Printable View
So this happened.
http://furiousfanboys.com/wp-content...orthtweets.jpg
*snip*
So the rumor is that the next xbox will require a constant internet connectivity to play anything on it. Which is hella tits gay for people with me who's provider sucks major balls.
What's your opinion on a "Always On" Console?
Language. :colbert: ~Shorty
I think I won't be getting a Bawks720.
If I even need to state my opinion of a console requiring an online connection to play games even in single player mode then you people probably don't read my posts anyway. :D
Indeed. I was on the fence for the next gen but if this is true, well... after five years on theQuote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
EastMicrosoft coast, it was time to come home.
If this is true, then Microsoft have shot themselves in the foot something awful. Hopefully this'll just be a rumour or something akin to the story of Sony patenting anti-used game software.
What would be worse, the 'always on' XBox or the PS3 that requires all games to be tied to a single machine?
Seeing as the latter isn't a thing which would seem to actually exist I'd say the always online Xbox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
Yep smurf that noise all day, time to suckle at Sony's teat again.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
If they're both real, the former for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
If this is a plan that Microsoft has then I suspect that with the Sim City disaster and all the backlash they're getting right now it's something they are going to strongly smurfing reconsider!
Hmmm. I'm not even bothered about the fact I'd have to be connected all the time, I'm more concerned about why as it seems very Surveillance Society to me.
I think you give Microsoft a bit more credit than I would.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychotic
I give their desire to make $$$ credit if nothing else. In what is set to be a very tightly poised console war after all the ground Microsoft made up in the current generation, this would be absolute suicide.
I give their desire to make money plenty of credit as well. But they're also a company steeped in bureaucracy and with the one exception of the 360, have basically spent the last decade or more getting their ass handed to them by every one of their competitors because they just aren't capable of getting trout done even when they know what it is they should be doing.
I have no reason to believe they're going to take that gun they have aimed at their foot and figure out how the safety works now when they haven't been able to work it out before.
I really feel like I betrayed this generation by going to the xbox. I think I will go home to sony regardless if this is true or not. SONY I'M COMING HOME.
Meh.
Just sticking with my PC again. :love:
Oh, I feel the same. Sometimes I stay up at night plagued with nightmares at how I betrayed a multi million dollar corporation by buying their competitor's product after spending the previous 10 years giving them my money. I don't know how the smurf their shareholders coped after I turned my back on the Big S's profit margins but I feel kind of sick just thinking about it. :-/Quote:
Originally Posted by Freya
Man I was never even a big Playstation fan to begin with.
I bought PSX for one reason and that reason was Final Fantasy. Overall I preferred the N64.
Then I bought PS2 for two reasons and those were Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid. Overall I preferred the Xbox.
Next gen rolled around and my interest in both the FF and MGS franchises had waned considerably and both were on 360 anyway, so :shobon: never got a PS3 and never had interest in it. Similarly, no interest in PS4.
Sorry babe but N64 didn't have Poy Poy or Kurushi or Kula World so it was clearly the inferior console.
It did have Body Harvest though, granted.
I'm not talking about who had the better library, I'm talking about which one I personally enjoyed more :zombert:
That game is dangerous. It leads to too many philosophical questions. What does a beach ball want with all that fruit? It can't eat the fruit, it doesn't have a mouth. It can't even pick the fruit up, yet somehow it consumes the fruit just by bouncing onto it. Does it even know the fruit is there, or is it that in the case of an infinite amount of beach balls bouncing around an infinite number of levels intermittently sprinkled with fruit, one of the beach balls will inevitably end up inadvertently bouncing onto some of the fruit?Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
smurf you huxley
smurf you
you brought it all back
I really wanna play Kula World now.
No need to be a jerk, paul.
Probably just for DRM reasons as usual. If you wanna worry about surveillance, start with the Patriot act and all its counterparts in other countries, especially the UK. Now that terrorism isn't a credible fake threat anymore, western governments have moved on to cybercrime propaganda to suit their agendas. Vidya machines are the last thing you have to worry about as a freedom-concerned citizen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Locky
No way would I ever buy any platform that required I always be connected to the internet. In fact, unless we're talking about MMO games, I wouldn't even buy a game that required a constant connection to be played.
I initially assumed this was just another rumor like the "PS3 WON'T PLAY USED GAMES IT'S OVER SONY IS FINISHED!" rumor back in 2006. But after that little fiasco on Twitter...it seems like more than just a rumor. Although, wouldn't Microsoft be able to just remove it through a software update if the response to it ended up being really negative?
