Regarding next X-Box and "always online"

Discussion in 'Gaming' started by Infern0, Apr 27, 2013.

  1. MacLeod

    MacLeod Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Great Britain
    ^You do know that in some parts of the UK what Ofcom call Market 1 telephone exchanges, BT is in effect the sole provider of broadband, if you have a Market 1 exchange the other ISPs simply use BT's equipment. I.e. the exchange is too small for their equipment abd/or it's not cost effective for them to put it in. Many of these Market 1 exchanges are still on ADSL(upto 8Mb) tech, Market2 and maybe 3 are on ADSL2+ (upto 20Mb). Yet people on Market 1 still pay the same line rental to BT who have upgraded other exchanges. Though to be far to Ofcom the price BT can charge other ISP's on Market 1 exchanges actually has to go down several percent each year to sort of incentivise the upgrade. Not that the end user sees this reduction in cost. I would say Ofcom didn't go far enough though. BT doesn't want to upgrade my exchange fair enough. If the charge on ADSL2+ exchange was £20pm, on an ADSL they should only be allowed to charge £8pm. And I'm stuck on it until at least sometime in 2014 when the exchange is planned for upgradeing to fibre as part of the BDUK project.

    Ok rant over.
     
  2. AlphaMan

    AlphaMan Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2001
    Location:
    Doom 2099
    This is untrue.[/QUOTE]

    No, it's true

    http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/2013/02/shuhei-yoshida-used-games-can-play-on-ps4/

    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. Not to mention, Microsoft fired an executive level employee for stating his opinion on the matter of always connected electronic devices on social networks. The fact that several sources in the media confirmed that Microsoft postponed their announcement in order to retool messaging about the new console... All of that smoke means fire.
     
  3. Mr. Adventure

    Mr. Adventure Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2001
    Location:
    Mr. Adventure
    Sim City generated a lot of free publicity as well.
     
  4. -Brett-

    -Brett- Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2001
    I'd imagine Microsoft would be denying the hell out of these rumors if they weren't true. As it stands, their deafening silence has me thinking that even if they back down now, they'll add this "feature" post-launch.
     
  5. Kelthaz

    Kelthaz Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    Microsoft isn't going to go around confirming or denying rumours based upon internet flame wars (even if a participant was a Microsoft employee). I'm sure most companies have an official policy of not reacting to rumours.
     
  6. FPAlpha

    FPAlpha Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Location:
    Mannheim, Germany
    Thanks for typing that up.. it was point for point the exact summary i was going to write and i agree 100%

    If they go ahead with an always on 720 i'll not even look any further and grab a PS4 non-always on console for the first time in my life and i'll be voting with my wallet.. the only protest companies really react to.

    Sometimes they do because rumors have a bad habit of sticking around if they are not adressed properly and in time. That MS didn't debunk the rumor is very telling and the rumors are getting denser each day that MS went with an always on design. All the reacted to was the tone of the rumor and the jackass style this dude presented himself while being a high ranking MS employee.. he tarnished MS's reputation and they only distanced himself from him but did not deny the rumor itself.
     
  7. MacLeod

    MacLeod Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Great Britain
    Yes but if they denied the rumour that the next Xbox is always online, people would stop talking about the next Xbox until it's offical announcement. By not saying anything it's generating discussion, comment etc.. It might be a case because they haven't denied it, for every page printed about the PS4 the next Xbox is getting 2 or 3 pages.
     
  8. FPAlpha

    FPAlpha Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Location:
    Mannheim, Germany
    Sure but as i said negative press sticks around and this (despite the realities) impacts MS negatively and no company wants to be portrayed in a negative light since it almost always impacts the bottom line.

    Personally i believe MS is not reacting because a) it's true but they're not ready yet to admit it (waiting for their professional reveal where they can try and spin it into a positive thing) or b) given the overwhelming negative reaction to the rumor are actively thinking about changing the XBox especially after Sony has announced the PS4 won't need an internet connection to play games and it will be playing older games (at least at first.. i fully expect them to roll back that feature in a year or so). The second option is far less likely.. i'm no tech expert but i also don't know if it's technically possible to do so at this late point in the development cycle.

    So i guess MS is keeping low, hoping that May 21st and E3 will be a success and gamers will calm down and just bitch to their friends on Facebook and boards like these.
     
  9. The Johnson

    The Johnson Lieutenant Junior Grade Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2013
    Location:
    Birmingham, uk
    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?
     
  10. Timby

    Timby LIKE LIGHTNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING Administrator

    Joined:
    May 28, 2001
    Which was said prior to the quote in the link I posted. So Sony executives are contradicting each other, meaning we know nothing.

    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.
     
  11. MacLeod

    MacLeod Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Great Britain
    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.
     
  12. Robert Maxwell

    Robert Maxwell Comfortably Numb Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2001
    Location:
    where it hurts
    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.
     
  13. TheGodBen

    TheGodBen Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    Ireland
    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.
     
  14. Robert Maxwell

    Robert Maxwell Comfortably Numb Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2001
    Location:
    where it hurts
    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. :lol:
     
  15. Reverend

    Reverend Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Location:
    UK
    ^They may have to when sales start to take a nose dive. At least, we can hope they do.
     
  16. TheGodBen

    TheGodBen Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Location:
    Ireland
    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.
     
  17. Bob The Skutter

    Bob The Skutter Complete Arse Cleft Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Location:
    This island Earth
    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.
     
  18. Robert Maxwell

    Robert Maxwell Comfortably Numb Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2001
    Location:
    where it hurts
    Sales already have taken a nosedive. MS doesn't care, apparently.

    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.
     
  19. Kelthaz

    Kelthaz Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    They want the option to be more connected, but they don't want it forced upon them.
     
  20. Robert Maxwell

    Robert Maxwell Comfortably Numb Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2001
    Location:
    where it hurts
    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.

    Manufacturing defects of that scale are never "acceptable." MS corrected them, yes, but they never should have happened.

    :lol: This is flatly untrue. The average consumer is buying one of these because their kid wants one or a friend said they should.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.