I was going to post something topical but now I am confused by the weird gray bar in the comment box that only seems to appear in this thread to me. "Greetings, organics!... etc
I was going to post something topical but now I am confused by the weird gray bar in the comment box that only seems to appear in this thread to me. "Greetings, organics!... etc
It's a bot that carries out certain actions on a per-thread basis. In this case, a certain user is banned from the thread, and the grey line serves as a reminder.
I was going to post something topical but now I am confused by the weird gray bar in the comment box that only seems to appear in this thread to me. "Greetings, organics!... etc
That's an automatic moderator. A bot. The human mods can give it parameters for automatic moderation. In this case, the user Death of Rats is prohibited from posting in this thread because of reasons. The mods have always been lazy so this keeps the forums running smoothly in their absence. I think there's a faq somewhere around.
If you're wondering about privacy, this is their statement in the Terms of Use:
You should not expect any level of privacy concerning your use of the live communication features (for example, voice chat, video and communications in live-hosted gameplay sessions) offered through the Xbox LIVE/Games for Windows-LIVE service. We may monitor these communications to the extent permitted by law. However, we cannot monitor the entire Services and make no attempt to do so. You understand that others can record and use these communications. Communications in live-hosted gameplay sessions may also be broadcast to others. Some games may use game managers and hosts. Game managers and hosts are not authorized Microsoft spokespersons. Their views do not necessarily reflect those of Microsoft.
When you use Voice Search, all voice commands are sent to Microsoft and stored to provide the Voice Search Service and improve Microsoft products. If you use Voice Search, you consent to Microsoft recording and collecting your voice input to provide the Voice Search Service and improve Microsoft products. We will treat any voice input according to the Privacy Statement (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=259655).
In other news, Day One Edition price:
so an unsourced incendiary "terms of use" that is almost certainly a hoax
and a misleading australian, nz, or possibly canadian launch ad being presented as a presumably US price
Here's a thing. Geoff Keighley has gone up about a thousand points in my book during this E3. He's been on point the whole time. He's a presenting machine, an informed enthusiast and the Doritos Pope. But he's also been doing his fucking job too, and that is refreshing to see (sadly).
+8
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Here's a thing. Geoff Keighley has gone up about a thousand points in my book during this E3. He's been on point the whole time. He's a presenting machine, an informed enthusiast and the Doritos Pope. But he's also been doing his fucking job too, and that is refreshing to see (sadly).
He has been the biggest surprise of E3, he really hit home on the major publishers about the DRM and if they were involved or not. He also repeatedly asked that question of EA and Ubisoft when he had them. He has been astounding, which I would not have ever imagined me saying after Doritosgate last year.
However, the video above is not being deleted out of any Microsoft conspiracy, it's on Gametrailers YouTube channel and I imagine they want you to watch it there:
We don't need to make Microsoft more evil out of imagined conspiracies when they are doing a fantastic job of this themselves without anyone helping them. You know what the greatest part is? The likes and dislikes. So much for being for games by gamers Microsoft, or telling people the solution is to buy a 360.
Edit: He is absolutely right though, things IMO are better when you can connect to others or the Internet. Dark Souls is a good example. He is wrong in one very important way though, in that you don't need to FORCE people to do that to make an engaging and fantastic game. Dark Souls is still a fantastic game even when you aren't playing it with other people because the gameplay fundamentals are so rock solidly fantastic. It becomes enhanced, but not enslaved by an Internet connection and that's the best approach by far.
it goes without saying that a digital market requires robust drm and some way to manage and monitor licenses. this is what the internet check-in is for - they want to verify that you actually purchased the thing that you're playing. i don't really know why gamers expect an apology for this, except i guess that this is the first time a console is doing it quite so explicitly.
Others have said it before on these forums, but I think it is worth reiterating. If, say, Iran, directly funds terrorism that results in the deaths of one or more MS employees and ends up escalating into an armed conflict, I take umbrage at the fact that myself or any other deployed service-member will be unable to pay MS for the privilege of buying their games because we're too busy risking our lives in shitty conditions for their welfare to fit into their oligopolist profiteering.
don't you think you should reserve your umbrage until some deployed soldier somewhere finds himself in a situation where his xbone isn't playing because he can't auth and MS has refused to provide a workaround for him? their presser was literally 36 hours ago - give them a little time to work out how they might address edge cases.
in the meantime you should probably get really pissed about how steam refuses to address the needs of our brave deployed service-member, unable to pay Valve for the privilege of buying their games because they're too busy risking their lives in shitty conditions for Valve's welfare to fit into their oligopolist profiteering.
There's no likelihood of a work around being supplied. But that doesn't mean their console is some sort of insult to people serving in places without Internet. There are a ton of luxuries unavailable in those places. And it's not like none of them can't purchase the other, cheaper console that also works offline coming out this November.
Sure, but there's a tangible difference between, say, Verizon not putting up a cell tower in COP Nowhere, and Verizon designing a phone that self-destructs if you leave CDMA networks.
I use that as an example because Verizon unlocked my phone before deploying, so it was as simple as putting in a $10 sim to get cheap calls back to the US, and that's what reasonable customer service to deployed personnel looks like.