(SPOILER)EoEO is that way...Quote:
Originally Posted by kotora
I'd say almost certainly yes, but if it's own features and every game being developed for it are being made with always online in mind then to say removing could cause problems would be an understatement. I'd hate to be the people trying to patch that even more than I'd hate to be the people who spent money on the privilege.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMKA
On a different note, I was thinking a bit more this evening about what Paul said: that after the Sim City blow up they may strongly reconsider this. I hope they will, but there's a problem with that line of reasoning. Always online DRM has been blowing up in developers and publishers faces since long before the Sim City fiasco and nothing has changed.
Assassin's Creed 2 was probably the earliest case I can think of as the PC port caught a ton of flack for it. Hackers even took down the servers for the first few days to make a point. What did Ubisoft do? They added it to a lot of games after that, and even a few more after they said they would stop (granted Ubisoft are just complete morons about PC gaming and piracy though). But what happened after all of those problems Ubisoft had and the customer dissatisfaction they incurred? We got Diablo 3 which didn't have any single player and didn't really work for the first few weeks. They actually took the whole DRM concept farther than Ubisoft did because there's nothing like doubling down on a proven flop. And then we have Sim City... just yeah...
So it'll be nice if Microsoft has half a clue and doesn't screw this up, but history tells me that three of the biggest publishers in the industry not only made the exact same mistake repeatedly in the last several years, but they actually upped the ante and failed more spectacularly than the last guy every single time. If the pattern holds, an always online console would be a great way to out do EA. :exdee:
I do think this will effectively kill the new XBox. Which I honestly don't really mind, I don't think we need a new machine anyway.
The outrage at a game requiring it and not being able to handle it is one thing. If people's consoles start being useless like that... That's it. They'll be returned, people will stop buying them, and things will not go well for Microsoft, no matter which games are exclusive to the console. Customers will go elsewhere, and devs will follow.
It made me think of this strip:
http://diablo.incgamers.com/gallery/...-always-on.jpg
I "remember what happened with Diablo 3." Despite some initial shake-ups and most people on this forum thinking it's garbage, it was still another wildly successful hit for Blizzard. I was just playing it last night myself.
I understand people disliking the inability to use a disc you paid for, but for how many of you will this really be a burden for? Maybe I'm just not phased by it since I wasn't going to buy an Xbox anyway, but it seems like people are offended more by the idea rather than it put to practice.
edit: that said, I love a great Twitter feud and I never in a million years would have thought this could happen. I hope that Bane gif is the first of many memes on this issue.
I'm too poor for more consoles anyway. :erm:
Occasionally, I feel like dragging my ballsack through a jar of glass. This is not one of those times.
Look at the number of people who returned SimCity because of this issue. Amazon stopped selling it. I seem to recall hearing of fraud (due to their claims of the necessity of the always-online stuff, which isn't true) and denial of service claims being set against Maxis/EA for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
And a lot of that was just because of the launch burden. A console would be far worse, because it has that burden all the time. Even if you have a perfect internet connection (which many people don't. I certainly wouldn't be willing to stop gaming every time TWC dropped my connection, even if it does work out to miniscule amount of time relative to how much its up), every time the service screws up, can't handle a load, or misinterprets something, you're out.
It's going to be a problem, and, since there are alternatives out there, I think a lot of people will adopt them.
Me? I'm safe in the knowledge that they won't be able to try this on my precious handhelds for quite a while.
I see Sim City as an extreme example I don't see Microsoft repeating. I'm betting Microsoft's next-gen identity will be defined by innovative features that simply aren't possible unless you're always online. Throughout much of my PS3 ownership, I only played online games and didn't have too big of a problem when maintenance was underway. The worst was the Anonymous hack, but again, that's an incredibly extreme example.
An extreme example? I guess since it was the most extreme of an ever escalating series of examples. But this sort of thing has literally happened to every always online game in history and we don't think it's going to be a problem again when someone decides to do it with a console? Except there will be an important difference this time: if I had bought Sim City or Diablo 3 at launch and couldn't play them, I could still at least play any number of other games on the PC. But if someone can't get online on an always online console? Enjoy playing nothing at all because nothing works until the servers stop troutting their pants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
Even if this is true, it's no excuse for having a console require you to be online to play single player games (if that is indeed what happens). The very notion that customers should have to accept the possibility that single player won't work because their ISP isn't up to snuff now and then just so that they can experience Microsoft's idea of innovative features when the internet is working is absurd.Quote:
I'm betting Microsoft's next-gen identity will be defined by innovative features that simply aren't possible unless you're always online.
