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.
Thread beginning with comment 557723
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 8

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by Lobotomik on Sat 6th Apr 2013 11:47 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Sat 6th Apr 2013 14:34 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 Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by bassbeast on Mon 8th Apr 2013 00:39 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by zima on Tue 9th Apr 2013 14:04 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 Parent Score: 2