I think some type of one time activation to verify a copy is new (enter 25 digit code) is still likely. It would accomplish the same thing in terms of making publishers happy, but wouldn't make the mistake of putting faith into the reliability of ISPs. Steam authenticates games and then allows for offline play, there is really no logical reason it shouldn't work on a console.
Kotaku: Next Xbox will require online connection to start games
- Thread starter Wario64
- Start date
It wouldn't?
With Kinect included in everybox, you don;t have to enter codes anymore, just scan them in. Like a skateboard design!
Crimson_Gold
Member
I thought it had to be online to start and play games, not to just turn on the system.
To be fair, the iphone / ipad leaks are hardware partner issues, where a plastic rectangle can only inspire so much fuss. The PS4 leaks were almost certainly controlled leaks, and if not, it's been pretty established that the PS4 had less strict NDAs than what Microsoft is using. There has been an XFEST in Redmond recently with developers, and no one has said a word. It's a tight ship.
Yes i'm sure they would be allowed to do that, i'm sure the public wouldn't mind either lol.
Baconsammy
Banned
Better for them than following Sony down the Vita path and dying a quick death. Problem is that with this approach they're no longer fighting Sony. They'll be fighting Apple. A foe that won't go out of its way to fall on its face repeatedly as Sony likes to. And Microsoft's current record against Apple is not so good.
MS has 75 million consoles in the wild right now
45 million have XBL
30 million do not
Using hypothetical numbers used earlier (£100 per year for connected console /£30 for unconnected) Ms has a total yearly income of £5.55 billion
Losing that 40% that are not connected costs MS £1.05 billion in revenue , to make that up they need the connected users to spend 25% more OR sell 10 million extra consoles at the current spend.
That doesn't make financial sense . You are asking current users to spend more or having to sell a considerable amount more consoles while simultaneously alienating 1/5 of your current market share.
Just pointing out that in the past not much research into the background of a rumor has been done, and some 'sources' game sites have used before were just other game sites who also reported it as news in the attempt to be among those to break a story. I don't think it's malicious or anything, I just think it's smart to take any rumor of a next gen system with a grain of salt.
IF TRUE:
Required installs = CD-Keys for every game.
Always Online = CD-Key check for every game when it's started.
Can't verify CD-Key = Well, sucks to be you can't play Bioshock right now.
Like you said, basically no used games.
It's about DRM, pure and simple. I don't see how anyone could defend this. (Not saying you are, just saying).
They already talked about it in 2010. All it needs is an updated terms of service contract with Durango and it could easily happen.
Facebook mines everyone for data collection as well. Some photo hosting/sharing sites now claim ownership of all photos on their sites. The list goes on and on.
synce
Member
Hmm... I like where this is going. Next gen you will buy a $70 game with a day one $30 season pass, and you're only allowed to play it on Microsoft's terms - that is, when you're connected to their servers. And what happens to all that content in 10 years? Well who the fuck cares, it's 10 years from now! 
Murder. She Wrote
Member
I'm not worried about Microsoft going ahead with this always-on shit, I'm worried about Microsoft going ahead with this always-on shit and being successful/profitable.
Now that would suck, because if something inherently this anti-consumer becomes successful, worse things will follow.
Now that would suck, because if something inherently this anti-consumer becomes successful, worse things will follow.
haha quite possibly yes, could be what GS was referring to with "compelling"
plays all the same games as the other guy... does this, does that... and! you only need to pay a small monthly fee for services you would otherwise already be paying for
NullPointer
Member
DRM, ad-serving, metrics, and community features for peer pressure, free advertising/notifications, more ads and even more targeted ads. They really want that community buy-in because your friends will not only get you buy into a system but keep you invested in the ecosystem. The more invested you are, the more MS can clamp down on terms of service or raise prices for software and services over time.
Seems like a sales and marketing wet dream.
Kinect seems to me to be the big thing here - driving that forward as a media replacement for the remote control broadly. Its not just about the xbox itself, or games.
Yup. Wouldn't be too hard for Sony to follow suit with a firmware update if publishers demanded it.
