Xbox One

[Jazzrat]

Originally Posted by Firefly00

• mandatory Kinect: it's one thing if each system comes with a much-improved version of the thing (which would encourage more developers to take advantage of its features where practical for the game); for it to be always on and watching regardless of what you're doing with is another, one which is guaranteed to arouse the ire of the privacy-minded - there is a reason webcams come with actual shutters, after all.
• blocking used games: funny, I don't recall hearing any other industry complaining about sales of used goods; could someone enlighten me as to how/why it's different here? Besides, I see no financial incentive for a hardware manufacturer to care whether the software is 'new' or 'used'.

Because there's quite a significant market for it and publishers aren't getting any cut from resales. Unlike physical products, you still get some revenue from selling parts or servicing/maintainence but there isn't any such revenue till recently with online passes.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Before Simcity, I was prepared to believe Microsoft's silence is nothing to worry about. Now? I interpret radio silence as them having something to hide.

It doesn't mean 720 would be always online; it does mean Microsoft is seriously considering it. Which means now is the time to make a fuss, so they have the leeway to change their mind without embarrassing themselves.

More likely it's a matter of waiting who shows their hand first (PS4) and the rival will try and adjust their product to beat whatever hand Sony have thrown down. Considering that PS4 will not be blocking used games and is courting indie developers, i think it's just a matter of Microsoft readjusting their strategy to match or beat Sony's current offering.

[Chaos2Frozen]

Originally Posted by Jazzrat

Considering that PS4 will not be blocking used games and is courting indie developers, i think it's just a matter of Microsoft readjusting their strategy to match or beat Sony's current offering.

Didn't Sony say that the option to block used games would be available for developers should they chose to use it?

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by Xefi

^ well, he is going to have to "deal with it!" ^_______^

wow, this dood is so famous now. jeez, there is like already 4000+ posts on gamespot.
nothing but a bunch of negative posts just for our good old Orth.

And the top comment on the IGN article has over 10k Likes.

[Duo Maxwell]

Originally Posted by RRW

While it's funny, the ending is the one made me chuckle .

[Jazzrat]

Originally Posted by Chaos2Frozen

Didn't Sony say that the option to block used games would be available for developers should they chose to use it?

There's no mention of whether they will be including their patented used game blocking tech but they have said blocking used games will be up to the developers (online passes and etc).

Pretty much left the ball in developer's court to play in this issue.

[Duo Maxwell]

Isn't it the same as PS3's region lock? They pretty much leave it at the hand of developers.

[creb]

I think whatever MS ends up doing with the console, after the initial furor, things will turn out fine.

The vast majority of "always on" rage has been caused by insufficient hardware needs being met by those who implemented the "always on" policy. While Xbox Live has its outages, it's generally been a pretty damn stable service, and I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt when it comes to questioning their ability to back up their decision with the hardware to support it.

I mean, I'm sure there are people who can't connect to the internet, but I have to assume they are a very small minority of the video game console owning player base, despite all the rampant over-exaggerated faux outrage over the issue. I don't agree with the way that MS dude belittled those midwestern towns (I think he'd be surprised at how west/east coast some of those midwestern towns can actually be), and he certainly sounds like an incredible idiot, but putting that part of his response aside, the general spirit of what he was trying to get across is largely true. But, as a primarily PC gamer who has essentially been connected to the internet since 1990, perhaps I'm totally biased at the concept that an internet connection is hardly the pain people are making it out to be.

Yes, it means if you're in a seahut in Afghanistan that doesn't happen to have some Sprint/ATT/etc satellites providing you with an internet connection while on deployment, you may not be able to play video games, but life goes on.

[Chaos2Frozen]

After Diablo 3 and Sim City? Majority of gamers are no longer going to trust Always Online anymore.

There will always be fanboys, but most people would be on the fence of whether to get the PS4 or Xbox, and I'm telling you PS4 atm is ahead by miles in terms of gamer support, especially after this mess- joke or not.

[Jazzrat]

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

Isn't it the same as PS3's region lock? They pretty much leave it at the hand of developers.

Very different concept tackling different issue. Region locking is about regional pricing and difference in consumer buying power in different countries and requires regionalized hardware and discs. Used game blocking requires some process to map a disc copy to your machine (either via online registration/actual watermarking of the disc) and tackles the issue of revenue loss due to used game trading.

