Support NeoGAF

[we.are.the.armada]

I think the comparisons to other "always connected" devices like phones, and hardware directly dependent on video streaming services are nothing but a fallacy.
Their primary functions depend solely on connectivity and it defines the device's purpose. The device's existence doesn't make any sense without it.

The primary function of a games console is to play games. It's a concept that at its core does not require connectivity. Don't confuse activation of a cd key/dd code with the need for a constant connection. Even most digital download game services offer you the option to play your games off-line. Some even allow you to back up your game data.

Imagine taking your console to a friend’s house who only uses a 3G/4G dongle or the downtime while changing ISPs. Server issues WILL happen, you don't need to be a network engineer to able to understand this. Or simply wanting to play some "to be classics" in a few years and not being able to.

For the purpose of playing a single player game connectivity should not be a requirement, but an enabler of additional optional features that may enrich the experience. You should be able to play your games anytime you want and not be dependent on some "granted permission".

I honestly feel that much more than DLC, Fremium, network passes and whatnot, this the most serious issue the gaming community will be facing in the future.

You make some good points, but look, these devices are convergence devices so comparison to say, an iPhone, is a good enough parallel. Without a connection on my phone, when I'm at a meeting, I can still use my apps, record audio, take notes, show a presentation, etc. w/e.

Also:

SECHS, HELL YES!

 

[Router]

'Always online' is just PR speak for 'online required', or 'only online'. MS will do everything in their power to make it out to be a good thing.

See, the leaked XDK said no such thing. What it actually described was the fact that the machine is "always on" (as in off is a standby mode with low power functionality) and "always connected" (as in its still connected when its in standby) in order to deliver content while in standbye per the XDK descriptions.

The "required Internet" is rumor in the CDK they clearly said Kinect 2 was mandatory. At no point did they say an Internet connection was mandatory.

But yes, we have leakers saying its required.

 

[MasLegio]

New thread worthy? Microsoft have sold off Mediaroom, their IPTV business and have said that "Xbox will be 100% of our consumer TV focus"

http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2013/04/08/mediaroom-and-our-tv-journey.aspx

Xbox will be 100% of our consumer TV focus = US will be 100 % of our Xbox focus

shit

 

[itsgreen]

All I know is that it will be hilarious when its confirmed that these rumors are false.

Also it doesn't prove the rumours false, for all we know they were going to do it but chose not to after this shit storm, or changed the surrounding policies (i.e. the three minute fuck you-rule).

Like I previously said I am fine if I don't have to ping back for a month, or even two weeks or something. That basically takes care of 99% of all outages. I am also fine if they can assure me that the final update disables the phone home functionality.

My fear however is that they are making this a core policy of the console. Every app, every game has to use the logged in Microsoft Account. Every instance you are running has to be verified through the central server. Every setting you change will be saved through the cloud on MS's servers and needs that to function. Which is great if you are going to your friends home, who also bought a 720, just wave your penis the right way in front of Kinect and you instantly have access to all your apps,games and settings.

There just isn't a great explanation why I can't play Scared_Panda.mkv on my home network/flashdrive/dvd if my 720 isn't connected. Which the described Always Online sounds like.

There also isn't a reason why the online hooks in games should be mandatory and require a connection. I am perfectly able to do a lot of laps around Silverstone on my 360 by myself if my connection is down, but why shouldn't I be able to do that on my 720.

For now, we don't know yet why that is, perhaps we'll never know. But MS probably has a good reason we all seem to be missing for why I can't game by myself if my internet is down, or MS is bankrupt. Let's just hope Geoff Keighley dares to ask one question and make one remark: "Why can't I play my single player race game when I'm offline?" and "That is not a reason, you haven't answered my question."

 

[FonkyByNature]

I'm fine with the idea of always on, always connected. I do draw the line at needing an Internet connection to play games.

I think it's so preposterous that it MUST be a misunderstanding somewhere along the line.

Oh well, not long now and we'll know.

Honestly, if it does turn out true, I think the outcry would be so massive after the announcement that Microsoft would have no choice but to change it.