Penguins&PolarBears
Member
And I see the exact opposite. People who say they don't want always online, cloud computing, games/video on demand, Kinect sensor required, VR, etc. don't want any progress in the game industry. People who think like you are harming gamers who want to see gaming and technology evolve and create new better experiences than we've had in the past.
The same argument you're making for "helping" the less fortunate gamers is no different than the argument that Xbox Live should have been designed for dial-up connections. I would say of the 40% who don't connect their game box to the Internet at least half probably have access to the Internet and just don't see a reason to connect the box. Don't underestimate how obtuse the average consumer can be, they have a limited idea of what a game console is for and sometimes they need to be pushed forward to see how much better it can be. Kudos to the company that says enough is enough, connect your box to the Internet already so we can build the experience we want to.
Requiring online and Kinect isn't "dangerous precedent" it is giving designers the opportunity to build experiences that aren't possible when you have to account for technology laggards. The people who fight against these things have an extremely limited view about how the game industry can evolve. Too many people here believe the only acceptable room for progress in the game industry is to improve the GPU/CPU and RAM while everything else must stay the same (including keeping a ridiculous optical drive that exists for no other purpose than to placate retail partners). No company entering the game industry today would include an optical drive or make online optional. Look at companies like Roku, OUYA, OnLive, Valve, and even Apple. These may be precedents of the game industry to build for offline and physical media, but these are not forward thinking ideas.
I fully agree that if these rumored requirements are real AND there is no material benefit to consumers that it is bullshit. But what are the chances that the Xbox team is designing a system that requires the Internet for no other reason than to serve ads? Obviously that's a financial incentive, but if that's really the only vision that the team has for gaming/community then there are bigger reasons to not want an Xbox than online requirements.
Re-reading it I think i can understand how the the tone could come across as fanboyish; definitely not my intent. That's the problem with the written word, and being in a rush. But its an idea I've been thinking of late. People have been personifying MS as being arrogant, but what have they publicly came out and said? They've done and said nothing, and that void is being narrated for them. People are swearing off the console and questioning a strategy that has proven successful for them and enjoyable to their consumers.
My statement there was meant to illustrate the multitude of events that they've navigated through and still garnered favor. And its not my intention to say that its unjust or undeserved, but more to highlight their existence and that they still hard ardent fans. They sold people on Kinect. And I don't imply that as if they're snake oil salesmen. They emerged from the Red ring fiasco unscathed - an issue that I would think was greater than "always online". They took the attention of nearly every E3 with services and non-gaming related apps. They focused less on big 1st party retail expansion and more on XBLA, with little to no blowback. 3rd party games are held up almost like exclusives...so much so that our own media asks 'do exclusives even matter.'
All the while, people have loved their Xboxes. They still lead in sales in most of the same markets.
3rd parties aren't going to disinvest. Kinect isn't going anywhere, but the 720 isn't going to be Kinect Adventures only. Studio-wise they'll have nearly the same output. They've always sought areas outside gaming...and they'll continue to have a solid foot planted in gaming, so what's so different? Why are they made to be arrogant all of a sudden? What's changed other than Sony?
My mistake, i thought you was on about them actually watching you through Kinect! (why did you mention them knowing when you left the room?).
pretty much
Where does you blind faith in MS come from?
We've had numerous sources now reporting this, including EDGE who have been dead on with their PS4 information.
At this point an always online Durango console is a very likely possibility.
Can Crusher
Banned
Are they really gonna spin this shit by saying how games are using the cloud to add processing power?
Suck my dick, that is bullshit.
Suck my dick, that is bullshit.
He is also full of bs for that same reason.
Gies also owes a gaffer $10 bucks
That's what I and other thought when Diablo III was announced to do this: most of their games have been online centric and they even have WoW, so it must be rock solid, right? That was an erroneous assumption, and many of us didn't like it out of principle anyway. I expect similar can happen here, and even just staying at the same level means there's a good chance I'll be annoyed at random outages if they go all in and don't budge.
No fucking reveal would make up for a complete sabotage of a move the likes of this rumour.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
Name me one thing any designer in any field anywhere on the planet would be excited about implementing that absolutely requires a compulsory internet connection that is not DRM and could not be achieved by optional connectivity.
It will not require an internet connection to function.
