Hacker News Reader

Comment by LibertyBeta | Hacker News Reader

Good points, but I think we can work around them.

1) As others have said xinput is pervasive as this point. If the Xbox 360 controller becomes hard to source then I'm sure a replacement xinput derived device will still be around. If not, it's a well documented standard and new devices can be made.

2) This leans on my first response. Xinput is the winner here, not the Xbox controller. If after testing they can't harden it then we have a lot of other options, up to and including a bespoke controller.

I guess what I'm saying is that video game controls are so much fun for a reason. They 'just work'. And while there is a little bit of dystopian sheen to seeing video games become the source for defacto tooling for war machines I'm always for a simplification of man/machine interactions.

View on HN

> If the Xbox 360 controller becomes hard to source then I'm sure a replacement xinput derived device will still be around. If not, it's a well documented standard and new devices can be made.

First of all, I want to say I agree with you. That said, you didn't really refute GP's point.

The IBM XT was well documented, had many clones and alternatives, but still you can't find parts at most electronic stores 33 years later. Several decades is a very long time in consumer electronics.

One thing I'd point out is that the only relevant objections are things that are true about the XBox controller that aren't true about all the alternatives. One-off bespoke custom hardware at dozens of thousands of dollars a pop are not necessarily going to be better supported at these time scales, because even if you sign an iron-clad contract with an entity to do whatever maintenance you could dream up, they still have the "going out of business entirely" option. You also can't neglect the hours of training involved and all the other associated costs with bespoke solutions.

We're trying to solve the problem of how to point periscopes here, not solve the generalized problem that when it comes down to it, nobody really knows what 2027 is going to be like.

(By contrast, "this is a new vector for malware if the supply chain is not secured" is a valid concern because one presumes and/or hopes that bespoke military hardware is better controlled there. This is a solvable problem, but solving it eats into the cost advantage.)

Responding "the same problem exists with the custom hardware" isn't what everyone is replying with. Instead they keep going with the trope that it's an open standard and not realizing the example given was an open standard 33 years ago.

Further more, I agree with your parenthetical that the malware angle is the more important argument. I disagree that it's a solveable problem though, but I feel the Xbox controller isn't the reason it isn't solvable. Any platform can be hacked given sufficient motivation.

Honestly I think using these controllers are likely the best approach, but let's not pretend it doesn't have issues (it's just the it's the same issues or less cumbersome issues than alternatives).

This is an interesting debate, but I think it misses the most important point: cost.

The Navy can buy thousands of Xbox controllers for the cost of even a single bespoke controller. The US has on the order of 100 submarines. Replacement controllers for the lifetime of each submarine -- even multiplied by 10 -- is a hilariously small cost compared to the alternatives.

So buy 1,000+ Xbox controllers and keep them in a warehouse. Problem solved.

> buy 1,000+ Xbox controllers and keep them in a warehouse.

Yes, I was going to suggest this. It would solve the availability issue and reduce the malware issue. If it's replacing a $38,000 item, they could buy 1,265 extra per sub.

I can however find as many Atari controllers as I could ever need, both locally and online. When considering availability you can't discount the sheer _volume_ of the things that have been manufactured. A truly ubiquitous human input device like an XBox controller is going to be available for a good long time without much extra work. It's well tested against repeated abuse (source: I'm bad at XBox games) and there are millions of the things in existence.

Once you harden it sufficiently, do you have any cost savings?

> video game controls are so much fun for a reason

I'm really more of a keyboard guy. Sometimes a mouse.

> Once you harden it sufficiently, do you have any cost savings?

This is the worst-case scenario for what is a rather overblown concern in the first place.

> I'm really more of a keyboard guy. Sometimes a mouse.

Even when operating a submarine?

> Even when operating a submarine?

Exactly, use the correct controller for the correct scenario. Keyboard+mouse works for many games, but for games where you control vehicles (racing games, aircraft simulators, submarines), joystick controls just work better.

Also, let's not forget that Microsoft would probably help out with hardening the security of the controllers. It's not like the Navy would have to reverse engineer the controller to figure out how to make it more secure.

Even if you spend a ton of time and money hardening it, if the xbox-like game controller is more efficient and easier to train on, then you save there in training costs and improved operational effectiveness. This of course relies on an assumption that the current method of control is overly complicated and difficult.

The consumer hardware only needs to last 20 years. After that, the Navy can surely make their own, as any patents run out.

The Navy will need to write their own firmware anyway.

The US government has excluded itself (and its contractors) from being liable for patent infringement. See http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=28... for details.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com