Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th Apr 2013 10:47 UTC
Games More and more evidence is pointing towards the next Xbox requiring an always-on internet connection in order to play any games - i.e., once you lose your connection, you can't play any game at all. Three minutes after losing your connection, "your" game will suspend itself and stop playing. Microsoft's Adam Orth took to Twitter to defend this anti-consumer practice, but he did so in the most ungraceful of ways.
Order by: Score:
Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Fri 5th Apr 2013 11:07 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

He's right we're always on-line anyway and I wouldn't be playing games if I wasn't as fixing the Internet connection would be much more important.

But...

Why does a game console need to be on-line in order to play a game if you're not playing other players on-line?

For nearly 40 years we've been playing with game consoles at home and that always worked fine without Internet access. Does an XBox run on PoI (Power over Internet)? Does it explode if it can't ping home?

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by shotsman on Fri 5th Apr 2013 11:15 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

Not everyone is online all the time. Some of us still like to go 'off network' in order to get stuff done.

Personally, if you think you need to be online all the time, you are suffering from internet addiction and should get some medical help for that. If you can't face say a 10hr flight without being online then... well isn't it a tiny bit obvious that you need help?

Then there is the cost. Many Mobile/Cell companies are reducing their data limits just at a time when more people are using them. When it is cheaper to spend an hour on the phone to someone on the other side of the world than it is to load up a few web pages while roaming off your home network something is very wrong.

If MS go ahead with this then I know a good number of parents who will simply not bother to upgrade. Another wonderful MS marketing decision... (like TIFKAM?)

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Fri 5th Apr 2013 11:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I'm not always on-line, but my Internet connection is.

An increasing number of people, at least here in The Netherlands, use the Internet also for VoIP and television. I personally have my email server at home. We were planning to get television over Internet today.

So if our Internet connection goes down I would immediately try to fix it. It doesn't happen often and when it does it's often a glitch at the provider's end, but it may very well not be. If I leave it down for hours only to find out the problem is worse than imaged a lot of time is already lost.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by Lobotomik on Fri 5th Apr 2013 12:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

Well, some people may be even more fortunate than you, and and might enjoy vacations and weekends in houses or apartments in places probably more attractive than the one they usually live in.

It's great that you are happy always at home with your IP landline conversations and Net TV channels. But when I am in the beach for a few weeks I find it nice to break away from the waves and whip out the turbolaser for a shot or two. And I am not fortunate enough to be there enough time every year to justify a second internet bill.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Fri 5th Apr 2013 12:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I can't figure out what you are trying to say.

My point is that an increasing number of people have an always-on Internet connection. One reason being that it is used for more than just surfing, but also for other services like VoIP and television.

So the connection is always on and if it goes down people will prioritize it going up again over playing games.

What I object to is Microsoft's "demand" that you have an Internet connection in order to play on the new Xbox. This seems to have no benefit for the players or the games. The only use I see is DRM and some form of control 'n' surveillance. This makes Microsoft appear very distrustful of their own customers.

What happens if something goes wrong at Microsoft? A power outage, a technical glitch, their XBox division goes bust, they deem if not worth the effort anymore, etc... ? Can you still play those expensive games then?

The always-on Internet connection is a mandatory dependency that's forced upon you, it's not there because it's actually needed to play any game.

I have an Atari 2600 that can still run games after 30+ years. Can the new Xbox do that too?

Reply Score: 8

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by Lobotomik on Sat 6th Apr 2013 11:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

Well, what I said was quite clear.

I say that *I* like going away from home to places where there is no internet connection *AT ALL*, and when I go to my beach house I like taking the console with me, and I don't see a valid reason why I could not.

*You* think keeping alive your internet connection 24x7 is your highest concern. Good for you, I guess. BTW, what do you do when it fails? Sit by the door, twiddling your thumbs, while the service people arrive? Do you cook? Do you go to work?

There are also *MANY* people that don't have a good quality and always-on connection to Internet, even when they are not on vacations. They should be able to play with their console, too, and the current console generation makes it obvious that it is possible.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Sat 6th Apr 2013 14:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

It's a bit odd that you clearly haven't understood what I wrote and kind of accuse me of being Internet addicted and then go on to reveal you go to a beach house to play on a game console. Perhaps playing games and aggression do go hand in hand.

I merely stated that fixing an Internet connection has my higher priority than playing games. Not because I'm an addict, but because my Internet connection provides more than just a way of web surfing.

But don't worry, if it goes down it has an automatic wireless Internet fallback system.

So far the only arguments I've seen on why people's Internet connections aren't always-on is remote farmers and some guy preferring to take his game console to places without Internet.

I was against the always-on requirement, but I'm starting to be less certain now.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by Lobotomik on Sat 6th Apr 2013 16:26 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

Well, when I have free time I like to get to choose what do with it. I cannot understand what is wrong about using my toys whenever I see fit, rather than when Microsoft does.

Why dou you think everybody should share your scale of preferences? Why should they first ensure they have an internet connection going, then worry about anything else? What if they don't have it, out of choice or fate?

It is your patronising attitude that is a bit irritating, reducing the world to rich guys in modern cities who deserve being catered for, and romantic farmers in far away lands that grow food for them but have no internet. Oh, and nasty guys with houses on the beach that do nothing but play games.

People are more variate than you and Microsoft picture or care for, as are their circumstances.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by MacTO on Sun 7th Apr 2013 13:53 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510"
MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

Consoles aren't a big part of my life, so I tend to buy the latest consoles just before a new generation is released. (Partially due to a wide selection of games, and partially due to the cost of the hardware and games.) I recently jumped onto the PS3 bandwagon and was shocked by how inconvenient modern consoles are: long registration processes, cumbersome updates, and slow retrieval of online content are all part of that picture. A friend recently jumped on the WiiU bandwagon and faced the same issues.

It sounds like Microsoft's attitude is pushing gaming even further in the direction of inconvenience. This is probably the worse decision that console makers can make at this time. Simply put, there are too many alternatives out there. That's true for hard core gamers and it's even more true for casual gamers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by mightshade on Sun 7th Apr 2013 14:22 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510"
mightshade Member since:
2008-11-20

So far the only arguments I've seen on why people's Internet connections aren't always-on is remote farmers and some guy preferring to take his game console to places without Internet.

There's a lot of possible reasons. From my own experience just in Q1 of 2013, we had:
- switched internet providers. They couldn't get their act together and we had no internet access for over a week.
- workers at a construction side in the city destroyed "some really important cable" *cough* and half of the city (including us) had no internet acces for a couple of days, then a day or two with reduced bandwidth and reliability, until it was properly fixed.

In both cases there was nothing we could do to fix it. (And nevertheless I was able to continue to do my work and play my games - I can't say "always on" sounds in any way attractive to me after those outages)

Edited 2013-04-07 14:23 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by bassbeast on Mon 8th Apr 2013 00:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Try coming to the USA some time pal and you'll see what he means. My mom built her place 30 years ago, then the cable was exactly a block and a half away...want to know how far both the cable and DSL are from her house now? A block and a half. My oldest nephew lives with her and is stuck on a VERY iffy WISP because neither cable nor DSL will run the block and a half to hook her up.

Sadly she is FAR from alone here, I spent nearly 2 years in Nashville and where I was at, right in the heart of the city? No high speed. the city I live in now has grown by a good two thirds yet neither the cable nor DSL has moved an inch, this affects the whole market here as one apt building will be double the cost of an identical one across the street, why? Because you can get high speed at the first one and in a college town no high speed means no college as several classes require Internet for part of the course, not to mention for researching papers.

