• 82 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by audioBusting (1507 posts) -

PRO: It might not actually require an always-online connection, it might simply prefer one

What is the point of this article, again?

Online
#52 Posted by President_Barackbar (3455 posts) -

Freaking out about a rumor that got a guy FIRED for basically saying "Eh, fuck y'all, ain't no big deal!" seems pretty dumb to me.

That guy got fired because the way he acted represented his company poorly in a very public forum.

#53 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@president_barackbar: Specifically by being cavalier about the effects that an always online console would have on certain parts of the market.

#54 Posted by thomasnash (553 posts) -

@salarn said:

As a developer knowing the console is always online and willing to accept title updates is great, so is knowing that ever title is going to be fully installed or if for some reason we wanted to use the kinect (or PS4 new move) knowing that everyone has one makes it a lot more attractive.

This could be a net negative for the consumer. People already complain about a suspected rise in day-one patches reflecting less care being put into polishing the "final" product. So saying that developers now don't have to worry about edge cases who aren't connected having to play their busted ass game because everyone will get the patch could be seen as promoting poor development practices.

#55 Posted by TomLaFleur (4 posts) -

The reality is that the majority of countries just aren't ready for this and Microsoft should know that. I live in Australia where our internet is below par for a first world country and it just wouldn't work. That's only scraping the surface of all the problems it would cause. IGN are hopeless and as usual are just trying to stir the pot with ridiculous articles like this, the same can be said about their review scores.

#56 Posted by I_Stay_Puft (3202 posts) -

You could have an alibi if you commit some sort of heist.

#57 Edited by Humanity (9054 posts) -

While I actually gave this some thought and couldn't think of anything substantial that could be gained from having to always be online I'm SURE that there are a lot of people at Microsoft that are much smarter than I am that are being paid big bucks to come up with ideas that I simply can't even imagine. At the PS3 conference when they talked about the ability to put your console to sleep basically and then turn it back on and resume playing exactly where you left of - such a simple idea and yet I never even thought of it before. I would rather stay positive and think that this will somehow benefit us in the long run - so when online speeds and fibre optic cables make another leap forward maybe Microsoft will suddenly be ahead of the curve offering games directly streamed to your console and such. I haven't a clue but I'm sure, or at least hoping, that someone at Microsoft does.

#58 Edited by EXTomar (4687 posts) -

I'm actually very receptive to cloud services. I think how Apple TV and Roku work is actually quite slick and leverages a lot of tech where to do that sort of hardware a few years ago would require something that looked more like a PC which is frankly over kill.

What I am worried about isn't this kind of service but Microsoft's particular brand where looking at their other products their pricing is very much not what I believe this market will support well. I don't hate the idea of a drive less/always cloud connected XBox but I do not like how Microsoft is handling their current "always cloud connected" services where asking me money for that is very much not desirable. Of course it is still speculative but I have this dreadful feeling that I'm going to be disappointed when they announce their service and pricing due to what I see they are doing today. I'm only speaking for myself and it is still only a hunch but the pieces are aligning in this way (the talk about the cheaper model, the talk about the model offset by monthly contract, the direction Win8 and other products have taken, etc).

#59 Posted by bluefish (447 posts) -

Ofcourse Microsoft want a online only console, how are they supposed to show you ads when you are offline.

I hate that garbage so damn much. Thinking about going PS4 next gen, more influanced by stuff like that than you might think.

As much as the cross-media bar is a little 'whatever' it's quiet and I actually feel vaguely respected as a customer.

#60 Posted by Tennmuerti (8073 posts) -

Steam is not always online. Someone is clearly misusing the term. Steam A. has an offline mode and most importantly B. does not boot you out of all it's games as soon as you have an internet hiccup or their servers go down. I can keep playing all my singplayer games just fine if I get disconnected. Steam is just "online" it's not "always online" type of drm. It's in fact a perfect example of a great not "always online" system that gets all the benefits of one without the shitty drawbacks. You still get your seamless patches and updates etc

Always online is how Ubisoft DRM used to be. It's how Diablo 3 works. Loose the connection and you get kicked out of the game, loose progress, can't play it anymore and nothing you could do about it period. Your gameplay is completely at the whims of your connection and their servers.

#61 Edited by Korolev (1703 posts) -

Any benefit to the consumer with an "always online" console, huh? Well, I love playing devil's advocate. So here goes......

1) With an always online connnection, Microsoft can continuously bombard you with up-to-date, up-to-the-minute advertisements and commercials for new games! You'll never NOT know whenever Microsoft wants to sell you something! Isn't that..... great?