There's no actual technical reason for it to need a net connection, unlike World of Warcraft, so saying "luxuries aren't available anywhere," while true, disguises the difference between not having enough water for showers somewhere vs. just fucking people over. It could work, their competitors do work, and they should be called to task for it.
. Buying anolder console is not a fix for your stupid online connectivity flaw. You may as well tell us to buy the ps 4.
I believe that was probably the implication without saying to go for the competitor outright. The Xbox One can't be used without a net connection, so people in those situations aren't the intended audience. They do have alternatives, the PS4, PS3, Wii U or the 360. Does it suck for those people? Sure does. Is the implication here that it is Microsoft's responsibility to provide entertainment for the troops?
The rest of the interview goes into their strategy and the idea behind having a connected device. He uses smartphones as an example of how a market can change and expand rapidly and they want to be in a position to adapt to that. I remember a time when I said, out loud, that I didn't want my phone to be any more than a phone and that I was fine with a separate MP3 player, I look back at that past me like I was a fucking crazy person. They believe, whether right or wrong, that the TV is going to become an important connected device, a strategy I am all for. I am having a real difficult time understanding why people think that Microsoft should sacrifice that strategy to appeal to everyone. No one is entitled to the device, and they are within their rights to build a device for whoever they please. It just so happens they're building a device for people with a broadband connection that want to get more out of their TV's than they did last generation.
In actual gaming/Xbox One news. Ryse features a co-op "back to back" mode set in the Roman Colosseum. Sounds like a horde mode with changing set pieces that rise from the ground. Could be interesting.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I am really curious, but does anyone believe given the pre and now post-E3 masterclass in utterly incompetent public relations, that Microsoft have not fallen into the same Sony 2006 hubris trap?
Because I honestly cant see how any other interpretation is now valid.
. Buying anolder console is not a fix for your stupid online connectivity flaw. You may as well tell us to buy the ps 4.
I believe that was probably the implication without saying to go for the competitor outright. The Xbox One can't be used without a net connection, so people in those situations aren't the intended audience. They do have alternatives, the PS4, PS3, Wii U or the 360. Does it suck for those people? Sure does. Is the implication here that it is Microsoft's responsibility to provide entertainment for the troops?
The rest of the interview goes into their strategy and the idea behind having a connected device. He uses smartphones as an example of how a market can change and expand rapidly and they want to be in a position to adapt to that. I remember a time when I said, out loud, that I didn't want my phone to be any more than a phone and that I was fine with a separate MP3 player, I look back at that past me like I was a fucking crazy person. They believe, whether right or wrong, that the TV is going to become an important connected device, a strategy I am all for. I am having a real difficult time understanding why people think that Microsoft should sacrifice that strategy to appeal to everyone. No one is entitled to the device, and they are within their rights to build a device for whoever they please. It just so happens they're building a device for people with a broadband connection that want to get more out of their TV's than they did last generation.
In actual gaming/Xbox One news. Ryse features a co-op "back to back" mode set in the Roman Colosseum. Sounds like a horde mode with changing set pieces that rise from the ground. Could be interesting.
See, there's nothing wrong with leveraging the power of the internet on your device. But if your phone isn't connected to the internet for 24 hours, it's not gonna stop you from making calls.
it goes without saying that a digital market requires robust drm and some way to manage and monitor licenses. this is what the internet check-in is for - they want to verify that you actually purchased the thing that you're playing. i don't really know why gamers expect an apology for this, except i guess that this is the first time a console is doing it quite so explicitly.
Others have said it before on these forums, but I think it is worth reiterating. If, say, Iran, directly funds terrorism that results in the deaths of one or more MS employees and ends up escalating into an armed conflict, I take umbrage at the fact that myself or any other deployed service-member will be unable to pay MS for the privilege of buying their games because we're too busy risking our lives in shitty conditions for their welfare to fit into their oligopolist profiteering.
don't you think you should reserve your umbrage until some deployed soldier somewhere finds himself in a situation where his xbone isn't playing because he can't auth and MS has refused to provide a workaround for him? their presser was literally 36 hours ago - give them a little time to work out how they might address edge cases.
in the meantime you should probably get really pissed about how steam refuses to address the needs of our brave deployed service-member, unable to pay Valve for the privilege of buying their games because they're too busy risking their lives in shitty conditions for Valve's welfare to fit into their oligopolist profiteering.
There's no likelihood of a work around being supplied. But that doesn't mean their console is some sort of insult to people serving in places without Internet. There are a ton of luxuries unavailable in those places. And it's not like none of them can't purchase the other, cheaper console that also works offline coming out this November.
Sure, but there's a tangible difference between, say, Verizon not putting up a cell tower in COP Nowhere, and Verizon designing a phone that self-destructs if you leave CDMA networks.
I use that as an example because Verizon unlocked my phone before deploying, so it was as simple as putting in a $10 sim to get cheap calls back to the US, and that's what reasonable customer service to deployed personnel looks like.
There's no actual technical reason for it to need a net connection, unlike World of Warcraft, so saying "luxuries aren't available anywhere," while true, disguises the difference between not having enough water for showers somewhere vs. just fucking people over. It could work, their competitors do work, and they should be called to task for it.
Clearly Microsoft disagrees. They apparently think that it's a feature to have everyone who's using it to be able to connect online. As they themselves have said their product isn't for people who can't play online. And that's okay. From a business point it's also dumb in my opinion but them's the breaks. Sometimes companies make dumb business decisions. There are other options. It is not a particularly terrible affront that you can't have every game console when deployed.
