It's going to explode so hard that it levels the server farm
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Xing Interactive: Our sources say next Xbox will block used games, require online
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
It's going to explode so hard that it levels the server farm
BlazingDarkness
Member
Buttocks also got another thing wrong, he/she made a thread before one of the big events (TGS/E3?) with a GIF saying Sony was set to reveal an exclusive game - the game in the GIF eventually turned out to be that game called 'Remember Me' which is PS3/360 and has nothing to do with Sony. Not infallible.
Aquamarine
Member
Fuck yeah it will.
PS4 launch unveil + console unveil + price unveil
Durango unveil + always-online unveil + price unveil
3D Mario U unveil / gameplay demos on the floor + Mario Kart U unveil / gameplay demos on the floor + Smash Bros. U unveil
There is absolutely no way GAF can survive this.
Glorified G
Member
"Insiders" on gaf can be so annoying. Either say it or don't say anything at all.
actually the game was at once going to be published by sony.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
These rumors are getting boring.
Saying more could reveal who Buttocks actually is, be grateful that his prophetic cheeks give us a glint of the future.
It was a PS3 exclusive at one point.
BronsonLee
Member
thecharrr said:
Bahahahahaha
So many meltdowns incoming. And it's only April!
Wow, I didn't have a big picture look until that post. Good god.
The new consoles will bring the most madness, but if Nintendo drops any of those, I'm half expecting all of NintendoGAF to just spontaneously explode into beings of pure energy, if the Nintendo Directs are any indicator
Yeah, people have argued before about how it's good to have all three around, and I WAS able to concede to that for this generation and last, especially seeing how Microsoft successfully lit a fire under Sony's ass... but if they seriously go through with this stuff, with or without exclusives like that? At that point they're like a rabid dog, their success can only mean shitty practices spread wildly, and it's possible they know it's not likely to be taken well so they'll try forcing it down as hard as they can. Better to put them down and hope someone better suited takes their place, or just leave it as Sony vs Nintendo. They're different enough from one another that you get a good mix going on.
That actually makes sense, Microsoft may not want to try banking on whatever's established but instead go after something that could be the next big thing. And EA may be using a relatively conservative budget to make it somewhat safe (or the budget IS crazy but they can just port to PS4/PC/maybe Wii U later on.)
Glorified G
Member
Then why bring it up at all? What difference would it make to post 'yes' to a reply as opposed to naming the game itself?
BronsonLee
Member
IIRC, buttocks has specifically outed games that nobody knew existed, much less the style they went with (I remember Dead Space 3 being the shootbang with your friends game)
He gets detailed as hell. The vocabulary and whatnot is just a trap. The info provided is pretty solid.
BlazingDarkness
Member
He posted the GIF literally hours prior to the event - which suggests his sources aren't necessarily up to date, so like I said, not infallible.
I know one thing... I will definitely be joining any and all vocal anti-MS team if they go through with this. Hope Microsoft fanboys are prepared for my mouth 'cause I am going to be eviscerating Microsoft if they go through with this crap. For an entire generation.
It's a dude in a studio somewhere named 'crazy buttocks on a train', expecting well detailed and specific leaks from someone whose hiding their identity behind childlike innocence will lead to disappointment.
Nahh.... the rumors have been for the most part.... preeeeeeeeeeetty damn consistent. Its the rumors that contradict these that are the
Awful lot of smoke, I would not be surprised if there is a fire.
Sony was set to publish Adrift, now known as Remember Me, but ended up giving back the publishing rights. Game was reworked a bit and Capcom then decided to publish it.
Reminds me how Disney and Fox (iirc) were going to be DIVX exclusive back when Circuit City was pushing that. There were a lot of parallels with the Durango rumors; who would think a sane corporation would require online activation/charge every 48 hours if you wanted to watch an already purchased DVD back in 1998?
And yeah, the backlash was incredible.
BlazingDarkness
Member
I want them to do it just so I can see this :lol
Well, it sounds like a lot of current Microsoft fanboys plan to jump ship if this is true, so this is probably going to be Microsoft's "$599.99" but on steroids, only a few will defend them and likely half heartedly unless they're REALLY underestimating the potential problem, are apathetic, or are kind of assholes anyway.
statham
Member
To put it in perspective, 360 was my favorite console this past generation up until Kinect. To go from that point to where we are now is... I just can't possibly pretend to know what they're thinking. I hope to God everyone is massively wrong about the rumours...
That's a strong memory, I didn't even remember Disney and Fox saying that. Funny shit.
It's seeming less and less likely. There were those rumors that gave hope, but this is popping up again in full force so I'm thinking it's even more likely for the worst case scenario to be true, and they're sticking with it regardless. :/
Looking back on DivX I saw some of that, but admittedly I can see a big difference being that everyone being online WITH BROADBAND THAT CAN BE SHARED makes it far more feasible than the phoneline crap then.