That's what i also think. Even if MS put this always online crap, they will have to change it because the media will be over them like flies on shit.

So, my conclusion is that we don't know all the details about this always online which probably has an offline mode, because i still don't think MS are that stupid.

But really if they do put everything behind a paywall, always online and all that jazz, then they deserve to fail hard.

 

[sechsterangriff]

You make some good points, but look, these devices are convergence devices so comparison to say, an iPhone, is a good enough parallel. Without a connection on my phone, when I'm at a meeting, I can still use my apps, record audio, take notes, show a presentation, etc. w/e.

Also:

SECHS, HELL YES!

The thing is even in situations where you have no network coverage or access to WiFi, you are still able to play most of your games on your iPhone. Connectivity is not a factor in your ability to play your games, but it is still the primary function of your iPhone. When people say "everyone has a phone", a Netflix box, etc, they refer to connectivity as their primary function.

 

[itsgreen]

That's what i also think. Even if MS put this always online crap, they will have to change it because the media will be over them like flies on shit.

So, my conclusion is that we don't know all the details about this always online which probably has an offline mode, because i still don't think MS are that stupid.

But really if they do put everything behind a paywall, always online and all that jazz, then they deserve to fail hard.

Yeah I have no problem connecting my console to the internet 24/7. I just want to be able to game if that internet fails for whatever reason: mine, the ISP's, the Atlantic cable or Microsoft's.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

See, the leaked XDK said no such thing. What it actually described was the fact that the machine is "always on" (as in off is a standby mode with low power functionality) and "always connected" (as in its still connected when its in standby) in order to deliver content while in standbye per the XDK descriptions.

The "required Internet" is rumor in the CDK they clearly said Kinect 2 was mandatory. At no point did they say an Internet connection was mandatory.

But yes, we have leakers saying its required.

Thats exactly what I am thinking/hoping. I mean, everything else sounds way too insane even for MS, but the leaks so far (especially for Ps4) were pretty much spot on.

If you want to buy resources yeah. There are two ways you can do this, by using the dockets you earn within the game (via your search bots) or using your real money. EA being greedy decides to combine the two into one shop, possibly hoping that you'll be tempted to just spend real money instead of relying on the bots to find dockets for you.

But often the server just won't go up at all. This wouldn't happen if they actually make the shop offline/within the game (aka separating it from the online shop where you have to use real money). So more often than not I can't be bothered trying to re-connect to the online server and just try to conserve ammo.

EA being EA, lets hope this bullshit stays away from consoles but since both Sony and MS allow the presence Origin trojans already, this won't go away.

 

[fritolay]

I have never believed the next xbox will always require an internet connect, never.

If it is a requirement it won't matter to me with regards to playing games, and mine always will be.

However if they did do this then I would not be happy at the customer impact, PS4 would pick up customers and that may sway me if it ends up being the preferred platform to buy games on it instead.

 

[winstano]

Xbox will be 100% of our consumer TV focus = US will be 100 % of our Xbox focus

shit

Exactly. I'm in the UK, and this doesn't put any confidence in me at all for the next Xbox!

 

[Mindwipe]

Exactly. I'm in the UK, and this doesn't put any confidence in me at all for the next Xbox!

And the UK would probably be the second biggest territory. At least it has all the major broadcaster's catch up services.

But nothing like enough, or good enough broadcast integration. And I doubt it would come. Hell, Microsoft never got it right with Mediaroom...

 

[DigitalOp]

This is a rumor and has not been confirmed. We don't know this yet. I'm not defending always online, as I think that would suck, but people are posting this as fact when we don't know this yet. If they said "internet required", that could still mean you need a connection to register a game (a la Steam), but could play it offline on the registered console. Technically it would be required, but only once. Let's wait and see before blowing up.

As a Voice of Reason, I cant help but agree with you.

Its just a little discomforting that there has been nothing said to clarify rumour from fact by Microsoft. This breaking news of them selling Mediaroom only fuels the fact that they wish to push Xbox as their gateway to digital media.