2) You can rest assured that the clock on your new Xbox will always be at the correct time, since it will update when it connects to the internet. You'll NEVER again have to spend hours agonizing "Is my Xbox Clock at the correct time? What if it's not? HOW DO I KNOW!?"

3) Because it will stop functioning if the internet goes out... you'll know straight away when your internet goes out in your area! You'll be one of the first to know "yep the internet's gone out", whenever it does, because you won't be able to play your games! Then you can be the first (or one of the first) to tell your friends "Hey, the internet's gone down".

4) It's more future-y! 60 years ago people didn't have to connect to the internet all the time. Hell, even NOW people don't have to connect to the internet all the time. But by having a device which requires Constant Internet Access (CIA), you'll.... be that much more in the future. I guess? It's a feature because we say it is!

5) It'll somehow stop Hackers.... maybe? I guess? Well, you can't prove it WON'T stop hackers! So, therefore, it might! Theoretically! Somehow!

6) You'll never not be playing your Xbox without the latest dashboard. Because as we know, that makes all the difference in the world!

So... there. Six reasons. You didn't say they had to be good reasons.

#62 Edited by Dagbiker (6970 posts) -

@MordeaniisChaos or, did he get fired because he signed a nondisclosure, and basicly say, yah xbox is always online.

#63 Edited by Hunter5024 (5617 posts) -

"Hey Hunter5024 you want to come over and hang out?" My friend asks.

"Nawh. I've got homework." I lie.

Hunter5024 is Online!

Hunter5024 is playing Fable IV!

Lets try to avoid this scenario Microsoft. Fucking Narc.

#64 Edited by MedalOfMode (294 posts) -

Worst Article Ever Wrote. I live in Turkey, okey, I agree there is a lot of people who always plays pirate games. But there is a group (like 5.500-6.500 people) plays original games. And also no real high-speed connections in Turkey.

#65 Edited by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@dagbiker said:

@MordeaniisChaos or, did he get fired because he signed a nondisclosure, and basicly say, yah xbox is always online.

Microsoft made a statement condemning his behavior. They wouldn't have fired a guy just for letting the cat out of the bag a little early. He was fired for his behavior. He also never stated that it was real, just that people should stop acting like it's the end of the world.

@korolev: Don't be silly. Having your Xbox online hasn't done anything to keep that damn clock right in the past. WHY WOULD THEY START NOW?

@extomar: People who complain about the cost of Xbox Live drive me nuts. It's $5 a freaking month. Hell, it's less if you know where to buy it. You can get a year of Live for what, $50? I spend that much on Giantbomb every year. If you can afford internet, you can afford Xbox Live, and Sony has yet to prove that PSN is or will ever be XBL's equal. Much less it's better. Sure, the social aspects will get better. But will the actual multiplayer experience improve? In my experience things like matchmaking are slower and significantly worse on the PS3. Populations are often smaller. Voice is barely ever used. Will all of that change? And what will Microsoft do to improve their game relevant stuff and their social stuff? I'm okay paying a few bucks a month for a better service.

And don't you dare bring PS+ in to compare to XBL Gold. They are totally different services. PS+ is basically a rewards program. It doesn't fix the problems of PSN it's just a distraction. It's a cool one and a good service, but it's not making my PSN experience any better or worse.

#66 Edited by Hippie_Genocide (568 posts) -

@mordeaniischaos: Re: Xbox Live Fees, to me it's not the price, it's the principle of it all. I wouldn't care if it was $1 a month, it's something that should cost zero. On PC I can do everything XBL does and a lot more and it doesn't cost a thing. That's why GFW Live failed. I also don't like how MS hide all their "additional services" behind a Gold paywall. So I don't support that. Looking at just the console space, I think that's how MS gets away with it. PSN is not as good as XBL, no one will dispute that. If you are super into Halo and Gears and want to play that online, then XBL is for you. For everything else, it's a total scam.

#67 Edited by TheManWithNoPlan (5428 posts) -

It's pretty simple. The main problem people have is that without an internet connection the console or device can't function at all. I'm pretty sure no one minds if there are online capabilities as long as you can turn the damn thing on and play a game without an internet connection.

Of course, they're still rumors. For all we know, Microsoft could come out and grab all of our attention with a kick ass console. Presumably, we'll find out next month.

#68 Posted by The_Doctor_52 (14 posts) -

The biggest pro is that your never not getting screwed.

