Support NeoGAF

[Moneyhats2k5]

Which ISP and where do you live?

I also hate this mindset that if you have perfect internet, fuck everyone who doesn't.

lol. maybe not for you, but ask your family/friends/coworkers.

 

[Blearth]

Which ISP and where do you live?

I also hate this mindset that if you have perfect internet, fuck everyone who doesn't.

Sonic.net in San Francisco, California.

Speeds aren't great, but it's super reliable and has been called the best ISP in the country when it comes to privacy.

 

[GraveHorizon]

What if Microsoft are just on a "truth blackout" and have been letting these rumors fly just so that when they finally do their big reveal, all the terrible things we thought were going to happen with the console are completely fake, and it's actually very good? In that scenario, all the people who are really down about the future of the Xbox (which is goddamn near everyone not on a company payroll) have their negative expectations drastically upturned, and ultimate faith is restored in the system. That would be really cool, right?

 

[xxracerxx]

lol. maybe not for you, but ask your family/friends/coworkers.

Think you quoted the wrong post.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

Sonic.net in San Francisco, California.

Speeds aren't great, but it's super reliable and has been called the best ISP in the country when it comes to privacy.

I have a very stable and fast Internet connection with Cox. I think its only gone down once or twice briefly in the 9 or so months I've been with them but the reality is, if rumors are true this all around anti-consumer. For one, I look beyond myself. For another, I don't know much about what could happen in the future with my ISP, if I move, etc.

I don't want these rumors to be true and I don't want NextBox to fail, but if what we're hearing from various sources is the final product, then MS has nobody to blame but themselves.

 

[Roo]

If either console is $ 500, it looks like I'll be waiting for a price drop for the first time ever.

Wii U, being the hardware it is (and maybe Nintendo trying to get away with it) was $300 and $350, I really can't see PS4 or the next Xbox under $400 and we're talking about true beasts here.

So yeah, waiting for a price drop is a wise decision.

 

[Iknos]

Thought it was obvious that MS is competing with Apple and Google here...not really with Sony.

Sony is competing with MS which is great because if they didn't adopt all the new features MS laid out they would have been left in the dust with all these new machines set to dominate the living room.

 

[Truespeed]

No one is even making 4GB GDDR5 chips at this time and using four 2GB would be power and temperature prohibitive. Samsung and Hynix both make 2GB cihps with a 32bit interface and they are pretty much it for GDDR5 makers on the planet. Which means Sony has one of them building a custom memory chip of 4GB ahead of schedule for scaling GDDR5 to those amounts. And the bump to 8GB was apparently a last minute change. That always is going to affect production lines when your dealing with something that has to be starting to get mass produced within the next month or two to have enough systems to launch with in November. GDDR5 is a fairly small market at this point and Sony is asking a lot to get enough memory for a millions systems to launch with.

You're right, no one is making 4GB GDDR5 at this time or even 2GB for that matter. What they are making is 4Gb chips which the the PS4 will use 16 of. As for the supply constraint - is GDDR5 difficult to fab with low yield rates? If not then why would there be a shortage? These orders to either Samsung, Hynix or even both were placed a long time ago and probably well within the window they needed to guarantee the supply.

 

[madmackem]

Thought it was obvious that MS is competing with Apple and Google here...not really with Sony.

Sony is competing with MS which is great because if they didn't adopt all the new features MS laid out they would have been left in the dust with all these new machines set to dominate the living room.

I dont buy that for a second, apple tv is what $99 i dont see how ms is going to compete with that, they are very much head to head with sony its a games machine and thats its main focus if they take their eye off that then will lose.

 

[xxracerxx]

Thought it was obvious that MS is competing with Apple and Google here...not really with Sony.

Sony is competing with MS which is great because if they didn't adopt all the new features MS laid out they would have been left in the dust with all these new machines set to dominate the living room.

What? Come on.

Edit: Oh you are the guy that posted the Sony playing catchup thread....nevermind.

 

[Risette]

Thought it was obvious that MS is competing with Apple and Google here...not really with Sony.

Then they're fucked.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Wii U, being the hardware it is (and maybe Nintendo trying to get away with it) was $300 and $350, I really can't see PS4 or the next Xbox under $400 and we're talking about true beasts here.

So yeah, waiting for a price drop is a wise decision.

Nintendo is trying to get away with underpowered hardware, just like they have in the past.

Sony doesn't have to include an extra tablet in every PS4 box and unlike Nintendo they have been willing take a loss on hardware because they operate more of a third-party royalty revenue model than trying to make money from hardware and mostly first-party titles.