Quid on
+4
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Jack Tretton, by the way, said the PS4 price was determined independently from the Xbox launch - take that with as much scepticism as you want.
if I was Sony and my original price for the PS4 was equal to the XBox's $499 or even higher, and I decided to undercut them at the last minute after seeing their presentation, I wouldn't be undercutting by a whole $100. That'd be stupid. I'd go for undercutting them by $50, because then I beat them on price AND beat them on all the features that Sony beat them on.
it goes without saying that a digital market requires robust drm and some way to manage and monitor licenses. this is what the internet check-in is for - they want to verify that you actually purchased the thing that you're playing. i don't really know why gamers expect an apology for this, except i guess that this is the first time a console is doing it quite so explicitly.
Others have said it before on these forums, but I think it is worth reiterating. If, say, Iran, directly funds terrorism that results in the deaths of one or more MS employees and ends up escalating into an armed conflict, I take umbrage at the fact that myself or any other deployed service-member will be unable to pay MS for the privilege of buying their games because we're too busy risking our lives in shitty conditions for their welfare to fit into their oligopolist profiteering.
don't you think you should reserve your umbrage until some deployed soldier somewhere finds himself in a situation where his xbone isn't playing because he can't auth and MS has refused to provide a workaround for him? their presser was literally 36 hours ago - give them a little time to work out how they might address edge cases.
in the meantime you should probably get really pissed about how steam refuses to address the needs of our brave deployed service-member, unable to pay Valve for the privilege of buying their games because they're too busy risking their lives in shitty conditions for Valve's welfare to fit into their oligopolist profiteering.
There's no likelihood of a work around being supplied. But that doesn't mean their console is some sort of insult to people serving in places without Internet. There are a ton of luxuries unavailable in those places. And it's not like none of them can't purchase the other, cheaper console that also works offline coming out this November.
Sure, but there's a tangible difference between, say, Verizon not putting up a cell tower in COP Nowhere, and Verizon designing a phone that self-destructs if you leave CDMA networks.
I use that as an example because Verizon unlocked my phone before deploying, so it was as simple as putting in a $10 sim to get cheap calls back to the US, and that's what reasonable customer service to deployed personnel looks like.
There's no actual technical reason for it to need a net connection, unlike World of Warcraft, so saying "luxuries aren't available anywhere," while true, disguises the difference between not having enough water for showers somewhere vs. just fucking people over. It could work, their competitors do work, and they should be called to task for it.
Clearly Microsoft disagrees. They apparently think that it's a feature to have everyone who's using to to be able to connect online. As they themselves have said their product isn't for people who can't play online. And that's okay. From a business point it's also dumb in my opinion but them's the breaks. Sometimes companies make dumb business decisions. There are other options. It is not a particularly terrible affront that you can't have every game console when deployed.
Yeah. It may be time for the acceptance/moving on stage for those of whom the online thing is a deal-breaker, because they certainly don't seem to be willing to compromise to the extent that they want them to. Heh.
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
It really seems like Microsoft is conceding the full-on gamer market to Sony in an attempt to pick up less gaming focused customers. Kind of like what the Wii did in the current generation, but with an eye on the upper middle aged consumer instead of kids and grandmas.
To the 45 year old professional, that extra $100 and internet check in isn't going to be a dealbreaker, and the tv integration may actually be a selling point.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds.2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
+3
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I think this was talked about at length in the early days, but I think Microsofts bungle was the kinect 2.0 camera being mandatory. It's handed Sony the most important part of the entire console war: Price. Everything else just makes the xbone look even worse once you pile it onto that $100 difference. I think the early rumours of Sony needing a camera in the box and such, which would have given them more parity with MS price wise was an important decision to back away from. Especially as the blue ocean casuals who bought move/wii/kinect have gone, I am still baffled why Microsoft is pushing the kinect again at the cost of conceding a price advantage out of the gate to Sony.
I am really curious, but does anyone believe given the pre and now post-E3 masterclass in utterly incompetent public relations, that Microsoft have not fallen into the same Sony 2006 hubris trap?
Because I honestly cant see how any other interpretation is now valid.
The Don Mattrick interview explained everything. It's not hubris, it's the fact that Microsoft doesn't understand games.
Mattrick said that they designed the Xbox One for the future. That's a fair decision, it's going to have to last ten years maybe. But the way he explained that decision said everything. He talked about how when the Xbox 1 came out, people were only designing single player games, because Xbox Live didn't exist and home networking was still developing. Then they started having home connectivity, with the Halo LAN systems etc. And couch multiplayer. Then, once the internet became ubiquitous, people started playing multiplayer over the internet.
Fundamentally, he sees single player games in the same light as black and white films. Old technology to be supplanted by color. He doesn't understand that while black and white was necessitated by the limitations of early film, once technology advanced to give us color film, black and white became an artistic choice at the side, not an obsolete bottom rung on the ladder.
He said it himself. Most people play multiplayer games now. Most people are connected to the internet. He sees people who don't do these things as being primitive and behind. That's why his Xbox 360 comment is so hollow. Of course he would recommend an old console for people without internet. Because he believes this is a linear progression, and that having internet is inherently better than not having it. Or that multiplayer games are inherently more advanced than single player ones.
