Kotaku: Next Xbox will require online connection to start games

Ninja Scooter said:
I think you overestimate how much consumers care. Look at RROD, YLOD, antenna gate, consumers don't seem to care...most people have decent internet access. If they didn't things like iPads wouldn't be flying off the shelf. Yes there are pockets of the country with horrible online that would make it impossible for them to use online devices like tablets and always-online game consoles, but I just don't think MS cares to lose that segment, as they probably figure they are small enough minority and will only shrink over the next 5 years.
Click to expand...

I think this is really revisionist, don't you? RROD cost Microsoft a billion dollars as they attempted to head off a class action lawsuit. Antenna-gate generated enormous negative press and required Apple to hold a public press conference addressing the situation and give away $20 add ons for free. Then they changed the design in their next iteration. PS3's failure rate is not too dissimilar from historical norms, so I can't really comment.

Consumers can get loud on these things. That they keep buying them suggests satisfaction with their resolutions, I think.
 
Naked Lunch said:
Is a Sony forum? Just asking.
Click to expand...
EightBitNate said:
Sometimes I wonder if is a Sony forum, because if so then.
Click to expand...
chris-crocker-bawww-o.gif

Leave Microsoft alone.
 
shinra-bansho said:
jF1Mjq5MZmVHd.png


You and Microsoft are like kindred spirits, it seems.
Click to expand...
Holy crap, this is Microsoft's creative director? For real!? Also, the fuck is up with comparing phones, a device that is a utility used to communicate with other people and from the very beginning always had to be "online" since its creation to an entertainment media device such as a gaming console that can be used for single player?

Phones are a service. Consoles and media devices are a product with optional services.

But I guess there's some people out there who want everything to become a service. So might as well require online connectivity with every Blu-ray, DVD and CD player.

Oh and regarding that "director's" analogies, you get shitty phone service, guess what? You'll change to another service!
 
MrNyarlathotep said:
You are conflating a single piece of media that 'works best' online with the medium itself only working online.

If Facebook goes down for an hour it doesn't prevent you accessing any other application on your phone / tablet / pc / laptop / netbook / whatever.

That is a huge difference.

EDIT:
And yes, society would turn down cars that drive themselves but that require a persistent network connection, because nobody wants to be run over by a robot because it went through a service blackspot
Click to expand...

For millions of people the main use of their Internet connected device is to access Facebook.

You'll still be able to use your Xbox to watch DVDs, Blu-ray, downloaded movies, play music, stream content off of your local network.

Well I strongly disagree with you about the future of travel. Society is not going to turn down network connected travel that drastically increases travel efficiency, lowers accident rates, raises convenience of picking up/dropping off, automates or eliminates parking, and potentially eliminates the enormous expense of having to purchase a car at all. Human drivers are the biggest impediment to efficient and safe travel.

California and Nevada have already legalized self-driving cars. Cruise control is getting more sophisticated, self parking cars are becoming luxury standards and driving/parking assists are becoming standard in tons of cars. People don't have to worry about getting run over by robots because text-crazy drivers are already doing plenty of that. We'll get to a point real fast where we trust the networked car more than we do the iPhone-obsessed ADHD-riddled lunatic behind the wheel.

The fact that Google (an Internet ad company) is the driving force behind this movement pretty much assures the fact that the Internet is going to end up being a major component of cars of the future. If this generation doesn't embrace it the one behind it that doesn't understand the concept of a device not connected to the Internet will embrace it.
 
I'm actually glad in a way that Microsoft is making their next system as unappealing as possible, as it'll save me money. I'll be VERY happy with just my Ps4 and Wii U (and Vita and 3DS)
 
Y2Kev said:
I think this is really revisionist, don't you? RROD cost Microsoft a billion dollars as they attempted to head off a class action lawsuit. Antenna-gate generated enormous negative press and required Apple to hold a public press conference addressing the situation and give away $20 add ons for free. Then they changed the design in their next iteration. PS3's failure rate is not too dissimilar from historical norms, so I can't really comment.

Consumers can get loud on these things. That they keep buying them suggests satisfaction with their resolutions, I think.
Click to expand...

But in the grand scheme of things, RROD didn't cause people to stop buying Xboxes. Antenna-gate didn't stop people from buying iPhones. Those things were also design flaws. This is simply a design choice. People (at least informed ones) will know about it from the start. Those that are not informed will find out when their internet connection goes out....but does that happen often enough to the average consumer (coincidentally right as they are trying to play an Xbox game) for it to become a huge issue? I doubt it. As for people with worse or no internet access...as I said I doubt they were lining up to buy a new console anyway with how heavy both companies appear to be going with social/internet features.
 
eroots said:
You people just don't get it. When the SERVERS GO DOWN and they WILL eventually go down, you will NOT be able to play your games anymore..
Click to expand...

Just because the RUMORS state this, it does NOT make it true.

Always online means much more than what GAF is fixated on.
 