MS has a ton of money to throw around and also has adopted the practice of taking losses on hardware.

 

[FroJay]

Wii U, being the hardware it is (and maybe Nintendo trying to get away with it) was $300 and $350, I really can't see PS4 or the next Xbox under $400 and we're talking about true beasts here.

So yeah, waiting for a price drop is a wise decision.

I'm calling $399 PS4, they don't have the tablet controller costing them like Nintendo does. If Wii U had a normal controller they could have brought the price down maybe $100 or upped the power of the console. MS is nuts if they go $499 with mandatory Kinect, worst mistake ever if they do besides the other mistakes they are rumored to be making.

 

[alexandros]

What if Microsoft are just on a "truth blackout" and have been letting these rumors fly just so that when they finally do their big reveal, all the terrible things we thought were going to happen with the console are completely fake, and it's actually very good?

Please stop with the fanfiction, this is getting ridiculous.

As I've argued before, Microsoft's plan has been clear from day one. They wanted to use gaming as a stepping stone towards establishing their platform as the dominant one for living room entertainment. The Xbox 360 was a success, not because it sold x millions of units but because it got x millions of people to sign up on Xbox Live. That's the big deal for Microsoft.

The next Xbox should and probably will be always-on because this is the best way to get more people on Xbox Live. I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't care about losing a few offline-only customers, as the lost revenue could be easily offset by the number of people who actually decide to take their consoles online.

A lot of people here are saying "this will be a disaster". I don't think so. For all the claims about hubris or whatnot, there is only one universal truth about gaming: Gamers go where the games are. They may say they'll boycott or fight for consumer rights, but most of the time it's just talk. If the next Xbox has a strong lineup of games and a few interesting, impressive or convenient features for the mainstream, noone will care about the always-on requirement.

In the end, the battle against always-on on consoles is already lost. It really doesn't matter if Sony doesn't enforce always-on themselves, if a publisher wants their game to be always-on then Sony can't and will not say no. When you subscribe to a closed hardware platform like a console instead of an open one like the PC, you trade in some of your rights in exchange for convenience. If you feel that strongly about consumer rights, you shouldn't be buying into a closed hardware platform in the first place. So my guess is that Microsoft is mainly taking flak from fans of other consoles or people who will cave when the next Halo or Gears comes out.

i'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft's recent moves, but this time I feel they are making the right call.

 

[Truespeed]

Thought it was obvious that MS is competing with Apple and Google here...not really with Sony.

Sony is competing with MS which is great because if they didn't adopt all the new features MS laid out they would have been left in the dust with all these new machines set to dominate the living room.

So you think their new console is aimed at competing with Google and Apple? This actually makes perfect sense. They missed the mobile window because they were infatuated with Sony and now they're infatuated with a company they can't compete with and a company they try so hard to be like.

 

[Seth C]

Please stop with the fanfiction, this is getting ridiculous.

As I've argued before, Microsoft's plan has been clear from day one. They wanted to use gaming as a stepping stone towards establishing their platform as the dominant one for living room entertainment. The Xbox 360 was a success, not because it sold x millions of units but because it got x millions of people to sign up on Xbox Live. That's the big deal for Microsoft.

The next Xbox should and probably will be always-on because this is the best way to get more people on Xbox Live. I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't care about losing a few offline-only customers, as the lost revenue could be easily offset by the number of people who actually decide to take their consoles online.

A lot of people here are saying "this will be a disaster". I don't think so. For all the claims about hubris or whatnot, there is only one universal truth about gaming: Gamers go where the games are. They may say they'll boycott or fight for consumer rights, but most of the time it's just talk. If the next Xbox has a strong lineup of games and a few interesting, impressive or convenient features for the mainstream, noone will care about the always-on requirement.

In the end, the battle against always-on on consoles is already lost. It really doesn't matter if Sony doesn't enforce always-on themselves, if a publisher wants their game to be always-on then Sony can't and will not say no. When you subscribe to a closed hardware platform like a console instead of an open one like the PC, you trade in some of your rights in exchange for convenience. If you feel that strongly about consumer rights, you shouldn't be buying into a closed hardware platform in the first place. So my guess is that Microsoft is mainly taking flak from fans of other consoles or people who will cave when the next Halo or Gears comes out.

i'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft's recent moves, but this time I feel they are making the right call.

If that's their goal then they aren't very bright. They have to make all of the Live features (all your downloaded games) work on the new platform. Otherwise people are starting over either way.

