Cyborg
Member
Just because I know some people won't click on links:
spiderman3sogood.gif
I dont get it why is this impotant? Am I missing something
Just because I know some people won't click on links:
spiderman3sogood.gif
I believe that's far from the truth, seeing Microsoft is aiming to do something big with their Xbox gTLD (which should go live in September): https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/1366I see that 720 will be the most hacked, ddos attacked, etc console in history. The live "current" problems are just the start.
There's a lot more on the application with everything from security described to amount of network engineers (Microsoft is teaming with Verisign for this and other Microsoft gTLDs).18(b). How do you expect that your proposed gTLD will benefit registrants, Internet users, and others?
We expect that customers and users of our Xbox gaming and entertainment console, Kinect game system devices, and Xbox LIVE entertainment services will benefit if the .xbox gTLD registry allows us to lay the groundwork for providing a globally recognized and more secure platform to complement our on-going efforts to enhance the security, stability, and reliability of these consoles, devices, and services. We hope that the opportunity to provide our customers and users with an increased sense of security and authenticity for their interactions with the Xbox gaming and entertainment console, Kinect game system devices, and Xbox LIVE entertainment services has the potential to increase their confidence in and use of these consoles, devices, and services. We want our customers and users to connect, play, and communicate through a platform that they believe is secure and authentic. Depending on the extent of consumer recognition and acceptance of new gTLDs, it is conceivable that we could migrate our entire suite of Xbox LIVE entertainment services to the .xbox gTLD and use the .xbox gTLD to bring heightened gaming and lifestyle experiences to Xbox, Kinect, and Xbox LIVE users.
Sony must be reveling in all this free publicity they're getting.
I dont get it why is this impotant? Am I missing something
I dont get it why is this impotant? Am I missing something
MegatonTwist: Orth is still working for Sony as a sleeper agent within Microsoft.
Phase One has now begun.
Phase Two: E3
If one thing can go down, whats to stop other things to go down? It shows how services can be unreliable.
Rösti;52824363 said:I believe that's far from the truth, seeing Microsoft is aiming to do something big with their Xbox gTLD (which should go live in September): https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/1366
I've been thinking about making a thread about it, but I don't know if it's interesting enough. Here's what I find most interesting from the original document:
There's a lot more on the application with everything from security described to amount of network engineers (Microsoft is teaming with Verisign for this and other Microsoft gTLDs).
Considering what is described here, always on seems like a natural thing for Durango.
One of the main reasons why people do not want always-online:I dont get it why is this impotant? Am I missing something
I dont get it why is this impotant? Am I missing something
Just because I know some people won't click on links:
spiderman3sogood.gif
I dont get it why is this impotant? Am I missing something
Is it really a "what if" scenario if Xbox Live has been down before?Ahh, the not too clever non-argument argument that's backed up exclusively by a what if scenario. Come on, you can do better than that.
More than anything, it exemplifies exactly why relying on ANOTHER service for console functions is a bad idea.And that would have absolutely zero effect on persistent online, because the xbox live service is up and running, as are accounts... You guys are a real piece of work.
Actually they are probably a bit mad that this is taking attention away from the PS4 and directing it to the next Xbox.
the "at times" part is concerning enough, but imo the worst part about this if it's true is that sometime down the road when the servers for the console are shut down you won't be able to play any of your games at all. Imagine if you could never play any NES, SNES, N64, etc. games ever because their servers got shut down at the end of their livesThis thread is just amazing.
Deep down i just hope MS are listening and we don't have this always online DRM in which the rumours are pointing towards. I've had some great experiences with their consoles over the last decade and it will be disappointing to miss out on more in the future but i can't invest in a system in which there is a chance that i won't be able to play it at times.
I dont get it why is this impotant? Am I missing something
This thread is just amazing.
Deep down i just hope MS are listening and we don't have this always online DRM in which the rumours are pointing towards. I've had some great experiences with their consoles over the last decade and it will be disappointing to miss out on more in the future but i can't invest in a system in which there is a chance that i won't be able to play it at times.
can anyone explain to me what is so bad about always online?????
All this backlash about Durango being always online, and in less then 24 hours since the start of this thread, Xbox Live shits the bed.
The point is that Microsoft can absolutely not guarantee that the online service will be available 24/7 without fail and so at some point the games will become unplayableAhh, the not too clever non-argument argument that's backed up exclusively by a what if scenario. Come on, you can do better than that.
Seriously? You are essentially saying speculation has no merit unless we have all the facts. I'm not sure why you would need me to be specific about sports journalism, most of the biggest news stories start off as speculation(Trade talks, controversies, coaching changes, and ect).
I mean if you absolutely need me to I can talk about the NCAA if you want, and explain how speculation about the events of football and basketball programs get in trouble all the time after it comes to like that the speculation was correct.
I dont get it why is this impotant? Am I missing something
For me it is not a problem. I do not care if I always have to be online if it is free. I would care if my internet went out, and I wanted to play a game though.