So by making the X720 online only they have pretty much just killed the thing for tens of millions of potential customers who will then go to Sony. This gives NOTHING of value to the consumer, its just to makes the suits and Wall Street happy and the customers will plainly see that and go elsewhere.

If they stick with online only I predict the X720 will be right beside Win 8 and WinRT on the failure list, especially if Sony is smart and doesn't follow suit.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by zima on Tue 9th Apr 2013 14:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

The only use I see is DRM and some form of control 'n' surveillance.

Ahh yes, all those MS Kinect units, watching ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by Laurence on Fri 5th Apr 2013 17:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Not everyone is online all the time. Some of us still like to go 'off network' in order to get stuff done.

Personally, if you think you need to be online all the time, you are suffering from internet addiction and should get some medical help for that. If you can't face say a 10hr flight without being online then... well isn't it a tiny bit obvious that you need help?

We're talking home internet connection, not personally doing stuff online constantly while at home; let alone the need to be online while away from the house. (if you're not at home then you're not going to be playing on your XBox anyway, who even cares?)

What's more, the "internet addition" remark is just a personal attack and completely unnecessary.

Why is it some people must insist on posting the most over the top counter arguments? As I would normally be in complete agreement with you on this topic but those comments above are just ridiculous.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by bassbeast on Mon 8th Apr 2013 00:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

You know how many people can't get consistent high speed in the USA? A LOT, we are talking millions, probably tens of millions because of cherry picking and the way ISPs care more about handing out CEO bonuses than they do actually growing the company. AT&T hasn't done squat as far as new DSL in years, most of the cablecos aren't spending jack on new lines, even verizon put the brakes on new FIOS rollouts.

I think everyone though is playing small ball and not looking at the big picture which is thus...The history of MSFT can be summed up with "And then the other guy did something REALLY stupid" because you name a MSFT success, from the OS to the browser, Office suites to the game console it can ALL be summed up with that phrase. Even the 360, which got a free shot because the PS3 was priced at $600 USD which was twice what the market would bear.

What we are seeing now is what happens when MSFT doesn't have morons for competition which from the looks of it what we get is "And then MSFT did something REALLY stupid" because honestly they ran off all the good engineers and guys with vision for more marketing drones like Ballmer. From the Frankenstein mess that is Windows 8, Games For Windows Live or as I like to call it "Attack of the bad UI" since you can be on a PC and looking for specifically PC games and get 9 pages of 360 titles, to pricing their stupid tablet waaay more than the market will bear and to add to the stupid trying to force DirectX into mobile which just added a $50K porting cost for most apps which most companies will not spend, to trying to force Windows to be all about "ZOMG we got teh touch just like Apple LOL!" when the OEMs have already said the touchscreen X86 units are going NOWHERE, like the Ultrabook they have warehouses full of the things,hell I could go on all day.

What can we take from this? Well if MSFT doesn't have a competitor that shoots itself in the face MSFT's true colors shine through, which is literally like something out of Dilbert. Copying fads that have come and gone, aping other companies but poorly and without any thought or innovation, its a trainwreck folks. This is from someone that has been selling and servicing MSFT products for nearly a quarter of a century but even I can see this move is to please Wall Street and not the consumer which is pretty much indicative of MSFT under Ballmer, a bunch of PHBs reading the financial times and grabbing whatever buzzwords they see there instead of making products that consumers want and it shows. Win 8 is a flop, WinTab will join the playbook and touchpad, and the OEMs all have Google on the other line talking about Chromebooks...its a mess folks and when the X720 bombs because consumers see its more about Wall Street metrics than making them happy (not to mention Sony learned from their mistake and the PS4 will have a sane price at launch) any of us that has been watching the suicidal stupidity of MSFT these past 5 years really will not be surprised.

And I apologize for the length but some concepts just can't be wrapped up in a soundbyte and this is something I feel strongly about as should anybody that depends on anything made by MSFT to do their jobs. The company is flying off the rails and this move is just one in a loooong string of failures to listen to the public that is really killing the company.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by anda_skoa on Fri 5th Apr 2013 11:20 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

Why does a game console need to be on-line in order to play a game if you're not playing other players on-line?


Well, you have been around long enough to know that this is a rethorical question, but for the fun of it: control!

All and every measure to artifically limit what you can do, how you do it or where you do it is solely about control.
Whether it is always-on, DRM, "exclusive" targets or channels, etc., it is alway about producers staying in control of the market, getting out or above the dreaded supply-and-demand scheme.

The proponents of control will usually have some scapegoat or dooms-day scenario to point to and unfortunately are usually able to make a large portion of the population believe it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Fri 5th Apr 2013 11:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

My guess is it probably is DRM related, but we've had DRM for some time without an active Internet connection. If it's required to start the game I can imagine why the need a connection, but once the game is validated and allowed to start why is the connection still needed?

It gives me the feeling that while you are playing some bloke in uniform is standing behind you and the moment you do something against the rules he's going to shoot you in the head.

My point is that this requirement seems like a vote of total distrust of the player.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by twitterfire on Fri 5th Apr 2013 15:54 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Does it explode if it can't ping home?


We must fight software piracy and terrorism, so trying to use a device that is not always on might make some folks think that you're either a pirate or a terrorist or both. ;)

Probably, the next gen devices will require us not only to be always on and have a gps built in, but to have a camera always on, too.

Edited 2013-04-05 15:56 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by Soulbender on Fri 5th Apr 2013 16:15 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

He's right we're always on-line anyway


No "we" are not. In fact, most people on this planet probably aren't.

Why does a game console need to be on-line in order to play a game if you're not playing other players on-line?


One word: control.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Fri 5th Apr 2013 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Most can't afford an XBox anyway.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by ze_jerkface on Fri 5th Apr 2013 17:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

Wouldn't have bought it anyways.

Where did we hear that before? Oh yea with Windows 8. I was told that I "wouldn't have bought it anyways" in the face of overwhelmingly negative feedback because I guess Microsoft defenders have a better idea of where my money actually goes.

But with Windows 8 and Surface being HUGE successes it seems that Microsoft is completely justified in ignoring their existing customers.

In the coastal town where I vacation I'll be playing a PS4 with a big stack of games that I wouldn't have bought anyways. I haven't bought a Sony console in years but I guess Microsoft doesn't want the money that I wouldn't have spent anyways.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by ze_jerkface on Fri 5th Apr 2013 17:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

He's right we're always on-line


No we are not always online.

The economics still don't make sense to connect every U.S. household with broadband.

And just because you have a phone line does not mean you can get DSL.

Maybe you and Orthy should get together and start digging ditches out to farms. In the meantime Sony will make extra money by using a game plan that is based on reality and customer feedback.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Fri 5th Apr 2013 18:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

If it's true the new XBox requires an always-on Internet connection I assume they did a study and know how many do and how many don't have this.

For the record I think it's bad idea, but if Microsoft goes ahead they probably figure they can do without the farmers.

Reply Score: 4

v Comment
by pandronic on Fri 5th Apr 2013 11:20 UTC
RE: Comment
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 5th Apr 2013 11:21 UTC in reply to "Comment"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The problem is not your internet. The problem is Microsoft's own uptime.

Reply Score: 12

RE[2]: Comment
by pandronic on Fri 5th Apr 2013 11:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Well, that's a valid point then, I don't own an Xbox and I don't know anything about their up-time. I was assuming 99,999% at least.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment
by WereCatf on Fri 5th Apr 2013 13:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Well, that's a valid point then, I don't own an Xbox and I don't know anything about their up-time. I was assuming 99,999% at least.


