RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,547
Posts: 5,513,375
Members: 25,143
Currently online: 518
Newest member: ShadowL

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Gaming

Gaming Non-Star Trek Gaming

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 28 2013, 08:19 PM   #31
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Regarding next X-Box and "always online"

The Johnson wrote: View Post
MacLeod wrote: View Post
Of course with MS neither really confirming or denying the rumours about the next X-Box being always online. It's generating a decent amount of publcity(at least amongest potential consumers), all of it free.
It's pretty much made my mind up to switch back to playstation though (I've noticed a lot of people saying the same thing), so it seems a bit daft to let the rumours persist if they aren't true.

Why would you let the rumours continue if you weren't seriously considering it?
MS confirms either way, if it's not always online, then instead of people talking about the machine and writing articles about etc.. People aren't really talking about the PS4 instead they are talking the next Xbox and if it is always online. Sure they might be saying if the next Xbox is always online I'll get a PS4.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2013, 09:53 PM   #32
Solstice
Sexy Wizard
 
Solstice's Avatar
 
Location: I'm so lost T_T
View Solstice's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Solstice Send a message via AIM to Solstice Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Solstice Send a message via Yahoo to Solstice
Re: Regarding next X-Box and "always online"

Timby wrote: View Post
And while its true that Microsoft has confirmed nothing, I trust the sources that the "always online" and "disabled games without internet" rumors are coming from.
Believe them all you want, I'm just saying that you shouldn't be calling things "facts" when they are, at this point, merely rumors and speculation. There are literally no known facts about the next Xbox outside of its existence.
Exactly.

And if it turns out to be always online and people don't like that, they shouldn't buy it. I don't get all the wasted energy on how offensive it is that a console might require a constant Internet connection. If it does, and you disapprove, well, vote with your wallet!

Or do people think if there is a big enough Internet backlash, Microsoft will backtrack? If it's true, I don't see any backtracking to be likely, as there are so many assumptions built into the concept of an always online console that it would be pretty difficult and expensive to roll that back, in terms of the system's OS, online services, and game dev kits.
__________________
Robert Maxwell
I has a blag.
I put on my robe and wizard hat...
Solstice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2013, 11:24 PM   #33
TheGodBen
Rear Admiral
 
TheGodBen's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland
Re: Regarding next X-Box and "always online"

It depends on how the supposed feature is implemented. If it's the SimCity variety of always-online (running everything important client-side but requiring a response from the server every 5 minutes or it kicks the player out of the game) then that could easily be removed in the months before the console's release. They could still maintain their online strategy, just make it so that singleplayer games can work offline. If it's something more integrated then MS would probably be stuck with it, and they have to hope that they're able to sell its value to consumers.

Like it or not, the rumours are there, they've come from multiple sources (including a usually reliable MS blogger) and have been tacitly supported by the statements of a Microsoft employee. Now, I'm still holding out hope that MS aren't this stupid. But in case they're not, is it not better to send a clear signal to them now not to pursue this strategy? If we wait and they genuinely are planning this, the reaction may come too late. It's the precautionary principle.
__________________
...so many different suns...
TheGodBen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29 2013, 12:29 PM   #34
Solstice
Sexy Wizard
 
Solstice's Avatar
 
Location: I'm so lost T_T
View Solstice's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Solstice Send a message via AIM to Solstice Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Solstice Send a message via Yahoo to Solstice
Re: Regarding next X-Box and "always online"

TheGodBen wrote: View Post
It depends on how the supposed feature is implemented. If it's the SimCity variety of always-online (running everything important client-side but requiring a response from the server every 5 minutes or it kicks the player out of the game) then that could easily be removed in the months before the console's release. They could still maintain their online strategy, just make it so that singleplayer games can work offline. If it's something more integrated then MS would probably be stuck with it, and they have to hope that they're able to sell its value to consumers.