For my cousin in Mexico who games all the time has said Live is too expensive in Mexico, and this is why most of the gamers that he knows prefer to play on the PS 3 (for the free online). Their internet is not very good, and only a small portion of the nation has it because the country is a third world country.
I could see this being a huge problem, always online, for those that just want to play single player games, and do not want to spend extra monthly income for Live.
I get that people are upset about his integrity and common knowledge, but this is getting out of hand now to pure hate. What does his appearence have to do with this? Be the better man and stick to gaming related arguements. Posts like yours are part the reason GAF has a bad name.
I was just confused as to which part you were referring to since I quoted both posts, that's all.
as to your quesiton, well, yes and no. Speculation that's based on speculation is pretty pointless, imo. Given most of sports journalism is just a giant soap opera (a very enjoyable giant soap opera, but a giant soap opera nonetheless) that is constantly regurgitating the same talking points, then... yeah. Sometimes it doesn't hurt to stick to the facts. I mean, look at Sportscenter or Skip Bayless. All they do is speculate based on speculation on "what is X player thinking" and all this stuff which is of course completely unprovable and complete bullshit. Skip is all about spinning baseless speculation on a player's mental state to make Tebow look good and Lebron look bad, etc. etc. They dissect every little comment to fit it into a narrative that'll sell papers, or get hits, or viewers, etc. and that's disingenuous and I dislike that, yeah.
I think it's fine to speculate and label it as such. It's fine to make predictions. It's fine to say "oh, if Microsoft has an always-online console... then yeah, that's a big problem." But you gotta include the "if" because... that's all it is at this point. It's not fact. It's speculation. Maybe likely speculation, maybe unlikely speculation. But there's a difference between speculation and fact, and I don't like it when anyoneSports journalists or GAF postersignores that distinction.
I dont get it why is this impotant? Am I missing something
The point is that Microsoft can absolutely not guarantee that the online service will be available 24/7 without fail and so at some point the games will become unplayable
The best you can hope for from all of this back lash is that MS backs down and makes some adjustments to their systems. When Edge initially posted some information on this subject I also got my own confirmation that this was what MS was planning. I haven't checked since then, but since so many more people are coming out with this now, I can only assume that they are still planning on always online. Some people willy deny it like they did with the specs until it is smack dab in their face though.
This guy will probably get a slap on the wrist for this.
I think it's fine to speculate and label it as such. It's fine to make predictions. It's fine to say "oh, if Microsoft has an always-online console... then yeah, that's a big problem." But you gotta include the "if" because... that's all it is at this point. It's not fact. It's speculation. Maybe likely speculation, maybe unlikely speculation. But there's a difference between speculation and fact, and I don't like it when anyoneSports journalists or GAF postersignores that distinction.
They will only listen if you can get the dudebro gamer to boycott the next system because of the online requirement (if it is even true). MS couldn't possibly care less what the GAF opinion is because we are a blip on the map.
Don't fall for it. It's nothing that would impact the ability for people to maintain a persistent online connection, because Xbox Live is still running and so are the accounts. They are trying to find anything to suit their agenda to tear down Microsoft, which is pretty popular right now made all the easier by an idiot employee
Did anyone from tech-GAF catch AndyH's post in this thread?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=52767606&postcount=4827
It got overlooked because the post right after it was the now infamous .gif
So the facts that XBL has gone down and will go down in the future and is apparently not working for users who don't pay for it which is not actually necessary to play their single player game aren't concerning for the future of a hypothetical always-online system?Don't fall for it. It's nothing that would impact the ability for people to maintain a persistent online connection, because Xbox Live is still running and so are the accounts. They are trying to find anything to suit their agenda to tear down Microsoft, which is pretty popular right now made all the easier by an idiot employee
The vast majority, if not all of them, actually. At least insofar as it would be required to run a tournament without a hitch.I don't know of a single large hotel, especially one that would accommodate a tournament, that doesn't have WiFi.
Did anyone from tech-GAF catch AndyH's post in this thread?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=52767606&postcount=4827
It got overlooked because the post right after it was the now infamous .gif
It just shows it's fallible. The timing is perfect.
Sure you might be able to play single player games this time...but no netplay for you! Which goes with the "Tournament" talk we were having and the Street Fighter Gif if using netplay.
What's still confusing is how some developers have no idea about their online plans but some due. It's quite odd and still unexplained.Did anyone from tech-GAF catch AndyH's post in this thread?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=52767606&postcount=4827
It got overlooked because the post right after it was the now infamous .gif
Someone who has been consistently correct with their insider info.Who is he?
Well, I'll never judge people for being concerned, but I think those concerns are largely unwarranted. Live is a reliable service. I know it, everybody on this forum knows it.
Did anyone from tech-GAF catch AndyH's post in this thread?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=52767606&postcount=4827
It got overlooked because the post right after it was the now infamous .gif