And knowing Microsoft, those innovative features will probably largely be what the other guys were doing two years earlier and you'll get to pay for Xbox Live Gold to have the privilege of using them. :p
When are those times?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephex
It didn't happen with Guild Wars 2 *shrug*Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22But this sort of thing has literally happened to every always online game in history and we don't think it's going to be a problem again when someone decides to do it with a console?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
If they really do this, Microsoft is willing to concede those users to achieve their vision, which OnLive, Gaikai, and plenty of online games have done before them.Quote:
The very notion that customers should have to accept the possibility that single player won't work because their ISP isn't up to snuff now and then just so that they can experience Microsoft's idea of innovative features when the internet is working is absurd.
I know you're joking, but I think it's well-settled that Xbox Live was a bit ahead of the curve, or at least changed the curve, with a number of well-known features Sony, Nintendo and Valve have implemented since its arrival.Quote:
And knowing Microsoft, those innovative features will probably largely be what the other guys were doing two years earlier and you'll get to pay for Xbox Live Gold to have the privilege of using them. :p
My internet connection is finicky so this would not go well for me :(
I was going to refer to how much I despised Diablo 3's constant internet requirement, but I see that someone beat me to it before this thread was even created.
Sure, it might not seem like a problem when you are connected, but what about when your interwebs go down? I'm sitting on a 40/40 Mbit fiber optical connection, and even I get connection problems now and then. Sure, it's not often, but why should I have to stop playing single player games when my internet goes down? There's just no reason, except adding more things to the console that could prevent you from doing what you bought the console to do, namely play games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Locky
Every holiday, I bring my PS3 with me when I visit my parents. They live far out in the country, and even if they have an all right internet connection for the place they live, it is much less stable than my own internet connection. Sometimes I have problems connecting to their WLAN properly too. I am not interested in paying hundreds of dollars for a console that will repeatedly interrupt my gameplay in the periods of time when I am most likely to play a lot, aka the holidays.
Btw, that Orthy guy is a complete retard. Of course electricity goes out too now and then. The point is, you have one infrastructure related thing that can stop you from playing games now already, why add another? That just increases the odds of not being able to play. Also, he's an idiot because if you really do live in an area with a lot of brownouts, an UPS isn't extremely expensive, and can power a moderately sized TV+console for probably an hour or two. Can't do that with internets!
Except those users are pretty much everyone. And people are willing to accept that if they're paying to stream games like they pay netflix to stream movies that if the internet is on the fritz they aren't going to be able to play. No sane person is going to accept that they won't be able to play single player in the next Halo title when they just popped the disc in the slot because their internet isn't working. Nor should they have to, and any company trying to tell them they should is smoking some good drugs and better include a lifetime supply when people buy the console because their customers are going to need them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
No argument here, but Microsoft is not a company known for it's ability to stay ahead of the competition, or even really compete with the competition really seeing as they've been late to market with pretty much everything not named Xbox 360 and had their asses handed to them. Call me cynical, but I really question the idea that lightning will strike twice for them. Especially when everyone else has more or less caught up/passed them, and they're still charging a monthly fee for things like online play (and still shoving ads in your face for good measure).Quote:
I know you're joking, but I think it's well-settled that Xbox Live was a bit ahead of the curve, or at least changed the curve, with a number of well-known features Sony, Nintendo and Valve have implemented since its arrival.
It's genius. Peddle rumours about an always-online console, only to proudly announce further down the line that it will in fact not require a permanent connection, and the gaming community applauds and wipes tears from their eyes for the benevolent Microsoft that listens to its consumers.
Sort of like what Sony did with the "retail games locked to PSN account" thing.
Remember when Sony shot themselves in the foot at the launch of a new generation and took the entire generation to catch up? It would be funny if Microsoft were also that stupid. Hoping this is true! xD
..... Sorry, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by kotoraProbably just for DRM reasons as usual. If you wanna worry about surveillance, start with the Patriot act and all its counterparts in other countries, especially the UK. Now that terrorism isn't a credible fake threat anymore, western governments have moved on to cybercrime propaganda to suit their agendas. Vidya machines are the last thing you have to worry about as a freedom-concerned citizen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Locky
Not what I meant at all.