Like it or not, the rumours are there, they've come from multiple sources (including a usually reliable MS blogger) and have been tacitly supported by the statements of a Microsoft employee. Now, I'm still holding out hope that MS aren't this stupid. But in case they're not, is it not better to send a clear signal to them now not to pursue this strategy? If we wait and they genuinely are planning this, the reaction may come too late. It's the precautionary principle.
I would point to Microsoft's handling of Windows 8 as a perfect counterexample. Before release, people using the Metro interface complained about how it was unsuitable to a desktop. Post-release, people complained even more about this. Now, we've seen previews of the next version, and lo and behold, Microsoft has doubled down on Metro. Yeah, they really give a shit what their customers think.
__________________
Robert Maxwell
I has a blag.
I put on my robe and wizard hat...
Solstice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 29 2013, 01:38 PM   #35
Reverend
Rear Admiral
 
Reverend's Avatar
 
Location: UK
Re: Regarding next X-Box and "always online"

^They may have to when sales start to take a nose dive. At least, we can hope they do.
Reverend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29 2013, 01:53 PM   #36
TheGodBen
Rear Admiral
 
TheGodBen's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland
Re: Regarding next X-Box and "always online"

Robert Maxwell wrote: View Post
I would point to Microsoft's handling of Windows 8 as a perfect counterexample. Before release, people using the Metro interface complained about how it was unsuitable to a desktop. Post-release, people complained even more about this. Now, we've seen previews of the next version, and lo and behold, Microsoft has doubled down on Metro. Yeah, they really give a shit what their customers think.
That's true, but all the complaints about the Metro interface online have led to the perception that Win8 is a "bad" OS entering the general consumer consciousness, the same way it did for Vista, which has in turn hurt sales for Win8. Its market-share is less than a third of Win7's during the same period following its release. Microsoft clearly believes they can take that hit because of the monopoly they've held in PCs for the last two decades, but Xbox isn't nearly as well established as Windows is. Ignoring the Wii, MS have roughly half the console market from this generation, and they incurred billions of dollars in losses across a decade to reach that point. They don't have a monopoly to leverage, they have to compete with a resurgent Sony, they have to offer gamers something we want or they'll fall by the wayside like Sega did.
__________________
...so many different suns...
TheGodBen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29 2013, 02:16 PM   #37
George Bailey
The Revd's Oldman
 
George Bailey's Avatar
 
Location: Bob The Skutter
View George Bailey's Twitter Profile
Re: Regarding next X-Box and "always online"

I've recently got a Windows 8 laptop and the first thing I did was install a star menu and start using it as a normal desktop. I'm planning on installing Ubuntu at some point and trying to get used to having a linux desktop instead. I don't like the idea that to use Windows you have to be locked in to that tablet interface. A touch interface is all well and good but I don't have a touchscreen on either my desktop or laptop and it isn't suited to that sort of environment.

As for always on, again it's something I don't want. Yes my consoles may be always online as it is and my connection my be 99% reliable but I don't want to have to rely on my connection being up or their servers being up in order to play a game.
__________________
You sit around here and you spin your little webs and you think the whole world revolves around you and your money. Well, it doesn't, Mr. Potter. In the whole vast configuration of things, I'd say you were nothing but a scurvy little spider!
George Bailey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 29 2013, 02:48 PM   #38
Solstice
Sexy Wizard
 
Solstice's Avatar
 
Location: I'm so lost T_T
View Solstice's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Solstice Send a message via AIM to Solstice Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Solstice Send a message via Yahoo to Solstice
Re: Regarding next X-Box and "always online"

Reverend wrote: View Post
^They may have to when sales start to take a nose dive. At least, we can hope they do.
Sales already have taken a nosedive. MS doesn't care, apparently.

TheGodBen wrote: View Post
Robert Maxwell wrote: View Post
I would point to Microsoft's handling of Windows 8 as a perfect counterexample. Before release, people using the Metro interface complained about how it was unsuitable to a desktop. Post-release, people complained even more about this. Now, we've seen previews of the next version, and lo and behold, Microsoft has doubled down on Metro. Yeah, they really give a shit what their customers think.
That's true, but all the complaints about the Metro interface online have led to the perception that Win8 is a "bad" OS entering the general consumer consciousness, the same way it did for Vista, which has in turn hurt sales for Win8. Its market-share is less than a third of Win7's during the same period following its release. Microsoft clearly believes they can take that hit because of the monopoly they've held in PCs for the last two decades, but Xbox isn't nearly as well established as Windows is. Ignoring the Wii, MS have roughly half the console market from this generation, and they incurred billions of dollars in losses across a decade to reach that point. They don't have a monopoly to leverage, they have to compete with a resurgent Sony, they have to offer gamers something we want or they'll fall by the wayside like Sega did.
I'm one of those people who doesn't think MS ever had a particularly smart strategy for their consoles. The Xbox was a joke that only succeeded (depending on your metric) because MS dumped fucktons of cash into it and basically force-fed it to the market. The 360 was a much better console in terms of hardware design and OS, indicating that they learned some lessons, but the real "killer app" was Xbox Live. The smartest thing MS did was figure out how to build a paid gaming subscription service that works well. They still get lots of praise for that.