 

[Sloane]

Please stop with the fanfiction, this is getting ridiculous.

As I've argued before, Microsoft's plan has been clear from day one. They wanted to use gaming as a stepping stone towards establishing their platform as the dominant one for living room entertainment. The Xbox 360 was a success, not because it sold x millions of units but because it got x millions of people to sign up on Xbox Live. That's the big deal for Microsoft.

The next Xbox should and probably will be always-on because this is the best way to get more people on Xbox Live. I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't care about losing a few offline-only customers, as the lost revenue could be easily offset by the number of people who actually decide to take their consoles online.

A lot of people here are saying "this will be a disaster". I don't think so. For all the claims about hubris or whatnot, there is only one universal truth about gaming: Gamers go where the games are. They may say they'll boycott or fight for consumer rights, but most of the time it's just talk. If the next Xbox has a strong lineup of games and a few interesting, impressive or convenient features for the mainstream, noone will care about the always-on requirement.

In the end, the battle against always-on on consoles is already lost. It really doesn't matter if Sony doesn't enforce always-on themselves, if a publisher wants their game to be always-on then Sony can't and will not say no. When you subscribe to a closed hardware platform like a console instead of an open one like the PC, you trade in some of your rights in exchange for convenience. If you feel that strongly about consumer rights, you shouldn't be buying into a closed hardware platform in the first place. So my guess is that Microsoft is mainly taking flak from fans of other consoles or people who will cave when the next Halo or Gears comes out.

i'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft's recent moves, but this time I feel they are making the right call.

Best post I've read in quite a while.

 

[Takuya]

Please stop with the fanfiction, this is getting ridiculous.

As I've argued before, Microsoft's plan has been clear from day one. They wanted to use gaming as a stepping stone towards establishing their platform as the dominant one for living room entertainment. The Xbox 360 was a success, not because it sold x millions of units but because it got x millions of people to sign up on Xbox Live. That's the big deal for Microsoft.

The next Xbox should and probably will be always-on because this is the best way to get more people on Xbox Live. I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't care about losing a few offline-only customers, as the lost revenue could be easily offset by the number of people who actually decide to take their consoles online.

A lot of people here are saying "this will be a disaster". I don't think so. For all the claims about hubris or whatnot, there is only one universal truth about gaming: Gamers go where the games are. They may say they'll boycott or fight for consumer rights, but most of the time it's just talk. If the next Xbox has a strong lineup of games and a few interesting, impressive or convenient features for the mainstream, noone will care about the always-on requirement.

In the end, the battle against always-on on consoles is already lost. It really doesn't matter if Sony doesn't enforce always-on themselves, if a publisher wants their game to be always-on then Sony can't and will not say no. When you subscribe to a closed hardware platform like a console instead of an open one like the PC, you trade in some of your rights in exchange for convenience. If you feel that strongly about consumer rights, you shouldn't be buying into a closed hardware platform in the first place. So my guess is that Microsoft is mainly taking flak from fans of other consoles or people who will cave when the next Halo or Gears comes out.

i'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft's recent moves, but this time I feel they are making the right call.

They entered the console business to stop Sony.

 

[jorma]

In the end, the battle against always-on on consoles is already lost. It really doesn't matter if Sony doesn't enforce always-on themselves, if a publisher wants their game to be always-on then Sony can't and will not say no.

And then the individual publisher (read: EA) would have to take shit for it instead of making MS take that particular bullet for them so that they can wash their hands.
This is not yet a done deal.

i'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft's recent moves, but this time I feel they are making the right call.

The right call would have been to make a service that makes people WANT to be "always on", that's a far cry from being required to be always on. They are making the wrong call, and it will probably bite them in the ass since Sony will take advantage.

And this malarkey about MS not really competing with Sony? Oh, come on. Of course they are. Jesus. As if that line of bullshit will help them when everyone buys a PS4 over an Xbox 720. "Bu.. bu.. but were not competing with you guys, why are you stealing back all of our customers?"

 

[Feature]

Ofcourse at first the masses who have no clue about the console will buy this piece of trash only to discover they can't do shit when their internet goes down. Once the word of mouth spreads to the rest of the people who don't read up on these sort of things, the console will be WiiU shit-tier.

 

[Pennywise]

Please stop with the fanfiction, this is getting ridiculous.

As I've argued before, Microsoft's plan has been clear from day one. They wanted to use gaming as a stepping stone towards establishing their platform as the dominant one for living room entertainment. The Xbox 360 was a success, not because it sold x millions of units but because it got x millions of people to sign up on Xbox Live. That's the big deal for Microsoft.