Originally Posted by creb

I think whatever MS ends up doing with the console, after the initial furor, things will turn out fine.

The vast majority of "always on" rage has been caused by insufficient hardware needs being met by those who implemented the "always on" policy. While Xbox Live has its outages, it's generally been a pretty damn stable service, and I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt when it comes to questioning their ability to back up their decision with the hardware to support it.

I mean, I'm sure there are people who can't connect to the internet, but I have to assume they are a very small minority of the video game console owning player base, despite all the rampant over-exaggerated faux outrage over the issue. I don't agree with the way that MS dude belittled those midwestern towns (I think he'd be surprised at how west/east coast some of those midwestern towns can actually be), and he certainly sounds like an incredible idiot, but putting that part of his response aside, the general spirit of what he was trying to get across is largely true. But, as a primarily PC gamer who has essentially been connected to the internet since 1990, perhaps I'm totally biased at the concept that an internet connection is hardly the pain people are making it out to be.

Yes, it means if you're in a seahut in Afghanistan that doesn't happen to have some Sprint/ATT/etc satellites providing you with an internet connection while on deployment, you may not be able to play video games, but life goes on.

It's an international market so they have to considered about people living in countries where online connectivity isn't feasible but as you said, it's more often than not, a minority issue. It's currently a detrimental function though for buyers in their consideration for purchase so if their competitors are doing it, you sure as hell dont to do it unless you got some other killer app to trump it.

I think Microsoft will be fine, while people bitch about XBLA and Kinect, they remain the dominant player in the current generation. While their business practice might be dubious but you can trust Microsoft to know how to remain relevant and profitable in their business.

Originally Posted by Chaos2Frozen

After Diablo 3 and Sim City? Majority of gamers are no longer going to trust Always Online anymore.

There will always be fanboys, but most people would be on the fence of whether to get the PS4 or Xbox, and I'm telling you PS4 atm is ahead by miles in terms of gamer support, especially after this mess- joke or not.

Ironically enough, both games were PC exclusives and I doubt the majority of the consumers are going to care enough to not get the next gen console with the newest COD or Final Fantasy. It's still too early to speculate who will have the better features since they haven't finalized the details for Durango yet but i think most game developer will be planning to have support for both platform until one becomes the clear cut winner like PS & PS2 did back then.

[Chaos2Frozen]

Originally Posted by Jazzrat

Ironically enough, both games were PC exclusives and I doubt the majority of the consumers are going to care enough to not get the next gen console with the newest COD or Final Fantasy.

Doesn't mean the lesson learned there wouldn't be applied by console gamers.

Unless you're saying that Microsoft has invincible servers and nothing would go wrong with them?

[Jazzrat]

Launch day failure didn't stop D3 from selling like hotcakes. Nor did it ever stop any always online games like most MMOs either. While online services have outage, there hasn't been any cataclysmic failure that driven people off services like XBLA, PSN or Steam to date.

Technically, it's unlikely that Microsoft/Sony is going to be forcing every developer to host part of the code within their server like what Diablo 3 did so it's probably going to be a verification check very much like steam. How draconian this verification is though is up to anyone's guess if it ever was to be implemented.

Long story short, they are going to be more like Steam and not D3 or Simcity if they are doing online requirement.

[Chaos2Frozen]

Originally Posted by Jazzrat

Launch day failure didn't stop D3 from selling like hotcakes. Nor did it ever stop any always online games like most MMOs either. While online services have outage, there hasn't been any cataclysmic failure that driven people off services like XBLA, PSN or Steam to date.

Technically, it's unlikely that Microsoft/Sony is going to be forcing every developer to host part of the code within their server like what Diablo 3 did so it's probably going to be a verification check very much like steam. How draconian this verification is though is up to anyone's guess if it ever was to be implemented.

Long story short, they are going to be more like Steam and not D3 or Simcity if they are doing online requirement.

That was then, this is now. People were pissed by D3 and Sim City already, they're not going to give this the same grace.

Also, with MMO that came with the territory- but when people can't play single player games because of server problems? That's when they start to lose it.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Jazzrat

Launch day failure didn't stop D3 from selling like hotcakes. Nor did it ever stop any always online games like most MMOs either. While online services have outage, there hasn't been any cataclysmic failure that driven people off services like XBLA, PSN or Steam to date.