Still, some of the same rationales could seem to apply only to fail, IE everyone has a phoneline so why couldn't this work? And hopefully it's a similar situation here, where it blows up catastrophically and Microsoft has to give up on always online for good or exit the industry entirely. It probably WOULD cause something akin to a Crash just because they've been around for a decade and got enough mindshare in the US for quite a few to consider them the face of gaming now, but it's better than the alternative.
Can anyone explain to me, what monetary value a "connection required" system that does not allow used games bring to Microsoft?
Serious question. How does MS monetize these features to earn them a better ROI on the next-box? Because it SOUNDS like they'd cut out a large chunk of folks (those w/o the necessary internet connection) and piss of others (those that want used games) while bringing no recognizable value to the project.
So either we are all missing a big piece of this puzzle, or the rumors are just a lot of noise filling the void of MS' silence.
Serious question. How does MS monetize these features to earn them a better ROI on the next-box? Because it SOUNDS like they'd cut out a large chunk of folks (those w/o the necessary internet connection) and piss of others (those that want used games) while bringing no recognizable value to the project.
So either we are all missing a big piece of this puzzle, or the rumors are just a lot of noise filling the void of MS' silence.
BRocknRolla
Member
Gaf eats this shit up, hoping its true. Have a feeling dat Microsoft conference is gonna break allot of Sony faithful hearts next month.
Can't walk into a thread about a negative MS rumor without taking a jab at Sony, huh? Why is it that some people cannot understand this isn't about a dick measuring contest between two brands but about setting an extremely negative precedent for consumers? Idiot.
I can't imagine that would be the case. If they're going to do it, they're going to go all in. There will be negative backlash, and no amount of remarketing would convince people that MS's position has changed once they've established it. They would never be able to get away from the stigma, so they're either sure they don't give a shit about the perception, they've got something else entirely they plan on using to drag away negative attention, or it isn't true.
I agree. I have no faith that people will consider the big picture. It will be all about brand loyalty and whoever has the exclusives. People on these very forums seem to prove that.
Fallout would be tragic. It's a series that I think could benefit intensely from the next gen and seeing it be a third party exclusive would be frustrating. I really wish third party exclusives would end. Frustrating that console maker money can buy exclusives on all sides.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
Not really, someone posted a DIVX thread recently that brought a lot of that mess back. Search was being weird, but I finally found it: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=536715
I never did forget Disney's exclusivity though, it was ironically the biggest nail in DIVX's coffin. Defenders said that it was good way to save a few bucks on buying movies, since they didn't re-watch them often, and many movies had an unlimited-view purchase option anyway. Which fell apart when Disney wasn't allowing unlimited viewing for their movies, and we all know how much kids love to watch Disney movies over and over again.
I find it hard to believe MS would limit themselves to a online only market.
It is not as much of an incentive to go exclusive as some are making it out to be. Both consoles would have the opinion for games to require online and block used versions. The difference being one would be forced and the other by choice.
What about publishers/developers that don't want to limit their market to online users only or block used versions?
The only possible advantage I can think of is that due to online being required, blocked used games and maybe forced HDD installations that when you buy a physical version of a game, a digital version is unlocked once the game is tied to your system.
It is not as much of an incentive to go exclusive as some are making it out to be. Both consoles would have the opinion for games to require online and block used versions. The difference being one would be forced and the other by choice.
What about publishers/developers that don't want to limit their market to online users only or block used versions?
The only possible advantage I can think of is that due to online being required, blocked used games and maybe forced HDD installations that when you buy a physical version of a game, a digital version is unlocked once the game is tied to your system.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
Its the only one that makes sense to me if its not ReSpawn. MS isn't going to put up the money for a unproven IP if they didn't jump on something like Destiny. With that in mind I say there is no way its Mirrors Edge. The only ones that make sense is continued Mass Effect or Fallout and Fallout just sounds right to me.
ThisWreckage
Banned
I've been saying for a while that Microsoft will tether themselves to EA, Activision, or Bethesda. Hell, Bethesda treated PS3 owners like total shit this past generation with awful port jobs and games that were broken.
It's really the only way Microsoft can stay relevant in the industry and they know that. If they wouldn't have locked down Gears last generation the 360 would not have been nearly as successful for them. It may backfire. I will not pick up a console for a certain franchise. Period. I'm at the age where I have to choose where to spend my money the most wisely and the whole third party exclusive angle leaves a bad taste in my mouth more than anything.
It's really the only way Microsoft can stay relevant in the industry and they know that. If they wouldn't have locked down Gears last generation the 360 would not have been nearly as successful for them. It may backfire. I will not pick up a console for a certain franchise. Period. I'm at the age where I have to choose where to spend my money the most wisely and the whole third party exclusive angle leaves a bad taste in my mouth more than anything.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Yeah nah.
