Man, if they can't even keep their internet up for long enough to tweet, "All games will be Gaikai streaming" is never going to work. </s>
Kotaku: Next Xbox will require online connection to start games
- Thread starter Wario64
- Start date
Man, if they can't even keep their internet up for long enough to tweet, "All games will be Gaikai streaming" is never going to work. </s>
Tallshortman
Member
First off those 25 million cod players are split across 3 platforms. Second, if you're aiming for your customer base to be 25 million people MS should just go ahead and quit the business.
Great points. You'd think they'd listen. But, if they think they can expand the millions that buy multiplayer games each year, they that's what they will try and do. When you factor in the DLC that those people buy for Cod and BF aswell, then it's even more money.
The Last One
Member
If this rumor is true, a better alternative.
When did the 360 and PS3 really take off in sales? It was when they hit the $299 or less price point. Now what happens when MS comes out at $199 with a three year subscription to Live? You guys are looking too small here.
It is like the iPhone - used to be exclusive, but now for $199 you can pick up a subsidized phone at Wal-Mart. MS wants to be like the iPhone. And it will work, too. People will see the $199 price tag and logic will go out the Window.
They will win the console market, your living room, and everything else by a margin that cannot be described. That is the end game here.
It is like the iPhone - used to be exclusive, but now for $199 you can pick up a subsidized phone at Wal-Mart. MS wants to be like the iPhone. And it will work, too. People will see the $199 price tag and logic will go out the Window.
They will win the console market, your living room, and everything else by a margin that cannot be described. That is the end game here.
Any reason why Sony can't do the same if they wanted to?
Valkyria
Banned
I love the wishful thinking of the console warriors.
Just wait and see, my father will beat yours, he knows judo.
You're probably joking but that's a parody account.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Don't get me wrong - I don't like MS. They are both a partner and a competitor that I deal with on a daily basis depending on the technology you talk about. I hate their products, but they sell... and they sell well.
I just recognize the end game here that many of you are looking past. And yes, MS can afford to subsidize the console, but Sony needs a quick profit. Not sure they can do so.
I just recognize the end game here that many of you are looking past. And yes, MS can afford to subsidize the console, but Sony needs a quick profit. Not sure they can do so.
I say if MS do go the subsidised route it would be an enormous mistake for Sony not to follow suit. Peronally i hate that kind of model because you always end up paying more in the long run but you can't have your main competitor advertising themselves at half the price or less of your console no matter what problems their system has. It's not like it would be difficult for them to do or anything so I don't see why they wouldn't copy MS in this case
So we'll just have to wait for the next MS console then.
I spit out my soda reading this. Thanks for the laugh.
publishers are going to bring us more and more DRM online only games. It's inevitable to the bottom line of staying in business and giving us quality products.
Whichever system we own it will eventually be that way it seems
I do not like not having ANY games available to play offline however there needs to be a licensing system that includes offline play at least for time periods of a few days at a time.
my post from the Orth pitchfork and torch thread repost here as more appropriate:
Whichever system we own it will eventually be that way it seems
I do not like not having ANY games available to play offline however there needs to be a licensing system that includes offline play at least for time periods of a few days at a time.
my post from the Orth pitchfork and torch thread repost here as more appropriate:
I would love for this to be the case. Not because I hate MS (I bought Xbox and 360 on day 1) - but because I'm sick of these companies pushing terrible business practices at the expense of their customers, and not getting any push back from said customers.
That said, I really have lost faith in the average consumer. I've just seen it time and time again, where they will throw money at a game that is broken or has garbage DRM. As others have said, trying to predict what will be an issue for the average consumer is not that easy. And also, the average consumer seems to be weak willed. They want what they want, and don't care about the downsides. They will suffer them, if it means getting what they desire - and these companies know it.
It'a going to happen. They have been successful with the 360 at $99 on a contract so without a doubt they will use that model.
