Xbox's "Always On"fiasco.

[Bolivar]

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.

[Slothy]

I see Sim City as an extreme example I don't see Microsoft repeating.

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.

I'm betting Microsoft's next-gen identity will be defined by innovative features that simply aren't possible unless you're always online.

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.

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.

[Del Murder]

Occasionally, I feel like dragging my ballsack through a jar of glass. This is not one of those times.

When are those times?

[Bolivar]

I see Sim City as an extreme example I don't see Microsoft repeating.

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?

It didn't happen with Guild Wars 2 *shrug*

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.

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.

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.

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.

[escobert]

My internet connection is finicky so this would not go well for me

[Værn]

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.

[Mirage]

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.

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.

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!

[Slothy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

[Old Manus]

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.

[Mirage]

Sort of like what Sony did with the "retail games locked to PSN account" thing.

[Quindiana Jones]

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

[Night Fury]

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.

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.

..... Sorry, what?

Not what I meant at all.

[Sephex]

Occasionally, I feel like dragging my ballsack through a jar of glass. This is not one of those times.

When are those times?

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.

[Dr. rydrum2112]

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.

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.

..... Sorry, what?

Not what I meant at all.

If you aren't a US citizen ignore patriot act talk.

[TrollHunter]

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.