You can download W8 apps onto 5 devices or something like that(it would still have to be tied to your account though), so if these rumors are true, it will be something similar.
-
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.
EDGE: The next Xbox: Always online, no second-hand games, 50GB Blu-ray and new kinect
- Thread starter Hanmik
- Start date
You can download W8 apps onto 5 devices or something like that(it would still have to be tied to your account though), so if these rumors are true, it will be something similar.
My number 1 concern.
Seems like and easy yes or no question..
EagleBurnn
Banned
Microsoft never comments on rumors, ever. Their response shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
Though, I wouldn't mind them saying no if it isn't true because EDGE is being very shady by writing redundant articles for more hits, and it would be awesome for that method to be called out instantly instead of everyone forgetting about it when we see if it isn't true in a month or two.
Is this your first time dealing with Microsoft or what? No matter how big the rumor, they never comment. There have been larger ones they've ignored completely (and those had things called sources with validation and stuff - it's really neat). Don't worry though, I'm sure EDGE will type of another article thinking it will make it less of a rumor. They'll be another thread about it and we can continue the discussion there.
BruiserBear
Banned
Random rumors? Yes, you ignore them.
Rumors reported by a very reputable site, that proclaim very confidently this is happening, and it creates a very negative furor around a product you are going to announce very soon? This is the kind of situation where you'd quietly say something to shut that down before the negativity snowballs.
If they do that, even it is untrue, you can infer the correct rumours when they post the comments...
Especially now they are in comment lock down
Vg sources said the same thing last spring?
http://www.vg247.com/2012/04/02/xbox-720-detailed-blu-ray-inside-always-on-netcon-required/
Edge is very late to the party.
No. Companies never comment on rumors for unannounced products.
but likewise, its not something they'd mention at the reveal if it were true. Its negative news for consumers so they'll want to bury it until its too late.
InaudibleWhispa
Member
If it isn't true, negative speculation snowballing before the console is announced likely doesn't mean much to Microsoft. The second they walk on stage and state the truth, nothing before matters. All of this speculation will be forgotten by the time the consoles launch, everybody will be judging them on what they know, not what they thought they knew.
It's obviously a big leap. As well as assuming all these things happen
1)Second hand market blocked. And that's unfortunately the most reliable thing of the rumour. It's something both MS and Sony studied for quite some time and for which EA and Activision would do wonders (despite being an horrible anti-consumer practice, but oh well). No second hand market = less money to buy games for plenty of people = less games bought = severe contraction in gaming business. Saying it'd be the same as PC DD market is just ignorant, for many reasons I'll explain in another point
2)Online connection always needed. This is what I seriously can't believe it'll happen, and the biggest reason this is all a big leap. There's still lots of families / people who can't have unlimited access to Internet connection, and many others who don't have online connections. And if this is true in US, it's even more true in many other countries, especially in Europe. Even less people will buy consoles = even less games will be bought = even less money circulating
3)Sony blocks the second hand market as well. It's possible, but we can't say it's something sure yet, since despite patents, we only know that MS is probably going to do it.
4)Games prices stays the same / increase. This is strictly connected with stopping the second-hand market AND with the biggest difference between the supposed system MS (and Sony?) will implement and PC market. If prices will still be 59.99 for brand new titles, if not MORE (69.99), with no possibility of borrowing titles / selling them in order to recoup part of what spent, software sales will collapse: only FIFA / COD / Assassin's Creed & friends will sell / break even, the big majority of all the other titles will suffer much more than today, because people won't have the money to buy them. And here's the giant difference with the PC market: there are alternatives, it's not just MS / Sony on their own consoles. You can buy from Steam, GOG, indie shops and other stores, and prices are actually pretty dynamic. With amazing deals because they aren't dependant on retail sales like consoles. It's a very different environment, where there aren't second hand games, but there are lots of advantages, like dynamic prices. Instead, a console with no second hand games and prices as high as last gen, if not higher, is basically the Steam system without any of its advantages but all the disadvantages unleashed.
IF all these things happen, I can seriously see Steambox becoming THE alternative outside of "console" gaming for many people (especially "core") because it's the system done right, tested and praised, and Nintendo handhelds THE alternative inside the "console" gaming for many other people (especially "occasional gamers" and "casual") due to Nintendo & big Japanese titles (this is why I'm not counting on Nintendo home consoles as much as on handhelds, due to the home market being much more reliant on Western support) in the future. But, as said, it's a big leap just like saying all these things will happen.