I have little to no faith that anythign will change from what we heard. I can only hope that MS isnt that stupid to lock all software content to an internet connection. That would be idiotic. All people are asking for is the ability to play your games without internet. Its amazing how we've been doing this for 15 years plus and now its a requirement?? Screw that MS...

For Microsoft, Its not about the games anymore. They have bigger fish to fry

 

[sflufan]

The subscription is $15/month, right?

So, assuming they keep the same model as for the 360, you're looking at $15 x 12 x 2 = $360 + $300 initial price = $660 for "subsidized" NeXtbox vs $500 buying it outright.

So, let's take into account buying the non-subsidized console and a Live subscription separately -- you're looking at $500 + $30-$35/year for Live for a total of 2 years at a total cost of $560 or $570 which is still a savings of $90-$100 over the subsidized subscription based console.

 

[Linkified]

Wow that new tweet of Paul's just WOW!

@furicle Right. And then you'll have two groups: Those customers who are valuable to Microsoft and those that are not.

Link

 

[Wickerbasket]

Wow that new tweet of Paul's just WOW!



Link

He's right though. If MS push through with an online only console, then effectively half the market aren't of value to MS anymore. They've effectively cut their potential sales in half.

 

[plagiarize]

Over the course of 5 years, I can count on my hand the number of times Live has caused me an issue re: connectivity.

Does that help?

Five years? So you just missed out on this: http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3719596/Xbox+Live+Service+Suffers+11Day+Outage.htm

Consider yourself informed now.

 

[Wickerbasket]

Five years? So you just missed out on this: http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3719596/Xbox+Live+Service+Suffers+11Day+Outage.htm

Consider yourself informed now.

If someone wanted to be pedantic, they could point out that happened technically more than 5 years ago.

 

[sechsterangriff]

He's right though. If MS push through with an online only console, then effectively half the market aren't of value to MS anymore. They've effectively cut their potential sales in half.

Yeap. Those Live revenue expectations must be really high...

 

[MaulerX]

The subscription is $15/month, right?

So, assuming they keep the same model as for the 360, you're looking at $15 x 12 x 2 = $360 + $300 initial price = $660 for "subsidized" NeXtbox vs $500 buying it outright.

It's true that the "subsidized" version would end up costing more in the long run. But in a sense it's not much different than buying a new car or a house. Unless you buy it cash, financing will almost guarantee you'll end up paying double or triple the actual cost. And has anyone bought from or seen Fingerhut's prices? They are a complete rip-off, yet, their clientele buy from them for the sole purpose of being able to pay for an item slowly.

 

[mckmas8808]

I'm fine with the idea of always on, always connected. I do draw the line at needing an Internet connection to play games.

I think it's so preposterous that it MUST be a misunderstanding somewhere along the line.

Oh well, not long now and we'll know.

Honestly, if it does turn out true, I think the outcry would be so massive after the announcement that Microsoft would have no choice but to change it.

What about not being able to run or play ANY applications if the Xbox 3 isn't online. This doesn't just stop playing games. But it's ALL applications.

 

[shinobi602]

I really love this shit:

Thurrott claims he has access to documents that reveal the next Xbox "must be internet-connected to use", but says he's not sure of the precise ramifications.

It's in English dude, "must be internet-connected to use".

"Oh but it might mean it...doesn't!"

 

[abadguy]

I really love this shit:



It's in English dude, "must be internet-connected to use".

"Oh but it might mean it...doesn't!"

Shit like this is why i like to wait for official announcements. MS needs to hurry up and show this fucking thing already.

 

[Linkified]

He's right though. If MS push through with an online only console, then effectively half the market aren't of value to MS anymore. They've effectively cut their potential sales in half.

Cutting sales in half absolutely - it just seems - maybe I'm over simplifying the issue ... but then you cut your royalties for game publishers by more than half, so odd...

 

[plagiarize]

If someone wanted to be pedantic, they could point out that happened technically more than 5 years ago.

You'll notice I said you 'just missed out on this'. Which was referring to the fact that happened a little over 5 years ago.