The next Xbox should and probably will be always-on because this is the best way to get more people on Xbox Live. I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't care about losing a few offline-only customers, as the lost revenue could be easily offset by the number of people who actually decide to take their consoles online.

A lot of people here are saying "this will be a disaster". I don't think so. For all the claims about hubris or whatnot, there is only one universal truth about gaming: Gamers go where the games are. They may say they'll boycott or fight for consumer rights, but most of the time it's just talk. If the next Xbox has a strong lineup of games and a few interesting, impressive or convenient features for the mainstream, noone will care about the always-on requirement.

In the end, the battle against always-on on consoles is already lost. It really doesn't matter if Sony doesn't enforce always-on themselves, if a publisher wants their game to be always-on then Sony can't and will not say no. When you subscribe to a closed hardware platform like a console instead of an open one like the PC, you trade in some of your rights in exchange for convenience. If you feel that strongly about consumer rights, you shouldn't be buying into a closed hardware platform in the first place. So my guess is that Microsoft is mainly taking flak from fans of other consoles or people who will cave when the next Halo or Gears comes out.

i'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft's recent moves, but this time I feel they are making the right call.

I can't agree entirely.
The whole argument sounds reasonable, but focusing on such a media hub without total domination is a risk.
Europe and Japan aren't even close to be dominated and they will loose alot of momentum there, if they really decide to follow that strategy.

There's already quite an uproar when always on games are released, but consoles are a whole different matter.

 

[ThisWreckage]

I think Microsoft has pissed off the hardcore and their ire is something they're going to regret igniting. People will jump in and say that the hardcore are a very small demographic, but every single console has been built on the backs of the loyalists and the hardcore.

Also, the subscription based strategy they're trying to implement stands virtually no chance of achieving any modicum of success outside of NA.

 

[Alx]

They entered the console business to stop Sony.

That's not a goal in itself. Companies don't act to attack each other for the fun of it, they act to secure or expand their business. Microsoft is about software and services, the living room market was representing a growing part of that market, so they had to get their share of the cake to protect their business.
Their first attempts were even to make deals with other hardware providers (including Sega and Sony). It was only when those failed that they decided to make their own hardware, and Sony became their competitor because they were the dominant company on that market.

 

[Aquamarine]

Please stop with the fanfiction, this is getting ridiculous.

As I've argued before, Microsoft's plan has been clear from day one. They wanted to use gaming as a stepping stone towards establishing their platform as the dominant one for living room entertainment. The Xbox 360 was a success, not because it sold x millions of units but because it got x millions of people to sign up on Xbox Live. That's the big deal for Microsoft.

The next Xbox should and probably will be always-on because this is the best way to get more people on Xbox Live. I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't care about losing a few offline-only customers, as the lost revenue could be easily offset by the number of people who actually decide to take their consoles online.

A lot of people here are saying "this will be a disaster". I don't think so. For all the claims about hubris or whatnot, there is only one universal truth about gaming: Gamers go where the games are. They may say they'll boycott or fight for consumer rights, but most of the time it's just talk. If the next Xbox has a strong lineup of games and a few interesting, impressive or convenient features for the mainstream, noone will care about the always-on requirement.

In the end, the battle against always-on on consoles is already lost. It really doesn't matter if Sony doesn't enforce always-on themselves, if a publisher wants their game to be always-on then Sony can't and will not say no. When you subscribe to a closed hardware platform like a console instead of an open one like the PC, you trade in some of your rights in exchange for convenience. If you feel that strongly about consumer rights, you shouldn't be buying into a closed hardware platform in the first place. So my guess is that Microsoft is mainly taking flak from fans of other consoles or people who will cave when the next Halo or Gears comes out.

i'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft's recent moves, but this time I feel they are making the right call.

Microsoft wouldn't have pursued always-online if they weren't confident that always-online strategy would define their success going forward.

There's no reason to change it because it really seems like the correct direction for them, going the extra mile that Sony is clouding by "giving more rights to the consumer."

Really, if Durango comes out with always-online, does anyone seriously think all PS4 games will be 100% offline optional with all Durango games being always online?

Publishers are creating new types of games these days. Just look to Assassin's Creed 4 and Destiny and Watch_Dogs for what's to come in terms of new IP.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Always-online is great. Online-only is terrible.

 

[Master_JO]

Best post I've read in quite a while.

I second That.

Have any of us thought that this may be the developers will? You know to fight piracy and wot not.