It's a complete misunderstanding of how art works. And is speaks to Microsoft's unfamiliarity with artistic endeavor. For them, Windows 8 is simply better than Windows 7, because it is one more. Microsoft's entire history is built upon iteration, and progressive improvement in feature set and functionality. Their products all render the previous one obsolete because it's the same, plus more stuff. But that thinking doesn't apply to art. Which is why they have completely misjudged how games work.
. Buying anolder console is not a fix for your stupid online connectivity flaw. You may as well tell us to buy the ps 4.
I believe that was probably the implication without saying to go for the competitor outright. The Xbox One can't be used without a net connection, so people in those situations aren't the intended audience. They do have alternatives, the PS4, PS3, Wii U or the 360. Does it suck for those people? Sure does. Is the implication here that it is Microsoft's responsibility to provide entertainment for the troops?
The rest of the interview goes into their strategy and the idea behind having a connected device. He uses smartphones as an example of how a market can change and expand rapidly and they want to be in a position to adapt to that. I remember a time when I said, out loud, that I didn't want my phone to be any more than a phone and that I was fine with a separate MP3 player, I look back at that past me like I was a fucking crazy person. They believe, whether right or wrong, that the TV is going to become an important connected device, a strategy I am all for. I am having a real difficult time understanding why people think that Microsoft should sacrifice that strategy to appeal to everyone. No one is entitled to the device, and they are within their rights to build a device for whoever they please. It just so happens they're building a device for people with a broadband connection that want to get more out of their TV's than they did last generation.
In actual gaming/Xbox One news. Ryse features a co-op "back to back" mode set in the Roman Colosseum. Sounds like a horde mode with changing set pieces that rise from the ground. Could be interesting.
Nothing you say makes a case for the console having to be connected all the time to phone home every 24 hours. That part of the console could go away tomorrow without costing the functionality you seem to be praising.
. Buying anolder console is not a fix for your stupid online connectivity flaw. You may as well tell us to buy the ps 4.
I believe that was probably the implication without saying to go for the competitor outright. The Xbox One can't be used without a net connection, so people in those situations aren't the intended audience. They do have alternatives, the PS4, PS3, Wii U or the 360. Does it suck for those people? Sure does. Is the implication here that it is Microsoft's responsibility to provide entertainment for the troops?
The rest of the interview goes into their strategy and the idea behind having a connected device. He uses smartphones as an example of how a market can change and expand rapidly and they want to be in a position to adapt to that. I remember a time when I said, out loud, that I didn't want my phone to be any more than a phone and that I was fine with a separate MP3 player, I look back at that past me like I was a fucking crazy person. They believe, whether right or wrong, that the TV is going to become an important connected device, a strategy I am all for. I am having a real difficult time understanding why people think that Microsoft should sacrifice that strategy to appeal to everyone. No one is entitled to the device, and they are within their rights to build a device for whoever they please. It just so happens they're building a device for people with a broadband connection that want to get more out of their TV's than they did last generation.
In actual gaming/Xbox One news. Ryse features a co-op "back to back" mode set in the Roman Colosseum. Sounds like a horde mode with changing set pieces that rise from the ground. Could be interesting.
See, there's nothing wrong with leveraging the power of the internet on your device. But if your phone isn't connected to the internet for 24 hours, it's not gonna stop letting you make calls.
•While a persistent connection is not required, Xbox One is designed to verify if system, application or game updates are needed and to see if you have acquired new games, or resold, traded in, or given your game to a friend.
That reads to me like the only reason that 24 hour check exists is to facilitate physical used game sales to appease Gamestop while also moving over to a proper digital system, which is fucking awesome no more losing games, theft, fire, flood, dog, other terrible random event that could destroy my games. They are just there, I can download them whenever I want. I move around every 6 - 12 months or so, a digital library is a must. The reason the time between checks is so short in comparison to the Steam 2-weeks/30-days/forever if you crack it/whatever is the part I bolded above. Used games seem to be the biggest reason of the check. If I am going to accept the check in Steam (or at least the idea of one being there), then for the Xbox One I have to be able to accept the same principle and the length of time between checks would depend entirely on how much of a pain in my ass it is to live with. My internet is 'eh' for my area, but there's no way that I would even notice this check. Like, at all. It's also the internet, it's gonna get faster and better. Also, my phone IS connected to the internet 24 hours. If my phone is on, it's attached to my data. I honestly wouldn't have a clue of my phone has a DRM check in it. This would have been one of those things that I wouldn't have noticed until it popped up in some random event if they didn't tell me.
Nothing you say makes a case for the console having to be connected all the time to phone home every 24 hours. That part of the console could go away tomorrow without costing the functionality you seem to be praising.
I agree and I have said previously that since they announced the 24 hour check that it was the part of all this negativity that gives me the most pause. But the more I thought about it, the less it seemed to matter and I've been putting up with the same principle on PC for ages. Lets be clear; the check regardless of the time between the checks would screw over deployed soldiers. If it were just for DRM there is no reason for it to be that soon between checks, trading games is pretty much a requirement to get shelf space at brick & mortar shops. Having minimal brick & mortar support would have been a bigger killer for the system than the check is.