So I might have been drunk posting last night. I think my post was indicating that sometimes I am willing to put up with the BS the video game industry as a whole throws at us consumers. A console being always on was not one of those times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del MurderWhen are those times?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephex
If you aren't a US citizen ignore patriot act talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Locky..... Sorry, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by kotoraProbably just for DRM reasons as usual. If you wanna worry about surveillance, start with the Patriot act and all its counterparts in other countries, especially the UK. Now that terrorism isn't a credible fake threat anymore, western governments have moved on to cybercrime propaganda to suit their agendas. Vidya machines are the last thing you have to worry about as a freedom-concerned citizen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Locky
Not what I meant at all.
I'll just stick to ps2/ps3 gamecube and my pc
The "next generation" of consoles interests me less and less every time I hear about it.
I, honestly, really don't care about it.
Our internet goes down from time to time - sure. But I'm currently always online anytime I play on my 360 anyway due to XBOX Live. Likewise on the (rare) occassion I'm on my PS3 it's usually connected to PSN.
I have a smartphone that's nearly always connected to the internet via WiFi.
This really doesn't rock my world.
My PC is pretty much always connected to the internet. It's no different to how everyone's sacred Valve have Steam setup. If you forgot to authorise for offline play then you're trout out of luck if you want to install and play a new game (or even half of the more modern titles). Last time I moved house I had no internet and was like oh I'll finally get around to installing Modern Warfare 2 - nope - couldn't, because Steam wouldn't let me until I connected to the internet. Of course, gamers seem to be oblivious to the fact that Valve, the Holy Grail, pulls a lot of the same trout that other companies get internet hate trains levelled at them for.
Also Diablo 3? People are still going on about that? Bar a couple of days of issues due to the game vastly exceeding how much they were expecting it to sell it was fine. Unlike Sim City it's also been patched numerous times since it's release and is a far better game as a result - compared to Sim City who's first "major" content is Nissan product placement DLC. The obvious main reason D3 was always online was due to Auction House and Real Money Auction House to provide more control over duping - Blizzard knew from D2 that there was a vast culture of selling items via external websites for money so they put that feature ingame to reduce the amount of people losing their accounts via such websites. They've even come out and admitted that the Auction House didn't really pan out the way they expected it too which is why they're not pushing similar functionality in the console version.
If always online brings additional functionality and benefits like I'm used too from MMOs, Steam and even from the current LIVE/Network services then fine.
I also vaguely recall reading something regarding that the 720 only has to be online when you boot up a game, not for the entire duration of your game session?
I don't think you can really compare Steam to a console. It's free to download, free to use, and designed to function through the internet. Not being able to download games without an internet connection is to be expected - after all, when you purchase a digital copy of a game online, there is no physical copy of the game to install from. But it does allow you to launch in offline mode and play games that you have downloaded, should you attempt to log on while your internet is down.
Now, if I was to spend the money to purchase a console and a physical copy of a game for that console, how would I expect it to work? I would expect to be able to plug the console into my TV, put the game in the console, turn the console on, and be able to play the game. I'm fine with consoles having online social networks and whatnot, but they shouldn't require an internet connection just to confirm that there is in fact a disc in the system.
The MW2 example I provided was with a physical version of the game. I've also had similar experiences with the likes Mass Effect 2 and I also wasn't able to play Left 4 Dead single player until I'd logged into Steam and chosen to go offline . Which meant that for pretty much the entire time I didn't have the internet the only games I could play were Solitaire and Minesweeper or games that I'd actually recently played before losing the internet.
If you have no idea what I'm on about - you actually have to login to Steam and choose "Go Offline" to be able to use certain games without an active internet connection.
https://support.steampowered.com/kb_...3160-agcb-2555
If you didn't like these aspects of the games you played through steam, why would you be fine with the same stuff being implemented for every game on a next gen console?
I mean sure, you don't have to be extremely pissed off about it, but at the very least you should disagree with it.
I think the difference for me is that I'm used to a computer being online all the time, but I'm still old-fashioned and think it's weird for a console to be internet connected. xD
As for Steam, I agree that their "have to be online to play offline" requirement is pretty bad, and that's the one thing I dislike the most about Steam. I wish they'd change it. But ultimately, my love for Steam has to do with something else. Firstly I love Steam because Valve is supposedly the very best place to work in the gaming industry for various reasons, and I really want to support that sort of culture. Secondly, I love Steam because it's bringing gaming to Linux. If this takes off, there will be no reason for me to use Windows ever again, and I will be a very happy camper. No more dual booting, I'm taking it right off of my computer again.
So Steam may have its flaws but it's outweighed by its pluses, to me personally. I can't think of enough pluses for the new Xbox to justify me buying it yet, although I'm definitely open to changes of opinion. (And as it stands I'd still rather have the new Xbox than the new Playstation, so.)
