Xbox 720 / NeXtBox / Durango / Infinity

[Patticus]

They are just rumors, please bear that mind.

[Candescence]

Amended my post, it is indeed a rumor, but the writing is on the wall at this point.

 

They could use a key activation system where you purchase a new key from MS or another store to activate a used game. I imagine that that would keep both parties happy for the time being.

Considering that sounds like Online Passes, except so much worse? Fuck that noise.

[Candescence]

When literally everyone and their dog, especially the most reputable sources, are claiming that the next XBox is going to have some form of DRM at the very least with an "always-on" component, the likelyhood of that being false is seeming increasingly unlikely.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

They weren't when they launched it, and they are for sure not making the kind of money that Microsoft is with XBL; so why can't I use it as an example?

Sony aren't that dumb, they can forecast the future for PSN can they? They invented PSN to gain money in the future, and it worked. On the other hand, Blu-ray for Xbox will not gain Microsoft money now or in the future.

 

No, you won't see Google Apps on Windows Phone 8 because Microsoft has their own app store that wouldn't be able to compete with Google Apps if they allowed them to work (if they even could, since Windows Phone 8 isn't Android). That's a case of avoiding direct competition with a more popular service, which is an entirely different situation from disabling features in your product (and as a result damaging the consumer receptiveness to it) because one of your competitors will also benefit from it.

No no. Google chooses not to publish any of their great apps on Microsoft platforms (well apart from Search...) Microsoft tried to sue them, Google won but they are still annoyed that Microsoft tried to sue them. Proof? Google Maps (Web) in January was for some reason disabled for Windows Phone 8 users. Users found out that Google blocked any user-agent using Windows Phone 8 and if they change user agents on the phone, Google Maps will work again. They wanted answers. Google said later, that Windows Phone 8 was never supported so they blocked maps.google.com from WP8 "temporarily".

But that's not true. Internet Explorer and Windows Phone 8 share the same engine, and on Internet Explorer it works perfectly fine. Not to mention, Google Maps was also working perfectly for WP8 users before they disabled it.

A week later Google in the end removed the block, but it was very odd for them to stop WP8 users from using Maps when it was working before.

 

Which, big scary Microsoft aside, relates to what? They want to take over the home entertainment system market, so they won't let their biggest attempt to do so play the main standardized type of home entertainment that their competitor's equivalent system will play because they hate the idea of that competitor making any money at all?

It's not that, it's that it makes Xbox Video less dominant. And the new Xbox can still be the center of home entertainment without Blu-ray movie playback. Are you forgetting DVDs? DVDs are still popular ahead of Blu-ray.

 

How'd Sony pull this off then:

*pics*

Because Sony pays Microsoft to license Windows 8 on their laptops. Microsoft wouldn't say no to money.

 

 

If Microsoft wanted to create a home entertainment hub that was the centre of everything in the home, why would they ignore Blu-Ray. Not everyone has internet facilities to stream Netflix or Xbox Video...

 

Why does this matter? The new Xbox requires an internet connection anyway. And Xbox Video doesn't just stream, you can download the movie as well. You can also stream and download the same movie you purchased on Windows 8 & Phone 8.

 

They can ignore Blu-ray if they want to. I'm not saying Microsoft will never want to purchase the license, but it's not a must for them. DVDs are still popular for at least another 5 years or so, and the new Xbox will play those.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Ming Ming Suzy

[Emmett L. Brown]

EA already has their line-up of XBox games designed so that you can't load your save games if XBox Live is down, regardless of whether or not it's a single player game with no multiplayer features. At the very least there are currently no games where a connection interruption mid-play will kick you out of the game (unless you're playing multiplayer, obviously).

 

If that connection failure boot-out gets added to the 720, then that'll be a deal breaker for an awful large portion of their customer base. Including me. I would have picked the XBox over the new Playstation solely due to it allowing you to keep playing your previous-console games, but my always-on boycott is firm. I've never played Spore, Diablo III, Starcraft II, or a plethora of other games I was excited about due to that draconian bullshit. Hell, I wouldn't have played Bioshock if it was a PC-exclusive, because of its insulting DRM.