Imagine Anon or something DDOSing the servers Xbox720 connects to -> No one can do shit with their consoles. Not. One. Single. Person.

Still sounds like such a good idea?

Reply Score: 9

RE[4]: Comment
by Priest on Fri 5th Apr 2013 21:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment"
Priest Member since:
2006-05-12

Valid point. Wasn't the play station network taken down by hackers for like 3 months or something only a couple years ago?

When it came back they reset everyone's password and I ended up creating another account and losing a couple cheap games (like Salt Shooter) I had associated to my old account.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment
by Brunis on Fri 5th Apr 2013 14:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment"
Brunis Member since:
2005-11-01

Well, that's a valid point then, I don't own an Xbox and I don't know anything about their up-time. I was assuming 99,999% at least.


Ask all the people who had to activate their Windows keys when the activation servers buckled under pressure. Ask all Diablo3 players what happens.
Ask all SimCity owners what happens.

It might be 99% up.. but the 1% down time happnes when you have to register/activate/play.

It's to control Piracy and jack up prices. In my Amiga days all developers and publishers were whining.. oh if only people bought more copies of their games, they could lower prices.. haha, what a joke.. now that they can force everyone to pay, they jack UP the prices, cause you got nowhere else to go!

Case in point, see the difference between any EA sports game on PC vs PS3 ;)

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment
by phoudoin on Fri 5th Apr 2013 14:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

The problem is the *your* -> *their* shift.

I'm not leasing it, I buying it (well, let's suppose I will). Being owner of an hardware platform that can be useless at will, voluntary or not, from the seller, noway.

Microsoft should shift to lease their console. At least that would make then sense.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment
by Beta on Fri 5th Apr 2013 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft should shift to lease their console. At least that would make then sense.

You just know they will.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment
by fx__ on Fri 5th Apr 2013 11:40 UTC in reply to "Comment"
fx__ Member since:
2006-03-31

You can play the campaign of SC2 without an internet-connection. However, you need to activate the game once, and then validate your copy every 30 days.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment
by pandronic on Fri 5th Apr 2013 12:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

You can play it and it's nice, but that will keep you happy for just a few days and also I believe you don't get the bonus portraits for your character if you play offline. Anyway, SC2 is about the multiplayer, singleplayer gets stale fast.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Chris_G
by Chris_G on Fri 5th Apr 2013 11:22 UTC
Chris_G
Member since:
2012-10-25

Why? I can understand the temptation to require always-on when piracy is an issue. I don't agree with it, but I do understand it. But consoles are generally locked down already and, IIRC, require modding to be able to play pirated games, right? So what's the point of forcing every game to use it?

Edited 2013-04-05 11:28 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Chris_G
by drcouzelis on Fri 5th Apr 2013 11:35 UTC in reply to "Comment by Chris_G"
drcouzelis Member since:
2010-01-11

I (and many others) own and enjoy using a Game Boy Advance, Nintendo DS, NES, Nintendo 64, and Dreamcast. The release dates of these games and consoles range between 14 years and 27 years old. I'll be able to continue enjoying the games I bought as long as the hardware continues working.

Likewise, with my Wii console, I will continue being able to play it until the hardware breaks.

How long will a person be able to play video games on the next version of the Xbox? How long will Microsoft keep the servers for it running? Five years? Ten years? All websites eventually go down.

My children love playing the old video games I saved. Will the next generation of video games be arond long enough for anyone's children be able to play them?

In summary, THINK OF THE CHILDREN! ;)

Reply Score: 12

RE[2]: Comment by Chris_G
by lucas_maximus on Fri 5th Apr 2013 14:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Chris_G"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

How long will a person be able to play video games on the next version of the Xbox? How long will Microsoft keep the servers for it running? Five years? Ten years? All websites eventually go down.


Considering you can still go to windows update and update a fresh windows 98 installation ... I think for a while yet.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Chris_G
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 5th Apr 2013 16:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Chris_G"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Tell that to my sad Plays for sure WMA files... They cry out for verification and validation, but hear only the stupid silence of Microsoft's fickle fascination with DRM formats.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by Chris_G
by toast88 on Fri 5th Apr 2013 17:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Chris_G"
toast88 Member since:
2009-09-23

Considering you can still go to windows update and update a fresh windows 98 installation ... I think for a while yet.


Except that you can't. The current version of Windows Update requires Internet Explorer 7.0 or higher.

I recently installed Windows 98 on an old Compaq Notebook 100, Windows Update did NOT work (at least not with the version of Internet Explorer shipped with Windows 98SE which is 5.5).

Installing Internet Explorer 6.0 isn't possible either as the servers for the online installer do not work anymore.

I think I later also tried with an offline installer version of IE6 and it didn't work either.

So, no, you can't really update Windows 98 anymore through Windows Update.

Adrian

Edited 2013-04-05 17:27 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: Comment by Chris_G
by MOS6510 on Sat 6th Apr 2013 14:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Chris_G"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Same for NT 4.0. It was still possible not too long ago, but now the Windows Update site keeps looping and you can't download a single update.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Chris_G
by lucas_maximus on Sat 6th Apr 2013 15:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Chris_G"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Until a few years ago you still could. I think after 16 years it isn't too much of a problem.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Chris_G
by aaronb on Sun 7th Apr 2013 11:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Chris_G"
aaronb Member since:
2005-07-06

I am not sure you understand the difference between a console with software that is designed to fail when an unrelated problem occurs such as playing on a single player game and loosing connectivity and better designed software where single player always works but sometimes multi player does not because there is no internet connection.

In the former case a decision was made to stop games from running regardless of whether the game needed an internet connection and in the latter case a decision was made to continue playing games unless there is a related issue that prevents the game running correctly.

Your Windows 98 analogy is flawed because you can still play single player games and applications using Windows 98 even though it is many years old. Windows 98 does not check that there is an internet connection and then refuses to load games and applications if there is not one.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Chris_G
by lucas_maximus on Sun 7th Apr 2013 18:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Chris_G"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I understand the difference. I just don't think it is as much of a problem as you think it is.

Also I was actually replying to people saying Microsoft will simply turn off support when the xbox 4 comes out.

Edited 2013-04-07 18:35 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by Chris_G
by aaronb on Sun 7th Apr 2013 20:48 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Chris_G"
aaronb Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft have not had a great record in this regard, the most memorable was 'Plays for sure' DRM on WMA and MP3 downloads where the music has become unplayable if you do not have a copy of the licence file and a compatible player.

While this is not one of the worlds greatest issues (such as lack of access to clean drinking water), in the context of frivolous entertainment, random cut outs is quite high.

I guess many people just do not agree with buying a product which is designed to fail.

Out of curiosity, will you be purchasing an Xbox 720 (or what ever its officially called) if this DRM is indeed in console?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Chris_G
by toast88 on Mon 8th Apr 2013 20:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Chris_G"
toast88 Member since:
2009-09-23

I understand the difference. I just don't think it is as much of a problem as you think it is.


Then you're simply not a gamer.

People who like video also like to play old video games. And, heck, I want to be able to play all my Nintendo 64 games I bought years ago even in 2030, provided that the hardware still runs fine (which certainly will due to it's simplicity).

No artificial limitation should keep you from gaming in the future.

It's just crippleware.