Technically, it's unlikely that Microsoft/Sony is going to be forcing every developer to host part of the code within their server like what Diablo 3 did so it's probably going to be a verification check very much like steam. How draconian this verification is though is up to anyone's guess if it ever was to be implemented.

Long story short, they are going to be more like Steam and not D3 or Simcity if they are doing online requirement.

Online requirement only is justified if we see something in return.

"Always online" means online with no purpose, online universally, and online even when the game doesn't do anything with it.

This is why EA had to script an elaborate lie about how Simcity had good reasons to be online.

Also note that Diablo III is going to be offline for consoles. I wonder why?

Online REQUIREMENT is a negative. And now that we see PS4 isn't doing it, it is up to Microsoft to screw this up and shoot themselves in the face.

[Tong]

I was rather surprised when I couldn't run Crysis on my PC, because my connection had dropped... And I've bought the physical copy.

Completely non-sense.

That and Online Pass are the worst this generation had to offer.

[Jazzrat]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Online requirement only is justified if we see something in return.

From a consumer point of view yes but from business standpoint, functions that can bring in more revenue at the end of the day is justifiable as long as it's financially viable. I've seen shit that businesses (i'm looking at you ISPs) that gets thrown in consumer's face and main reason why they can get away with it is that all competitors are following suite giving consumers no other options in this matter. Sometimes i really wonder about the consumer's internet mentality of wanting competitors to fail when it's the worst thing that will ever happen to us when there's a monopoly.

But still, as you have said, going always online when PS4 isn't will be like shooting yourself in the foot in Microsoft's case.

[Sides]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Online REQUIREMENT is a negative. And now that we see PS4 isn't doing it, it is up to Microsoft to screw this up and shoot themselves in the face.

Think that this isn't 100% true either. Like nintendo, sony are leaving this option up to the devs and publisher. So unlike MS, which has this always online feature mandatory, apparently, the other consoles could feature always on games/checks based on individual titles. An example would be EA games requiring that you have to sign on to your origin account before the game even starts.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Sides

Think that this isn't 100% true either. Like nintendo, sony are leaving this option up to the devs and publisher. So unlike MS, which has this always online feature mandatory, apparently, the other consoles could feature always on games/checks based on individual titles. An example would be EA games requiring that you have to sign on to your origin account before the game even starts.

It is not Sony's job to tell game developers what to do. Making a game on-line only restricts the sales of the game, but doesn't affect any other game on PS4. Make a console on-line only, however, restricts the sales of the console.

And to restrict the potential of a console when you have a serious rival system to compete with, is not wise.

[Sides]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

And to restrict the potential of a console when you have a serious rival system to compete with, is not wise.

True, but here comes the big publishers into the game. If we have a look at the WiiU or dreamcast, if it has no appealing games or games at all, it won't sell. If MS manages to get the big publisher onboard, with their questionable system, the always on feature won't matter. Old school gamers like us are overshadowed by mainstream gamers that will open-handedly surrender their IDs just to get some freebies for in game features and are prepared to purchase crappy updates of a game they already own, because it is marketed as Directors Cut in HD aso. I know it sounds shocking but the majority of people are that easy to manipulate and don't really want to think for themselves. So if MS moneyhats publishers with promos and adverts, people won't care about DRM, because the Ad says this the only ways to experience this game in full glory, and that the game is only available on xboxsomething. If that ever happens, expect sony to make similar moves, so publishers keep supporting their systems.
As for nintendo, I don't think they really care about western publishers anyways... or games

[Chaos2Frozen]

I would like to think that majority of gamers at this point are tired of getting dicked around.

Some franchise are a lost cause and belongs to the casual public, like CoD, Fifa etc. But a lot of games are still supported mostly by 'hardcore' gamers that are in the know.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Sides

So if MS moneyhats publishers with promos and adverts, people won't care about DRM, because the Ad says this the only ways to experience this game in full glory, and that the game is only available on xboxsomething. If that ever happens, expect sony to make similar moves, so publishers keep supporting their systems.

Hoe does that make any sense? If a game studio wants online components essential for their games, PS4 isn't going to stop them. You are completely missing the difference between "online-capable" and "online-requirement".

Please, do tell me what PS4 can't do that Always online Durango can?