[Tornado]

Sony aren't that dumb, they can forecast the future for PSN can they? They invented PSN to gain money in the future, and it worked

They "invented" PSN to make it so they would have a feather in their cap (free online play with accounts) that Microsoft couldn't claim. They also made sure to advertise it as such in the beginning of the system's life. To claim PSN being made free was not a salvo straight at Microsoft's XBL to try to sell consoles is revisionist history on your part; so again, how does it not count as an example?

You know just how much money Sony sacrificed in order to claim that free online prize? Or, since the "they eventually made money" thing seems to be hanging you up, how much money Sony sacrificed to make the PS3 largely PC-equivalent in terms of peripherals and consumer upgrades, when they could have just charged for those too like Microsoft did? Why might they have done that, since it certainly wasn't for upfront financial benefits?

 

On the other hand, Blu-ray for Xbox will not gain Microsoft money now or in the future.

 

You mean the money Microsoft will gain by making the NextBox feature comparable to the PS4 so buyers are more likely to give it the same consideration when choosing to buy one or the other doesn't count as money gained?

 

No no. Google chooses not to publish any of their great apps on Microsoft platforms (well apart from Search...) Microsoft tried to sue them, Google won but they are still annoyed that Microsoft tried to sue them. Proof? Google Maps (Web) in January was for some reason disabled for Windows Phone 8 users. Users found out that Google blocked any user-agent using Windows Phone 8 and if they change user agents on the phone, Google Maps will work again. They wanted answers. Google said later, that Windows Phone 8 was never supported so they blocked maps.google.com from WP8 "temporarily".

But that's not true. Internet Explorer and Windows Phone 8 share the same engine, and on Internet Explorer it works perfectly fine. Not to mention, Google Maps was also working perfectly for WP8 users before they disabled it.

A week later Google in the end removed the block, but it was very odd for them to stop WP8 users from using Maps when it was working before.

 

Yeah, conspiracy theories aren't gonna cut it as proof, I'm afraid. First of all, that's not an app. That's the mobile version of a web page not working on Microsoft's web browser included on Windows phones. But more importantly, the amount of civil liability alone that could be placed on Google in that example nullifies it as proof as anything; nevermind the fact that little fracas was never as it appeared (or, more truthfully, as it was inaccurately reported) to be.

 

 

 

Because at the end of the day Google not actively supporting their direct competitor's products with software that makes their own products less appealing isn't even in the same time zone as Microsoft not allowing a feature on their hardware because Sony (and several other companies) indirectly profits from it eventually.

 

It's not that, it's that it makes Xbox Video less dominant. And the new Xbox can still be the center of home entertainment without Blu-ray movie playback. Are you forgetting DVDs? DVDs are still popular ahead of Blu-ray.

 

"It can play DVDs!" hasn't been a product selling point for probably 10 years now, the people who are in the market for entertainment devices generally want the things that play everything they have, and the PS4 will still play Blu Rays and will likely replicate a good portion of the functionality of the NextBox; so no, without Blu Ray disc playback the NextBox won't have a particularly easy time becoming the home entertainment center solution the rumors have been pegging it as.

 

 

And Xbox Video is never going to become a dominant content distribution system, so that's a moot point anyway. Microsoft is about 5 years too late to get in on that gravy train.

 

Because Sony pays Microsoft to license Windows 8 on their laptops. Microsoft wouldn't say no to money.

Surely, surely, Microsoft's apparent spite of Sony as a company would overcome their potential profits from licencing their OS to a Sony tablet that competes directly with Microsoft's tablet?