If big game publishers Like EA,Ubi, Activision are onboard with this what makes you think that PS4 wont follow? Sure Sony can release their 1st party games offline but if the big three publishers wants their game always online they will get it that. Simply it will be stated back in the box ''Requires Internet''

This all comes down to consumers. Personally am against that because I know lots of people doesn't have internet connections and If those Big publishers find a success on the next xbox and people buys their games on a console that Require an internet connection and fight piracy with no used games allowed what makes you think they will release the game on PS4 where people can buy it used? Or what makes you think they wont also force their games with always online on PS4?

Something doesn't add up here. There is no logic to it. They can't just release the exact same game on two consoles where one require an internet connection with no used allowed and the second one doesn't. If consumers got to choose then they will choose the latter one and MS will be left out. Left out with Billions of dollars go down the drain .Yes, This is how stupid MS are because they are run by amateurs \s.

Or it's all a conspiracy against MS to drive them out of buesnisse? Or maybe against Sony ? Oh no, The publishers are working with one console to drive the second one out. \S

 

[Xater]

At this point it will be really easy to ignore Microsofts new console. Everything about it down to the price sounds terrible.

 

[Aquamarine]

"Always online required" for 8th gen games is the new "Must have multiplayer in it" that we saw for 7th gen games.

 

[WrenchNinja]

I second That.

Have any of us thought that this may be the developers will? You know to fight piracy and wot not.

If big game publishers Like EA,Ubi, Activision are onboard with this what makes you think that PS4 wont follow? Sure Sony can release their 1st party games offline but if the big three publishers wants their game always online they will get it that. Simply it will be stated back in the box ''Requires Internet''

This all comes down to consumers. Personally am against that because I know lots of people doesn't have internet connections and If those Big publishers find a success on the next xbox and people buys their games on a console that Require an internet connection and fight piracy with no used games allowed what makes you think they will release the game on PS4 where people can buy it used? Or what makes you think they wont also force their games with always online on PS4?

Something doesn't add up here. There is no logic to it. They can't just release the exact same game on two consoles where one require an internet connection with no used allowed and the second one doesn't. If consumers got to choose then they will choose the latter one and MS will be left out. Left out with Billions of dollars go down the drain .Yes, This is how stupid MS are because they are run by amateurs s.

Or it's all a conspiracy against MS to drive them out of buesnisse? Or maybe against Sony ? Oh no, The publishers are working with one console to drive the second one out. S

They already release the exact same game on three platforms and one of them locks out content unless you pay the $60 a year gate fee.

 

[Americanmushroom]

Please stop with the fanfiction, this is getting ridiculous.

As I've argued before, Microsoft's plan has been clear from day one. They wanted to use gaming as a stepping stone towards establishing their platform as the dominant one for living room entertainment. The Xbox 360 was a success, not because it sold x millions of units but because it got x millions of people to sign up on Xbox Live. That's the big deal for Microsoft.

The next Xbox should and probably will be always-on because this is the best way to get more people on Xbox Live. I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't care about losing a few offline-only customers, as the lost revenue could be easily offset by the number of people who actually decide to take their consoles online.

A lot of people here are saying "this will be a disaster". I don't think so. For all the claims about hubris or whatnot, there is only one universal truth about gaming: Gamers go where the games are. They may say they'll boycott or fight for consumer rights, but most of the time it's just talk. If the next Xbox has a strong lineup of games and a few interesting, impressive or convenient features for the mainstream, noone will care about the always-on requirement.

In the end, the battle against always-on on consoles is already lost. It really doesn't matter if Sony doesn't enforce always-on themselves, if a publisher wants their game to be always-on then Sony can't and will not say no. When you subscribe to a closed hardware platform like a console instead of an open one like the PC, you trade in some of your rights in exchange for convenience. If you feel that strongly about consumer rights, you shouldn't be buying into a closed hardware platform in the first place. So my guess is that Microsoft is mainly taking flak from fans of other consoles or people who will cave when the next Halo or Gears comes out.

i'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft's recent moves, but this time I feel they are making the right call.

I consider myself a Sony fanboy myself but i do agree with your post. on GAF it's a lot of complainers and come E3 they'll be probably convinced to buy both consoles anywaay. This always online complaints are exaggerated ( and i'm about to move in Indonesia where there's only 3G internet) .. but hey i don't care, i just don't plan on buying the thing... but complaining about their move is kinda silly.

 

[Daingurse]

They entered the console business to stop Sony.