Adrian

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Chris_G
by henderson101 on Mon 8th Apr 2013 14:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Chris_G"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

I own a Dreamcast. None of the online services that once existed still work, outside of a few fan run servers. So basically, any of the games with online play are severely limited now. I have games on the XBOX 360 that have had their servers close (very early ones, usually sports based.) So, essentially again, the online play is gone. Imagine all of the games required a server to play at all - this is the issue. I don't care if Microsoft still provides Windows 98 updates or not, they won't keep a bunch of console servers running indefinitely, no matter how much they promise to. Nor will they provide Windows 98 downloads for much longer.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Chris_G
by Brendan on Sat 6th Apr 2013 02:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Chris_G"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

My children love playing the old video games I saved. Will the next generation of video games be arond long enough for anyone's children be able to play them?


This is a compromise between the amount of profit lost due to bad publicity (e.g. caused by turning the servers off) and the amount of profit gained by forcing people to upgrade their console.

My guess is that "xBox n" will be released, will have teething problems for several months and then will work fine for about 5 years (for people who have always on internet anyway). Then "xBox n+1" will be released and the servers for the older "xBox n" will suddenly become sluggish and unreliable for marketing reasons (with "the servers are being re-purposed for the newer Xbox" used as a barely plausible excuse). Then the servers for the older "xBox n" will just get worse over the next few years, until Microsoft can claim that nobody is using them (because they're so slow and unreliable that everyone had to upgrade their console) and turns them off completely.

Consumers will be annoyed at this, and will say things like "I'll never buy an xBox again"; but people are stupid and they'll buy the "xBox n+1" anyway (and have the same problems when "xBox n+2" is released, and say things like "I'll never buy xBox again" before rushing out and buying "xBox n+3"). After maybe 15 years of this it'll become "industry standard behaviour" and people will stop complaining about being forced to upgrade every 5 years because they've been trained to accept it.

- Brendan

Edited 2013-04-06 02:54 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Chris_G
by anda_skoa on Fri 5th Apr 2013 11:38 UTC in reply to "Comment by Chris_G"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

So what's the point of forcing every game to use it?


It is not about piracy, which in itself is just a strawman.

It is about being able to set and enforce new restrictions and any given time.
E.g. not allowing a game to be played in a country it hasn't been sold yet (similar to DVD region codes but more effective).

One additional problem is that once a consumer device such as an X-Box has this requirement, it won't take long until non-game content producers want to use those "features" as well.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Comment by Chris_G
by kwan_e on Fri 5th Apr 2013 11:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Chris_G"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

E.g. not allowing a game to be played in a country it hasn't been sold yet (similar to DVD region codes but more effective).


I'm not a business person, so I've never understood this practice. Why would I want to prevent someone in another country from buying my wares, especially if I've never spent an advertizing dollar in that country and it costs almost nothing to deliver it?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Chris_G
by anda_skoa on Fri 5th Apr 2013 13:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Chris_G"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

I'm not a business person, so I've never understood this practice. Why would I want to prevent someone in another country from buying my wares, especially if I've never spent an advertizing dollar in that country and it costs almost nothing to deliver it?


As I said, control of the market.
For example they could plan to sell at a later date, when the demand in the other markets has gone down, or want to sell a slightly different product, or want to have "exlusivness" as a bargaining chip when negotiating with local distribution channels, etc.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Chris_G
by kwan_e on Fri 5th Apr 2013 14:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Chris_G"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"I'm not a business person, so I've never understood this practice. Why would I want to prevent someone in another country from buying my wares, especially if I've never spent an advertizing dollar in that country and it costs almost nothing to deliver it?


As I said, control of the market.
For example they could plan to sell at a later date, when the demand in the other markets has gone down, or want to sell a slightly different product, or want to have "exlusivness" as a bargaining chip when negotiating with local distribution channels, etc.
"

I fail to see how it actually controls the market. As I said, they wouldn't have to negotiate with local distribution if they just allowed it to be bought online outside of a country. With "multimedia" any delay is likely to just cause interest to die down.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Chris_G
by anda_skoa on Fri 5th Apr 2013 15:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Chris_G"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

I fail to see how it actually controls the market. As I said, they wouldn't have to negotiate with local distribution if they just allowed it to be bought online outside of a country.


The control in this case is that they can offer exclusivness. Local distributiors are often willing to pay for the guarantee that nobody else will be able to sell a thing that has certain demand.

One occasion where this is used heavily is TV series. US based producers sell exclusive licenses for different European countries, often only allowing one broadcaster per country.

This business practise is the sole reason why there almost not TV series streaming service in Europe. Even if content right owners would like to sell streaming licenses, their previously struck deals with TV broadcasters contained exclusivness guarantees.

With "multimedia" any delay is likely to just cause interest to die down.


Sure, a certain part of the target audience will circumvent the "ban", e.g. using DVD players without region code check or downloading the content, but they don't see this as a problem per se. It is an opportunity to push more control features and strengthens their "it's because of piracy" scapegoat.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Chris_G
by Drumhellar on Sun 7th Apr 2013 21:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Chris_G"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Well, it allows one to charge a higher price in regions that can afford higher prices. Example: $20 for a movie in the US, and only $5 for the same movie in Malaysia.

Or, a movie may be coming out on DVD/Blu Ray in the US before it comes out in theaters in Europe. You don't want to cannibalize ticket sales in Europe by allowing people to import DVDs.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Chris_G
by adkilla on Mon 8th Apr 2013 04:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Chris_G"
adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

Unfortunately the opposite is true. In Malaysia, the movies are often released late and are heavily censored. With these issues, people would rather import it from the US themselves or download it if there are import restrictions. Prices of original Blu-Ray/DVDs here are way over the top and are also censored because of (utterly lame) eastern sensitivities.

On cable TV we get re-runs and terminated series because we don't have much of a choice due to local cartels abusing their monopoly of broadcasting licenses.

I don't see how giving MS money to harm us in a similar manner is a good idea.

Edited 2013-04-08 04:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Chris_G
by Drumhellar on Mon 8th Apr 2013 17:39 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Chris_G"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Well, I just pulled Malaysia out of the air as an example, but for the most part my point still stands: Many markets won't support USD $20 for a Blu-Ray.

I also certainly didn't imply that it's a good idea for consumers (Which is what I think you are implying), but it is a good idea for Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Chris_G
by zima on Tue 9th Apr 2013 14:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Chris_G"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, it allows one to charge a higher price in regions that can afford higher prices. Example: $20 for a movie in the US, and only $5 for the same movie in Malaysia.

I know what you want to say - but, in the future, perhaps you should keep in mind that relative pricing (in the US vs impoverished places) of luxury goods is too often the other way around.

Reply Score: 2

Privacy
by Kondor337 on Fri 5th Apr 2013 11:42 UTC
Kondor337
Member since:
2006-09-16

Even if my internet connection and Microsoft's servers would be 100% reliable, there would still be a privacy concern. Why should Microsoft know how often and for how long I play single-player games at home?

I think Microsoft's idea would even be illegal here in Germany. § 28 BDSG (federal data privacy act) says you may only collect data if you have a "legitimate interest" to collect that data and this legitimate interest outweighs the interest of the people affected.

I think the only possible "legitimate interest" that could outweigh the privacy protection of the users would be the prevention of piracy, but as far as I know you cannot play pirated games on an Xbox anyway without modifying it (and in this case you could probably likewise remove the always-on-feature).

Edited 2013-04-05 11:44 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Privacy
by bentoo on Mon 8th Apr 2013 01:59 UTC in reply to "Privacy"
bentoo Member since:
2012-09-21

Why should Microsoft know how often and for how long I play single-player games at home?


They already do if you connect to Xbox live at all (even if you played offline).

Reply Score: 2

Always on...
by kwan_e on Fri 5th Apr 2013 11:44 UTC
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

Will his employment be always-on?

