Have fun being locked out of Halo 8 and being forced to spend hundreds of dollars to play Halo 9
Looks like your having enough fun for the both of us making up crap.
Have fun being locked out of Halo 8 and being forced to spend hundreds of dollars to play Halo 9
Already been officially and publicly denied, any always-online DRM will have to be implemented by the publisher.Have your PS4 contacts mentioned anything like this for the PS4?
In case you missed it, this is my argument on that point. I think they will do whatever they think will make them more money in total.
Will it be called Xbox <Parameter:String>?
The lack of empathy displayed by a number of gaffers in this thread is really depressing.
We've really become so individualistic and self-centered that we don't give 2 shits about our fellow gamer and their situations. It's all about the self, wether I can get access to the latest and greatest shit from the companies and damned if the others can't get it, so long as I get my fix. Even If we do have the bestest ISP and internet connection in the world with 99.99999% uptime and no drops to the server side, can we at least spare a thought and understand that not everyone is as blessed or as fortunate as we are? Or how about the dangerous precedent this (if it is true) could potentially set for the future of console gaming?
The bigger picture folks. Spare a thought.
Exactly, not all customer are valued equally.
If they have the maths to back this up, it's a lock.
Again. Gamers aren't the most learned consumers. They are often spineless and will take what they can get. Reliability of one's Internet is removed from whether or not it's a problem for penetration.They're still going to lose money. Like mentioned in this thread as well, there's plenty of people who don't have reliable Internet either. That's besides all the other issues like what happens if servers go down, bandwidth caps, etc.
I still think the "720" will do well enough but if the rumors are true, a lot of people including many Xbox 360 supporters will turn their heads towards the PS4.
Microsoft can't blast advertisements to you if you're offline. That should tell you all you need to know about how they see core gamers.
![]()
Microsoft and anyone supporting this bullshit trying to say its a positive deserves to be punched. Options are always better than having no options. Also there seem to be a lot of self-centered people here. At least understand why it may be such a big problem to the some people.
If you don't even have Internet access in 2013 then you probably aren't realistically in the market for a $500 console with $60-$70 games.
Out of curiosity, is your contention that Kotaku has made this story and the quotes up?
And there's your precedent.Supposedly MS had to do that to improve 360 XBL.
Dude 40%... FORTY PERCENT... do you understand how much marketshare that is to lose?
If you don't even have Internet access in 2013 then you probably aren't realistically in the market for a $500 console with $60-$70 games.
If you're living without Internet access you have far bigger problems than worrying about buying a luxury game console. Microsoft probably has a new 360 to sell you instead.
this just seems so ridiculously stupid...I have to agree..I'm still calling bullshit; bookmark my post for future mockery etc.
Yeah I'm not sure what it proves that gaffers won't be able to come up with the calculations and reasoning that MS has to do this. No one knows that they are thinking.At first. And that's people who were offline before the console required it.
I'll say it again, let's neither of us pretend we have access to all the maths.
Again. Gamers aren't the most learned consumers. They are often spineless and will take what they can get. Reliability of one's Internet is removed from whether or not it's a problem for penetration.
Revenue from a unconnected/regular box:
Peripherals
Games
Revenue from a connected box:
DLC
Avatar Items
XBLA games
Gold
Other services behind a paywall / ecosystem
Peripherals
Games
I wouldn't be surprised if a connected box was worth twice as much or more.
Yeah, I've been reading many posts that reflect this mentality, lately, and it really saddens me. Where's the empathy?
No your guess is as good as mine as far as the PS4 online infrastructure will behave. Arthur has been wrong about a lot of Durango rumors though as well.
Yeah I'm not sure what it proves that gaffers won't be able to come up with the calculations and reasoning that MS has to do this. No one knows that they are thinking.
And he addressed that, they're gambling on making more profit off of the remaining percentage, while converting the other part to always be online, and he has a good point it actually IS a very Microsoft-esque move. And if consumers are willing it may well be a gamble worth taking: a lot of people are too lazy to bother connecting the system, don't know how to, or are on older models without wi-fi. I imagine they figure they can get at least half of those people to be online players via the add on of built-in wi-fi and demanding this, and as they're constantly seeing ads they'll bring more money on that alone, nevermind if they go "what the hell I'm online anyway lets check out these DD games."You answered your own question, who honestly thinks Microsoft is going to just drop 40% of their marketshare like that?
At first. And that's people who were offline before the console required it.
I'll say it again, let's neither of us pretend we have access to all the maths. And that's assuming large corps don't make terrible decisions all the damn time. They have president with going broadband only for online with the OG xbox. How much of the market do you think they lost then? Way more than OMG 40%.
No, just their informant can't come with any positive thing about, doesn't it ?
this just seems so ridiculously stupid...I have to agree..
I say B/S!
b/s I say!
Yeah, I've been reading many posts that reflect this mentality, lately, and it really saddens me. Where's the empathy?
It's still an argument based on them lowering their market-share. That doesn't seem sensible or realistic.
Their goal is to sell to as many as possible, there's no middle ground. There's no room for them ignoring segments of the market because they mightn't bring in as much revenue as others. Their aim should and will be to reach revenue parity, so eventually even those who spend $30 a year now will be spending $100 a year at some point.
It's ridiculous to suggest they'll wilfully ignore a large percentage of the market to focus on a smaller group. It's a loss in market-share, it's a loss in revenue. hey can't afford either.
Ok, who is being ridiculous now.This also ignores the high possibility that those "unconnected" people do purchase items such as Live Arcade titles, DLC, etc but simply choose to remain offline for the majority of their play time for whatever reason.
Even if the math is on their side it's quite cocky to assume everyone who has a stable connection will just say, "yeah sure, whatever"
Did you read what I wrote?
Connected customers almost certainly pay WAY MORE in a year than unconnected ones.
It's not about market share. It's about how much they pay. It's about making a profit. See: Apple.
It's probably not as constant. MSFT wants a constant stream. I bet you there is a correlation between money spent overall and time spent connected online. That relationship is bi directional. My post, however, did focus on that group that is offline not by choice but by circumstance.This also ignores the high possibility that those "unconnected" people do purchase items such as Live Arcade titles, DLC, encr but simply choose to remain offline for the majority of their play time for whatever reason on.
It's naive to assume that because they choose to remain offline, they don't purchase or access the marketplace.
Isn't the % of Americans without broadband internet at a decent enough amount that would make this an absolutely horrid idea for MS?
DING! Apple lives on the "better more valued" customer and does quite well in that regard, marketshare or no.
That's the hope of those who want to see this fail catastrophically.Isn't the % of Americans without broadband internet at a decent enough amount that would make this an absolutely horrid idea for MS?
Microsoft and anyone supporting this bullshit trying to say its a positive deserves to be punched. Options are always better than having no options. Also there seem to be a lot of self-centered people here. At least understand why it may be such a big problem to the some people.
Did you read what I wrote?
Connected customers almost certainly pay WAY MORE in a year than unconnected ones.
It's not about market share. It's about how much they pay. It's about making a profit. See: Apple.
Ok, who is being ridiculous now.
"If the connection is interrupted then after a period of time--currently three minutes, if I remember correctly--the game/app is suspended and the network troubleshooter started."