It could be that they want to zero in and focus on that particular market, as it provides the holy grail of the software industry: that delicious, delicious recurring revenue. They may find it worth the cost to lose customers who refuse to sign on for such a console, I don't know.

Also, it's worth keeping these things in perspective. There was voluminous complaining about the PS3's price and using it as a BR trojan horse. In the end, it still edged out the 360, because it turns out complaints on the Internet represent only a tiny fraction of a product's total market base. Hell, the 360 still managed to move plenty of units even though it had severe manufacturing defects that, at one time, were bricking about half the consoles sold. You'd think that would be unforgivable, but nope. They still sold, and continue to sell.

I don't know whether MS' next console will require a constant Internet connection, and if it does, what that might entail in terms of the user experience. Only people at MS know that, and they aren't talking right now (on pain of termination, apparently.) What I can say with some confidence is that, if the console turns out to have such a requirement, it will not impact sales to the degree people here assume it will. And that is for one simple reason: people willing to take the time to complain in detail on the Internet are more savvy and demanding consumers than 90% of the people who are going to end up buying and using these consoles.

Do you think most people buying 360s and PS3s knew or cared about the BR vs. HD-DVD format war? Nope. Do you think most knew or cared about the PS3's dramatically more complex hardware which made it difficult to develop for? Nope, they just cared about how much it cost and how expansive the library was. What did people care about? Curiously enough, the extended PSN outage. Turns out people actually like always being connected, and get upset when they suddenly can't be, to the point of Sony giving people free stuff to placate them.

Your average consumer wants to be more and more connected, not less. This is why I don't expect "always online" to be nearly as much of a dealbreaker as is constantly being speculated in this thread.
__________________
Robert Maxwell
I has a blag.
I put on my robe and wizard hat...
Solstice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 29 2013, 03:38 PM   #39
Kelthaz
Rear Admiral
 
Kelthaz's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Re: Regarding next X-Box and "always online"

Robert Maxwell wrote: View Post
Also, it's worth keeping these things in perspective. There was voluminous complaining about the PS3's price and using it as a BR trojan horse. In the end, it still edged out the 360, because it turns out complaints on the Internet represent only a tiny fraction of a product's total market base.
Sony utterly dominated the gaming industry with the PS1 (100m), the PS2 (150m), and dropped hard with the PS3 (77m). That's 70 million lost consumers between generations. Not to mention that within 2 years of release Sony lost all their profits from the PS2. No, I'd say those complaints were a little more mainstream then you think they were.

Hell, the 360 still managed to move plenty of units even though it had severe manufacturing defects that, at one time, were bricking about half the consoles sold. You'd think that would be unforgivable, but nope. They still sold, and continue to sell.
Why would it be unforgivable? Microsoft spent billions to rectify their mistakes and newer models of the 360 do not have this problem. It did hurt them, but manufacturing defects are a little more acceptable today given the complicated technology.

What I can say with some confidence is that, if the console turns out to have such a requirement, it will not impact sales to the degree people here assume it will. And that is for one simple reason: people willing to take the time to complain in detail on the Internet are more savvy and demanding consumers than 90% of the people who are going to end up buying and using these consoles.
The average consumer isn't an idiot. They will ask their more gaming-savvy friends about the new Xbox. They will read articles on NBC, and MSN bashing the always online Xbox. It won't kill the Xbox, but if you don't think it will sway consumers to purchase a PS4 instead I don't know what to tell you.

Do you think most people buying 360s and PS3s knew or cared about the BR vs. HD-DVD format war? Nope. Do you think most knew or cared about the PS3's dramatically more complex hardware which made it difficult to develop for? Nope, they just cared about how much it cost and how expansive the library was.
Right, but they do care about the effects of those issues. A smaller install base due to a high price point at launch and a more complex architecture means fewer games from publishers. The PS2 had 3,857 released games. The PS3 currently has 772 games. The 360 currently has 952 games.

Just look at how badly the poorly thought out architecture of the Saturn hurt Sega.