This won't affect me much as I'm always online anyway. Still, it's a notable annoyance and I can see why people are frustrated. I know I'd be really annoyed if my internet cut out and I suddenly lost my progress or something. That would suck balls.
Is there any confirmation that Sony isn't doing the same thing, out of curiosity?
I've only got one Internet cable running to my room and none of my trout is wireless, so getting a console online is actually a big hassle for me and involves moving stuff around so I can switch the cables.
And yes, people are still going on about D3, because huge numbers of people being unable to play the game they paid for at release is a pretty big piece of evidence that there are problems with always-online requirements. You can't just dismiss it by saying "It's all in the past now".
Just found the answer to my own question, for anyone interested.
Sony: PS4 won't require 'always-on' internet connection | Games industry news | MCV
The notion of always online is no good for me because in my current position I have really really poor, unstable internet, that craps out at the first sign of trouble. I cannot upgrade to anything better, because I legitimately have the best internet connection I can get. I would probably have to make sure that if I was wanting to play any games on the always online console, that the internet wasn't being used by anyone else just in case that caused my connection to drop off.
Sure, by the time this becomes prolific, my internet service may be better - but from where I am standing right now, it's not cool. Right now, I wouldn't be able to actually play anything that requires permanent internet access because I cannot be sure that my internet will be able to deal with it.
If only there were things like Hubs, Switches or PowerLine adapters to provide more convenience.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
Or it's more accurately a pretty big piece of evidence that sales forecasting needs to be better so more hardware is in place. It's also hardly dismissing it by pointing out that a) they worked through the issues pretty quickly, b) have improved the game substantially since then at no additional monetary cost and well... c) despite the uproar at launch it's still played by a subsantial amount of people worldwide to this day. Which on that note d) not everyone is going to get something on launch day/week which is when the most amount of issues tend to pop-up. Are there problems with it, sure - but for the most part they are short-term temporary problems.Quote:
And yes, people are still going on about D3, because huge numbers of people being unable to play the game they paid for at release is a pretty big piece of evidence that there are problems with always-online requirements. You can't just dismiss it by saying "It's all in the past now".
Just look at something like Wings of Liberty and more recently Heart of the Swarm - where yes, you can play single player offline if you really want too but you still need to authenticate via Battle.net first with the caveat being you can't get achievements playing offline. Those launches went off without a hitch and people are far less up in arms about having to be connected to Battle.net to play especially now resume from replay has been added that makes disconnections non-game killing.
The great thing in the case of Diablo 3 is despite all the uproar both before launch and after launch about being always online it still went on to sell over 10 million copies. Which is the thing really, a minority of consumers are very vocal but then they still purchase the thing they've railed against - and those that don't, usually invest very little into the industry as a whole anyway. If the 720 enjoys any degree of success you can guarantee that Sony will be jumping onto the gravy train come the PS5 either willing, or by buckling under publisher pressure.
But then again I also remember the days when people were up in arms over playing console games over the internet because it destroyed the social aspect of playing games together.
Still despite living in rural Ireland with an internet connection that drops every couple of hours or pretty much all the time if it's raining - it still doesn't bother me. I'm not the type of person that picks-up console hardware at launch and my purchasing decision will, as always, be decided based on the respective games libraries. Besides the 720 hasn't even been officially unveiled yet so I will hold judgment until all the cards are actually on the table.
To me this is just the beginning, like it or loathe it the Always-On future is coming - and it's not just limited to gaming - give it 20 to 30 years and the imgur of tomorrow will be full of pictures joking about how the kids of tomorrow don't know what an ethernet cable or TV remote control are.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. There still is no reason to force always online when a game doesn't have any significant online features. It's just bullcrap.
I think Huxley that is the sound of you getting full on learned.Quote:
Originally Posted by AulaynaIf only there were things like Hubs, Switches or PowerLine adapters to provide more convenience.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
If only we didn't already have that stuff in my house and this is after we've got a load of devices wired up! If only we're not already stretching the Internet so that everyone complains about how slow it is, so adding more devices wouldn't be that good for our speed and regular disconnects (and we already pay for the best web that's on the market in my area so it's not like we can upgrade).
I agree that always-on is the future, but I think that it should happen because it provides utility for the customer. As it stands it's usually because it provides a perceived benefit to the investor's pocketbooks because it ostensibly prevents piracy and the industry's myopia surrounding piracy is an astonishing testament of ignorance and short-term thinking.