Reply Score: 5

MS make Sony look like nice people
by silviucc on Fri 5th Apr 2013 11:54 UTC
silviucc
Member since:
2009-12-05

Holy shit! When you make Sony look like the nice guys of the console/entertainment world, you're doing it wrong. Sony goes out of their way to make sure indies will be coding for their PS4 machine, meanwhile MS just keeps on pissing them in the face. Now this?!

Does MS actually want to sell this product of theirs?!

Reply Score: 8

silviucc Member since:
2009-12-05

Before calling me an "MS fanboy" check out my comments on other topics here on OSnews.

While I'm certainly no fan of MS I think I might have stumbled over one of Sony's, else I really can't explain the passion or name calling.

On the issue of being able to install linux on something like the PS3, that was an option a long, long time ago. Sony decided they wouldn't allow it anymore and changed the firmware accordingly (sometime in 2010) . People were left with a choice: upgrade fw to be able tot play new titles on their PS3s or keep the current one that allowed them to install another OS on there.

There was a huge outcry and almost a lawsuit. Judge tossed it out. Google it up.

Reply Score: 1

Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

On the issue of being able to install linux on something like the PS3, that was an option a long, long time ago. Sony decided they wouldn't allow it anymore and changed the firmware accordingly

A smaller PS3 firmware size, and getting better purchase rates for the Cell did it. It was shitty to consumers, but Sony didn’t remove Linux from your already installed device, they just stopped updating the firmware that had the support.

Reply Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

but Sony didn’t remove Linux from your already installed device, they just stopped updating the firmware that had the support.


The problem was quite obviously the fact that you couldn't play any newer games that required updated firmware unless you gave up on Linux-support. That was a real dick move considering the fact that many people bought PS3 for BOTH playing games AND for Linux.

Reply Score: 3

M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

I heard it was to do with institutions (labs, animations studios &c.) bulk buying PS3s for the processing power of their eccentric range of internal chips, which was very competitively priced, pound for pound, flop for flop. If you sell consoles at a loss, you really don't want anyone buying lots of consoles but no games.

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I heard it was to do with institutions (labs, animations studios &c.) bulk buying PS3s for the processing power of their eccentric range of internal chips, which was very competitively priced, pound for pound, flop for flop. If you sell consoles at a loss, you really don't want anyone buying lots of consoles but no games.


Aye, that was the primary reason, but how Sony went about it was still a dick move. Sony could have removed OtherOS-feature from future PS3s while leaving the then-current ones intact or they could have stopped selling the consoles at a loss, thereby not screwing over their existing customers, but alas.. In the end they pissed lots of people off and showed how much they really care about consumers, all the while running Linux and playing games is supported on PS3s running custom firmwares -- including mine.

Reply Score: 3

viton Member since:
2005-08-09

Sony could have removed OtherOS-feature from future PS3s while leaving the then-current ones intact

As you probably forgot, it was the original intention.

In the end they pissed lots of people off and showed how much they really care about consumers.

They have to protect the infrastructure at all costs. 0.00001% of consumer base was faced the choice - game or coding (including me). Not a big deal overall.

Reply Score: 3

viton Member since:
2005-08-09

I think I might have stumbled over one of Sony's

You're lucky ;-)
Sorry if I offended you. It was not my intention.
Why so serious ? :-)

People were left with a choice: upgrade fw to be able tot play new titles on their PS3s or keep the current one that allowed them to install another OS on there.

In a real world everybody is occasionally faced with limited choice. And it is unreasonable to whine about that.

Edited 2013-04-06 13:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

In a real world everybody is occasionally faced with limited choice. And it is unreasonable to whine about that.


It is perfectly reasonable when such a choice happen AFTER you've bought the product and the product was sold to you with the premise that you could do both the things, not just one or the other. I mean, just imagine buying a phone, but shortly after you've bought it you're given either the choice between receiving calls or making calls, not both -- would you still say it's unreasonable to whine about it?

The fact of the matter is that such "choices" should be communicated before money has exchanged hands, not after the fact.

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Oh come on. You can't bring up Linux on Playstation as a proof that Sony is hip with the haxors. They removed the other os option and effectively left them out in the cold without so much as a warm blanket.

Reply Score: 3

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Sony went downhill from Yaroze.

Yaroze had complete hardware access.

PS2 Linux you had to access the hardware via special libraries higher level than the real developers had.

PS3 Linux had an hypervisor without access to 3D features, and it was later on removed from standard PS3 anyway.

PSVita is .NET only.

Reply Score: 3

viton Member since:
2005-08-09

On PS2 Linux, there was complete low level access to graphics and VUs.
On PS3 games are running on top of hypervisor as well.
Anyways it is irrelevant in the context of indy development friendliness.
PSVita is relatively cheap to develop for.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Sony went downhill from Yaroze.

Yaroze had complete hardware access.

Not strictly complete - Yaroze games had no access to the CD-ROM drive, they had to all fit in (small) RAM after the initial loading.

Plus, Net Yaroze was a quite rare gear, different from ordinary consoles... only very few of Yaroze games were made available to the masses via Playstation Magazine disks.

Reply Score: 2

suckers
by bnolsen on Fri 5th Apr 2013 12:39 UTC
bnolsen
Member since:
2006-01-06

The problem here is that most console gamers won't know or care about this restriction until its too late: when something goes swrong and they can't get their fix.

I suspect something like this will be waaay too tempting for hacker groups to go after. Who doesn't want to make tens of thousands of spoiled rich brats cry who find their gaming console superficially disabled when they turn it on to play?

Reply Score: 4

RE: suckers
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 5th Apr 2013 12:41 UTC in reply to "suckers"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Don't look down too much from that high horse, buddy, you might get a neck cramp.

Holy crap.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: suckers
by bnolsen on Sun 7th Apr 2013 20:48 UTC in reply to "RE: suckers"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

Sadly enough the stereotype does to some degree describe a large part of the young gamer demographic whose parents buy their kids gaming systems to serve as the babysitter. I don't think that large demographic cares about the details behind their shiny new consoles.

Reply Score: 2

Gamers
by darknexus on Fri 5th Apr 2013 12:41 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

It doesn't matter what Microsoft does. Most gamers are so used to bending over that they'll go where the games are, no matter how hard they get something shoved up an orifice in the process. I wonder if there'll ever be a breaking point when these people pull their head away from their console and go: what the hell? Maybe when they have to pay in blood to play their precious games, but until then they're perfectly willing to get gang raped by both large game producers and game console makers.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by Beta
by Beta on Fri 5th Apr 2013 12:58 UTC
Beta
Member since:
2005-07-06

One good thing has come of this: my choice for a next-generation console just got a lot simpler. Hurry up, Valve.


Well, if Valve doesn’t work on steam’s offline mode, support multiple user accounts and download windows (some ISPs have time-based b/w monitoring), and support LAN gaming, I know I’ll be getting a PS4…

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Beta
by WereCatf on Fri 5th Apr 2013 13:24 UTC in reply to "Comment by Beta"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Well, if Valve doesn’t work on steam’s offline mode


Steam's offline-mode has always worked just fine for me, though I admit that Valve should communicate more clearly the fact that you must launch the game atleast once in online-mode before you can play the game in offline-mode.

support multiple user accounts


That's something I've been hoping for a long time now. The way it currently works on Windows-machines is, well, outdated, so to speak.

and download windows (some ISPs have time-based b/w monitoring)


I think I saw some post somewhere that this and bandwidth-limiting are in the plans, but I can't remember where. And nevertheless, there was no mention of any time table.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Beta
by Beta on Fri 5th Apr 2013 14:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Beta"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Steam's offline-mode has always worked just fine for me, though I admit that Valve should communicate more clearly the fact that you must launch the game atleast once in online-mode before you can play the game in offline-mode.