#69 Edited by Whitestripes09 (401 posts) -

I don't think that having an always online console is bad unless it doesn't allow me to play the games I own offline. I think it would be great if consoles were on a stand by mode and were able to download updates in the background or allowing me to purchase new content via computer or cellphone and have it already downloaded and ready to rock when I get home.

#70 Posted by Humanity (9054 posts) -

"Hey Hunter5024 you want to come over and hang out?" My friend asks.

"Nawh. I've got homework." I lie.

Hunter5024 is Online!

Hunter5024 is playing Fable IV!

Lets try to avoid this scenario Microsoft. Fucking Narc.

There are options to be invisible when signing on or playing games on the 360.

#71 Edited by myketuna (1679 posts) -

The only time I had a problem with Offline mode in Steam was back in 2005 or 2006 when I wanted to play Half-Life Anthology. I believe it didn't work. Since then, the many times I've tried it and the many, many times my internet has cut out, I've had no problems.

However, that is only due to Valve's experience. I believe Microsoft might try to come at this a little too hard should this "always-online" thing be true. That being said, I do think Microsoft will have some kind of "online makes stuff better, buy Gold guys" thing going on. Whether or not it will be a solid mandate, I'm still leaning toward no. Microsoft isn't that dumb, right? I admire their tenacity for stuff like Windows 8 and sticking with no start menu and new UI on top, but if they do that again here, I don't think it will fly. And the Windows 8 thing really isn't getting off the ground either.

#72 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@hippie_genocide: And that's the PC. Things are different there. MS is competing with PSN, which sucks. When PSN manages to be totally awesome like XBL is, without any price of any kind, then I'll be okay with people who are against "the principle" of paying for what you fucking use. Because at least the free option will come close to comparing. But right now, it doesn't.

#73 Posted by Hunter5024 (5617 posts) -
#74 Edited by Ares42 (2623 posts) -

@mordeaniischaos said:

@hippie_genocide: And that's the PC. Things are different there. MS is competing with PSN, which sucks. When PSN manages to be totally awesome like XBL is, without any price of any kind, then I'll be okay with people who are against "the principle" of paying for what you fucking use. Because at least the free option will come close to comparing. But right now, it doesn't.

I've always found it curious how people find XBL to be some totally awesome thing. I've honestly yet to experience a great time online on either of my consoles. I get it if you play a lot online with a group of friends, but all you're basically paying for is a conference call feature. I guess that could be worth it, but I've never found the "online headset" experience that enjoyable (especially not without push-to-talk).

#75 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@ares42 said:

@mordeaniischaos said:

@hippie_genocide: And that's the PC. Things are different there. MS is competing with PSN, which sucks. When PSN manages to be totally awesome like XBL is, without any price of any kind, then I'll be okay with people who are against "the principle" of paying for what you fucking use. Because at least the free option will come close to comparing. But right now, it doesn't.

I've always found it curious how people find XBL to be some totally awesome thing. I've honestly yet to experience a great time online on either of my consoles. I get it if you play a lot online with a group of friends, but all you're basically paying for is a conference call feature. I guess that could be worth it, but I've never found the "online headset" experience that enjoyable (especially not without push-to-talk).

Playing with friends on XBL? Painless and with pretty much every feature you'd want. It's really easy to invite people because it's integrated deep into the OS, and there are a lot of ways to get people together to play. Get in a party, invite from there, invite from friends list, invite the whole party, send out a beacon. And the only thing I've ever had to complain about with people talking on live is the people, not the service. And even then, it's usually a positive experience. And I've played a lot of Halo on predominantly team playlists. When people do talk, they are not usually the stereotypical asswipe, and when they organize that's pretty awesome.

And, in my experience, the matchmaking environment is much better for Microsoft games, for a number of reasons. For one, most of today's good matchmaking practices came from internally within Microsoft projects. Halo is kind of the granddaddy of modern matchmaking. And, in my opinion, Microsoft does a better job of encouraging and fostering and sharing what their devs have learned about things like matchmaking in competitive online games. In fact, doesn't XBL have it's own sort of matchmaking system hidden away in it's deep depths based on lessons learned with Halo 2 or something? I could be totally wrong, but I am not wrong about external/semi-external progress on that front.

PSN on the other hand, makes just about everything more difficult than it needs to be, and has yet to be modernized to stand up against XBL's feature set.

#76 Edited by Ares42 (2623 posts) -

@mordeaniischaos said:

@ares42 said:

For one, most of today's good matchmaking practices came from internally within Microsoft projects.