I really hope Microsoft reconsiders this.

It's not that I want the Xbox 720 to fail, but you're excluding people from gaming with this crap.

What happened to expanding?
 
I just thanked him for confirming always on-line and congratulated him on loosing a costumer. Hes doing his job allright.
 
Im currently without internet connection at home.

I live in Australia, have a well paying job and own a PS3.

However, I do not see the value in paying for an internet connection (minimum of $50 a month in Aus) when I can browse facebook and neogaf on my mobile phone.

I have not logged onto the PSN network for about 18 mths, yet still regularly play ps3 (using my housemates ps3 as mine broke a while ago).

I would not be happy if Sony did not allow me to play the 20 or so games I have bought this generation on a ps3 that does not have internet connection.

If next gen systems require an internet connection, I may be out of a hobby as I dont plan on getting an internet connection anytime soon.
 
MightyHedgehog said:
I'm not defending anything but my own self interest in gaming. I'm not in favor of intrusive DRM. Never have been. Though I do buy and use products that employ some form of it, I'm more interested in the end result rather than depriving myself of my entertainment on very consumer principle alone. The way I see it, I accept that there will be some peeling off of users, but I don't think it will be significant and that is why they would go ahead with it. Whatever your beliefs about offline/online, the reality of modern games and software is that they're increasingly tied into the internet. That's not just a movement from corporations looking to sell you more, mine more data about you, and protect their interests to an offensive degree, that's something that enough consumers want based on what they buy. Whether this negatively affects me or you or MS is up in the air right at this moment, since this is still a rumor and one with little information and context.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I do that as well from time to time -- heck, I bought a 3DS even though I hate region locking -- but I wouldn't defend the bad aspects even so, and still would much prefer other sources if they provided the same exact value (but that is not the easiest thing to do, especially in this space). For games as a data mining tool, I hope that won't be the future... they already do a lot of that stuff already without having to further intrude.
 
if this is 100% confirmed genuine then I'm 100% out. No chance at all I'll buy into a platform I cant use when my internet goes down.

For those saying this is just some Sony fanboy rant they are delusional. MS will lose a substantial part of their community they have done well to develope if this proves to be true. To be frank they might be willing to do so if they sell more consoles to a media market.
 
Clevinger said:
Please proceed, MS.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I wouldn't trust the instincts of this forum if my life depended on it.

If it was up to this forum Xbox Live wouldn't be making over a billion a year and the 360 wouldn't be the #1 console in America for the last few years thanks to Kinect.

I like seeing strong reactions to things. It means you're making a bold decision. It's exciting. High risk means high reward and Don Mattrick has had good instincts. MS definitely got the better of the Peter Moore trade.
 
enigmatic_alex44 said:
I'm actually glad in a way that Microsoft is making their next system as unappealing as possible, as it'll save me money. I'll be VERY happy with just my Ps4 and Wii U (and Vita and 3DS)
Click to expand...
Ok but technically the device doesn't exist. They haven't talked about it. If all the rumors are true than I'm right with you. I don't think Microsoft would release an aweful console
 
It also implies Microsoft can de authorise a console rendering it unable to play games.

This is interesting if they want to move to a subsidised model ala phones... You don't pay the bill, you don't play games.
 
Bitmap Frogs said:
It also implies Microsoft can de authorise a console rendering it unable to play games.

This is interesting if they want to move to a subsidised model ala phones... You don't pay the bill, you don't play games.
Click to expand...
I never thought of that. Interesting. Maybe if you pay in full you can play offline.
 
Bitmap Frogs said:
It also implies Microsoft can de authorise a console rendering it unable to play games.

This is interesting if they want to move to a subsidised model ala phones... You don't pay the bill, you don't play games.
Click to expand...

This happens with the current, subsidized $99 model.

That said, it's not nefarious. If you want someone to subsidize your hardware, there's nothing wrong with them having a way to enforce payment.
 
Always online make as much sense as saying "If you stand up with the controller on your hands, the game will stop. Because you know, games were made to be played while sitting, so we are implementing this feature".
 
what's also funny is that the 360 right now is actually relatively friendly, as far as DRM goes. I just played a Games on Demand game off my hard drive for about 30 minutes just now, without being online (since it's technically authorized to the console as well as my account). And even if I wanted to play on a different machine, I could log into live from there and redownload and play (though I would have to be online there).

Then in the case of a broken system, I could do a license transfer (noted on GAF earlier) at least every 4 months to authorize the replacement system for offline play. Pop a hard drive into the new system, and I'm as good as new. Assuming I don't break systems every month or something, that seems relatively fair.

Going from that, to what's currently rumored would be an incredible step backwards.
 
Syriel said:
This happens with the current, subsidized $99 model.

That said, it's not nefarious. If you want someone to subsidize your hardware, there's nothing wrong with them having a way to enforce payment.
Click to expand...

Not just live? They 'brick' the console?