Consoles aren't like a PC where you can just alt-tab to chat or experience Steve piling on because he thinks someone scored a hit on you which he himself will never manage; they've got to provide something else for always-on to be a good deal for the people actually buying the product. If you look at a game like Spore, whatever all its other flaws, that's a case where always-on made a good deal of sense because one of the game's most fundamental aspects and selling points was the fact that so much of what you saw was user-createdphallusescontent. What good does it do me that Diablo 3 is always online? Yes it sold a lot, but it was in spite of that, not because of it. I'm not trying to argue that nobody ever accepts always online, or that a game is doomed to be a financial failure due to it, I'm arguing that it's reasonable to expect a game be playable when you buy it and not when the servers are finally working properly, and I'm arguing that if something doesn't benefit the player then it's a pretty questionable addition.
Huxley I've scored so many hits on you that you're starting to look like spotted dick.
:eyebrow:
(SPOILER)i think he's hitting on you man just be cool
Huxley can'r be cool in these moments Manus, first he gets all nervous then giggly like a school girl before eventually he works himself up so hard he pukes in the corner.
See what I said earlier about the Auction House and player trading and it being an attempt to create a safe environment for people to do that rather than all the dodgy D2JP type sites that were scam central during Diablo 2. Did it work out? Not really. But to claim it was done squarely to shaft people is pretty silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
Yes and Microsoft haven't even unveiled this new console yet and people are just assuming that it's for DRM related reasons only and that there isn't any other conceivable reason why they might be going down this route that might actually :o benefit the player!Quote:
I'm arguing that if something doesn't benefit the player then it's a pretty questionable addition.
So all I'm getting at here is: maybe hold back on the pitchforks until all the cards are on the table?
Wonder if they'll also be charging people who wish to use online multiplayer still, despite the massive amount of catching up made by Sony over the PS3's life cycle thus far.
(SPOILER)I'm pretty sure he was talking about you, mateQuote:
Originally Posted by Iceglow
So, the Xbox is always connected, the ps4 isn't backwards-compatible except through emulation, I think this leaves a big room for the steam box when it comes out.
Or just get a good pc with all that money you were gonna spend on the new consoles:)
Steam Box :love: I can't wait for that
I won't be getting one but I am excited to see what the final product will be
I'm going to rephrase the original post for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aulayna
"This may just be a rumour, but apparently Microsoft's next console might require a stable internet connection to be used at all. Give your opinions on this, and discuss the potential consequences if it turns out to be true."
There we are. Now you can stop with the "it might not be true, so let's not talk about it" stuff. Much obliged.
Alright, care to point out where I ever argued that it might not be true?
All I'm saying is that maybe we should wait and see what the deal with it being Always Online is before we start blasting them for it. If people aren't big on the idea because they don't have stable internet connections then fine. But spouting off trout about DRM and how the big bad company is troutting on the little guy etc (alright, slightly paraphrased) for something we don't have the full story about it just a tad silly.
Also, BoB:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news...-Always-Online
I think its entirely reasonable that people's first response is to think it'll be negative. The industry hasn't given us much reason to think they'd do this for the good of the people. x3
Odds are that it's just a rumor. C'mon folks, anyone with a brain stem can see that this is a marketing disaster and totally reprehensible, the buyers won't put up with it and they have a good amount of people who use their console but don't have an internet connection. They could and, in my opinion, will lose vast amounts of revenue from such a decision.
Pics and an official statement or it won't happen. :colbert:
Yes, that is the only concern that I would have. My Internet connection rarely goes out these days, but I would still be annoyed if I had disconnected from the Internet briefly and lost progress or was unable to play completely because of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
It wasn't done to make it safer, it was done to ensure Blizzard got a cut of the profits.Quote:
Originally Posted by AulaynaSee what I said earlier about the Auction House and player trading and it being an attempt to create a safe environment for people to do that rather than all the dodgy D2JP type sites that were scam central during Diablo 2. Did it work out? Not really. But to claim it was done squarely to shaft people is pretty silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
And what has Microsoft done in recent history to make you think that they even have the player's interests remotely in mind?Quote:
Yes and Microsoft haven't even unveiled this new console yet and people are just assuming that it's for DRM related reasons only and that there isn't any other conceivable reason why they might be going down this route that might actually :o benefit the player!Quote:
I'm arguing that if something doesn't benefit the player then it's a pretty questionable addition.
So all I'm getting at here is: maybe hold back on the pitchforks until all the cards are on the table?
That's what it is though. DRM is almost definitely(*) the primary function, and it disconveniences the little guy, so why should the little guy not stand up against the big bad company?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aulayna
*) Of course, it might be for something else, but that's sort of like saying that atomic bombs might just be made because scientists have a lot of fun building them.