Xbox mini might. No way the main box will. There's literally no logical reason for MS to do it. I wouldn't spend any more or less on digital content by requiring a connection, so what's actually in it for Microsoft to make it worth committing commercial suicide? Actually, if anything, I'll buy less knowing one day the console will be a paperweight.
There's no logic behind this rumour. None whatsoever.
Xbox mini might. No way the main box will. There's literally no logical reason for MS to do it. I wouldn't spend any more or less on digital content by requiring a connection, so what's actually in it for Microsoft to make it worth committing commercial suicide? Actually, if anything, I'll buy less knowing one day the console will be a paperweight.
There's no logic behind this rumour. None whatsoever.
I have a feeling MS will approach this in a way that will allow them to have their cake and eat it too, I just don't know how. There is room for a middle ground here, I truly don't think it's black or white, either you're online or you can't use this thing whatsoever.
And what kind of pub would not want to stop people from buying their games used?
Is this operating under the idea of an EA exclusive? Because, uhh, FALLOUT IS NOT EA.
Not only is Fallout owned by Bethesda now, but it was originally created BECAUSE EA had a stake in Wasteland and it was Brian Fargo's way of getting around it, a spiritual successor rather than a direct one.
Still, Mass Effect could make sense. EA owns it, Microsoft originally published, and I imagine of the series that people may've migrated to PC for as they got better computers this is one of the games they most likely stuck through with on 360 (the other probably being CoD just for online play with friends.)
Whether or not it's true is independent from whether or not there is logic to support it.
BRocknRolla
Member
Oh, I'm not saying it doesn't make sense. I think locking down those sorts of high profile, popular titles would definitely drive sales in their direction. I can imagine MS doing exactly that because specific games will likely trump whatever other problems people have with the system despite what many here argue.
I only lament it because it has nothing at all to do with the actual console. It's not as though it's an argument like, "We could only make a game like this on this console," but rather just numbers on a spreadsheet. Winning with deep pockets rather than on the merits of the system would be a sad direction for the next generation to go. I want to see hardware and first party studios duke it out for whose console is worth owning.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
Im not basing this on Buttocks posts. I haven't seen any evidence that he/she knows anything.
Yeah I feel you.
Well, I don't know if Fallout's very likely anyway, Bethesda probably recognizes the value of the PC base and at worst would make it Xbox/PC exclusive, quite a few games earlier on were like that though that was probably partially due to the PS3 coming a year later and being a bitch to develop for. Would certainly piss me off if Fallout was fully Xbox exclusive though because no way do I plan to get the next Xbox with crap like that on it.
Estocolmo
Member
Yes. Except the fact that any online gamer can in any second become an offline one. Ive had 100mb internet since 2004 and that doesnt mean I always have internet. Sometimes it wont work, or I bring my Xbox to a place without internet. Its just stupid locking out non-internet gamers completely, EVEN from a business perspective.
Well, yes and no.
I think in this case no. Because online being a requirement would lose them far more customers than it would gain. Of the customers they do manage to get, most would not buy much digital content given they'd more than likely know that that content is useless now and in the future without a connection. Even more so if and when Microsoft shuts down those Live servers.
I mean, I've bought around 50 arcade games and a handful of games on demand, some DLC etc etc. no fucking way in hell will I buy much if at all on this new Xbox if I know a connection is required. I'm the customer Microsoft wants, and they wouldn't get much out of me if they go through with this.
So again, there is literally no monetary value in this for Microsoft. So you can't have MS haters on their high horse on one hand claiming Microsoft are an evil money hungry organization, but then they can fully believe Microsoft would make an anti consumer move that makes them NO money.
Surely you see how illogical that is?
Plus you're still buying physical games unless you're one of those that'd just get one or two and call it a day, and you'd be increasing mindshare to get others to stick with Xbox. If they can't profit off of that then I think the model's fundamentally broken (probably is though.)
If you don't want this stuff to catch on then it would be best to have an exclusive you don't care about. And ME wouldn't put me off that much just because it'd be following precedent, though the fact I kinda gave up on the series helps.
AHA-Lambda
Member
Respawn.
Exactly, better it be an exclusive you don't care about.
I agree with this completely. It seems like there has been very little critical thinking applied to these rumors. Again, unless there is some crazy lucrative exclusive agreement, MS has lots to lose and seemingly nothing to gain from doing this...
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Console warrior.
I said quite some time ago that if MS are blocking used games, they're only doing it because publishers and devs want it. Which also means they have some exclusives locked down.
I see no reason why they can't lock down the next gen 14 editions of FIFA and Madden. FIFA for Europe, Madden for the US.
The install bases will be tiny, so MS could easily write a cheque to EA for such small potential losses.