What did people care about? Curiously enough, the extended PSN outage. Turns out people actually like always being connected, and get upset when they suddenly can't be, to the point of Sony giving people free stuff to placate them.
Interesting interpretation of events there. If there was mass outrage at the PSN outage, how do you think people will react if Microsoft's servers suffer a similar outage and consumers aren't even able to turn their consoles on?

Your average consumer wants to be more and more connected, not less. This is why I don't expect "always online" to be nearly as much of a dealbreaker as is constantly being speculated in this thread.
They want the option to be more connected, but they don't want it forced upon them.
__________________
"Who are you?! And how did you get in here?!"

"I'm the locksmith. And... I'm the locksmith."
Kelthaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29 2013, 04:21 PM   #40
Solstice
Sexy Wizard
 
Solstice's Avatar
 
Location: I'm so lost T_T
View Solstice's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Solstice Send a message via AIM to Solstice Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Solstice Send a message via Yahoo to Solstice
Re: Regarding next X-Box and "always online"

Kelthaz wrote: View Post
Robert Maxwell wrote: View Post
Also, it's worth keeping these things in perspective. There was voluminous complaining about the PS3's price and using it as a BR trojan horse. In the end, it still edged out the 360, because it turns out complaints on the Internet represent only a tiny fraction of a product's total market base.
Sony utterly dominated the gaming industry with the PS1 (100m), the PS2 (150m), and dropped hard with the PS3 (77m). That's 70 million lost consumers between generations. Not to mention that within 2 years of release Sony lost all their profits from the PS2. No, I'd say those complaints were a little more mainstream then you think they were.
The main thing that crippled the PS3's adoption was its hardware. It was expensive and difficult to code for--a double whammy that hurt developer adoption and, as a result, console sales. No games, no sales. Internet complaints don't really rate, there.

Hell, the 360 still managed to move plenty of units even though it had severe manufacturing defects that, at one time, were bricking about half the consoles sold. You'd think that would be unforgivable, but nope. They still sold, and continue to sell.
Why would it be unforgivable? Microsoft spent billions to rectify their mistakes and newer models of the 360 do not have this problem. It did hurt them, but manufacturing defects are a little more acceptable today given the complicated technology.
Manufacturing defects of that scale are never "acceptable." MS corrected them, yes, but they never should have happened.

The average consumer isn't an idiot.
This is flatly untrue. The average consumer is buying one of these because their kid wants one or a friend said they should.

They will ask their more gaming-savvy friends about the new Xbox. They will read articles on NBC, and MSN bashing the always online Xbox. It won't kill the Xbox, but if you don't think it will sway consumers to purchase a PS4 instead I don't know what to tell you.
You are vastly overestimating how much pre-purchase research people do on these things. It's a few hundred bucks for a home entertainment device, not a new car. The people with the disposable income to make Sony and MS consoles commercially viable are, by and large, not doing much or any of this research. Again, those of us posting here represent a tiny, tiny sliver of the overall market. The number of people who'd actively complain might number in the five figures. Millions of people buy these.

Right, but they do care about the effects of those issues. A smaller install base due to a high price point at launch and a more complex architecture means fewer games from publishers. The PS2 had 3,857 released games. The PS3 currently has 772 games. The 360 currently has 952 games.
The PS2 is an outlier, as anyone studying console lifecycles would likely agree. Sort of like using the Nintendo DS to prove how much market capture is possible with a good handheld device. The confluence of factors that made the PS2 and the DS overwhelmingly dominant in their respective sectors simply doesn't exist anymore.

Just look at how badly the poorly thought out architecture of the Saturn hurt Sega.
This seems like a side argument and not really germane to the central topic, but the Saturn's architecture was just fine--for 2D games. Sega simply failed to see the 3D revolution coming. In Sony's case, poor predictive powers were not the issue, but the assumption that they could build complex, custom, expensive hardware, and developers would flock to it just because they flocked to the PS2. The hardware itself is superb, but it's like having the world's most advanced car, that no one knows how to drive.