Commercials always try to keep hold of your attention. Next time you watch TV, try and count how many different ways commercials will try and find a way to put a person on the screen that is literally screaming at you at the top of their lungs. They're either right next to a roaring engine, or they're in a rain storm, or they're chasing a rambunctious kid, etc. But the point is they use that as just one of many ways to try and force you to look at the screen.
They would want to know how long their commercials are effective before you leave the room, and which commercials actually work at holding your attention. Kinect can easily tell if you are in the room or not. The article I linked was about a Microsoft executive telling people that they can tailor advertising to people during sporting events based on what color shirt you're wearing. That's just the tip of the iceberg.
Hmm... I like where this is going. Next gen you will buy a $70 game with a day one $30 season pass, and you're only allowed to play it on Microsoft's terms - that is, when you're connected to their servers. And what happens to all that content in 10 years? Well who the fuck cares, it's 10 years from now!
That's what the fuck I'm talking about!!!
Don't know why people are complaining, I'm always online anyway!!!
nothing is confirmed, but let's use our brains yo. The apologists must work for MS. Its the only way to rationalize their opinion
Can Crusher
Banned
PS4 will have both. If you have the system online it will update itself in low powered mode, and download shit and whatnot, but it will work offline.
They would never be allowed to do that (officialy), even if the Kinect isn't actually 'watching' you, the public outcry would be immense.
Ok, cool.
All true, But....
It still doesn't explain what sense it makes to just disregard, as you put it 40% of their market. If the goal is max profitability.
Say you have 100 customers. As my previous example showed, you can get $10 profit per month from these XBL-type customers, 6$ from the others.
You may or maynot retain the same 60% of XBL paying, broadband having users giving you almost twice the profit of the others but you're almost certainly going to lose the 40% of customers without it and no intention of buying it.
In numbers thats a reduction to $600 worth of possible profit, instead of $840 in the current model.
So whats the end-goal of a move like this? A lesser role in the marketplace? Are you banking on your power to convert those "others"? Are you banking on the faithful to part even more of there money unto you? Thats what youre not explaining. What covers up the deficit of customers and more importantly profit?
GravityMan
Member
So...if I'm playing a lengthy RPG (with save points) on the Nextbox, and am in the middle of a major boss fight that normally lasts 20 minutes...and 8 minutes in I lose my Internet connection for a lengthy period of time (longer than 3 minutes)...this always-online (if true) may cause me to lose progress; possibly substantial progress depending on when I last saved. I would be VERY unhappy if such a thing transpired. Hopefully MS's handling of dropped connections includes something along the lines of automatically creating a suspend save.
That said, there's slim-to-none chance I'm getting the Nextbox anyway. PS4 + PC for me.
That said, there's slim-to-none chance I'm getting the Nextbox anyway. PS4 + PC for me.
I think the problem he might be having is that the "better customer" model is based either entirely on assumption, or that there's something else going on under the surface that we don't know about (such as larger takes from the publishers, or a more aggressive pricing structure).
However, on the surface, I think he's correct. Always-online is not an expense to Microsoft, so it's not like they have to offset the costs by forcing the product to a higher bracket of consumer. Also, let's say they theoretically have 50% of their current userbase online and purchasing $20 of content per month. There's nothing that proves an always-online approach next generation will expand that audience, or their purchasing habits. As far as we can see, they are simply cutting out the other 50%.
Remember, the always-online is not an expense to be offset. The console, peripherals and games are all just sitting on store shelves, with set ticket prices. The only guarantee is that a certain portion of their market share will be excluded from buying these on-the-shelf products.
As always Evilore sums it up perfectly.He is also full of bs for that same reason.
scytherage
Member
Very, very stupid move, Microsoft.
yea take the number of people in here saying "well no 720 for me" and divide by 2 to get the number who were in this category already.
I do feel for those who have a hard time with online connections but some are just arguing against technological progress either in terms of distrust/like of Ms or due to nostalgia, or both maybe? not sure.
Thats not some inherent truth though. You could be smart like Sony did with Vita, or Nintendo with Wii/WiiU and have the deficit ate by the purchase of a game and controller or something. You can make the box affordable enough to break even with that. Etc.