Arkyris on
+1
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
So after seeing the new Penny Arcade comic, which is about the Xbone (spoiler, they were not impressed) I actually remembered Jerry writing about how he felt about the potential for a "connected" Xbox back when the Adam Orth stuff occurred. I found his post incredibly apt given the recent statements and PR mismanagement by Microsoft:
Everybody who reads a site like Penny Arcade probably knows about the Microsoft dude showing his “Twitter ass” re: Always On Consoles. His butt and the surrounding environs were no doubt hurt by this ambiguously sourced Kotaku piece, one which contradicts its entire thrust within the body of the article itself, and he decided to start peeing in consumer’s mouths when the actual solution was to stop reading Kotaku.
I don’t actually know what “always on” means. The first Xbox was “always on,” because it offered a perpetual connection and the creature comforts that come from a unified service. I’ve asked about what it means this time around, of course, and gotten “responses” moated deep in quotation marks. But you talk to me the way this Adam Orth character did at your fucking peril. He’s been muzzled now, of course; brought to heel. When others told me what he tried to say, they emphasized just how connected everything is now. They aren’t wrong, certainly: World of Warcraft is typically the object lesson for things like this, but that’s a single game. Steam is much more apt, as a container service which is more or less my computer’s primary operating system. Google Docs, as a kind of Cloud Elemental, is also a solid point of comparison. Both of those feature offline modes that let you “own” your stuff to a large extent independent of the silver cord.
I could nod gravely in the direction of Electronic Arts and Ubisoft’s attempts to corral piracy to the detriment of legitimate customers, but those grisly tales need no reference. What’s being suggested slash pilloried - a console which must constantly speak to the Internet or be rendered inert - could not possibly work as a global entertainment appliance. That’s why I don’t actually believe it’s the case. But we saw this with the PS3, also: a glutted victor gesturing with a ham hock, making a host of slurred decrees. And that’s where the worry begins to creep in at the edges.
That last bit of the final paragraph absolutely nails the current situation. I wonder what he is going to make of his dark prophecy coming true in the news post today (it's not up yet sadly).
I really couldn't give two poops about the online check in to be honest. My net connection is solid, fast and unmetered.
I DO give two poops that I can't lend games to friends, that the system is technically not as powerful as the PS3 (spec wise), costs more and comes bundled with a peripheral I have absolutely zero interest in.
. Buying anolder console is not a fix for your stupid online connectivity flaw. You may as well tell us to buy the ps 4.
I believe that was probably the implication without saying to go for the competitor outright. The Xbox One can't be used without a net connection, so people in those situations aren't the intended audience. They do have alternatives, the PS4, PS3, Wii U or the 360. Does it suck for those people? Sure does. Is the implication here that it is Microsoft's responsibility to provide entertainment for the troops?
The rest of the interview goes into their strategy and the idea behind having a connected device. He uses smartphones as an example of how a market can change and expand rapidly and they want to be in a position to adapt to that. I remember a time when I said, out loud, that I didn't want my phone to be any more than a phone and that I was fine with a separate MP3 player, I look back at that past me like I was a fucking crazy person. They believe, whether right or wrong, that the TV is going to become an important connected device, a strategy I am all for. I am having a real difficult time understanding why people think that Microsoft should sacrifice that strategy to appeal to everyone. No one is entitled to the device, and they are within their rights to build a device for whoever they please. It just so happens they're building a device for people with a broadband connection that want to get more out of their TV's than they did last generation.
In actual gaming/Xbox One news. Ryse features a co-op "back to back" mode set in the Roman Colosseum. Sounds like a horde mode with changing set pieces that rise from the ground. Could be interesting.
See, there's nothing wrong with leveraging the power of the internet on your device. But if your phone isn't connected to the internet for 24 hours, it's not gonna stop letting you make calls.
•While a persistent connection is not required, Xbox One is designed to verify if system, application or game updates are needed and to see if you have acquired new games, or resold, traded in, or given your game to a friend.
That reads to me like the only reason that 24 hour check exists is to facilitate physical used game sales to appease Gamestop while also moving over to a proper digital system, which is fucking awesome no more losing games, theft, fire, flood, dog, other terrible random event that could destroy my games. They are just there, I can download them whenever I want. I move around every 6 - 12 months or so, a digital library is a must. The reason the time between checks is so short in comparison to the Steam 2-weeks/30-days/forever if you crack it/whatever is the part I bolded above. Used games seem to be the biggest reason of the check. If I am going to accept the check in Steam (or at least the idea of one being there), then for the Xbox One I have to be able to accept the same principle and the length of time between checks would depend entirely on how much of a pain in my ass it is to live with. My internet is 'eh' for my area, but there's no way that I would even notice this check. Like, at all. It's also the internet, it's gonna get faster and better. Also, my phone IS connected to the internet 24 hours. If my phone is on, it's attached to my data. I honestly wouldn't have a clue of my phone has a DRM check in it. This would have been one of those things that I wouldn't have noticed until it popped up in some random event if they didn't tell me.
Nothing you say makes a case for the console having to be connected all the time to phone home every 24 hours. That part of the console could go away tomorrow without costing the functionality you seem to be praising.