It’s kinda pointlessly constructed though ‐ the only time I ever need offline‐mode is when I’m suddenly offline for a reason beyond my control, and Steam naïvely doesn’t support that concept…

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Beta
by WereCatf on Fri 5th Apr 2013 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Beta"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

"Steam's offline-mode has always worked just fine for me, though I admit that Valve should communicate more clearly the fact that you must launch the game atleast once in online-mode before you can play the game in offline-mode.

It’s kinda pointlessly constructed though ‐ the only time I ever need offline‐mode is when I’m suddenly offline for a reason beyond my control, and Steam naïvely doesn’t support that concept…
"

I don't quite understand what your problem is, could you clarify?

I just disconnected my Internet and attempted to launch a game without manually switching to offline-mode: worked just fine. I then plugged Internet back, quit the game and fired it up again and disconnected Internet while in-game: still works just fine. To my eye it works just as it should.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Beta
by Beta on Fri 5th Apr 2013 23:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Beta"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't quite understand what your problem is, could you clarify?

Why you’re not seeing the problem, you already had your steam client running when you ‘lost internet’. Close steam, disable internet, try to play any game that uses steam drm.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Beta
by WereCatf on Sat 6th Apr 2013 07:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Beta"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

"I don't quite understand what your problem is, could you clarify?

Why you’re not seeing the problem, you already had your steam client running when you ‘lost internet’. Close steam, disable internet, try to play any game that uses steam drm.
"

Well, I just tried it. I disabled Steam auto-start, disabled Internet, rebooted the system, then fired up Steam which asked whether I want to start it in offline-mode, and finally I fired up a few games: all works just as they're supposed to.

So no, I still don't understand the problem. Do clarify, what game do you have a problem with and exactly what kind of a problem?

Reply Score: 2

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Fri 5th Apr 2013 14:24 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

This is another reason to avoid gaming consoles, and support DRM free gaming and distributors, like GOG, Desura and etc. who have a principal DRM free stance.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by shmerl
by Beta on Fri 5th Apr 2013 14:28 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

This is another reason to avoid gaming consoles, and support DRM free gaming and distributors, like GOG, Desura and etc. who have a principal DRM free stance.

GoG and Desura are equals to current gen. consoles. All require internet to download new games, all let you play games while offline/when you want. Side benefits of consoles is getting new games without internet.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Fri 5th Apr 2013 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

No, there is a key difference. Firstly I'm talking about purely digital purchasing, not about buying retail games. For such you naturally need connection at least to buy and download the purchase. That's a good thing. But then you can backup the installer and don't need Internet to install and play the game again. In contrast, DRMed services require you connecting for their servers each time you install the game, or each time you play (or both). DRM free means - both aren't formally required once you got the installer.

Edited 2013-04-05 17:29 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Beta on Sat 6th Apr 2013 00:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

No, there is a key difference. Firstly I'm talking about purely digital purchasing, not about buying retail games.

I added that for the obvious advantage you were ignoring.

But then you can backup the installer and don't need Internet to install and play the game again. In contrast, DRMed services require you connecting for their servers each time you install the game, or each time you play (or both). DRM free means

I know what DRM free means, i’m just interested in people looking at this fairly. You can’t resell the games you buy at GoG or Desura, right?

The only difference between them is you can install offline, as PS3 allows you to backup your PSN downloads to hdd, no idea about Xbox. Ignoring multiplayer‐only games, no PS3 games require being online to run them. Even Journey which is very much multiplayer works absolutely without ’net.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by shmerl
by WereCatf on Fri 5th Apr 2013 14:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

This is another reason to avoid gaming consoles, and support DRM free gaming and distributors, like GOG, Desura and etc. who have a principal DRM free stance.


Be sure to check GOG's sales this weekend: 10 D&D RPGs for $20! ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Fri 5th Apr 2013 17:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

You can also support the request for adding Linux games there ;) http://gog.com/en/wishlist/site/add_linux_versions_of_games

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by WereCatf on Fri 5th Apr 2013 17:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

You can also support the request for adding Linux games there ;) http://gog.com/en/wishlist/site/add_linux_versions_of_games


I actually have voiced my wish for them to add that something like a year ago already. And I'm still hoping to see Homeworld and its sequel on GOG one day ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Fri 5th Apr 2013 18:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

I'm still waiting too ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Sat 6th Apr 2013 15:35 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Most people want to relax in front of their TV and be entertained.

I love some of your unrealistic solutions you put forward.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Sun 7th Apr 2013 03:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

PC games aren't any worse and they aren't forcing people into locked platforms.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Sun 7th Apr 2013 11:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

However most PC games you need to be at the computer, most don't work with a controller properly and while you can use things like Xpadder it simply isn't realistic to think that people will do this.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by WereCatf on Sun 7th Apr 2013 11:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

However most PC games you need to be at the computer, most don't work with a controller properly


I only know of Darksiders that doesn't work terribly well with a controller unless it's the Xbox Controller for Windows, all the other console-ports that I have work just fine with the Mad Catz - made crappy piece of crap that I have.

Reply Score: 2

phoudoin
Member since:
2006-06-09

Next XBox must convince me to buy it, first.
And any requirement unforced without consent on potential customer make it less and less potential...

Reply Score: 2

rsmithers
Member since:
2011-08-03

New Yorker here. My internet service is pretty good, despite occasional service outages. But when "hurricane" Sandy came, much of the city had no power for days. Some of it had no power for more than a week. Some cable internet providers were down. Some DSL switching boxes and centers were down. I have friends who got together and whiled away the time playing Xbox on generator power for days. To them, this was when the cost of their gaming setups really proved worthwhile.

Reply Score: 4

Not anymore a gaming platform
by phoudoin on Fri 5th Apr 2013 14:54 UTC
phoudoin
Member since:
2006-06-09

It's not anymore a console able to run games.
It's a (thick) terminal to a gaming service.
An expensive one, most probably.

The guys behing the servers could then turns your expensive gaming terminal into a useless piece of hardware. Voluntary (planned obsolescence, terms of service unilateral changes) or not (servers's down - hi EA! ;-).

Microsoft don't sale anymore Flight Simulator X, but I still can play it. My son enjoy it!
Why oh why I'll accept to trade this freedom for an overpriced gaming terminal on which I'll have absolutely zero ownership control except to drop it in a trashcan!?

Never.

First, Surface.
Next, locked-in XBox.
Please, Microsoft, don't stop, you're on the good track .

Reply Score: 7

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

planned obsolescence


I think this is precisely what it is.

Every console that is produced and sold today must compete with the ever-growing list of "legacy" consoles that came before it.

The number of good cheap used games out there is ridiculous - and the average person could probably keep themselves busy and entertained for a very long time playing them. I know this, because that's what I do ;)

I am mostly uninterested in social gaming aspects - I don't care much for multiplayer games - I just want something I can sit down and play for an hour or two when I need to wind down. My kids are a little more involved - but I catch them re-playing the old console games all the time anyway.

I'll stick with my garage-sale specials, these new-fangled, crippled game systems just don't interest me.

Reply Score: 7

gsyoungblood
Member since:
2007-01-09

Has no one learned anything from history? Whether services or tangible goods, if it requires a remote component to operate, and if you don't have the bits to replace the remote component, eventually it will be taken away and/or have problems.
- Google Reader
- SimCity launch problems
- Microsoft PlaysForSure
and the list goes on.

