I'll happily skip this entire console generation without a single regret. Now, the handhelds on the other hand...
Microsoft Officially Denies "Always On" For Xbox One
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
haha oh my god, what is your avatar from? that is the first time in a while i've laughed at a gifSolo-Wing said:
OT:
looks like i'll be skipping this console generation entirely, MAYBE getting a ps4 for the last of us and a couple other exclusives (KH 3 and ff 13 versus i presume)
that is hilarious/amazing, if ANYONE can tell me what anime that is, i'd be most appreciativeSolo-Wing said:I actually do not know where it is from. I just found it from the interwebs.gmaverick019 said:
But here have the full Gif.
I'll agree on the flame wars for now, but to counter your point, didn't something like this happen with "Achievements" when they came out?Midniqht said:
I don't quite remember the details too clearly since it's been years since i saw this but from what i remember, MS said that they were completely optional for the Dev's to implement into their games at first, few years later they become mandatory in every game, and it's true, when was the last time you saw a game on the Xbox 360 that didn't have achievements after that transpired?
I know Achievements aren't exactly very concerning, like core features of a system and if it contains substance is completely subjective to an individuals personal interest but remember, they were once a feature that was just added in to give more incentive for players and now they're necessary for a game to even be considered for publishing.
Like i said I don't quite remember how it went very vividly but this is how i remember it, of course if you don't believe me that's fine with me.
but tell me this. When has a company ever been completely honest of it's business practices or relations?
There are a few games for which you have to be always-on, like MMOs. There are other games in which most players spend a significant amount of time online, like FPSs with strong multiplayer components.
For pretty much everything else, always-online is the 3DTV of the gaming world: they really, really want to sell it to us, and they really, really haven't made any kind of good case that signing on is about the advantage to us rather than to them.
Cover your kidneys, Microsoft. I think you're in for a kicking.
For pretty much everything else, always-online is the 3DTV of the gaming world: they really, really want to sell it to us, and they really, really haven't made any kind of good case that signing on is about the advantage to us rather than to them.
Cover your kidneys, Microsoft. I think you're in for a kicking.
Sony, you can't mess this up. I can't even think of anything witty anymore: Microsoft has done exactly everything the entire internet was asking them not to do, or the near equivalent of it. I so hope Gamestop stonewalls their entire product line into oblivion.
I'm still tripping at the fact that most of the conference, specifically designed to show off a game console was spent not talking about games.commasplice said:
If anything, the One is a Media Center PC that happens to be able to play games for those who can't afford a "proper" (for lack of a better term) Media Center PC that happens to be able to play games.
So, it's not always online...
...except it is. Huzzah for "features", yay? Well, there goes any sliver of plans I had for buying it.
...except it is. Huzzah for "features", yay? Well, there goes any sliver of plans I had for buying it.
Good question.mirage202 said:
Also, given that the Xbone already has what sounds like a pretty obnoxious form of DRM, there can't be any anti-piracy benefit to forcing them online, so your theory is seeming more plausible.
This is so false, I intend to make a suggestion to the scientific community at large that the very definition of of a false statement would just have this by it. This. Is. A. Lie. There is NO advantage to an always online requirement, none, zilch, zero, nada, NONE. Giving the OPTION to improve experience, if and only if the user wishes? Sure! Requirement for such things as single player? Utterly untrue.
Anyway, enjoy the huge dent you're going to make in your own market, Microsoft. Seriously, did you find some way to turn your PR department staff into money directly for short term gain? 'Cause you might want to let them do their jobs first.
Kotaku is reporting that a Microsoft VP stated that single-player games, while not requiring a constant internet connection, will have to log into the internet once every 24 hours (similar to SimCity logging in every 20 minutes).
http://kotaku.com/xbox-one-does-require-internet-connection-cant-play-o-509164109
http://kotaku.com/xbox-one-does-require-internet-connection-cant-play-o-509164109
Umm...Blindrooster said:
ya... so... I'm pretty sure there was a console released not long ago that wasn't always online, was backwards compatible, let you play used games as always, and was considerably more powerful than the previous gen. Shit, what was it called again? Jeffers, get in here, I need you!
