorry, I knew you meant 16 chunks, not blocks. I mistyped horribly. Sorry for the confusion.
I like this idea. I really do (despite my cynical post earlier). But to make the loading barely noticeable would require a general re-write of the way the game handles loaded chunks. That's why I assumed it would take you to the splash screen you get when you load your save. IOW, the game would reload a "new" 64x64 chunk map, just shifted 16 chunks in one direction.
Again, my apologies for misunderstanding.
On the plus side, you'd only be dealing with half a map worth of data at a time, so while yes, there would be the occasional load screen, the game would only have to save (unload) one 16 chunk x 64 chunk strip and load the next 16 chunk x 64 chunk strip)... the most annoying time would be if you were going directly diagonal, requiring this to be done twice, once for a N/S shift and again for an E/W shift at nearly the same time.
Probably not going to happen now that the new Gen consoles are out... but it allows for a sort of psuedo-loading and unloading of chunks that is a bit of a compromise over the current fixed map as compared to the way it is done on the Java Side.
I noticed you said 'new' Gen consoles, as opposed to the other "n" word.
Back on-topic. It's a cool concept, and I agree. 4J would likely not invest their time implementing it on 360. I see it as something they could potentially introduce down the road for the One/PS4. Then again, by the time people have thoroughly explored and drained those larger worlds of resources, an XB3/PS5 would have the ability to handle an exponentially bigger world size. And the cycle continues ...
I anticipate the "new" gen consoles of having at least a 10 year lifespan before the "next new" gen comes out. You think MC will still be a hot item in that time?