The problem with any of these games or consoles or pretty much anything that requires a phone home, whether by internet or telephone or secret code, is that eventually there's no home to call back to.

Recall Microsoft's PlaysForSure music DRM scheme? It wasn't as successful as they wanted, so the shuttered the service. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/04/drm-sucks-red...

Key quote: '"You will need to obtain a license key for each of your songs downloaded from MSN Music on any new computer, and you must do so before August 31, 2008. If you attempt to transfer your songs to additional computers after August 31, 2008, those songs will not successfully play."'

Never mind the question of whether or not you really bought something if it requires calling home in order to function. The bottom line is that unless _you_ are given the code, or servers, or means to setup your own "home" for the device to call back to when - NOT IF - WHEN the entity behind the device decides to stop supporting their device, then you're essentially left with a paperweight.

And what happens if your online account or device "hardware" gets banned for any reason? Imagine the fun hackers could have breaking into Microsoft and blacklisting the world. Or, if there is a major compromise and the service has to be taken offline for it to be repaired. Think it won't? Look at Sony. How long was their online service disrupted?

They are essentially leasing these consoles. And they are taking additional steps to kill the second-hand market, like various entities have been trying to do for years.

The only way I can think of this being remotely palatable is if the game console and individual game prices are highly, highly subsidized - as in $99 for a good mid to high end console and no more than $30 for games, probably closer to $20. After all, once Microsoft decides it's time for everyone to upgrade, they'll just turn the servers off and all these will be worthless. :/

People will get what they deserve if they buy into this racket. Whether from Microsoft, Sony, Google, or anyone else.

Edited 2013-04-05 15:19 UTC

Reply Score: 10

Never bought an Xbox, never will
by tuaris on Fri 5th Apr 2013 15:29 UTC
tuaris
Member since:
2007-08-05

I can't imagine why anyone would buy an Xbox to begin with, but hopefully this online requirement will knock some sense into people. Don't buy an xbox.

Reply Score: 0

Innvate like it's 1984 (or 1700)
by Verenkeitin on Fri 5th Apr 2013 15:43 UTC
Verenkeitin
Member since:
2007-07-01

Always on net connection and always on camera. Isn't it obvious that the xbox brand will be retired and replaced with:

Micosoft PANOPTICON Live Home Edition

Reply Score: 4

In a way this is for the best
by Chrispynutt on Fri 5th Apr 2013 15:54 UTC
Chrispynutt
Member since:
2012-03-14

We need the idea of 'always on' to seem so toxic it is actually damaging to the career of clueless execs.

If this disaster changes the Next Xbox policy, along with the Sim City mess, sheer feral self interest might stop this particular bad line of thought being employed in the future. Not that I expect them to understand why it is so bad, merely that they need to save their own skin.

Reply Score: 3

RE: In a way this is for the best
by Lennie on Mon 8th Apr 2013 10:19 UTC in reply to "In a way this is for the best"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

There is still a chance the majority of the people will just keep buying it and all vendors will adopt it. The rest can choose not to buy anything.

Reply Score: 2

I have a giant stack of Xbox games
by ze_jerkface on Fri 5th Apr 2013 17:13 UTC
ze_jerkface
Member since:
2012-06-22

I'm the ideal customer since I will toss a $60 game into my basket when getting groceries without much thought. I don't spend much on movies so it really doesn't bother me to pay full price.

I sometimes take my Xbox to the coast where internet ranges from non-existent to spotty and slow. I also take a 32" LED if the cabin has an older tv.

So I'll be protest-buying a PS4 on day one, even if there aren't any games I want. Maybe I will use it to play PS1 classics. Microsoft fanboys will have to make up for my lost sales, just as I said they would have to with Surface. How is that working out?

Reply Score: 2

Novan_Leon Member since:
2005-12-07

I agree with your sentiments; however, as for the PS4, I doubt you'll be able to play any of the older Playstation games until/if they get the Gaikai-style streaming service online.

That is, unless the PS4 is beefy enough to brute force emulate PS1/2 games (perhaps it is?).

Reply Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I agree with your sentiments; however, as for the PS4, I doubt you'll be able to play any of the older Playstation games until/if they get the Gaikai-style streaming service online.

That is, unless the PS4 is beefy enough to brute force emulate PS1/2 games (perhaps it is?).


It's an 8-core system with 8GB RAM and a capable GPU, it should be able to emulate PS1 and PS2 just fine. PS3 is out of the question, but the rumours say that PS3-games will be handled by Gaikai-based streaming. Of course, it being beefy enough to emulate PS1&PS2 doesn't mean that Sony will allow you to do that; they may want you to stream those, too, via Gaikai, or that you shell out more money and buy them from the online-store. In other words, don't count on anything yet until the details are known for certain.

Reply Score: 2

Sounds like a douche.
by UltraZelda64 on Fri 5th Apr 2013 18:09 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

I already am against Sony and have been since the first PlayStation. I have been against Microsoft as a company for years (especially for their operating systems, abusive monopolistic practices, etc.), but when it came to gaming (specifically, Xbox) or certain PC hardware peripherals, I typically let it slide.

First, the so-called "New Xbox Experience," ads constantly burning into your eyes produced by a system and games that do not come cheap, and now... always on Internet as a requirement to top it off. And if that weren't bad enough, a Microsoft employee trying to "defend" it while simultaneously sounding like a douche.

If I got shitty cell phone reception, damn right I wouldn't get a cell phone; a regular house phone would do. When the electricity goes out, 99% of the time it's natural and weather-related (ie. a storm); in other words, not really the fault of the electric company. Internet? Not so much. But that's okay, because I never play online games, so using this logic the unwanted requirement to always be online so they can "watch" me will just leave me with Nintendo for my video game fix.

No problem there, because I have pretty much been a Nintendo fan since I was young. They're the only company that seems to remain true to their traditional goals without selling out.

Reply Score: 1

The way of things
by oskeladden on Fri 5th Apr 2013 18:35 UTC
oskeladden
Member since:
2009-08-05

I'm not so sure this is about DRM or planned obsolescence - the Xbox is pretty much nailed down with DRM already, so this won't give Microsoft much beyond what they already have, and gamers tend to be very eager upgraders anyway. I can't see how the added revenue from this would be significant in the overall context of their revenues.

I might just be being a grumpy old-timer here ("Harumph. In MY day, young man..."), but to me this is just another manifestation of a broader shift in the approach to consumer IT. Things today seem to be a lot less about giving users choice and freedom to come up with their own way of doing things and then letting them keep doing things their own way. Instead, they're a lot more about coming up with shiny new use-paradigms which they then push as the ONE TRUE WAY(TM) to do things. Microsoft, EA, and other gaming companies have decided that always-online social gaming is the way of the future, so that's the paradigm their gaming devices are going to reflect. This is no different from Metro, or Gnome Shell, or zillions of other such things. The underlying attitude is that the company knows better than the user what's best, and users' interests are best served by the company pushing users down that path.

None of this is objectively good or bad - some folks will like it, others won't. At the end of the day, we live in a free market, thank G-d, so it'll ultimately be gamers who decide whether they like this paradigm or not, and there'll always be companies working to different paradigms.

Reply Score: 3

We play Xbox when camping
by Priest on Fri 5th Apr 2013 20:09 UTC
Priest
Member since:
2006-05-12

We have a TV and an Xbox in the camper. We don't connect it to the Internet when we play and sometimes we use the Xbox at places where there isn't even mobile service available.

I also don't want to run Xbox over my mobile phone plan because a single game download would put me over my 2G limit.