What did people care about? Curiously enough, the extended PSN outage. Turns out people actually like always being connected, and get upset when they suddenly can't be, to the point of Sony giving people free stuff to placate them.
Interesting interpretation of events there. If there was mass outrage at the PSN outage, how do you think people will react if Microsoft's servers suffer a similar outage and consumers aren't even able to turn their consoles on?
XBL has had some outages, too. Obviously, there are times when that will happen. But, again, you are speculating as to what flavor of "always online" they might use. One that utterly prevents the console from functioning without an Internet connection is basically the most extreme form of such technology. It is jumping to conclusions. I have no idea how they have implemented it, if they have at all. Nor does anyone else here. Speculating about worst case scenarios might be fun, but it's not very informative.

Your average consumer wants to be more and more connected, not less. This is why I don't expect "always online" to be nearly as much of a dealbreaker as is constantly being speculated in this thread.
They want the option to be more connected, but they don't want it forced upon them.
Most people aren't going to make a distinction. They'll just punch in whatever network login data the Xbox asks for when they first turn it on, and likely never think about it again.
__________________
Robert Maxwell
I has a blag.
I put on my robe and wizard hat...
Solstice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old April 29 2013, 06:50 PM   #41
FPAlpha
Vice Admiral
 
FPAlpha's Avatar
 
Location: Mannheim, Germany
Re: Regarding next X-Box and "always online"

Robert Maxwell wrote: View Post
Reverend wrote: View Post
^They may have to when sales start to take a nose dive. At least, we can hope they do.
Sales already have taken a nosedive. MS doesn't care, apparently.

TheGodBen wrote: View Post
Robert Maxwell wrote: View Post
I would point to Microsoft's handling of Windows 8 as a perfect counterexample. Before release, people using the Metro interface complained about how it was unsuitable to a desktop. Post-release, people complained even more about this. Now, we've seen previews of the next version, and lo and behold, Microsoft has doubled down on Metro. Yeah, they really give a shit what their customers think.
That's true, but all the complaints about the Metro interface online have led to the perception that Win8 is a "bad" OS entering the general consumer consciousness, the same way it did for Vista, which has in turn hurt sales for Win8. Its market-share is less than a third of Win7's during the same period following its release. Microsoft clearly believes they can take that hit because of the monopoly they've held in PCs for the last two decades, but Xbox isn't nearly as well established as Windows is. Ignoring the Wii, MS have roughly half the console market from this generation, and they incurred billions of dollars in losses across a decade to reach that point. They don't have a monopoly to leverage, they have to compete with a resurgent Sony, they have to offer gamers something we want or they'll fall by the wayside like Sega did.
I'm one of those people who doesn't think MS ever had a particularly smart strategy for their consoles. The Xbox was a joke that only succeeded (depending on your metric) because MS dumped fucktons of cash into it and basically force-fed it to the market. The 360 was a much better console in terms of hardware design and OS, indicating that they learned some lessons, but the real "killer app" was Xbox Live. The smartest thing MS did was figure out how to build a paid gaming subscription service that works well. They still get lots of praise for that.

It could be that they want to zero in and focus on that particular market, as it provides the holy grail of the software industry: that delicious, delicious recurring revenue. They may find it worth the cost to lose customers who refuse to sign on for such a console, I don't know.

Also, it's worth keeping these things in perspective. There was voluminous complaining about the PS3's price and using it as a BR trojan horse. In the end, it still edged out the 360, because it turns out complaints on the Internet represent only a tiny fraction of a product's total market base. Hell, the 360 still managed to move plenty of units even though it had severe manufacturing defects that, at one time, were bricking about half the consoles sold. You'd think that would be unforgivable, but nope. They still sold, and continue to sell.

I don't know whether MS' next console will require a constant Internet connection, and if it does, what that might entail in terms of the user experience. Only people at MS know that, and they aren't talking right now (on pain of termination, apparently.) What I can say with some confidence is that, if the console turns out to have such a requirement, it will not impact sales to the degree people here assume it will. And that is for one simple reason: people willing to take the time to complain in detail on the Internet are more savvy and demanding consumers than 90% of the people who are going to end up buying and using these consoles.

Do you think most people buying 360s and PS3s knew or cared about the BR vs. HD-DVD format war? Nope. Do you think most knew or cared about the PS3's dramatically more complex hardware which made it difficult to develop for? Nope, they just cared about how much it cost and how expansive the library was. What did people care about? Curiously enough, the extended PSN outage. Turns out people actually like always being connected, and get upset when they suddenly can't be, to the point of Sony giving people free stuff to placate them.