I think it's only real fault was how expensive it was, $299, who can afford that?
Nope, fuck you Microsoft, you can go suck a major donkey dick. DRM is the worst fucking idea any big money grubbing publisher has ever done and I hope it drives your company into the fucking ground. Piss off, I'm buying a muthafuckin' playstation 4.
PS Fuck you again.
PS Fuck you again.
I still don't get their line of thinking, could someone please explain it to me?
I live in one of the most densely populated cities in Scotland, I've got Virgin Broadband Unlimited or whatever, but my connection is choppy at best and liable to drop out at least once a day. There is absolutely nothing I can do to change it, it just happens; same with my phoneline.
Even before when I was with Sky, you were never guaranteed a constantly stable connection, so does this mean if I'm playing an always-on game and my internet dies the game goes with it? Will I just not be able to save?
The reason I mentioned the densely populated city part is because, when I read things about how there are still parts of America who struggle to get internet at all, never mind stable connections, and knowing there are remote islands round my own native UK which are only just getting cable laid so they can get on the internet, all I see a decision like always-on doing is erecting a barrier to trade.
In what way is it a business-savvy decision to force a change on consumers that will automatically lock out, maybe not a huge portion, but a percentage nonetheless of people who would otherwise buy their consoles and games without hesitation?
I live in one of the most densely populated cities in Scotland, I've got Virgin Broadband Unlimited or whatever, but my connection is choppy at best and liable to drop out at least once a day. There is absolutely nothing I can do to change it, it just happens; same with my phoneline.
Even before when I was with Sky, you were never guaranteed a constantly stable connection, so does this mean if I'm playing an always-on game and my internet dies the game goes with it? Will I just not be able to save?
The reason I mentioned the densely populated city part is because, when I read things about how there are still parts of America who struggle to get internet at all, never mind stable connections, and knowing there are remote islands round my own native UK which are only just getting cable laid so they can get on the internet, all I see a decision like always-on doing is erecting a barrier to trade.
In what way is it a business-savvy decision to force a change on consumers that will automatically lock out, maybe not a huge portion, but a percentage nonetheless of people who would otherwise buy their consoles and games without hesitation?
Now if it only had some games worth playing, or, hell, any games at all, we'd be in business!OlasDAlmighty said:
I'm about 80% sure that actually happened. The sequence of events strongly suggest it. I wanted to believe that MS wasn't that stupid, then I remembered Windows 8, and now I'm hearing about used games being locked out. I'm pretty sure they were that stupid.Lightknight said:
Well, damn. So they are looking to pass the blame onto developers, while actively encouraging it. I thought they would have a chance to make up for shortcomings of the previous gen here, but instead, it's just gotten worse. Here I was thinking they might lose the subscriber fees (not that big a deal, but still a consideration with the competition in PSN), and make a more stable console at launch, and offer more *optional* features.
Instead we have TV, social networking, cloud and Kinect features forced down our throat, and efforts to abolish the pre-owned market and sever a market who don't believe in always-on. Oops, I'm sorry it's not being forced down anyone's throat, because you have the option to *not* buy it. Which I won't be, you assholes. Only good thing about the 360 was the controller anyways.
Instead we have TV, social networking, cloud and Kinect features forced down our throat, and efforts to abolish the pre-owned market and sever a market who don't believe in always-on. Oops, I'm sorry it's not being forced down anyone's throat, because you have the option to *not* buy it. Which I won't be, you assholes. Only good thing about the 360 was the controller anyways.
The bigger problem is console networking has always been brutally laggy if you live outside the USA; SC2 and D3 barely scrape buy with international sales due to how shockingly bad it is.CrazyCapnMorgan said:
It could quite easily kill a game if it were to release on console to someone who didn't understand why people were rubber banding all over the place.