Yes, to stop Sony from also conquering living room entertainment.

 

[Master_JO]

They already release the exact same game on three platforms and one of them locks out content unless you pay the $60 a year gate fee.

This is not the same thing bro. IF they will release a game that require an internet connection and can not be sold used and fight piracy what makes you think they will release it on another console where it can be sold used?

It's all about money. The game developers want their money back. They don't work for 2-3 years and spends lots of money so their game will be sold used or pirated.

Trust me. everyone thought about it.

 

[blackflag]

I'm fine with 500 dollars. It's nothing to me but all the other shit will keep me from buying it if those rumors are true. I'll get the PS4 for sure but Ill skip Xbox if I have to. Internet required is bullshit.

 

[WrenchNinja]

This is not the same thing bro. IF they will release a game that require an internet connection and can not be sold used and fight piracy what makes you think they will release it on another console where it can be sold used?

It's all about money. The game developers want their money back. They don't work for 2-3 years and spends lots of money so their game will be sold used or pirated.

Truse me. everyone thought about it.

Youre right. Everyone has thought about it. Which is why Diablo 3 has an offline mode on PS3 and PS4.

 

[Camp Lo]

If you fall upon hard times and cant afford to pay the bill then shall we expect the Durango to lock up on you until you find a new job?

Durango= Sorry swe4tynutz4u you havent paid your xbox live bill, we see you do not have an internet connection, please power Durango down until you have made your payment.

Swe4tynutz4u= I just found a job at the local Mcdonalds and will be getting my first check in two weeks, I also will tether you from my boost mobile android phone.

This will be the case to the letter. Always online = lock down for failing to pay subscription fee.

 

[Soriku]

Please stop with the fanfiction, this is getting ridiculous.

As I've argued before, Microsoft's plan has been clear from day one. They wanted to use gaming as a stepping stone towards establishing their platform as the dominant one for living room entertainment. The Xbox 360 was a success, not because it sold x millions of units but because it got x millions of people to sign up on Xbox Live. That's the big deal for Microsoft.

The next Xbox should and probably will be always-on because this is the best way to get more people on Xbox Live. I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't care about losing a few offline-only customers, as the lost revenue could be easily offset by the number of people who actually decide to take their consoles online.

A lot of people here are saying "this will be a disaster". I don't think so. For all the claims about hubris or whatnot, there is only one universal truth about gaming: Gamers go where the games are. They may say they'll boycott or fight for consumer rights, but most of the time it's just talk. If the next Xbox has a strong lineup of games and a few interesting, impressive or convenient features for the mainstream, noone will care about the always-on requirement.

In the end, the battle against always-on on consoles is already lost. It really doesn't matter if Sony doesn't enforce always-on themselves, if a publisher wants their game to be always-on then Sony can't and will not say no. When you subscribe to a closed hardware platform like a console instead of an open one like the PC, you trade in some of your rights in exchange for convenience. If you feel that strongly about consumer rights, you shouldn't be buying into a closed hardware platform in the first place. So my guess is that Microsoft is mainly taking flak from fans of other consoles or people who will cave when the next Halo or Gears comes out.

i'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft's recent moves, but this time I feel they are making the right call.

Gamers go where the games are, but most games will be multiplat with PS4, and MS's first party is arguable not as strong as Sony's or Nintendo's. Its third party exclusives will be minimal as well. So in terms of unique/exclusive games, MS doesn't have a huge advantage.

While Sony won't say no to publishers who enforce always-online, MANY games won't be. In this case, you're going to see lots of multiplat games that are forcibly always-online on the Nextbox, yet not always-online on the PS4.

 

[Master_JO]

Youre right. Everyone has thought about it. Which is why Diablo 3 has an offline mode on PS3 and PS4.

One game isn't the same as an entire frenchies. FIFA, COD etc.

What do you think will happen if EA goes on stage with MS and say that all their future games must be internet connected acros all platforms? Will you buycott Sony?

Everything is up for debate. Nothing is confirmed or released yet.
We know little about how next gen really works.

 

[Trent Strong]

Please stop with the fanfiction, this is getting ridiculous.

As I've argued before, Microsoft's plan has been clear from day one. They wanted to use gaming as a stepping stone towards establishing their platform as the dominant one for living room entertainment. The Xbox 360 was a success, not because it sold x millions of units but because it got x millions of people to sign up on Xbox Live. That's the big deal for Microsoft.

The next Xbox should and probably will be always-on because this is the best way to get more people on Xbox Live. I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't care about losing a few offline-only customers, as the lost revenue could be easily offset by the number of people who actually decide to take their consoles online.