I agree and I have said previously that since they announced the 24 hour check that it was the part of all this negativity that gives me the most pause. But the more I thought about it, the less it seemed to matter and I've been putting up with the same principle on PC for ages. Lets be clear; the check regardless of the time between the checks would screw over deployed soldiers. If it were just for DRM there is no reason for it to be that soon between checks, trading games is pretty much a requirement to get shelf space at brick & mortar shops. Having minimal brick & mortar support would have been a bigger killer for the system than the check is.
Exactly this, if you lose a check, you lose pre owned games or you lose installing everything to hard drive and not needing a disc. Sony have kept the status quo, which is fine, but Microsoft are giving me a new service (not needing to change discs) at a price (24 hour check) that I won't notice. Pretty great for me.
At least so long as nothing bad happens to Microsoft's authentication servers. Because nothing bad ever happens to things connected to the internet, especially when owned by large, oft hated corporations.
And Steam proves you can install to a disc and still have an offline mode. Theirs is wonky at times, but that is an implementation issue, not an issue with the concept.
At least so long as nothing bad happens to Microsoft's authentication servers. Because nothing bad ever happens to things connected to the internet, especially when owned by large, oft hated corporations.
And Steam proves you can install to a disc and still have an offline mode. Theirs is wonky at times, but that is an implementation issue, not an issue with the concept.
Steam doesn't allow you to trade physical copies of games authenticated to their system. PC games haven't had lending since CD-Keys. If you're talking about a backup disk, sure, but you still can't put that game on a friends Steam account. Yet.
I have no reason to doubt Microsoft's ability to keep their authentication servers running. Azure is a well regarded cloud services platform and Server 2012 has been getting rave reviews for its cloud integration. The possibility the system coming down is there, hackers are smart, but that's not something that I factor into my decision. Steam's still up.
Hacking becomes a bigger deal every year. But I won't tell you not to bury your head in the sand.
I wasn't talking about game trading. I'm talking about how my entire Steam library remains available to me whether or not I am online. Microsoft is creating more issues for themselves than they are solving. It is going to come back to bite them in the ass.
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I am really curious, but does anyone believe given the pre and now post-E3 masterclass in utterly incompetent public relations, that Microsoft have not fallen into the same Sony 2006 hubris trap?
Because I honestly cant see how any other interpretation is now valid.
The Don Mattrick interview explained everything. It's not hubris, it's the fact that Microsoft doesn't understand games.
Mattrick said that they designed the Xbox One for the future. That's a fair decision, it's going to have to last ten years maybe. But the way he explained that decision said everything. He talked about how when the Xbox 1 came out, people were only designing single player games, because Xbox Live didn't exist and home networking was still developing. Then they started having home connectivity, with the Halo LAN systems etc. And couch multiplayer. Then, once the internet became ubiquitous, people started playing multiplayer over the internet.
Fundamentally, he sees single player games in the same light as black and white films. Old technology to be supplanted by color. He doesn't understand that while black and white was necessitated by the limitations of early film, once technology advanced to give us color film, black and white became an artistic choice at the side, not an obsolete bottom rung on the ladder.
He said it himself. Most people play multiplayer games now. Most people are connected to the internet. He sees people who don't do these things as being primitive and behind. That's why his Xbox 360 comment is so hollow. Of course he would recommend an old console for people without internet. Because he believes this is a linear progression, and that having internet is inherently better than not having it. Or that multiplayer games are inherently more advanced than single player ones.
It's a complete misunderstanding of how art works. And is speaks to Microsoft's unfamiliarity with artistic endeavor. For them, Windows 8 is simply better than Windows 7, because it is one more. Microsoft's entire history is built upon iteration, and progressive improvement in feature set and functionality. Their products all render the previous one obsolete because it's the same, plus more stuff. But that thinking doesn't apply to art. Which is why they have completely misjudged how games work.
of course microsoft understands games and understands technology. they're the largest, most successful, software company in the world. what is this?
MS has made a decision on this console to maintain the fundamental use case for the device - the system specs, if you will - including an active internet connection and an active kinect. there are advantages to developers in being able to guarantee these things, since they can confidently code to a specific use case and not need to work to a variety of possible configurations.
this is especially important as regards the cloud computing aspects - most of the references to it in this thread assume that it will just function as optional features or window dressing to a game that would be compete without it. microsoft's intention with it is to have it fundamentally integrated into the game design, and to do that they need to guarantee to devs that developing a game around it is within consumer expectation. this goes the same for kinect.
in your analogy, microsoft is giving devs an out for supporting older systems or use cases. at some point, you don't demand that developers support voodoo cards anymore.
I am really curious, but does anyone believe given the pre and now post-E3 masterclass in utterly incompetent public relations, that Microsoft have not fallen into the same Sony 2006 hubris trap?
Because I honestly cant see how any other interpretation is now valid.
The Don Mattrick interview explained everything. It's not hubris, it's the fact that Microsoft doesn't understand games.
Mattrick said that they designed the Xbox One for the future. That's a fair decision, it's going to have to last ten years maybe. But the way he explained that decision said everything. He talked about how when the Xbox 1 came out, people were only designing single player games, because Xbox Live didn't exist and home networking was still developing. Then they started having home connectivity, with the Halo LAN systems etc. And couch multiplayer. Then, once the internet became ubiquitous, people started playing multiplayer over the internet.
