EviLore already called him, and I quote, "officially the most disreputable person in the enthusiast press."
Can we call him a clown yet?
What does Arthur not get, jesus.
1) You won't fully own your games. MS shuts any server down and you're done. You're playing on the console you bought, using a game that you bought, but on their terms. Where is that ever not a bad thing.
2) Alienate people who don't have access to reliable broadband (or any at all)
3) Even if you have a reliable and great internet connection, there's 2 sides to the coin. Something might happen on their end. And it will happen. Every time a big game is released. This has been shown in the past. Diablo 3 and sim city being the most recent examples. These never go well, ever.
4) Then there's the obvious slippery slope they'd be getting on.
Man where is J Allard when you need him?
I'm not employed by MS. I'm not even defending "always online" (even though a lot of posters will automatically jump to that conclusion because I haven't voiced my opinion against it).
I am defending the option that Microsoft could be providing a gaming option or service that requires the system to always be online, but would also would increase my enjoyment of the medium.
Are you completely throwing that option out?
I may be wrong, but I think he's jealous or has animosity towards people that post on forums and don't immediately say negative or complete drivel fueled responses.
He has a problem, Dickitis I believe.
Can we call him a clown yet?
Can we call him a clown yet?
PS+ uses a digital certificate with an expiry date as DRM for free titles you download as part of the service. It doesn't require you to be online except to authenticate and subscription renewals. You don't need to be online to play those games.I am talking about PS+.
You get free games with it until your PS+ subscription is over. Once your time runs out you can't play those games anymore.
Sounds a little like an "always on" connection right? People buy this right? It is a thing?
Ok so, (IF) you buy a new Xbox, you choose to "subscribe" to the "always on" connection. How time runs out is currently unknown. If it logs me out when my connection drops, I am going to be pissed because that is going to cause gaming interruptions which no one will like.
One is a Subscription to PS+ the other is a console.
I am talking about PS+.
You get free games with it until your PS+ subscription is over. Once your time runs out you can't play those games anymore.
Sounds a little like an "always on" connection right? People buy this right? It is a thing?
Ok so, (IF) you buy a new Xbox, you choose to "subscribe" to the "always on" connection. How time runs out is currently unknown. If it logs me out when my connection drops, I am going to be pissed because that is going to cause gaming interruptions which no one will like.
One is a Subscription to PS+ the other is a console.
EDIT: Beaten
A non-snarky response? Sure, here you go;
Years down the line when MS turns off the game servers for every 720 game. They will become absolutely USELESS.
If you are in a customer-facing position, anything you say in the public domain can and will be attributed to your employer. It's something my CEO reminds us of at least once a month.
What does Arthur not get, jesus.
1) You won't fully own your games. MS shuts any server down and you're done. You're playing on the console you bought, using a game that you bought, but on their terms. Where is that ever not a bad thing.
2) Alienate people who don't have access to reliable broadband (or any at all)
3) Even if you have a reliable and great internet connection, there's 2 sides to the coin. Something might happen on their end. And it will happen. Every time a big game is released. This has been shown in the past. Diablo 3 and sim city being the most recent examples. These never go well, ever.
4) Then there's the obvious slippery slope they'd be getting on.
Can we call him a clown yet?
Did he not just say in his last tweet that Durango being always online would be a stupid decision? I'm so confused.
Naw we can't say anything bad about him or his horrible arguments, especially not in posts to close to each other, we instantly become a hivemind.
Can we call him a clown yet?
Pretty crazy how personal he's taking this. Almost as if he has a vested interest or something...
Not at all, he is cold as ice:
Can we call him a clown yet?
Yep, this is very basic stuff that is hammered into your head over and over by management. I would suspect many, if not all, HR policies at every corporation members here work at have very clear guidelines about this stuff.If you are in a customer-facing position, anything you say in the public domain can and will be attributed to your employer. It's something my CEO reminds us of at least once a month.
http://www.psu.com/a018980/How-Micr...-put-Sony-in-first-place-for-next-gen-success
This kind of headline isn't far fetched at this point...
