Would you accept Always On in exchange for Free XBL?

So, i don't know if this has been discussed this in the past, but...

Would you be ok with an Always Online Xbox, if they made XBL free?

Because, the first time i heard about the always online rumor, i just thought to myself...

NO!

I don't even want to know the specifics, i don't even care to discuss it, if this thing becomes a brick when it's not conected to the internet, that's the last thing i'll ever know about the new Xbox.

But, thinking about it this way, well, maybe i'd be ok with it working like Giant Bomb.

So, you just got the console, and you don't want to pay for XBL, ok then, here's a few ads (you'll probably get bombarded with ads everywhere..)..

Fine by me, because, being on the internet all the time, i've become a master at ignoring ads...

And, if you hate ads, and you got the money to spare, and want to get a few perks like discounts on the Deals of The Week, or whatever else they come up with, you can pay for a gold account, and just enjoy Xbox Live.

I gotta say, i think i would be ok with this...

So, what do you guys think about this?

Part of the reason I moved to PC was being tired of paying for online when literally every other gaming system does not require that. But I would still rather do that than deal with always online.

I won't be doing either, though, unless something truly revolutionary comes along. And by "revolutionary" I mean "something that will be as influential as Half-Life. Or Doom. Or WoW. Or Mario."

If the new Xbox had to be always, then NOPE as well. Free xbla would not make up for it.

There has to be a value added to the system in exchange. "Free" is price and not a feature let alone a "value add".

No, there's no situation where I will be paying for online or having an always on system.

I won't be buying one if it requires always online or their pay2play subs. Its a scam and it makes me sad so many people fell for it for so long. It's going to take something mind blowing to make me get an XBox 3 and so far I have heard nothing that will make me want one. Good riddance. I only play consoles for their exclusives and the only exclusives 360 had were shooters which I despise playing with controllers. If it's just another multiplatform dumping ground with the occasional shooter exclusive like the 360 I will never own one.

always online doesn't bug me at all, so free xbl would be pretty sweet.

I personally would, but that still sounds bad for other people

Yea! And after he is done you'll get yo ass whooped by me.

I think the word "scam" is pushing it a bit.

Always online has to offer something extraordinary for it to make sense that it would be a requirement, if it doesn't have functionality that blows the doors off the 360/PS3 than what are we gaining exactly? Paying for XBL isn't a huge deal to me, so making it free just won't be enough if the benefits don't outweigh the cons.

Wait... yeah it just dawned on me that this "Always On" move sounds like a huge scam that Microsoft is trying to get everyone to buy XBLA subscriptions. Which is fucking ridiculous! BUT I think I'll wait for more news on the next generation before I jump the gun though.

No, Free Gold would not make up for an always online console. My reason though is more on the topic of game preservation, how will I be able to play Xbox The Third 20 years from now. 30 years...I still have my NES and Super NES and they still work great, especially the SNES, that thing is a BEAST. I just worry that a generation of video games could be lost because authentication servers are no longer running.

Also I HIGHLY doubt this is how Microsoft (and Sony for that matter) are going to handle this "Always Online" stuff. I'm sure its just going to end up being like online passes where you need to authenticate your games to your account when you first play the game, after that you can play your game offline. If you buy used, you will need to buy the online pass (or CD Key or whatever its called) to play the game or to unlock multiplayer. And I also bet this "Always Online" nonsense will not be mandatory but instead given to the publisher whether they want to use this feature that Microsoft or Sony provides.

I wonder how much of this always online hysteria is a product of the fact that the internet infrastructure in the US really needs a kick in the ass. If there was cheap fiber optic networks pretty much everywhere, nobody would think twice except the true cabin crazies that aren't worth a tech company's time anyway.

As for the option, I think if Microsoft could get away with the always online feature from the beginning, it benefits them in no way to offer the feature for free out the gate. I think this is a poor question because it either invites the firebrands who would reject always online no matter what categorically or people who do accept it and only see the free option as a perk they never expected in the first place.

Basically, for Microsoft to offer it for free would be a move independent of the always online thing in order to compete with Sony but as I said, there's no good reason for them to do so when they have the precedent in place to pay for Gold. If people are going to launch white hot bullshit out of their ass there way regardless of what they do, they might as well trojan horse the setup that gives them the most advantage from the beginning and shave it off from there instead of attempting something like handing it out for free in hopes of approval.

Personally if I were thinking about getting an Xbox for reasons other than the online features and it happened that I don't need to pay for their Gold equivalent, then that fits right into how I already play games on the PC. Sure, the connections don't need to be constant but functionally speaking I can't not use my internet connection on whatever I play on because it needs to talk to the servers to upload achievement data, pull patches, and other things that are already normal parts of playing video games.

I don't really mind 'always online' at all, to be honest.

To address the second half of your question: I haven't paid for XBL in years because it's simply not worth it.

Would you accept Always On in exchange for Free XBL?

My reaction: "What? No! Fuck you!"

After some thought: "Still fuck you, but I can't really hold that strong of an opinion since I don't plan on buying the next Xbox iteration."

I just hope that "fuck you" is going towards Microsoft, and not towards me.

If on May 21, the words "always online" are used to describe the Nextbox, I will cry, then be thankful that I built a PC recently. Would really be a disappointment if they went in that direction.

Well, my xbox and PC are always online anyways. It's not really a big deal to me. Hell the times my internet dies midgame during a single player game and comes back up, i will hit the guide button and reconnect myself just incase someone wants to message me or something. Why not?

I personally don't understand the huge cry away from always online stuff. I mean in situations like Sim City where its messing with you cus their servers are down, yeah that sucks. But if it just has alot of always online hooks. Whats the big deal?