Also, here's an interesting question: What if a weakness in MS' online system is discovered, one that is similar to the PSN trout Sony had to deal with. How many days was it that PSN was down? Now imagine that either Sony or MS required you to be constnatly authenticated to one of their servers, and a massive security hole was discovered, forcing them to shut down the servers for over a week again. That's one week where not a single paying customer can use the product they paid for.
Is that fine too?
The more things that can go wrong you add to a system, the more often you will run into things going wrong. It's as simple as that.
I thought we were talking about Microsoft...Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbreakable Will
Touche
:roll2Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
Well, considering this topic is about the next XBOX I'll refrain from sidetracking it further.
Because the big bad company has more competitors than ever. Surrounded by a host of different experiences, why blast the one that doesn't conform to your tastes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirage
The way Microsoft differentiates itself from the competition this generation will yet again be the online features they offer, some of which probably won't be possible without an online connection. That's what the original article that leaked this information suggested. Of course it would be easy for them to just make these features optional, but again, that's their vision of the unfied experience their users will share and no one's entitled to demand they compromise. And I know DRM is the first thing you think of when you hear "internet connection required," but I don't see them forsaking Gamestop.
Anyway, I'd like to believe after such an overwhelmingly negative public reaction Microsoft would go back on this, but EA just laid the foundation for game companies stubbornly marching on.
Yeah, so they should offer those online services. I never said they shouldn't. I am pretty sure they can offer almost all of those online services without forcibly shutting down your game because of a connection issue.
In either case, you're right. They have a competitor that have confirmed that they won't be doing this, so it doesn't matter if they do it or not to me, I'll just buy a PS4 instead.
And yeah, maybe I just don't like it out of principle, but that's fine with me. Gotta have some principles, after all.
Here's my issue with the potential of an "always-on" console:
We're not ready. In the Americas, in much of Europe, and especially Australia, we are not ready for something that requires us to be online at all times. Until much of the world is wired in the same manner as South Korea, we aren't ready for this. The infrastructure simply does not exist for this sort of thing. The unfortunate alienation of a larger portion of the userbase than anticipated will be Microsoft's result if they follow through. Will this HURT them? No. Will it stop most people from buying their system? No. Will it turn 360 players away from the Xbox? Some, absolutely.
Give it one more console generation before you rely so heavily on the digital age.
I am not a fan but I have been moving more towards the PC over the past few years anyway. I really dislike all of the console interfaces now (I liked the previous XBox interface). The XBox is now geared towards everything but gaming and services and more towards their different store fronts. The PS3 has not changed and has always been trout. The Wii and I have not seeing the WiiU yet. Probably not much different (could be very wrong).
Always online is kind of stupid. If it works like steam where you just need to sign in once every 7 days (I think) then it isn't so bad. If it is like SimCity or Blizzard then it is pretty bad. Microsoft already handles millions of players signing in all of the time so I don't think there would be a service disaster. But also not everyone has or wants high speed internet.
I will just buy stuff for the PC and play it on my TV with my 360 controller. Fine by me.
I know I've said this before, but now I have an example in live action right here.
I am currently browsing the internet on my PC without any issues on my 40/40 fiber internet. 10 minutes ago, I started my PS3 to play some Tekken before going to bed. During this time, my PS3 has been unable to connect to PSN at all. I don't have a lot of time to play games on weekdays nowadays, and I probably only play on my PS3 a couple of times a week if I exclude weekends. If this had been a console that required an internet connection constantly in order to let me play games, I wouldn't have been able to play Tekken (or any other game) at all today, even if I have an internet connection that is probably in the 98th percentile on a global basis.
Before anyone tells me "but maybe it's your router", or "but maybe it's your switch" or "maybe it's my network cable" (yes, I use a wired connection for my PS3 because it is a lot more stable), yeah, maybe it is. At the same time, so what if it is? I'm probably able to troubleshoot this problem and fix it if I really want to, but I have 30 minutes before I have to go to bed, and I'd prefer to spend these 30 minutes playing, not troubleshoot my home network. Also, I'm technically minded and actually have the skills required to sort these things out, but a lot of people are not, and could potentially have to jump through a lot more hoops to make their things work than I have to, such as calling a techy family member and have them come over to fix it for you.
In reality though, it is probably a temporary routing issue between my ISP and Sony's servers, an issue that is mostly out of Sony's hands, unless they feel like adding authentication servers directly in the backbone network of every ISP in the world. The issue could be gone by the time I am done typing this, but it also might not be. Who knows? I'm glad it doesn't matter, though. I can just go right back and play regardless of my network status.