Oh yeah... Just speculating they might bet really heavy on that.

Still, that's the kind of corporate power that I don't feel comfortable with. Much like people losing access to Origin games if they get a forum ban.
 
Penguins&PolarBears said:
Agreed. I wouldn't trust the instincts of this forum if my life depended on it.

If it was up to this forum Xbox Live wouldn't be making over a billion a year and the 360 wouldn't be the #1 console in America for the last few years thanks to Kinect.

I like seeing strong reactions to things. It means you're making a bold decision. It's exciting. High risk means high reward and Don Mattrick has had good instincts. MS definitely got the better of the Peter Moore trade.
Click to expand...

lol the 360 was outselling the PS3 before Kinect, and plus people aren't mad that the Kinect exists, they're mad because MS pours their resources into it and hints on jamming it down people's throats next gen. They'd rather MS have their devs work on good games instead of Kinect Sports 7.

People on this board don't give a fucking shit if MS is making a lot of money on Live (minus fanboys), they just know that's it's not a good value proposition. Why would people here want whats good for a multinational instead of whats good for the consumer?
 
Tallshortman said:
lol the 360 was outselling the PS3 before Kinect, and plus people aren't mad that the Kinect exists, they're mad because MS pours their resources into it and hints on jamming it down people's throats next gen. They'd rather MS have their devs work on good games instead of Kinect Sports 7.

People on this board don't give a fucking shit if MS is making a lot of money on Live (minus fanboys), they just know that's it's not a good value proposition. Why would people here want whats good for a multinational instead of whats good for the consumer?
Click to expand...

Edge's review of Microsofts last E3 was a good read

" Because if Xbox is indeed the biggest console gaming brand on the planet, and if this is the landscape Durango will inherit, then console gaming is in trouble."

http://m.edge-online.com/features/e3-2011-microsoft-press-conference-report/
 
If this turns out to be true, I expect Sony to have a very aggressive advertising campaign to make the public aware what Microsoft's 'always-online' really means.

I still find it hard to believe Microsoft are dumb enough to make it that easy for Sony though.
 
Microsoft cannot ne this crazy, can they? I mean, I know Microsoft has their loyal followers and gamers will tolerate practically anything companies spew at them, but this could be a huge advantage for Sony if they play their cards right. I am still sort of doubting that they would go forth with an online always console against a strong competitor that supposedly doesn't have the same requirement.
 
In my opinion the worst part about this always online bullshit is relying on MS's servers.

For example, it's almost been 30 years since the NES launched, but if you have a working console, you can whip it out, connect it to your TV and play games the same as you would in 1985.

What are the chances you'll be able to pull out a 720 and do the same thing in 30 yrs? I think any console or game that requires always online, despite having local resources, for non multiplayer functions is inherently broken.
 
Ninja Scooter said:
But in the grand scheme of things, RROD didn't cause people to stop buying Xboxes. Antenna-gate didn't stop people from buying iPhones. Those things were also design flaws. This is simply a design choice. People (at least informed ones) will know about it from the start. Those that are not informed will find out when their internet connection goes out....but does that happen often enough to the average consumer (coincidentally right as they are trying to play an Xbox game) for it to become a huge issue? I doubt it. As for people with worse or no internet access...as I said I doubt they were lining up to buy a new console anyway with how heavy both companies appear to be going with social/internet features.
Click to expand...

Both those issues were fixed.
 
Y2Kev said:
I think this is really revisionist, don't you? RROD cost Microsoft a billion dollars as they attempted to head off a class action lawsuit. Antenna-gate generated enormous negative press and required Apple to hold a public press conference addressing the situation and give away $20 add ons for free. Then they changed the design in their next iteration. PS3's failure rate is not too dissimilar from historical norms, so I can't really comment.

Consumers can get loud on these things. That they keep buying them suggests satisfaction with their resolutions, I think.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think it has more to do with corporate brainwashing than any kind of customer satisfaction. Most people buy the iPhone simply because it's the ZOMG iPhone. They have no idea what it is, what it does, or what their other options are, but Apple's marketing machine has convinced them that they want it, so they buy it. The same for the Xbox. It has dude, Halo bro! So people buy it in droves without thinking about anything else; then when it comes time to pay for Live Gold they do it because oh well, that's just how it works. Any failures alone the way they take in stride because you know, things break.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

will games start to require windows 11 soon ?
2
340
IAmRei replied
Switch 2 will require an internet connection / system update to use an SD card
2
53
4K
DenchDeckard replied
Assassin's Creed Shadows needs an online connection to install on PS5
2 3
101
5K
Fortress of Regrets replied
Qualcomm Job Posting Suggest the next Xbox will be based on ARM
2 3
122
1K
simpatico replied
‘We stand ready’: Nightdive says it wants to start remastering Xbox 360 and PS3 era games
Game Dev  2 3
107
5K
fastest finger replied
Top Bottom