Fundamentally, he sees single player games in the same light as black and white films. Old technology to be supplanted by color. He doesn't understand that while black and white was necessitated by the limitations of early film, once technology advanced to give us color film, black and white became an artistic choice at the side, not an obsolete bottom rung on the ladder.
He said it himself. Most people play multiplayer games now. Most people are connected to the internet. He sees people who don't do these things as being primitive and behind. That's why his Xbox 360 comment is so hollow. Of course he would recommend an old console for people without internet. Because he believes this is a linear progression, and that having internet is inherently better than not having it. Or that multiplayer games are inherently more advanced than single player ones.
It's a complete misunderstanding of how art works. And is speaks to Microsoft's unfamiliarity with artistic endeavor. For them, Windows 8 is simply better than Windows 7, because it is one more. Microsoft's entire history is built upon iteration, and progressive improvement in feature set and functionality. Their products all render the previous one obsolete because it's the same, plus more stuff. But that thinking doesn't apply to art. Which is why they have completely misjudged how games work.
of course microsoft understands games and understands technology. they're the largest, most successful, software company in the world. what is this?
MS has made a decision on this console to maintain the fundamental use case for the device - the system specs, if you will - including an active internet connection and an active kinect. there are advantages to developers in being able to guarantee these things, since they can confidently code to a specific use case and not need to work to a variety of possible configurations.
this is especially important as regards the cloud computing aspects - most of the references to it in this thread assume that it will just function as optional features or window dressing to a game that would be compete without it. microsoft's intention with it is to have it fundamentally integrated into the game design, and to do that they need to guarantee to devs that developing a game around it is within consumer expectation. this goes the same for kinect.
in your analogy, microsoft is giving devs an out for supporting older systems or use cases. at some point, you don't demand that developers support voodoo cards anymore.
At least so long as nothing bad happens to Microsoft's authentication servers. Because nothing bad ever happens to things connected to the internet, especially when owned by large, oft hated corporations.
And Steam proves you can install to a disc and still have an offline mode. Theirs is wonky at times, but that is an implementation issue, not an issue with the concept.
Steam doesn't allow you to trade physical copies of games authenticated to their system. PC games haven't had lending since CD-Keys. If you're talking about a backup disk, sure, but you still can't put that game on a friends Steam account. Yet.
I have no reason to doubt Microsoft's ability to keep their authentication servers running. Azure is a well regarded cloud services platform and Server 2012 has been getting rave reviews for its cloud integration. The possibility the system coming down is there, hackers are smart, but that's not something that I factor into my decision. Steam's still up.
Clearly, the internet terrorists win when you allow them to dictate your purchasing decisions on the possibility that they will strike and ruin your ability to play a game after 24 (or longer should they change that part of the policy) hours.
I'd be more worried about any pid that could be exposed more than "I can't play my games" in such a scenario, the same as with Amazon, iTunes and other services that have bits of my pid and such...
edit: just saying, it's going to a silly place with the "Teh Hackers" fear-mongering approach against the service.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I am really curious, but does anyone believe given the pre and now post-E3 masterclass in utterly incompetent public relations, that Microsoft have not fallen into the same Sony 2006 hubris trap?
Because I honestly cant see how any other interpretation is now valid.
The Don Mattrick interview explained everything. It's not hubris, it's the fact that Microsoft doesn't understand games.
Mattrick said that they designed the Xbox One for the future. That's a fair decision, it's going to have to last ten years maybe. But the way he explained that decision said everything. He talked about how when the Xbox 1 came out, people were only designing single player games, because Xbox Live didn't exist and home networking was still developing. Then they started having home connectivity, with the Halo LAN systems etc. And couch multiplayer. Then, once the internet became ubiquitous, people started playing multiplayer over the internet.
Fundamentally, he sees single player games in the same light as black and white films. Old technology to be supplanted by color. He doesn't understand that while black and white was necessitated by the limitations of early film, once technology advanced to give us color film, black and white became an artistic choice at the side, not an obsolete bottom rung on the ladder.
He said it himself. Most people play multiplayer games now. Most people are connected to the internet. He sees people who don't do these things as being primitive and behind. That's why his Xbox 360 comment is so hollow. Of course he would recommend an old console for people without internet. Because he believes this is a linear progression, and that having internet is inherently better than not having it. Or that multiplayer games are inherently more advanced than single player ones.
It's a complete misunderstanding of how art works. And is speaks to Microsoft's unfamiliarity with artistic endeavor. For them, Windows 8 is simply better than Windows 7, because it is one more. Microsoft's entire history is built upon iteration, and progressive improvement in feature set and functionality. Their products all render the previous one obsolete because it's the same, plus more stuff. But that thinking doesn't apply to art. Which is why they have completely misjudged how games work.
of course microsoft understands games and understands technology. they're the largest, most successful, software company in the world. what is this?
MS has made a decision on this console to maintain the fundamental use case for the device - the system specs, if you will - including an active internet connection and an active kinect. there are advantages to developers in being able to guarantee these things, since they can confidently code to a specific use case and not need to work to a variety of possible configurations.
this is especially important as regards the cloud computing aspects - most of the references to it in this thread assume that it will just function as optional features or window dressing to a game that would be compete without it. microsoft's intention with it is to have it fundamentally integrated into the game design, and to do that they need to guarantee to devs that developing a game around it is within consumer expectation. this goes the same for kinect.
in your analogy, microsoft is giving devs an out for supporting older systems or use cases. at some point, you don't demand that developers support voodoo cards anymore.