 

Because if that's not the case, than what basis do you have for claiming that Microsoft will give two shits whether or not Sony receives minor profits from Blu Ray sales? Why, exactly, does Microsoft hate Sony as a company so much that they are willing to decontent their own hardware (and make it less of a value proposition as a result in comparison to it's direct competitor) to "get back" at them? Sony also makes movies. Are Microsoft going to not have any of those on Xbox Video, because Sony might get some money for them?

Also:

Why does this matter? The new Xbox requires an internet connection anyway.

Stop bolstering your arguments around things that you don't know the full details of. No matter how common the thread is between the rumors, they are still rumors and should be treated as such rather than as a basis to beat everyone else over the head with. For all anyone actually knows, the system may only need online activation for games; which is needlessly draconian but hardly a SimCity 5 level of fuckup.

[Tani Coyote]

The cord is a reasonable distance, don't know how far away your trying to play but really just move the console a bit closer. the battery life is reasonable too if you buy batteries that are for high-draining devices, Duracell Ultra or Energizer Lithium always seem to last me a good few weeks before I have to take them out. or hell, just do what I did and invest in a cheap rechargeable battery kit, hell of allot cheaper then the play and charge kit.

 

None of this explains why Microsoft couldn't just have a controller that's wireless and rechargeable already, like Sony did, though. They already have wireless technology, and given their wars with Apple, surely they've mastered the art of charging cables. It was a really poor design choice on their part, and I'm going to hold it against them.

 

But who knows, maybe they'll try the wireless/rechargeable controller route with the 720. It's good business practice to eliminate any and all edges your competitors have over you.

 

1) Recording Gameplay: Plausible, although I suspect it's something Microsoft has bolted on as a direct response to the PS4 reveal.

 

I feel bad for Let's Players. They're going to lose a major part of their competitive edge - their hardware that's optimised for recording footage and the like. If the next consoles include that by default, we're going to see a glut of Let's Plays.

 

I'd say the recording ability would be a one up for the 720, but if the PS4 has it, it solely sounds like a change made to remain competitive among serious gamers.

 

If that connection failure boot-out gets added to the 720, then that'll be a deal breaker for an awful large portion of their customer base. Including me. I would have picked the XBox over the new Playstation solely due to it allowing you to keep playing your previous-console games, but my always-on boycott is firm. I've never played Spore, Diablo III, Starcraft II, or a plethora of other games I was excited about due to that draconian bullshit. Hell, I wouldn't have played Bioshock if it was a PC-exclusive, because of its insulting DRM.

 

Hear, hear. If they want to make sure I never buy a 720, this would definitely seal the deal. I don't care if a lifetime supply of cake comes with it, I refuse to show financial support for such a ridiculous practice. EA was panned because of it, and Microsoft's not getting away with it either.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

They "invented" PSN to make it so they would have a feather in their cap (free online play with accounts) that Microsoft couldn't claim. They also made sure to advertise it as such in the beginning of the system's life. To claim PSN being made free was not a salvo straight at Microsoft's XBL to try to sell consoles is revisionist history on your part; so again, how does it not count as an example?

Yes, Sony also invented on PSN for those reasons too. But you can't say "gaining profits" isn't another reason because it is.

Blu-ray for Xbox, again does not gain profits for Microsoft. It's a feature, that they will have to pay a license for.

 

You know just how much money Sony sacrificed in order to claim that free online prize? Or how much money Sony sacrificed to make the PS3 largely PC-equivalent in terms of peripherals and consumer upgrades, when they could have just charged for those too like Microsoft did?

Because Sony doesn't think like Microsoft. Sony Mobile products uses Android, Sony laptops use Windows, they are not much independent as Microsoft. Sony will license things if they have to.

 

 

You mean the money Microsoft will gain by making the NextBox feature comparable to the PS4 so buyers are more likely to give it the same consideration when choosing to buy one or the other doesn't count as money gained?

They may try to cover it up with digital being the future instead of Blu-ray. Digital will always upgrade, while Blu-ray at some point will become obsolete. As I said before, I will be very surprised if Blu-ray movie playback will make it to the new Xbox because it's unlike Microsoft. They are independent as much as Apple.