I can say that the no second hand system CAN work if prices are actually reduced at launch: since there would be no reason anymore to have high prices due to the destrction of the used / borrowing world menace (duh), having 49.99 for the biggest titles is possible, and it'd decrease this policy's impact quite a bit. Even more if a flexible pricing system is finally applied (that I think it's necessary in next gen, indipendently from second hand market): games that cost more are sold for higher prices (with the highest price possible fixed), games that cost lower are sold for lower prices. This is something that needs to be done for the future, a flexibility that people is already seeing through iOS / Android and Steam/PC markets and that make the console retail market quite a bit archaic in comparison. Both hardware companies and third parties need to talk about how to make it possible. Maybe royalties / development kits prices being reduced. And it'd allow for mid-budget titles to make a convincing comeback. We even have an example of a title that started as a budget release for today's standards and became such a giant success to see its price actually increase in the following installments: Just Dance, that started pretty slow, but then...everyone knows what happened I think, no? Lower prices + decent advertising + attracting games can do wonders for many developers that don't think "It's the next COD or it's fucking nothing!" Unfortunately, looking at how, for example, EA and Activision titles are priced MUCH higher on UK PSN than at retail, I fear this won't happen.
I hope to see Internet connection needed just for activating the brand new copy of a game, that would be the correct way to implement it, and what I think it'll happen. Always required is just...stupid.
Those folks tend to not buy high-end consoles. That said, this will price out/leave out some international markets, including some emerging markets.
If this happens, I really expect to see some folks saying "no more". I won't know for sure if I'll be one of those folks, but I definitely won't be getting the consoles year 1 regardless. I always wait a year or two because the games I like are rarely launch titles.
CambriaRising
Member
How do you know this?
If you don't have broadband in the US, Japan,or Europe by this point, you're easily on the lower-income end of the scale (Can't afford it), live in super rural land (not that many folks like that) , or are super-old (and not the market)
Even among the first group, they aren't really a money-maker for the console makers as is, especially if they are selling the consoles at a loss. They won't be buying many games.
I'm not even counting the pirates here (lower income= more likely to pirate, and 360 pirate= less likely to go online due to fear of ban) If someone does pirate everything, MSFT is losing money on those folks selling consoles at a loss and not getting any chunk of game sales.
It's not as much about selling raw numbers of consoles as it is the money you make. The sales are just a facet of this.
CambriaRising
Member
You are doing mental gymnastics here. You can make 100k a year and still live in an area with only Hughes net and Verizon mifi available.
You have no actual proof or evidence so stop dismissing valid arguments with that claim like it is fact.
360 didn't sell as much as it did by ignoring a 3rd of the USA. It couldn't have.
Skiesofwonder
Walruses, camels, bears, rabbits, tigers and badgers.
Dude, please stop talking. Super rural? Not many people like that? There is around 20 million of us in the United States according to the FCC. Hell, almost half of West Virginia wouldn't be able to use the 720 if it required high speed internet/constantly online.
EagleBurnn
Banned
Pretentious comment of the day reward.
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
Being unable to play games I own because Microsoft's servers are down is something I never want to encounter (again).
Maybe there ought to be a half way solution? If games were cheaper on digital stores consumers would flock to buy them there, no?
Either way, steam does so well, because the consumers are godly entities. Don't fuck with them.
Reward them, and you will get rewarded back a plenty.
Btw. Has anyone started a petition to allow Steam games to be resalable?
This is unarguable too. In my opinion.
Either way, steam does so well, because the consumers are godly entities. Don't fuck with them.
Reward them, and you will get rewarded back a plenty.
Btw. Has anyone started a petition to allow Steam games to be resalable?
This is unarguable too. In my opinion.
Wow what a pile of bullshit.
Ugh YES, this will also be one of the biggest problems.
Everyone who wanted to play Diablo at launch also knows the pain..
Maninthemirror
Banned
I just realised maybe it means you cant play used games free, maybe you need to pay a fraction of a price to register that game to your live id so you can play used games. Like if a 59.99 in retail and and you get it for $39 used, ms will charge you between $2 and $10 depending ln on how new or old the game is
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Unfortunately here's a scenario where I can imagine always-online will be required. Not just online for activation.
1. Piracy is huge on Xbox 360 even with the the threat of a chipped console being banned from XBL.
2. Therefore, always-online could be seen by Microsoft as a way to stamp out piracy once and for all. It doesn't matter if the games are ripped and distributed online, every console must always be connected and authenticated even for non-multiplayer games. Everyone must sign up for a legitimate XBL silver account in order to even load a game.