Tell me again why I should feel completely all right with always-on as a requirement for any game mode in any game. ;)
So adam orth the guy who started this whole drama online got fired over it. OOPS. That's PR for you. Can't post stuff and not represent a company when you're talking about said company and work for it.
Haha, that is mighty unfortunate.
That's what happens when you post stuff like "DEAL WITH IT NERDS" on TwitterQuote:
Originally Posted by Freya
I'd say it's quite the opposite. Act like an idiot in public and cause a PR nightmare for your employer? Getting fired is pretty much exactly what you deserve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinter Wonderland
He should've had more tact but it's sad to watch someone publicly execute their own career.
He was too cocky apparently. Him, and the developers that work with him have had a reputation of being cocky assholes. So it's good he got what's coming to him on that front. Act like a cocky douche and you get fired!
Isn't that what Twitter's for?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
(SPOILER)http://nerdreactor.com/wp-content/up.../adamorth3.png
Ever since the Xbox "We promise guys, this one's rrod proof" claims we heard after the first xbox was birthed, I've decided that I'll wait a while before I buy a next gen console. Not interested in jumping on the bandwagon only to be disappointed shortly after arriving at the destination.
You mean you're not picking a team? :O
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
I've just remembered through experiencing it, Xbox Live can be a piece of trout sometimes. Right now I'm going to play my box even if Far Cry 3 is having a troutfit about not being able to get boring messages from Ubisoft. If the rumours are true, right now I'd be typing a post filled with far more hatred of things than I am right now.
here's more fuel for the this fire:
Believe - Pastebin.com
Fuel? That's more like a fire hose.
Sounds cool though, I wonder how much of it is true. I might get a "durango" if it actually does have 100% 360 compatibility, because I don't actually have a 360 now and it would be cool to eventually play some of those games.
It's too bad that Sony probably can't ensure backwards compatibility for their PS4.
The "running on windows 8" aspect is what I anticipate everyone to rage about.
Why?
The general consensus from everyone I've encountered that has used Windows 8, along with myself is that it isn't the most pleasant interface to use. And no, I don't want a touch-pad PC quite yet. Don't make me buy one to be able to optimally use the most up-to-date version of your operating system, Microsoft.
Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net
Because they are totally going to use a touch screen interface for the next Xbox, right? The guy said it would be the same core, which means it's Win7 +1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowy
GAFers are kinda skeptical of this, mostly from saying the 360 unit will give extra computing power to the main unit and that Windows will make it the most popular Indie platform.
edit: the thread title's been changed to "Tales from my Ass."
If it were win7+1 I wouldn't complain. 8 just feels wonky.Quote:
Originally Posted by MirageBecause they are totally going to use a touch screen interface for the next Xbox, right? The guy said it would be the same core, which means it's Win7 +1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowy
I've heard from a lot of people that the general consensus towards Windows 8 is negative, but I've never heard anyone who actually uses Win 8 respond negatively to it. :confused:
I use Win 8, and it's basically just Windows 7 with a different Start Menu. Don't understand how one might consider it wonky or ineffective.
But that's exactly what you'll get. Win8's UI makes no sense for a console, and that leaves just the OS core, which basically is the same core as in 7, just better.Quote:
Originally Posted by JowyIf it were win7+1 I wouldn't complain. 8 just feels wonky.Quote:
Originally Posted by MirageBecause they are totally going to use a touch screen interface for the next Xbox, right? The guy said it would be the same core, which means it's Win7 +1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowy
That sounds almost too perfect to work though. Blame the eternal pessimist in me that assumes it'll be an ordeal just to play a game.
:monster:Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Manus
There's... nothing too perfect about it. It's just an OS, on a console, with a console GUI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowy
I use Win8 and I tolerate it only now that I tweaked it to run like Win7. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Quinter Wonderland
I troubleshoot people's pc's daily. Windows 8 is a piece of trout that barely supports any software properly without a great deal of fart-arsing around and frankly ain't nobody got time for that.
I still don't get it. Everything I had running on 7 runs perfectly on 8. Gimme some examples; I'm damned curious.
It's more a case of explaining to customers who have the intellect of a glass of water, come from Wales and or the North the correct process of how to get Silverlight running on their pc. Genuinely, Windows 8 is not user friendly for the unintelligent masses. Compared to the ease of using Windows XP - 7, Windows 8 is a right pain in the arse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinter Wonderland