Also the fact that GFWL is still active, after all the backlash and hatred it got shows that Microsoft are stubborn. Same thing with Windows 8, they didn't listen to the customer feedback before they launched it.

 

Yeah, conspiracy theories aren't gonna cut it as proof, I'm afraid. The amount of civil liability that could be placed on Google in that example alone nullifies it as proof as anything; nevermind the fact that little fracas was never as it appeared (or, more truthfully, as it was inaccurately reported) to be.

The link you provided is dead obviously a biased article. The writer is a fanboy of Google. I mean look at the comments below the article even.

Blocking a service that once worked is silly.

 

 

Because at the end of the day Google not actively supporting their direct competitor's products isn't even in the same time zone as Microsoft not allowing a feature on their hardware because Sony indirectly profits from it eventually. You might as well be using the fact that Apple doesn't sell Dell computers in the Apple store as proof of a those two companies being spiteful of each other.

I used Google and Microsoft as an example because you said companies can't be spiteful of each other which is not true. Companies can.

 

"It can play DVDs!" hasn't been a product selling point for probably 10 years now, the people who are in the market for entertainment devices generally want the things that play everything they have, and the PS4 will still play Blu Rays and will likely replicate a good portion of the functionality of the NextBox; so no, without Blu Ray disc playback the NextBox won't have a particularly easy time becoming the home entertainment center solution the rumors have been pegging it as.

But again, Microsoft are stubborn. This isn't a company that listens. It's so much easier to believe that they rather want you to go to Xbox Video and get content there than support Blu-ray.

 

 

And Xbox Video is never going to become a dominant content distribution system, so that's a moot point anyway.

Well it depends how you look at it. If you buy the new Xbox, Xbox Video will be available from the moment you start up your Xbox. So it can be dominant in a living room. Microsoft are still pushing Xbox Video and Music so it can be in line as a strong alternative to Blu-ray.

And Xbox Video does have advantages over Blu-ray if Microsoft play their cards right. For example you can play Xbox Video content on your tablet while you're in a plane, but you can't do this with Blu-ray unless you buy another device that is designed to play Blu-rays on the go.

 

 

Surely, surely, Microsoft's apparent spite of Sony as a company would overcome their potential profits from licencing their OS to a Sony tablet that competes directly with Microsoft's tablet?

 

Because if that's not the case, than what basis do you have for claiming that Microsoft will give two shits whether or not Sony receives minor profits from Blu Ray sales? Why, exactly, does Microsoft hate Sony as a company so much that they are willing to decontent their own hardware (and make it less of a value proposition as a result in comparison to it's direct competitor) to "get back" at them? Sony also makes movies. Are Microsoft going to not have any of those on Xbox Video, because Sony might get some money for them?

But at least Microsoft is getting some money off those sales in Xbox Video. This does not apply with licensing Blu-ray.

Microsoft may not give two monkeys about Sony getting minor profits from Blu-ray, true. But at the same time, they will not make any money from licensing blu-ray, one way or another.

 

You keep forgetting Microsoft are a very greedy company looking at ways to squeeze money out of people.

 

Also:

Stop bolstering your arguments around things that you don't know the full details of. No matter how common the thread is between the rumors, they are still rumors and should be treated as such rather than as a basis to beat everyone else over the head with.

I'll eat my hat if the new Xbox does not need an internet connection. You can say rumors are rumors, but it's not just 1 or 2 rumors. There are like 10 rumors saying the same thing over and over about the new Xbox needing an internet connection and we are getting closer to the reveal. A trusted insider wouldn't lie in front of everyone or give out false information.

No rumor to date has posted that the new Xbox doesn't need an internet connection or said there is offline mode or it's optional to connect online. The only thing missing is an official confirmation. So yeah, you can hang on to that for now until May 21st.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Ming Ming Suzy

[Tornado]

Because Sony doesn't think like Microsoft. Sony Mobile products uses Android, Sony laptops use Windows, they are not much independent as Microsoft. Sony will license things if they have to.