I guess this really is the core of my disdain for console online experiences. I just really dislike what has become the standard practice of matchmaking. And without that things like inviting people to games/groups etc becomes unnecessary. Guess I'm just a tad too old-school favoring servers =)

Anyways, to get a tad more on topic @extomar actually pointed out the first real potential pro to always-online I've ever seen, although it's not really a new idea anymore. If MS decided to go all OnLive it would mean that the initial investment would become substantially cheaper, which would be a good thing for the customer. Although it would come at the heavy cost of an inferior service and probably a more costly investment in the long run. It's actually sorta curious how we've already had this dreaded always-online console in the market and it didn't create anywhere near the same amount of outrage.

#77 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@ares42: I'm a PC gamer, I love the server way of doing things. But it's not the easiest to find a good server especially on a really well populated game. And they make it really easy to play with friends on Xbox Live, even when you're hopping into playlists in Halo. And you can still make custom games, in fact that much is a lot easier than on PC.

#78 Edited by EXTomar (4687 posts) -

What are you talking about? Microsoft is no more responsible for the multiplayer in Black Ops 2 than I am. Microsoft doesn't fix anything when it goes bad. Microsoft doesn't address balance issues. Microsoft doesn't even offer suggestions to Treyarch on how to do things better. Exactly what am I paying Microsoft for? If I am giving money to anyone it is going to be the developer.

If Microsoft wants to charge me a subscription for a game Microsoft produced and maintained then that is completely fair. I will not pay Microsoft to access the online features of a game they had nothing to do with nor will be responsible for maintenance or fixes.

#79 Posted by Hippie_Genocide (568 posts) -

@hippie_genocide: And that's the PC. Things are different there. MS is competing with PSN, which sucks. When PSN manages to be totally awesome like XBL is, without any price of any kind, then I'll be okay with people who are against "the principle" of paying for what you fucking use. Because at least the free option will come close to comparing. But right now, it doesn't.

MS is competing for consumer dollars in the videogame entertainment space, period. It's not the 1980's anymore, where you can cleanly divide PC gamers and console gamers. Those lines are beyond blurred. I bet very few people on this site exclusively game on one or the other. I used to think the way you do. I used to call XBL fees a pittance compared to what you got for it. But I get nickeled and dimed so often in life this was one area where I had to say enough is enough. Ironically, it was the gold paywall stuff that was the last straw. It just makes MS look so desperate to try give the illusion that their service has value. Ooooh, Netflix Streaming and Internet Fucking Explorer, cuz I can't get that on every device known to mankind for free. It'll be interesting to see what the online on PS4 will be, and how much they'll charge for it. I think we're all expecting that free online is going bye bye, aren't we? Everyone at Sony realizes they are behind the curve and they need to step it up big time. MS is due for their comeuppance.

#80 Edited by isomeri (1254 posts) -

The computer you'r probably reading this thread from is designed to be "always online". Sure you can use your computer without the internet, but to do what exactly? Mess around in Photoshop or listen to the music stored on your hard-drive? That's pretty much it.

#81 Edited by spyder335 (289 posts) -

@isomeri: i can play games, watch dvds, listen to music, read books. So theres heaps i can do on my computer without it being online, i want the option to play online not mandatory online.

it was not all that long ago when people flipped the fuck out over the ubisoft DRM crap and that was just one company.

#82 Posted by SexyToad (2760 posts) -

Okay there is benefeits to having an online console, but 0 benefeits to having it required.

#83 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@hippie_genocide: You mention a bunch of useless shit and act like we should care about them the same way MS acts like we should. But the IMPORTANT features are still there. And on PC, you don't have one service that gives all of those things. No one uses Steam for voice chat, rarely for any kind of communication. It's a place to buy games, and for some games, you can invite and join through Steam. Not even all games let you do that. Not because there is some design imperative there, but just because they didn't put it in there.

So you've got Skype, or Ventrillo for voice chat and text chat if you really want it. Steam for buying games, and in some cases invites. But again, it's just "join" or "invite" there are no features like the beacon (something like that existing in Steam Groups would be AWESOME if it was given to everyone so if you wanted to find people to play a custom game easily, you could. In XBL, you just need to have enough friends and set a beacon and it's all good.

Xbox Live also has demos for all games exclusive to it's service. All XBLA games have demos. That's awesome. Even the "Only on Steam" games don't do that. In fact, Steam is TERRIBLE about getting demos. But because they put it behind a bit of a paywall in XBL (just a delay) they can invest more in getting demos even outside of their service, which means they continue to be the best place to go and try a game for the platform before you buy it.

And yeah, PC is absolutely different. You can mix and match different feature sets to get what you want. But it's not unified, and it's not at all the same thing, and even the features don't cross over entirely.