How long are they going to be silent for?
A non-snarky response? Sure, here you go;
Years down the line when MS turns off the game servers for every 720 game. They will become absolutely USELESS.
Can we call him a clown yet?
Yeah no, this is exactly what you should not be doing if you want a legitimate discussion and not a popularity contest.
The most frustrating part of this entire thing, as a Microsoft employee, is that "Creative Director" apparently doesn't actually mean anything.
This guy is 6+ levels away from Ballmer, works on "2WAY TV", and has one person reporting to him. He's a nobody, and after today, will probably be less than a nobody.
But his thoughtless tweets on his personal Twitter account and his "Creative Director" title are making people think he's actually important and influential. Thankfully he's not.
Can we call him a clown yet?
ONE YEAR timeout vs. THREE MINUTE timeout
$50 a year vs. $60 a game
Subscription Service vs. Physical Media
It is far fetched, when Microsoft still hasn't even announced a new console. They haven't even announced they're working on a new console. And this "always online" rumour still hasn't been put in to context.
Wow. This guy. Just... Wow.
Can we call him a clown yet?
It wouldn't qualify to him because this thread has a shitty title that doesn't live up to his journalist-elite standards.Gies has a Gaf account. He should come here and find out for himself.
ONE YEAR timeout vs. THREE MINUTE timeout
$50 a year vs. $60 a game
Subscription Service vs. Physical Media
What context? If your connection fails for 3 minutes, no more gaming. I don't care what kind of dress and perfume you put on this, you'd be a fool of a consumer to buy into that kind of ecosystem.
Is this thread giving the Durango some of that "any PR is good PR" exposure?
Because I would hate that.
There's a guy who works two minimum wage jobs. He just saved up enough money to buy the new 720 because he loves Madden. It's the only game he buys every year.
The problem is that he just moved out of his mother's house, so bills are tight. He doesn't have broadband because
1) It's expensive
2) Where he lives, the internet service providers don't have plans he can afford.
You just kept him from playing video games with your always-on connection.
Another guy just started college. He loved Xbox when he was in high school, but the college doesn't allow you to hook your Xbox up to the internet.
You just kept him from playing video games with your always-on connection.
There's a child who got a new Xbox for Christmas. His parents can't be bothered to set up the console so he can get on Xbox Live.
You just kept him from playing video games with your always-on connection.
There's a place out in the country that doesn't have any means of reliable broadband access. A family has scraped together enough money to buy a new Xbox.
You just kept them from playing games with your always-on connection.
Thunderstorm? No video games.
Poor people? No video games.
Not allowed? No video games.
Not tech savvy? No video games.
I don't know if Microsoft realizes this, but their brand was built on college-age males who aren't rich.
You're punishing them.
The most frustrating part of this entire thing, as a Microsoft employee, is that "Creative Director" apparently doesn't actually mean anything.
This guy is 6+ levels away from Ballmer, works on "2WAY TV", and has one person reporting to him. He's a nobody, and after today, will probably be less than a nobody.
But his thoughtless tweets on his personal Twitter account and his "Creative Director" title are making people think he's actually important and influential. Thankfully he's not.
Do you also boycott Steam? If valve were to hit some financial problems and were forced to shut down steam how many games would you lose?
Gies is asking for well-reasoned, non-snarky arguments....
What.
What does Arthur not get, jesus.
1) You won't fully own your games. MS shuts any server down and you're done. You're playing on the console you bought, using a game that you bought, but on their terms. Where is that ever not a bad thing.
2) Alienate people who don't have access to reliable broadband (or any at all)
3) Even if you have a reliable and great internet connection, there's 2 sides to the coin. Something might happen on their end. And it will happen. Every time a big game is released. This has been shown in the past. Diablo 3 and sim city being the most recent examples. These never go well, ever.
4) Then there's the obvious slippery slope they'd be getting on.
Yeah but it's in a 'forum thread with a shitty title'; disqualified!Can I link your post to him on Twitter? I mean, you gave the explanation he wanted!