So can I have the detailed case study comparing and contrasting the various corporate decisions made by the two companies over the past 20-25 years?

Because otherwise you might as well have just said "because I said so." Sony may not be Microsoft, but how does that constitute proof of anything whatsoever regarding specific decisions?

 

They may try to cover it up with digital being the future instead of Blu-ray. Digital will always upgrade, while Blu-ray at some point will become obsolete. As I said before, I will be very surprised if Blu-ray movie playback will make it to the new Xbox because it's unlike Microsoft. They are independent as much as Apple.

Blu Ray will be around as a format long after the NextBox is dead, just as DVD has been long after PS2/Xbox died

And what is unlike Microsoft? Because the Microsoft I know rarely innovates so much as takes existing things and combines them for convenience.

 

The link you provided is dead obviously a biased article. The writer is a fanboy of Google. I mean look at the comments below the article even.

Explain why the facts in the article, such as how Microsoft's statements on the matter were misleading and why they were misleading, cease to exist just because you perceive bias.

Also, explain why it's biased if you'd be so kind.

 

 

Blocking a service that once worked is silly.

Blocking a service that once worked (and, again, prove that they intentionally blocked it rather than they changed something unrelated that broke it and didn't bother testing to see it broke because they don't support it) that you don't officially support is in fact a really good way to clear yourself of legal liability.

 

 

I used Google and Microsoft as an example because you said companies can't be spiteful of each other which is not true. Companies can.

I'll break it down for you: Google makes Android. Microsoft makes Windows Phone 8. Why the hell would Google officially support the latter with the same software as the former if it would make their own product less appealing?

 

 

That's not being spiteful of each other. That's competing in the same market.

 

 

 

 

 

You want an example of spite, look at the context behind the development of the original Playstation; but even that moved far beyond knee-jerk anger and became a pure business proposition by the time the thing actually came out. Sony used to be a multiplatform publisher, but that stopped with the release of the PSX. Does that mean Sony was operating purely out of spite towards Nintendo and Sega, or did it mean that Sony didn't want to continue helping their now-competitors?

 

But again, Microsoft are stubborn. This isn't a company that listens. It's so much easier to believe that they rather want you to go to Xbox Video and get content there than support Blu-ray.

It's so much easier to believe that you don't even need to bother giving reasons to believe it? Since you basically undermined your main one about the Blu Ray Association later in your post, and you've ignored when it was pointed out that Blu Ray playback could drive console sales (or, more accurately, prevent lost sales to Sony); so what other reasons make it so clear that the NextBox won't support Blu Ray movie playback?

 

 

 

Well it depends how you look at it. If you buy the new Xbox, Xbox Video will be available from the moment you start up your Xbox. So it can be dominant in a living room. Microsoft are still pushing Xbox Video and Music so it can be in line as a strong alternative to Blu-ray.

How'd that work out for the Zune marketplace?

 

 

 

And Xbox Video does have advantages over Blu-ray if Microsoft play their cards right. For example you can play Xbox Video content on your tablet while you're in a plane, but you can't do this with Blu-ray unless you buy another device that is designed to play Blu-rays on the go.

No, but I can do it with any number of the already existing content delivery services that have been around for years now. And I'd be able to do it on far more devices than ones Microsoft had a hand in; which is why the Microsoft-Approved-only delivery service will never be as successful as the open platform ones.

 

 

 

Microsoft may not give two monkeys about Sony getting minor profits from Blu-ray, true.

So is it safe to say that, since you based the majority of your argument around how Microsoft was in some bitchslap fest with Sony because of how companies can be spiteful with each other, that there's little real reason for Microsoft to actively defy technology standards when you admit that Microsoft probably doesn't care if Sony makes money from the licencing fees (which, again, I'd hope they didn't because Sony also makes movies)?

 

 

 

 

But at the same time, they will not make any money from licensing blu-ray, one way or another.