So really, this may not even be about used games only, so much as killing piracy with the same blow.
Which in turn also results in sticking the end user with always-online DRM.
1. Piracy is huge on Xbox 360 even with the the threat of a chipped console being banned from XBL.
2. Therefore, always-online could be seen by Microsoft as a way to stamp out piracy once and for all. It doesn't matter if the games are ripped and distributed online, every console must always be connected and authenticated even for non-multiplayer games. Everyone must sign up for a legitimate XBL silver account in order to even load a game.
So really, this may not even be about used games only, so much as killing piracy with the same blow.
Which in turn also results in sticking the end user with always-online DRM.
glimmerman
Member
I reckon 2nd hand games will be enabled through some kind of code you buy online, like an online pass. Code should cost a good bit less than a full retail disk release.
That way the devs/publishers will effectively tax 2nd hand sales without destroying it.
A system like that might also be used for game rentals, except that a disk is enabled to be used on many machines after a single activation by the rental company.
The above makes sense as it maintains the status quo, but drives up the effective price of 2nd hand sales, whilst giving devs/pubs a cut. In addition, gamestop can continue to sell 2nd hand games, and still derive good revenue from it. Of course either the sales will decrease, or gamestop will decrease the cost of 2nd games to maintain the same level of sales, but at less margin.
BruiserBear
Banned
I disagree. This is the kind of rumor that if you allowed it to marinate amongst the general public for weeks, or even months, you're always going to have a percentage of customers who are confused by it. Do you know what I mean?
Have you ever come across someone who heard a rumor about something a while back, but you find them a year later still believing that rumor, because they never definitively heard it was untrue? I think that happens a fair amount, particularly with the non hardcore types.
In other words, right now there are lots of kids in schools around the world telling others the next Xbox will not allow used games to work, and you'll always have to be online to play the games you buy.
Of course this would always be a factor for such a change. Used games go away, and at the same time piracy mostly likely does.
However, I disagree that piracy on the 360 is huge.
It's not only about Microsoft's end being alright though. There are other factors bridging the gap from your console to their cloud.
What if your internet provider is down?
What happens over Christmas when the influx of capacity is saturated?
What happens when 4m new halo gamers link up to the cloud in the same week? Should consumers who play offline [I know I know] niche rpg titles suffer too?
This seems like consumers fearing new technology. So here are other things to consider, on the presumption this becomes the norm like gold has, and people are happy to pay for something, they previously received for free
P):
Company X going always online suggests that they are tying themselves in to the consumer like telephony providers. Consumers are subscribers to the service. If this is correct, there will be shortages. I've suffered blackouts on both landlines and mobile phones, and I guess Company X will release a PR statement saying they have 99% uptime or something. Whilst Company y will say, just play our game, no network required.
On the presumption, that a gold like service exists, consumers might say, well, I already have cable, this feels like added value. Consumer then gets cable through Company X, but is now effectively paying for access to their games. It would also mean being tied up to a 12 month contract with one console.*
edit: To clarify, not all households have two consoles, more of the core tend to do so; if the core gamers could be tied down for twelve months to two years, company X more effectively neuters core gamers buying a second console, regardless of whatever big game comes out. And buyers remorse is harder to get out of. You can't just sell your console, you are still tied to a contract.
What if your internet provider is down?
What happens over Christmas when the influx of capacity is saturated?
What happens when 4m new halo gamers link up to the cloud in the same week? Should consumers who play offline [I know I know] niche rpg titles suffer too?
This seems like consumers fearing new technology. So here are other things to consider, on the presumption this becomes the norm like gold has, and people are happy to pay for something, they previously received for free
P): Company X going always online suggests that they are tying themselves in to the consumer like telephony providers. Consumers are subscribers to the service. If this is correct, there will be shortages. I've suffered blackouts on both landlines and mobile phones, and I guess Company X will release a PR statement saying they have 99% uptime or something. Whilst Company y will say, just play our game, no network required.
On the presumption, that a gold like service exists, consumers might say, well, I already have cable, this feels like added value. Consumer then gets cable through Company X, but is now effectively paying for access to their games. It would also mean being tied up to a 12 month contract with one console.*
edit: To clarify, not all households have two consoles, more of the core tend to do so; if the core gamers could be tied down for twelve months to two years, company X more effectively neuters core gamers buying a second console, regardless of whatever big game comes out. And buyers remorse is harder to get out of. You can't just sell your console, you are still tied to a contract.
I'm sure they said that the new Kinect will launch alongside the new console and not with it.