So yes, I'd gladly trade "always online" for free xboxlive, since xbox live has been a reliable and good service the entire time ive had it, and my xbox has always been connected to the internet since i bought it 5-6 years ago. So whats the big fucking deal?

Towards Microsoft. And my mother is happily married, thank you.

Well, if it was directed towards me, it would make no sense, really...

And my mother is fine, thank you for asking, how about yours?

I won't buy a system that won't let me use disc-based games the way I use them now (I also won't buy a system that doesn't have disc-based games). I want to be able to play offline, I want the option to be able to buy used and I want to be able to use a game on any system I like with any account I like (ie. I want to be able to take a game around to a friend's place, or lend a game to a friend or borrow a friend's game). It doesn't matter if the deal is "sweetened" with free online, if I can't do the things listed then there's no sale.

These things are some of the few distinct advantages consoles offer over PC. If those few advantages go away and a console behaves more like gaming on a PC does, then I might as well own a gaming PC for all of the advantages it would offer over a console.

So far my interest in the nextbox is somewhat negatively slanted due to my experience with the x360 game library (~40hrs played total on my device over its life), so always online is less of an issue than my expectation of it being a kind of useless device to me. E.g. Halo/Gears are neat, but my interest in those sort of games just has not held up over time - especially considering how much I had played the first Halo.

In a lot of ways Sony/Nintendo are doing more for creating new games (funding exclusives) and in some cases handle indies better than steam now (in terms of insisting on Greenlight for established indies, so steam lacks items available on eShop and PSN......). So I can at least justify those platforms. Even if most of my gaming will probably continue on PC (ever since Half Life 1 came out O.o).

I don't think free XBL would make up for an always online console in my opinion.. To be perfectly frank, I think that XBL should be free to start with. Most people pay for their internet anyways so why should we shell out extra cash to Microsoft just for the privilege of playing their games online. It might have made sense back when XBL was new and basically unchallenged on consoles, But now that PSN is good enough ( for most people myself included ) I just can't justify paying 8 bucks a month for the ability to party chat.

That's not even counting the fact that online play on PC's has been free from the dawn of time, so to speak.

No, simple reason I'd still have to be online to play SINGLE player games.

No. Online should be free anyways, I'm already paying for the internet and their stupid console.

I would rather not pay for online access for a console. On the other hand, having to be online to be able to play anything on said console sounds like an "okay" thing now. By the end of the consoles life cycle though, does it just become a brick or do they push out a final update or patch that gives it the ability to play games offline? Either one is kinda shitty in my opinion.

For now, rumors are still rumors. I'll make my final call after the Microsoft press conference and E3.

No, that's not a good deal. I can have a relatively fine time without Xbox Live, but I cannot do with a console that's always online and turns everything off after three minutes if my internet goes out at some point. As long as I can play my games for as long as I want, I'm good. When my internet's going, it's great, but sometimes it does go out and then back on sporadically for a short while. I hope the next console will be similar to it is now, but with adjustments and improvements elsewhere than the online stuff.

PSN is mostly free and the PS4 doesn't sound like it's going to be always-online. An always-online Xbox would still be a hard sell considering that.

Until it doesn't work or goes down for a week.

Yes of course only someone who doesn't value money would say no.

I would be willing to accept always online AND pay for XBox Live if XBox Live game prices competed with Steam prices. Always online, XBL fees, none of this stuff will matter to me until this disparity in software prices is addressed.

I'm anxious to see if Sony or Microsoft have any plans to combat Steam's infamous sales or if they just plan to go through another generation using the whole "Everything's 60 bucks until it's a year old then it's 40" pricing scheme.

I have a hard time seeing how something I already don't care about would sway my feelings about always online. I've already stopped paying for XBL and unless they plan on doing something spectacular with it I don't see why I would sign back up. But then again that's pretty much my feelings about the next xbox in general.

No because PSN is already free and what you get when you pay for with PS Plus is so worth it. Also isn't the rumor going around right now that the subscription model includes paying for XBL so I think MS will continue to charge for it

A console that requires a constant internet connection just to play games is a bad deal regardless of whether it comes with a service that I haven't even renewed in over 2 years.

People who thought XBox Live Gold was worth it fail to understand the real cash cow that the XBox Live dashboard was for Microsoft. You were paying $50, now $60, a year to offset the physical costs while Microsoft raked in piles of cash from advertising on the dash (on an advertising "impression system" that Internet abandoned awhile ago no less). The system pays for itself where Microsoft is taking the subfee for "other stuff".

Improvements seem to come from more and more delivery of advertising slots not user features. I am fine people arguing the merits of XBox Live and gladly paying for it as a service but "free" is not a feature any more than it is for PSN.

I wouldn't worry about always online stuff any more, they wont do it. They need the early adopters to buy the system and at the minute they mostly seem to be in the Sony camp, so if I had to guess they'll announce similar specs to the PS4 and then make the console cheaper.

No, because sony will allow for offline gaming and dont charge for their online service. Makes sense as a consumer to go for the more open product

If it meant XBL would stay the same as it is now, I would totally be okay with always online and making XBL always on. I understand why some people would not go for this, but my connection is pretty rock solid. So if the connection is there already, what do I care?

Sure. I hate paying for that shit.

I stopped paying Gold for about 2 years now and don't want to ever pay again. As for the answer to that question, YES! if it's offline somehow, I can always go to another console and wait.

Can't I get free online multiplayer and not-always-online with a PS4? If so, then no I'll still pass.

My internet connection is pretty good, so I would. I'd still pass on the entire console in general though until MS stops pissing on their user base.

i would say no. i don't like that idea. it sounds like a bad idea.

@sooty: i would live

I'm online all the time anyhow so that's not an issue for me but I do like to use GameFly for those down times when i'm short of big titles to play. If they use the always on feature to remove the ability to play used games then that will probably be a deal-breaker.

No.