 

Again, more sales of consoles (and all the benefits that entails in the long run) doesn't count as a way to make more money?

 

 

 

I'll eat my hat if the new Xbox does not need an internet connection. You can say rumors are rumors, but it's not just 1 or 2 rumors. There are like 10 rumors saying the same thing over and over about the new Xbox needing an internet connection and we are getting closer to the reveal. A trusted insider wouldn't lie in front of everyone or give out false information.

Here's the thing: You don't know anything about the "how" portion of that. Oh, sure, there are plenty of rumors corroborating that it will have an always online component (though the fact of the matter is that due to how internet rumors spread, it's usually very hard to tell how many of them all come from the same source) of some fashion, but neither you nor I nor anyone else here has any clue the details beyond how it will probably be there.

Maybe it will be required for all functionality, sure (that'd almost certainly be illegal as shit in several regions, but I'll play ball). On the other hand, maybe it will be required for nothing more than games, and everything else will function the same whether connected or not. Maybe it won't even be that much, and all Microsoft will do is allow publishers the ability to make their games require always online. You have no clue what the "always online" situation actually entails, so you absolutely can not use the rumors as proof to support the claims you are making in this topic, like how the ability to play movies offline instead of using Netflix or whatever is irrelevant because you can't play movies offline at all.

 

 

 

No rumor to date has posted that the new Xbox doesn't need an internet connection or said there is offline mode or it's optional to connect online. The only thing missing is an official confirmation. So yeah, you can hang on to that for now until May 21st.

You know what rumors that disprove other rumors are good for? Toilet paper. It's also fairly suspect whether you would accept them if they did exist, all things considering.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Tornado

[Scar]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how a company like Microsoft would say no to Blu-Ray because Sony will get a small fraction of the relatively small licencing fee that goes to the Blu Ray association. Microsoft also have to give money to Sony via Sony Pictures, a massive film studio, and Sonic Music, an equally gigantic record label, in order for their Xbox Video and Xbox Music services to even stand a ghost of a chance against the likes of Netflix. 

 

Microsoft turning down Blu-Ray, for a device they intend to be the focal point of every living room everywhere, is simply illogical no matter how many ways you slice it. 

Edited April 26, 2013 by Scar

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

Blu Ray will be around as a format long after the NextBox is dead, just as DVD is.

And so would digital (and Xbox Video if Xbox is still alive). If digital and Blu-ray had a race, who would win?

 

And what is unlike Microsoft? Because the Microsoft I know rarely innovates so much as takes existing things and combines them.

It is unlike Microsoft to purchase big licenses such as Blu-ray. They do things themselves. They attempted this with HD-DVD, which failed. They may not want to go through that route again, so they are now focusing on digital.

 

Explain why the facts in the article, such as how Microsoft's statements on the matter were misleading and why they were misleading, cease to exist just because you perceive bias.

Internet Explorer on both versions uses the same rendering engine. It's one thing for Google to say the mobile site isn't tested or supported in the mobile browsers, but the desktop version, at least, shouldn't be off-limits. The desktop version may not be ideal in a mobile browser, but it does work.

 

Blocking a service that once worked (and, again, prove that they intentionally blocked it rather than they changed something unrelated that broke it) that you don't officially support is in fact a really good way to clear yourself of legal liability.

Okay. But that doesn't mean you should block the service from users. Why did they block it? It was working FINE. It wasn't broken. If they don't support it, make it written somewhere. But don't block it from those who use the FREE service.

 

 

I'll break it down for you: Google makes Android. Microsoft makes Windows Phone 8. Why the hell would Google officially support the latter with the same software as the former if it would make their own product less appealing?

Google officially supports iOS and iPhone, which Google's Android is also competing against. So they can officially support Windows Phone 8 if they want to. But they will not, because Microsoft and Google don't like each other.

 

 

It's so much easier to believe that you don't even need to bother having any reason to have it?