Your average consumer wants to be more and more connected, not less. This is why I don't expect "always online" to be nearly as much of a dealbreaker as is constantly being speculated in this thread.

This is pretty much it.. MS knows they will get a bad rep at online message boards and gaming sites but the majority of their customers don't use those. They get their information from big magazines and ads and they will only see the shiny pretty game videos and the sleek console so they will buy it.

Adam Orth may be an arrogant ass but right down to the reality he was right.. most gamers do tend to have an always on internet connection because most gamers live in urban centres that have the kind of connection needed to use the 720.
Sucks for those in rural areas but MS most likely did the math and came to the conclusion that they stand to gain more by appeasing game developers and lay the foundation for things to come than appeasing and bowing to 10-20% of gamers.

I'll still not buy a mandatory online console even though i have a very stable broadband connection here.. it's about principle. I just don't like being handled by companies that ultimately want my money but also want to dictate the terms how i use their product once i bought it. Once i shell out the money the product should be mine to do with as i please (within legal boundaries of course).
So i vote with my wallet as i have done with other companies.
__________________
"Zhu Li Moon.. will you do the thing for the rest of our lives?" Varrick
FPAlpha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 30 2013, 07:40 PM   #42
The Johnson
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: Birmingham, uk
Re: Regarding next X-Box and "always online"

MacLeod wrote: View Post
The Johnson wrote: View Post
MacLeod wrote: View Post
Of course with MS neither really confirming or denying the rumours about the next X-Box being always online. It's generating a decent amount of publcity(at least amongest potential consumers), all of it free.
It's pretty much made my mind up to switch back to playstation though (I've noticed a lot of people saying the same thing), so it seems a bit daft to let the rumours persist if they aren't true.

Why would you let the rumours continue if you weren't seriously considering it?
MS confirms either way, if it's not always online, then instead of people talking about the machine and writing articles about etc.. People aren't really talking about the PS4 instead they are talking the next Xbox and if it is always online. Sure they might be saying if the next Xbox is always online I'll get a PS4.
Well as a current xbox owner but not anyone with a particular preference my ball is firmly in the playstation court at the minute. Judging from comments i've read online and what my friends think (already had one my mate get rid of his xbox and just use his ps3 in anticipation of the next gen) i'm not sure it's the best thing they've ever done to let these rumours persist if they're not true.
The Johnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1 2013, 07:37 AM   #43
Infern0
Captain
 
Infern0's Avatar
 
Re: Regarding next X-Box and "always online"

To me, as stated before the whole "always online" thing isn't a huge issue. I bought an Xbox360, because it came out first. I then bought a PS3 when it came out and I wanted to play uncharted.

I'll get both of the next gen consoles, because fact is both will have games I want to play.

Curious strategy by Microsoft however, if they go through with this despite many not being happy about it. they made a dent the size of the Grand Canyon in Sony's market share this gen, why gamble? Simply go with what worked this gen, and put the effort into making some coups in terms of studio support.

Imagine if Microsoft waved enough money in naughty dog's faces, the PS4 would be dead on arrival without their exclusives.

Regardless, competition is always good for the consumer, so let's hope both produce good consoles.
Infern0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1 2013, 03:54 PM   #44
ATimson
Rear Admiral
 
ATimson's Avatar
 
Location: Andrew Timson
Re: Regarding next X-Box and "always online"

Infern0 wrote: View Post
Imagine if Microsoft waved enough money in naughty dog's faces, the PS4 would be dead on arrival without their exclusives.
Sony owns Naughty Dog.
__________________
Andrew Timson
===============
"Niceness is the greatest human flaw, except for all the others." - Brendan Moody

"...don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido
ATimson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4 2013, 05:07 AM   #45
JirinPanthosa
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Regarding next X-Box and "always online"

They call it 'Always online'.

I call it 'They reserve the right to micromanage the way I play their games'.

They can force upgrades, they can censor-patch, they can completely shut down the used market, or they can completely disable my ability to play the game at will. And it paves the way for forcing you to pay a subscription service just to keep playing a game you payed for.

If all major consoles switch to any model other than 'Pay once, play forever', and make me keep paying to play games I already bought, I will never buy another new game, period.

There have been hundreds of great games released in the last 30 years, and I don't have to pay another dime to keep paying them. I can entertain myself until I die without buying a single new game. So, always online, no more money from me. Your call Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony.
JirinPanthosa is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.