Tyrone_Biggums
Banned
True, there's likely no meaningful metric to determine the extent of piracy. However, Microsoft has a duty to protect its intellectual properties by any means necessary. That can, unfortunately, put some consumers at a disadvantage in regards to the types of DRM utilized.
Still, if the industry is continues to head in a more regulated direction, as is reasonable given the amount of money these IP's generate today, then we as consumers either get in line or move on to a different hobby.
StreetsAhead
Member
One of the most pretentious and presumptuous posts I've have ever seen on GAF.
BruiserBear
Banned
It might make you uncomfortable to read that, but there is most definitely some truth in it.
Companies like Microsoft and Sony would view people who don't get their console online as mostly expendable at this point, and of course pirates are expendable.
Poor families buy their kids consoles all the time.
I didn't mean it in a way that looked down on folks who do not have it, or looking down on poor folks. I was looking at it what I believe is the way MSFT would be looking at it.
Folks who do not have a broadband connection are not the folks MSFT makes money off of, so screwing them doesn't hurt MSFT. They're not paying the $60 online tax, they're not buying DLC/downloadable games. The only revenue MSFT gets from these folks is what they buy in disks, and it's pretty logical to assume that there aren't many folks who have no broadband who buy a ton of discs.
The other source of non-connected consoles is pirate consoles. I do know several folks who have a "pirate 360" just for that purpose. Given that 360's were sold at a loss, these "customers" actualy cost MSFT money.
Poor families who buy consoles- from what I've seen , they tend to own PS2's or Wii's, especially a couple years back.
Edit also 20 million is US= about 6.5% of the population, and a lower portion of both purchasing power and interest in the product. To MSFT, that's a fairly small part of the marketplace.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Wrong. There are absolutely no facts to solidly back up anything that you said. I can see how you could make some vague connections but absolutely nothing concrete.
http://dashboard.digitalinfo.org/trends/view/broadband
Only 66% of adults in the US even have broadband access. 1/3 of the adults don't! Microsoft would effectively be wiping out 34% of their consumer base by doing this. Yes, many who don't have broadband access are poor. That's true. But that doesn't mean they don't buy game systems.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Hopefully you can turn this off. Can't wait for my kids to say something like, "Daddy, can you turn the Xbox on?" and the thing firing up when I don't want it to. I potentially see this happening 15 times a day.
If you made that 66% 100% by magic wand, how many of that 34% would buy a next-gen console next year? That's my point.
That 34% includes a large number of folks who have 0 interest in consoles period (retirees) , and a decent number of folks who just can't afford it (which is a tragedy, but that's another political issue I rail on heavily). It's only the folks who don't have the access period who would, and as an above poster states, that's 6.5% of the population, generally in super rural areas (which tend to have higher percentages of folks in poverty, FACT) If there were large concentrations of affluent folks in these areas who had interest, the cable companies would come because they like low-hanging profits. The reason you don't see broadband in these areas is because Big Broadband concentrates in the areas where they make easier massive monopoly profits.
It's a very reasonable assumption that nearly all the folks who are interested in a next-gen console, particularly around launch time, do have high-speed internet.
Also, if you look below the graph, you'd find more data points on education, wealth, and age that prove that my inferences are logical. Penetration is higher among younger folks, folks who are more educated, and folks who make more.
Where is that Minority Report drawing? It's getting closer to reality.
It will probably be an always on console anyways. This will just wake it up from sleeping like if your PC's screen turns back on when you move the mouse. Though less power will probably be used by a 720 in sleep than a PC.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Again, wrong.
Here's my problem with your assessment: Those retirees who have no interest in the system don't disproportionately fit into that 34% without access. They're spread evenly across. In fact, I'd venture a guess that they're more disproportionately spread into areas that DO have internet access, as they tend to flock to bigger cities in warmer climates like Florida and Arizona that DO have broadband access. There is no evidence that the poor don't buy game consoles or aren't interested. Drive by any trailer park and look at how many trailers have HD satellite dishes on top. It's a fallacy to believe they won't spend on gaming consoles or other things like that. High-end computers like Macs? Probably not. But a game console is usually something affordable--even for the poor.
Also, again--Rural communities do have more poor people. That is fact. I have taught in several rural areas and let me tell you: The vast majority of those "poor" students I have taught have either a 360 or a PS3.
Doesn't kinnect "tune" for the each profile's voice? When my kids say "Xbox pause" it doesn't work.
The graph you posted above says otherwise. You're contradicting yourself again. Stated results of the survey: penetation is 39% among retirees, 75% among folks 18-49. Unless you're going to argue the sampling is wrong, you have zero argument here.