Not me, Microsoft. Microsoft really has no reason to have it unless they don't want Xbox Video to dominate.

 

 

How'd that work out for the Zune marketplace?

Zune Marketplace is basically Xbox Video + Music. They completely rebranded it since Zune is dead (Microsoft tried to compete the iPod with Zune...again with them trying to be independent).

 

No, but I can do it with any number of the already existing content delivery services that have been around for years now.

What do you mean 'no?'

But Microsoft is trying to compete with those existing content delivery services. They want to succeed in doing so. They don't want YOU looking at those alternatives. And how? Making Xbox Video + Music dominant in the new Xbox as well as on Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8.

 

 

So is it safe to say that, since you based the majority of your argument around how Microsoft was in some bitchslap fest with Sony because of how companies can be spiteful with each other, that there's little real reason for Microsoft to actively defy technology standards when you admit that Microsoft probably doesn't care?

I never said Microsoft hated Sony. Or the other way round. But Microsoft would only do things that benefits them. Licensing Blu-ray while can benefit the consumer, will not benefit them in a long run. Xbox Video will become less dominant if Blu-ray playback is there.

 

The gaming divisions of Sony and Microsoft don't really like each other anyway, as I remember for example that a VP of a Microsoft division said to the TV audience that the PS3 isn't a good entertainment console instead of respecting its competition.

 

 

Here's the thing: You don't know anything about the "how" portion of that. Oh, sure, there are plenty of rumors corraborating that it will have an always online component (though the fact of the matter is that due to how internet rumors spread, it's usually very hard to tell how many of them all come from the same source) of some fashion, but neither you nor I nor anyone else here has any clue the details beyond how it will probably be there.

Maybe it will be required for all functionality, sure (that'd almost certainly be illegal as shit in several regions, but I'll play ball). On the other hand, maybe it will be required for nothing more than games, and everything else will function the same whether connected or not. Maybe it won't even be that much, and all Microsoft will do is allow publishers the ability to make their games require always online. You have no clue what the "always online" situation actually entails, so you absolutely can not use the rumors as proof to support the claims you are making in this topic like how the ability to play discs offline instead of using Netflix or whatever doesn't matter

Well you will need LIVE Gold to run Netflix, Hulu Plus and stuff...so Microsoft has gotten money from those already. AND you have to be online anyway for those apps to work...

Yes I have no clue on what the "always online" entails but I am pretty sure that the new Xbox needs the internet. Somehow, someway.

 

 

You know what rumors that disprove other rumors are good for? Toilet paper. It's also fairly suspect whether you would accept them if they did exist, all things considering.

Okay believe what you want to believe. If you don't believe in these rumors, fine.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Ming Ming Suzy

[Tani Coyote]

I personally think that until we go Finnish and deem good internet access a human right, the whole concept of a required connection is just idiotic and is really a poor way to try and root out piracy. A much better way to root out piracy would be to aggressively pursue increased productivity (a la Henry Ford) in such a manner prices would go down; piracy, like most theft, is generally (there are some nauseating exceptions but I digress) motivated by an inability to pay rather than some malicious intent. Never mind the low incidence of piracy per game actually sold makes the company come across as obnoxiously avaricious when they try to so aggressively eliminate it.

 

Now, once everyone has high speed internet, yes, we can consider permanent internet connections because at that point it would be logical. As it stands it just angers people and the companies shoot themselves in the foot by eliminating the poorer consumers from the pool.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[Thrippa]

I'm not exactly poor; I just have to live out in the sandhills because that's where my job is.  I could afford top quality internet if it were available; but there's none to be had out here.  Heck, lots of places in the area don't even have reliable cell coverage.

[Tani Coyote]

I'm not exactly poor; I just have to live out in the sandhills because that's where my job is.  I could afford top quality internet if it were available; but there's none to be had out here.  Heck, lots of places in the area don't even have reliable cell coverage.