 

[infinityBCRT]

Shit like this is why i like to wait for official announcements. MS needs to hurry up and show this fucking thing already.

43 days left!

 

[MaulerX]

I really love this shit:



It's in English dude, "must be internet-connected to use".

"Oh but it might mean it...doesn't!"

LOL. Or maybe it is an incomplete sentence that has been taken out of context. Like: "must be internet-connected to use... all social and entertainment applications".

 

[BolognaSoup]

LOL CNET.

Thurrott added even more to mull over. "Durango" is likely to be expensive, he said -- $500 for the console itself and $300 for the annual Xbox Live subscription.

 

[Mithos]

Are there no payment plans in America?

I mean why do people think that a $839 is going to get more people buying it then a $589-649 one?

XboxNext (no subscription): $499
XboxNext (w/ subscription): $299

Add 3 years of Gold on those above..

XboxNext (no subscription): $499 + (if paying MS official price) + $150 = $649 ($589 if you find $30 Gold/year cards)
XboxNext (w/ subscription): $299 + (if we assume monthly cost will be as on 360 version) + $15 x 36 = $839

Why not just get the non subscription one, and save $190-250 and just do a payment plan for it?

 

[RPGamer92]

Are there no payment plans in America?

I mean why do people think that a $839 is going to get more people buying it then a $589-649 one?

XboxNext (no subscription): $499
XboxNext (w/ subscription): $299

Add 3 years of Gold on those above..

XboxNext (no subscription): $499 + (if paying MS official price) + $150 = $649 ($589 if you find $30 Gold/year cards)
XboxNext (w/ subscription): $299 + (if we assume monthly cost will be as on 360 version) + $15 x 36 = $839

Why not just get the non subscription one, and save $190-250 and just do a payment plan for it?

Some people won't want to pay $500 up front.

 

[Mithos]

Some people won't want to pay $500 up front.

That's what a payment plan is used for.

 

[megashock5]

LOL CNET.

Wow, way to read, Cnet. And now this guy's name is attached to that info.

 

[Imperial Hot]

Over $399 for unsubsidized model is a death-wish.

$249 for subsidized would make it worthwhile, even if the subscription was like $10-$15/mo.

 

[batman2million]

The more rumors come out about this, the more I'm not liking it. Sad, I love playing Halo but if these are the gripes I have to go through to play it, I'll pass.

 

[sikkinixx]

Everyone assuming a) the price of XBL will stay the same and b) they will even allow cards to be used anymore. Seems odd to me they wouldn't hike the price of Live up a bit.

 

[Imperial Hot]

Microsoft is really doing itself a disservice by letting all the rumors and rampant speculation inform the public of their next system. Microsoft has seemingly lost entire control of the messaging for their next big thing.

They need to just pre-empt all this speculation and bullshit and announce the damn thing. With every passing day, the rumors are putting more and more people off and interest is waning.....

 

[megashock5]

Microsoft is really doing itself a disservice by letting all the rumors and rampant speculation inform the public of their next system. Microsoft has seemingly lost entire control of the messaging for their next big thing.

They need to just pre-empt all this speculation and bullshit and announce the damn thing. With every passing day, the rumors are putting more and more people off and interest is waning.....

I won't lie - as much as I'm trying to keep an open mind until we got the full story from both companies, it's hard not to lean toward one over the other right now. MS may have to fight that sort of mindset by the time they actually start talking.

 

[Wickerbasket]

You'll notice I said you 'just missed out on this'. Which was referring to the fact that happened a little over 5 years ago.

My bad, I'm half asleep here.

 

[wildfire]

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.

Agreed.

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.

Around 40% of current xbox users aren't subscribed to live. That is hardly insignificant. Always online simply by itself won't convince people to subscribe. It is the price, recurring fees and features offered that will convince people to subscribe.

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.

You may be right about gamers not fighting for consumer right but you are totally wrong for thinking this has been the ultimate reason they hate always online. Look at the posts again, there have been far more people complaining about their internet being shit and that an always online system offers them negative value as result.

An always online system directly affects them and they won't put up with a system that will annoy them.