Edit: Not exclusively of course because while getting people to pay more than the console is worth is priceless in the eyes of a business man, they still have to give people the idea that they outright own the system by letting pay the full "normal" price.
yea I think they are changing the way they sell consoles for sure... they will sell millions and millions even with internet outrage
I'm not buying a videogame console that comes with a contract. I don't even pay for Xbox Live Gold as it is. I've been trying to keep my monthly bills down lately, so I am not going to throw in a 3-year contract just to play videogames that I mostly intend to play singleplayer anyways.
Karsticles
Member
I wouldn't want it to completely tank, because competition is good for the industry, but I would like to see it do poorly enough that the big three learn not to go down this route.
Omegasquash
Member
Nice proper noun status on "Window", there.
but there are millions and millions of people who live week to week with budgets and do not have money for a $4-$500 investment up front and would JUMP at $99 and monthly payments.
Not to mention if it is also truly a set top box, have it as an option in Cable TV services instead of regular cable box and the monthly fee is part of your tv account. Plus potential for millions of hotel rooms etc... (who will have online connections as well, BTW)
Yeah, but you're not the one targeted with that price ideal in mind. If a general consumer sees a brand new piece of hardware that normally will run in the $400 dollar range at launch suddenly available at a base of $199 and you pay $10-15 a month for Live Diamond which includes Netflix and/or Hulu Plus, suddenly you have a sale where there wouldn't have been one due to the entry price.
Uno Venova
Banned
Not a one.
Dreamgazer
Member
"We love sales instead of games"-age is here to tell you why hardcore gamers should just deal with it!
It's only a plus for Microsoft. It's a pain in the ass for everyone else.
ShockingAlberto
Member
Margins that can't be described seem theoretically impossible
Valkyria
Banned
How it's this people to pay for 60$ games?
They could easily do that right now with the current online system. You don't need always online to do anything except trample on consumers. PS+ is a rental service and we can play those games offline with out a issue.
You will be able to rent them for 59.99. Cause with always online you sure as shit don't own them.
perhaps the publishers/Devs can not support the huge staffs to make asset rich games for next gen. the industry NEEDS more than 35% of all games make a profit if we are to even have an industry and consumers for it.
Otherwise everyone will just shift to Pad/mobile games. Less assets,, less work, more money.
This is less about big bad corporate console maker and more about financial viability of the ones who make the games... bet on it.
Dreamgazer
Member
Wait till you hear about how they pay for their always online, high speed internet . -_-
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
My xbox 360, Wii, Wii U, PS3 have always been connected online, so I don't see the big deal. All those features people here tout about with the PS4 will require online, so isn't that essentially always connected?
Not going to happen at that price. If they included hulu plus or netflix it would be closer to 20 a months because they have to pay netflix and hulu for access to content. Also have to include a little wiggle room for people who cancel credit card to avoid a early etf.
Dreamgazer
Member
What does this have to do with your argument that MS will sell more consoles with a $99 subscription model? Are they sharing the profit? More people will be forced to expose themselves to the market so therefore there are more sales?
Not at all. Games are still the most important aspect here. Look at the Wii U and why it's struggling. As long as Microsoft can get some solid games onto the system and maintain a consistent flow through the slower months after launch, I think the next Xbox will do just fine.
We haven't actually confirmed anything on the next Xbox, it is all still rumors. Sources or not, until Microsoft announces it nothing is final. Same goes for Sony on anything that hasn't been discussed in a formal manner. As much as I dislike the idea of forcing everyone to be connected since not all people can be, it will eventually be a step that the entire gaming industry takes for the reasons Microsoft is doing it. Ads and DRM.
gravitybear
Member
Has MS responded officially to any of this? At all? Are they really going to let a non-PR guy ruin their reputation?
there have been rumors of it being used for offloading some processing to the cloud to make games even more feature rich than possible locally. Also Devs designing to have their worlds function and built upon the online presence of others etc... constant updates, connection, voice commands to/from cloud based "learning" database, and if used as a set top box then I suppose there is some benefit there
Dreamgazer
Member
I expect my console's primary function is to play games before any features.