 

Well, a remote area is relatively poor and that's more or less what I really mean. Whether by geography or personal income, there are plenty of people who have either no internet or unreliable internet. It's an idiotic idea on the part of businesses to limit their consumer base. Never mind it just strikes me as particularly unfair to punish people who have fully functional electricity but not reliable internet access.

 

If these rumors are true I really encourage Microsoft to rethink this idea. It can very easily do more harm than good, never mind it will send people in droves to rival consoles. But, one reaps what they sow.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

The people who live in remote areas like that most likely won't have Xbox LIVE Gold if that's the case. Or stay online to get those ads viewed on their TVs.

[Tani Coyote]

Which is why Microsoft is shooting itself in the foot all things considered, if it actually is considering this idea. Were they not paying attention at the backlash against EA over this same principle?

 

Now imagine if a console did that. If they want to deliver the future of video games into Sony's hands, I think this is probably the best way they could possibly do it. Which would in turn let Sony form a virtual monopoly (what with Nintendo's increasing issues) and all the joyous things that come from that.

 

Really it's for the best Microsoft doesn't pursue any measures that involve burning the body to heal the wound. For both themselves and gamers as a whole. ...never mind internet only is just a douchey move overall and violates common sense. Why do I need internet to play Sonic or the like? Unless a game was built around co-op, it's disingenuous.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

SimCity mainly angered the fans because they couldn't play the game at launch. The LIVE servers are way more powerful and sufficient than SimCity's servers. So the problems SimCity had, most likely won't happen to LIVE.

[Mando-Whirl-Wind]

unless some hacker decides to have some fun and crash them

[Candescence]

>implying nothing will go wrong with LIVE's servers in such a case

 

Yes, because said servers didn't go down recently and for a non-trivial amount of time. Not at all.

 

Ming, you have far too much faith in Microsoft. They are far from immune to Finagle's Law. Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

While nothing is hackproof, I'm pretty sure Microsoft will always monitor strange activity happening towards their premium servers. After all, why do you guys pay LIVE for?

Ming, you have far too much faith in Microsoft. They are far from immune to Finagle's Law. Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.

The servers will go down for at least an hour or so? I'm not implying they will never go down because they will. Maintenance and all that.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Ming Ming Suzy

[Mando-Whirl-Wind]

>implying nothing will go wrong with LIVE's servers in such a case

 

Yes, because said servers didn't go down recently and for a non-trivial amount of time. Not at all.

 

Ming, you have far too much faith in Microsoft. They are far from immune to Finagle's Law. Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.

Wait a minute, thats Murphy's Law!

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

Let's put it this way: The day the LIVE servers gets hacked, is the day Google and Facebook get hacked.

Again sure nothing is hackproof, but it will take a real dedicated hack team that had to do research for years before having some knowledge on how to hack LIVE/Microsoft. And even then, they might still fail. And it gets tougher and tougher, if Microsoft keep upgrading their security system for their servers.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

Let's put it this way: The day the LIVE servers gets hacked, is the day Google and Facebook get hacked.

Again sure nothing is hackproof, but it will take a real dedicated hack team that had to do research for years before having some knowledge on how to hack LIVE/Microsoft. And even then, they might still fail. And it gets tougher and tougher, if Microsoft keep upgrading their security system for their servers.

Anonymous?

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

Anonymous?

 

They haven't hacked the LIVE servers yet, and even if they trying to do so right now are wasting their time. Microsoft would have to be fully asleep and have outdated servers before they can successfully attack LIVE.

[Scar]

Let's put it this way: The day the LIVE servers gets hacked, is the day Google and Facebook get hacked.

Again sure nothing is hackproof, but it will take a real dedicated hack team that had to do research for years before having some knowledge on how to hack LIVE/Microsoft. And even then, they might still fail. And it gets tougher and tougher, if Microsoft keep upgrading their security system for their servers.

 

Piss enough people off with consumer-fucking DRM bullshit, and you just might generate the rage necessary to pool together the hacking might to take down XBLA.