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 557836
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by Lobotomik on Sat 6th Apr 2013 16:26 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by MacTO on Sun 7th Apr 2013 13:53 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by mightshade on Sun 7th Apr 2013 14:22 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 Parent Score: 3