You make a more compelling argument later on that it doesn't matter if Sony isn't always online because publishers/developers can change their games to be that way when ported to the PS4.

This assumes Sony is unable to convince them not to do this. We'll have to see how gamers buy multiplatform games to see how this pans out.

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.

That point about not buying a closed platform makes zero sense. The consoles of today and yesterday are no different from a VCR, walkman, etc. You're mentally tripping over yourself. Slow down.

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

If they are going to sell an Xbox 720 like the currently do now it is a terrible idea and won't work. This is guarantied. They need to change the way games are being sold on their platform for it to work. They also need to offer compelling reasons for people who watch movies and tv shows to use their box instead of their competitors.

 

[Karak]

Wow, way to read, Cnet. And now this guy's name is attached to that info.

Hahahaha. Holy fuck thats awesome.

 

[theSlacker]

Yep, and so people who aren't interested in Kinect are basically paying $100 bucks for nothing.

Not that I care about kinect or eyetoy, but they really have to include shit like that with the console for devs to give a damn about making games that utilize it.

 

[Cyborg]

Whats the deal with sub. model?
Can you only play games/use it if you pay monthly for it?

Why would anyone do that?
When the new console comes out are you the owner of the sub. model and can you play it after that or..........?

WTF?

 

[-PXG-]

I really love this shit:



It's in English dude, "must be internet-connected to use".

"Oh but it might mean it...doesn't!"

This.

It can't be in more plain English than that.

 

[ascii42]

Whats the deal with sub. model?
Can you only play games/use it if you pay monthly for it?

Why would anyone do that?
When the new console comes out are you the owner of the sub. model and can you play it after that or..........?

WTF?

You only pay the subscription for a fixed amount of time. Basically, they take the price of the console and divide it between a down payment and a monthly payment. Sort of like taking out a loan to buy a car, minus the haggling.

 

[Busty]

Whats the deal with sub. model?
Can you only play games/use it if you pay monthly for it?

Pretty much.

If you miss a single monthly payment a drunken Shane Kim comes round your house in a wood panelled station wagon and puts a brick through your front window.

You don't even want to know what happens if you miss two payments.

 

[Dipswitch]

I assume there'll be some sort of warranty built into these subscription plans too, yes? I can't see people being happy if they run into some RROD type situation half way through their contract and then being told they have to pay to get the box repaired separately. And still have to make the monthly payments.

 

[VGChampion]

I assume there'll be some sort of warranty built into these subscription plans too, yes? I can't see people being happy if they run into some RROD type situation half way through their contract and then being told they have to pay to get the box repaired separately. And still have to make the monthly payments.

If they really do the subscription thing, I would expect them to get replacement Xbox's out ASAP. If my cable box breaks I can either take it somewhere and get a replacement that day or call someone and they'll be out by the next day.

 

[Busty]

I assume there'll be some sort of warranty built into these subscription plans too, yes? I can't see people being happy if they run into some RROD type situation half way through their contract and then being told they have to pay to get the box repaired separately. And still have to make the monthly payments.

I was wondering that too. If my cable/TIVO box goes out I just phone up my provider and they send someone round to replace or repair it and I get my 'lost days' refunded.

What are MS going to do? Have people send their broken 'nextboxes' back in the post?!

 

[KageMaru]

Is it just me or are these xbox rumor threads being built with more and more nonsense? It sounds like this guy is just guessing on things he's read on the internet or heard in person.

 

[Busty]

Is it just me or are these xbox rumor threads being built with more and more nonsense? It sounds like this guy is just guessing on things he's read on the internet or heard in person.

Or, as they are otherwise known, rumours.

 

[mrklaw]

wow I'm late to this thread, but

[I don't think that's even a possibility considering how many people use Xbox LIVE... You're not going to have this mass Xbox audience jumping to Sony.]

but if they don't have BC, a new console is a fresh start - best time to persuade people to switch platforms before your friends have a critical mass in one camp or the other.

Its not like its a bank account, signing up for a PSN account is just an email address and you're done.