Also broadband penetration means whether or not they have it, not whether or not they have access in that data. It says so right at the very top. The percentage of folks who lack access is lower (20% max at this point, basing on 2010 Census data which had around 24% in 2010, and again is a population skewed towards less-profitable customers)
Yes, now. Two years ago it was a different story. These consoles have been around much longer than two years. The poorer folks I've been around, tended to own PS2/Wiis for the longest time.
And I'm not saying that the poor don't have interest in consoles, in fact, they probably have a higher interest, but buy fewer games. It's the games that make MSFT their profits, not the console.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I guess I shouldn't be including everybody over 50 when I say "retirees," which is what I was doing.
As for the difference between actually having it in their home and having access to it, I don't see much of a difference. I don't see people running out and saying, "Well, this game console needs to be online, so I better start paying an extra $600 a year to sign up for internet."
I agree with you when you say Microsoft doesn't probably care about these people if this is the path they're going. I just think it's the wrong business move. I used to live in the northern part of the mitten of Michigan. The high-speed availability there is so rare it is unbelievable. For this to happen, they'd basically be wiping out the entire upper half of the lower peninsula. Other people in this thread mentioned West Virginia and other states. I just think it's insane to do--it will create such horrible word-of-mouth that it could cause irreparable damage to the brand reputation in those areas for years.
Don't know if they really know about that stuff but at least DaE has pretty good track record of delivering.
That SuperMTW guy I think is the same guy who leaked the Halo 4 gameplay. I don't know the other guy. Hopefully they are right though, can't see myself getting the next Xbox if this stuff is true.
Thought this was a pretty good read from Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc...soft-cannot-kill-used-games-on-the-next-xbox/
Im not here to speculate on whether Edges source is reliable, but I will say Im not going to believe anything I hear about the next generation of consoles unless its coming directly from the companies themselves. Rather, I want to talk about why this news item cannot be true, at least by the time the console is ready for public release.
The used games market is enormous, particularly in this rough economy, and its a huge part of the reason GameStop has managed to thrive in an age where Blockbusters and Barnes and Nobles are closing left and right.
It makes sense why developers and publishers want to be paid for copies of their own game, but at what cost? What would Microsoft have to give up to implement something like this?
Even when this was just a mere rumor, the internet was flooded with comments on forums and message boards saying that if the next generation Xbox did in fact come with such a restriction, they would automatically buy whatever Sony put out.
But what if this is part of some grand conspiracy in the next console generation, and Sony is in on it as well? What if the two companies sign a blood pact with the intent to eliminate used games sales altogether? Well, that wouldnt quite work either, as Nintendos Wii U already has no such restriction, and gamers could embrace them instead. Additionally, if this Steam Box ever comes to fruition, it would be in a prime place to take advantage of all those who want cheap games, but can no longer get them on consoles.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc...soft-cannot-kill-used-games-on-the-next-xbox/
Im not here to speculate on whether Edges source is reliable, but I will say Im not going to believe anything I hear about the next generation of consoles unless its coming directly from the companies themselves. Rather, I want to talk about why this news item cannot be true, at least by the time the console is ready for public release.
The used games market is enormous, particularly in this rough economy, and its a huge part of the reason GameStop has managed to thrive in an age where Blockbusters and Barnes and Nobles are closing left and right.
It makes sense why developers and publishers want to be paid for copies of their own game, but at what cost? What would Microsoft have to give up to implement something like this?
Even when this was just a mere rumor, the internet was flooded with comments on forums and message boards saying that if the next generation Xbox did in fact come with such a restriction, they would automatically buy whatever Sony put out.
But what if this is part of some grand conspiracy in the next console generation, and Sony is in on it as well? What if the two companies sign a blood pact with the intent to eliminate used games sales altogether? Well, that wouldnt quite work either, as Nintendos Wii U already has no such restriction, and gamers could embrace them instead. Additionally, if this Steam Box ever comes to fruition, it would be in a prime place to take advantage of all those who want cheap games, but can no longer get them on consoles.
That's a reasonable argument, and one I would agree with. It's a harder argument to quantify. It's an economic theorem that big public companies will mostly care about the low-hanging fruit over long-term investment, this is just another example of this.
Whether it's insane or not is another issue, I disagree with the strategy for the reasons you mentioned but I can see the logic behind it. Politically, it could be a good thing in the long term in terms of getting broadband treated as a utility instead of a luxury, which is something needed in this country (and I live in the worst state for Broadband in the US)