A lot of people here are saying "this will be a disaster". I don't think so. For all the claims about hubris or whatnot, there is only one universal truth about gaming: Gamers go where the games are. They may say they'll boycott or fight for consumer rights, but most of the time it's just talk. If the next Xbox has a strong lineup of games and a few interesting, impressive or convenient features for the mainstream, noone will care about the always-on requirement.

In the end, the battle against always-on on consoles is already lost. It really doesn't matter if Sony doesn't enforce always-on themselves, if a publisher wants their game to be always-on then Sony can't and will not say no. When you subscribe to a closed hardware platform like a console instead of an open one like the PC, you trade in some of your rights in exchange for convenience. If you feel that strongly about consumer rights, you shouldn't be buying into a closed hardware platform in the first place. So my guess is that Microsoft is mainly taking flak from fans of other consoles or people who will cave when the next Halo or Gears comes out.

i'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft's recent moves, but this time I feel they are making the right call.

Why would a non-gamer use a Durango as their platform for living room entertainment? For a non-gamer, a Durango is just a bigger, louder, hotter, more expensive Apple TV. Soon every TV will be a Smart TV, and even Apple TVs and Rokus will be obsolete, let alone non-gaming Durangos.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

I live in China and there is no way I'll be able to use this thing reliably. Offline or bust. Planned on ps4 anyways since rumors point to it being the most powerful anyways but always online just seals ms fate

 

[sechsterangriff]

Please stop with the fanfiction, this is getting ridiculous.

As I've argued before, Microsoft's plan has been clear from day one. They wanted to use gaming as a stepping stone towards establishing their platform as the dominant one for living room entertainment. The Xbox 360 was a success, not because it sold x millions of units but because it got x millions of people to sign up on Xbox Live. That's the big deal for Microsoft.

The next Xbox should and probably will be always-on because this is the best way to get more people on Xbox Live. I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't care about losing a few offline-only customers, as the lost revenue could be easily offset by the number of people who actually decide to take their consoles online.

A lot of people here are saying "this will be a disaster". I don't think so. For all the claims about hubris or whatnot, there is only one universal truth about gaming: Gamers go where the games are. They may say they'll boycott or fight for consumer rights, but most of the time it's just talk. If the next Xbox has a strong lineup of games and a few interesting, impressive or convenient features for the mainstream, noone will care about the always-on requirement.

In the end, the battle against always-on on consoles is already lost. It really doesn't matter if Sony doesn't enforce always-on themselves, if a publisher wants their game to be always-on then Sony can't and will not say no. When you subscribe to a closed hardware platform like a console instead of an open one like the PC, you trade in some of your rights in exchange for convenience. If you feel that strongly about consumer rights, you shouldn't be buying into a closed hardware platform in the first place. So my guess is that Microsoft is mainly taking flak from fans of other consoles or people who will cave when the next Halo or Gears comes out.

i'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft's recent moves, but this time I feel they are making the right call.

The only issue I have with your reasoning is that I can't imagine this business model viable as a global product. And it's not only because of the differences in network infrastructures between territories. Having an always-on requirement on territories where the current Xbox doesn't offer/enables anywhere near the same type of services it has in the US is just not going to fly. The current Xbox doesn't have that requirement right now and is ignored in a lot of markets as it is. There's also the case of parents still buy consoles that stay forever off-line in their kids rooms, etc. Whole segments of the userbase for whom on-line is a second thought.

Microsoft must really have high expectations for Live revenue if they think it's going to offset the market segments they may potentially loose.

 

[KAL2006]

One game isn't the same as an entire frenchies. FIFA, COD etc.

What do you think will happen if EA goes on stage with MS and say that all their future games must be internet connected acros all platforms? Will you buycott Sony?

Everything is up for debate. Nothing is confirmed or released yet.
We know little about how next gen really works.

Eh I can already see backlash happen wit games like FIFA and COD not having offline modes. These are the main games a lot of casuals play couch multiplayer without Internet connections. I've been to many houses where people playing those two games without Internet connection. Also university halls and dorms block gaming online and playing things like COD and FIFA offline in university is quite popular.

 

[Nerdstrom]

What if always on Just means you Have to be connected via cellphone app? Everyone has a cell phone. Input info on live app, console is registered to a person along with the games.