A.K.A. Play games when I visit a college gaming club.
A.K.A. Play games when I just move into a new apartment.
A.k.A. Play games at a local fighting game tournament.
an always online connected console isn't guaranteed to do that.
There are some of us who do take our consoles around you know.
What if it's a service like Spotify where you just have to access the internet once a month to renew licenses on your songs? It doesn't apply to me since I don't ever shut my data connection off on my phone since I have unlimited data but I have friends who will shut off the data and make sure to turn it back on and launch the app once a month to keep playing their music.
If Microsoft did something like this where when you buy a game you have 7 days before you have to get online to register it through the system and then after that it's once every 30 days. Is that a little less intrusive to you?
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
You realize very, very, very few people have that kind of problem, right?
The whole cloud thing is silly since a lot of people are still on DSL with 100ms + pings thanks to interleaving. That and DSL has much less bandwidth in general but is only option for some. For others it is cheap alternative that is fine for basic surfing and email.
Dreamgazer
Member
1) Yes, games are always the most important aspect. games are the only reason why wiiu is in its current state. So why are we saying things like "MS will get more sales through a subscription model, so accept it!"? Wii had tons of sales, what, were we all suppose to just accept that as standard and the thing going forward? Demand that MS and Sony do whatever got the WII its market share this gen? Again, you're right GAMES matter more, so why are we using SALES to justify this stupid anti-consumer policy?
2) I personally do not have any faith in any company to actually fight off piracy completely. Someone will always find a way around and then laugh at the legitimate costumers who now bears the burden of the system. I also don't see why this will eventually be a step that the entire game industry takes, unless you know of some stats that I don't.
If people want to say, MS will win because of better exclusive, better quality games, etc etc. That's all fine.
Don't use that as an excuse to justify always-online.
Omegasquash
Member
A non-PR guy isn't ruining their reputation, here. MS has by and large not commented on rumors, and that's what's taking place right now. Granted it'd be nice if they did respond (frankly I'd like to know), but their reputation isn't being ruined by one person. One person has been tossed into the spotlight for making somewhat rude comments, and part of that was confirmed to be trolling.
Approach with skepticism, but you're justified (IMO) in having an opinion one way or another, so no worries.
What we need is a Malcolm McDowell style "For those of you just joining" recap.
Dreamgazer
Member
Yes, that will be less intrusive, and I will learn to gradually accept that.
But the question still stands, should I just accept it if it's not that and it's actually always online?
Were you in college during the last decade?
Most colleges still don't have wireless access at all lecture halls/require strict mac address standards. We also have a xbox in our office that will never be allowed through our network.
Blue Ninja
Member
Well, you won't always be using those features. Sometimes your internet will be down. At least then, you'll be able to still play your games.
two separate thoughts, one, I am assuming the reasoning for online (and if DRM based) would be to offer opportunity for publishers to have more control of their product and less used games sales giving them more retail sales = more revenue to profit from their work instead of fold.
two, more customers online at $99+ subscription means more customers to buy consoles and games from the publishers early in console life rather than catching all of those people in year 3-4 after the console price drops start. (common sense also points to those late buyers purchasing more of their games on used market so GS gets the money instead of Devs)
heh
This is a fact. If someone wants something bad enough they will always find a way. It's how theft is, regardless of what stores due to prevent people from shoplifting, people will come up with ways to break the system. The idea isn't to stop it but to make it as difficult as possible for the person to get what they want to make it easier for you to catch them.
If you look at the way the industry is already heading, many publishers are instituting a one time use online pass. It has become synonymous with EA and Ubisoft games. The next step there is locking away more content on the singleplayer side after that first code has been used.
I don't agree at all with the way it's going but I can see why they're doing what they're doing sadly.