You would say, why do you bring an Xbox camping? My response would be sometimes "camping" is just an excuse to hang out with friends by the fire and drink a few beers. It isn't about being survivor-man. The Xbox gives the kids something to do while adults hang out.

Numerous people used PSOne this way as well bringing it along on road trips with the attached screen.

A storm knocked our power out for a couple days last year but we have a generator. Even steam, a service with no physical media, has an offline mode.

His vacuum cleaner analogy is crap because it would only be relevant if people were angry if they could play multiplier online while connected to the Internet which would be agreeably stupid. Obviously I could not use the vacuum cleaner without power but I sure as hell should still be able to use a broom.

If they have to come up with analogies that stupid to justify their actions it is time to reconsider their position.

Reply Score: 4

RE: We play Xbox when camping
by umccullough on Fri 5th Apr 2013 23:56 UTC in reply to "We play Xbox when camping"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

We have a TV and an Xbox in the camper. We don't connect it to the Internet when we play and sometimes we use the Xbox at places where there isn't even mobile service available.


Absolutely... I've connected various game consoles to the ceiling-mounted screen's inputs in our car plenty of times so the kids can play some games during long trips.

Gamecube, N64, PS2 are good for that - clearly the next generation Xbox is not.

Reply Score: 3

Sounds good to me...
by mahiyu on Fri 5th Apr 2013 21:44 UTC
mahiyu
Member since:
2010-08-06

I have to say, I'm quite pleased with this. When I get tempted by the new XBox, I'll just think of the always-on requirement (and Microsoft's attitude) and the money will stay in my account. Good result for me ;)

Reply Score: 2

Idiotic analogies
by Soulbender on Sat 6th Apr 2013 04:15 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

Yeah, people who live in areas with really spotty mobile coverage usually don't get mobile phones. Imagine that. Most people also don't vacuum their house nearly as often as they play games so it's not a problem if the power occasionally goes out. Also, comparing electrical power to always-on internet is just moronic beyond belief.

Goddamn city slickers.

Edited 2013-04-06 04:15 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Fired
by IndigoJo on Sat 6th Apr 2013 07:31 UTC
IndigoJo
Member since:
2005-07-06

The updates at the bottom of the article you linked suggested that Orth might have been fired.

Reply Score: 2

the more they overtake the plumbing...
by redshift on Sat 6th Apr 2013 16:43 UTC
redshift
Member since:
2006-05-06

MS and TIme-Warner Cable have both had extended unplanned outages over holidays when they did not have the proper staff on duty to fix it quickly. Previously, I might of been able to play something like Oblivion that did not care if it was online.

It always seems that when I finally have time to play a more involved game, the internet decides to break.

If the game has real features that require a online connection, then fine. But don't do it just for the hell of it, or for draconian DRM.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sat 6th Apr 2013 17:15 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

Fighting piracy by punishing everybody has never and will never work. Microsoft just can't seem to get anything right lately.

If the next xbox requires an always-on internet connection, I will not be buying it. Period. If I buy a gaming console, I own it. If I buy a game, I own it. It's unacceptable to me that a gaming console requires an internet connection or it will shut itself off. It's unacceptable to me that Microsoft be given the power to control when & where I play games that I've purchased.

I plan on buying one of the next generation consoles, and I planned on it being an xbox. But unless Microsoft reverses themselves on this issue, I'll gladly be giving Sony my money this time.

Reply Score: 3

Microsoft's corporate mindset is
by Sasparilla on Sat 6th Apr 2013 18:19 UTC
Sasparilla
Member since:
2007-12-07

As a xBox and now 360 user who rarely plays online, I can say I will never get the new Xbox if Microsoft runs with this stupid idea (probably so they can sell the info to what you are doing 24/7 to some yahoos or just themselves).

They were never a consumer oriented company and this is just an example of where they come from with their corporate mindset (i.e. we can do whatever the x!#$ we want cause you have to come through us).

Well sir, no I don't and since the PS4 won't be doing this (and Bungie will be on that now) and will run very similar hardware, it makes that choice very easy.

Reply Score: 1

Hm...SimCity
by TomB on Sat 6th Apr 2013 21:53 UTC
TomB
Member since:
2013-04-06

Sounds like somebody didn't learn from the SimCity experiment... I will NOT buy this device, simply due to this "feature".

Reply Score: 1

Don't buy.
by crhylove on Sun 7th Apr 2013 18:24 UTC
crhylove
Member since:
2010-04-10

Just one more reason not top buy their corporate crap. I PC game exclusively, and guess what? Not missing anything:

Dolphin= every wii game (Mario Kart, new super Mario Bros)
N64 emu (Dr Mario, super Mario 64)
snes emu (super Mario world, mortal Kombat 2)
Ps2 emu
Psx emu
Civilization2 (funnest version)
Urban terror
Gta San andreas
More.....

All in high def. All using a real wiimote + blue tooth. No disks, cartridges,online fees, and actually no fees art all!

I look at people throwing money away on consoles like they are literally insane.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Don't buy.
by bentoo on Mon 8th Apr 2013 02:06 UTC in reply to "Don't buy."
bentoo Member since:
2012-09-21

Your point? (Or did you just want to brag about how much pirating you do?)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Don't buy.
by Soulbender on Mon 8th Apr 2013 05:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Don't buy."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Using emulators is not the same as pirating.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Don't buy.
by zima on Tue 9th Apr 2013 14:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Don't buy."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, he bragged "No disks, cartridges [...] and actually no fees art all!" plus even "Don't buy" post title - so yeah, pirating.

Edited 2013-04-09 14:16 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Don't buy.
by ze_jerkface on Mon 8th Apr 2013 16:21 UTC in reply to "Don't buy."
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

Not missing anything except for PS3 and 360 games.

Got it.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by orestes
by orestes on Sun 7th Apr 2013 19:31 UTC
orestes
Member since:
2005-07-06

It won't be a concern, given their track record it'll only take 3 minutes to RRoD anyway

Reply Score: 1

ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

circle jerkings. Plenty of action right here!

Microsoft has not announced anything. It's all speculation.

Reply Score: 3

bentoo Member since:
2012-09-21

Agreed. And it wasn't even really "Microsoft" but one of the thousands of people working there (albeit a manager of some sort) posting from his personal account. Nice troll Thom.

Edited 2013-04-08 02:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Agreed. And it wasn't even really "Microsoft" but one of the thousands of people working there (albeit a manager of some sort) posting from his personal account. Nice troll Thom.


Well, even Paul Thurrott now says that the always-on requirement is a true fact: http://www.gamespot.com/news/subscription-based-xbox-720-priced-at-...

How does that factor in with your claim of Thom being a troll?

Reply Score: 2

bentoo Member since:
2012-09-21

How does that factor in with your claim of Thom being a troll?


"Microsoft ridicules concerns over always-on for next Xbox"

Obvious really.

Reply Score: 2

One Step Closer
by FunkyELF on Mon 8th Apr 2013 13:37 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

They're trying to make is acceptable to not be able to sell used games.

This is just one little step.

There is no good reason for this requirement.

Reply Score: 2

Network Control == Total Control?
by im_herb on Mon 8th Apr 2013 14:44 UTC
im_herb
Member since:
2013-04-08

So, let me get this straight: if my teenagers get one of these things, and convince me to put its MAC address on my network, when I turn off that MAC address at midnight, I'm also forcing them off the entire system? Sweet! More <3 to Micro$oft!

This policy of theirs makes me happy, but will disgruntle game lovers everywhere. ;)

Reply Score: 1