 

[dreamcastmaster]

Eh I can already see backlash happen wit games like FIFA and COD not having offline modes. These are the main games a lot of casuals play couch multiplayer without Internet connections. I've been to many houses where people playing those two games without Internet connection. Also university halls and dorms block gaming online and playing things like COD and FIFA offline in university is quite popular.

Forcing people into online games when they don't know what to expect will work out well for Microsoft. Offensive language and spam messages will shock a lot of people.

 

[MasLegio]

The only issue I have with your reasoning is that I can't imagine this business model viable as a global product. And it's not only because of the differences in network infrastructures between territories. Having an always-on requirement on territories where the current Xbox doesn't offer/enables anywhere near the same type of services it has in the US is just not going to fly. The current Xbox doesn't have that requirement right now and is ignored in a lot of markets as it is. There's also the case of parents still buy consoles that stay forever off-line in their kids rooms, etc. Whole segments of the userbase for whom on-line is a second thought.

Microsoft must really have high expectations for Live revenue if they think it's going to offset the market segments they may potentially loose.

unfortunately, for many of the uneducated and ignorant global means US+UK

 

[Anton668]

Everyone has a cell phone.

I dont.

 

[Master_JO]

Eh I can already see backlash happen wit games like FIFA and COD not having offline modes. These are the main games a lot of casuals play couch multiplayer without Internet connections. I've been to many houses where people playing those two games without Internet connection. Also university halls and dorms block gaming online and playing things like COD and FIFA offline in university is quite popular.

Agree, That will be a big problem for those consumers.
On the bright side( If there is any ) we Don't actually know how this Always online works

Just some rumors here and there.

 

[Allard]

The only issue I have with your reasoning is that I can't imagine this business model viable as a global product. And it's not only because of the differences in network infrastructures between territories. Having an always-on requirement on territories where the current Xbox doesn't offer/enables anywhere near the same type of services it has in the US is just not going to fly. The current Xbox doesn't have that requirement right now and is ignored in a lot of markets as it is. There's also the case of parents still buy consoles that stay forever off-line in their kids rooms, etc. Whole segments of the userbase for whom on-line is a second thought.

Microsoft must really have high expectations for Live revenue if they think it's going to offset the market segments they may potentially loose.

Personally its an issue of overstepping boundaries for the sake of what 'they' feel is progress. It happened with Windows 8 and Metro. In an attempt to adapt to an expanding market they reduce options in order to force people to use the new system to try and make the transition as quick as possible. With Windows 8 they probably thought they would get minimal loss from operating system to operating system while enticed by the idea of making a splash on emerging market. But by making core features of the 'touch' nature of tablets embedded into Windows 8 on a predominantly Desktop fashion, they left a lot of desktop users unwilling to upgrade even at an exceptionally reduced price they had at launch.

I think the same thing will happen with this version, or at least in my opinion I hope it will. Always online might be the future of applications, but it should be an OPTIONAL future for those who wish to pursue it. The key word is option, they are forcing 'features' on people with clear negative issues for hundreds/millions of people who bought their previous system, all for the sake of what? Possibility those online people will buy more stuff to make up for the millions of people who legitimately will be blocked from this decision? That's the gamble they have made, and I personally hope it fails spectacularly. As someone who has bought almost every new console since the NES days (even virtual boy!) this console might be the first one I refuse to buy if the always online CLEAR DRM is added. I seriously hope it stays a rumor and never comes to fruition. But my hope for that dims day by day.

 

[Anteater]

xbox 720 will probably have an offline mode, there are no needs for it if the games are always online as is.

I think big publishers like EA and Ubisoft is going to push always online and people will probably complain and eventually adapt to it, the next assassin's creed will still sell millions annually, and everyone else will follow suit, at the end whether the console supports being offline or not will not make much of a difference.

But hopefully I'm wrong about the sales and i hope there will be a huge backlash.

 

[WrenchNinja]

One game isn't the same as an entire frenchies. FIFA, COD etc.

What do you think will happen if EA goes on stage with MS and say that all their future games must be internet connected acros all platforms? Will you buycott Sony?

Everything is up for debate. Nothing is confirmed or released yet.
We know little about how next gen really works.

Uh I would just not buy EA games. Pretty simple.

That one game is a huge game. Blizzard finally copping to the idea that always online is stupid is telling.

 

[Fistwell]

Eh I can already see backlash happen wit games like FIFA and COD not having offline modes.

Single player FUT in FIFA already requires connection to EA servers, which is futtbuck retarded and pissed me off to no end everytime their servers were down (which happened several times in the months following release of 13, sometimes for several days).

Everyone has a cell phone.

Nope.