Spoken like an engineer.
:oops:
well yeah i guess i spend a fair amount of time having to explain to stakeholders that addressing their single specific use case or edge case isn't really in the software design. if you want, for instance, to use my REST service without using HTTP, i really can't help you, even if it would be possible with a lot of work for me to compile it to a local server and create some other kind of API for it.
this is to say, when i specced out my software, it was under the understanding that internet and http was going to be available, and this informed my design. saying i need to also create an "offline mode" would have produced an entirely different design.
guaranteeing a use case is a really important thing in engineering. one thing that defined the current-gen console war (that we heard PC gamers, especially bitch about incessantly) was the tendency for multiplatform releases to work to the lowest common denominator. it's not exactly a win for anyone.
MS is defining "guaranteed internet connection, guaranteed cloud computing, guaranteed kinect availability" as distinguishers that sony cannot not provide. they don't want these things to provide a little extra fluff (raise your hand to reload!), but to meaningfully inform game design.
i don't know too much about quantum break, but in that trailer, it's very possible that cloud computing would be necessary to calculate the physics of how those time-frozen events would proceed after being modified.
there are good reasons aside from DRM and giving publishers agency over the secondary market to require internet
of course, i also think that those are legit reasons as well
So that's what we get with some kind of "mod-regulated xbox one thread"? Faux engineers and people using terms like "Internet Terrorists"?
Mfw
I'll let myself out...
kozmo on
This isn't the end of the world, but you can see it from here.
+1
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited June 2013
MS is defining "guaranteed internet connection, guaranteed cloud computing, guaranteed kinect availability" as distinguishers that sony cannot not provide. they don't want these things to provide a little extra fluff (raise your hand to reload!), but to meaningfully inform game design.
The Kinect is used to communicate to zombies (a loud noise is enough to get their attention), and there are motion controls as well. You know how games often force you to wiggle the stick when enemies grab you? Well, in Dead Rising 3, you can shake your arms to get them off.
Raising my arms to waggle off zombies? Oh my, this truly is a revolution in gameplay. Well so much for that point and with most games being multiplatform, you can expect most developers to do with the kinect what they did last time: utterly ignore it or use it for trivial voice commands.
As to the cloud point you made you really need to start with this as required reading:
And also note that when interviewed on this subject things like real time dynamic calculations such as the one you think of for Quantum Break is beyond the clouds capabilities (for the reasons given by Eurogamer). Most of his uses he gave for it were things that didn't need moment to moment actual calculations, such as lightning models and similar. Anything that requires instant or dynamic feedback/calculations, flatly works poorly with the way the cloud works. Especially depending on how long it takes the player to do it or if the player needs to be involved in some way (changing the calculation afterwards by say trying to move through something would break it entirely).
Cloud computing is really just a fancy buzzword for "We tried to think of a way to justify this online bullshit, so hopefully you buy this and don't think about it like the modders that hacked apart Sim City did".
Does anyone else just absolutely love the word "waggle"? I do. Waggle waggle waggle.
+5
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
If the game hadn't gone all dark and gritty to try to appeal to CoD players (seriously, they couldn't have found a way to make me less interested in it) we would be Harlem Shaking them off.
So, here's how Microsoft themselves have said that their design process arrived at requiring a connection.
When Microsoft was speccing out the machine, they ran up against hard performance limits due to the comparatively glacial read-speed of the disc drive. After some investigation they determined that the best way to deal with these issues would be to force every game to install and run entirely from the hard drive. Unfortunately, that would open them up to piracy on a tremendous scale. So they made it phone home, assuming that most of their market at this point has an internet connection that can handle sending an auth code once a day.
Once they require the internet connection, it opens them up to a lot of other design possibilities - the cloud stuff, a direct digital download platform that they can guarantee everyone has access to, being able to stream your feed to Twitch at any point, etc. There's a lot of stuff you can actually do with this. Removing used games is a (very nice) side-benefit, and one I personally think they should have just gone with outright, akin to Steam, rather than the wishy-washy half and half crap they're pulling now.
I am really curious, but does anyone believe given the pre and now post-E3 masterclass in utterly incompetent public relations, that Microsoft have not fallen into the same Sony 2006 hubris trap?
Because I honestly cant see how any other interpretation is now valid.
The Don Mattrick interview explained everything. It's not hubris, it's the fact that Microsoft doesn't understand games.
Mattrick said that they designed the Xbox One for the future. That's a fair decision, it's going to have to last ten years maybe. But the way he explained that decision said everything. He talked about how when the Xbox 1 came out, people were only designing single player games, because Xbox Live didn't exist and home networking was still developing. Then they started having home connectivity, with the Halo LAN systems etc. And couch multiplayer. Then, once the internet became ubiquitous, people started playing multiplayer over the internet.
Fundamentally, he sees single player games in the same light as black and white films. Old technology to be supplanted by color. He doesn't understand that while black and white was necessitated by the limitations of early film, once technology advanced to give us color film, black and white became an artistic choice at the side, not an obsolete bottom rung on the ladder.
He said it himself. Most people play multiplayer games now. Most people are connected to the internet. He sees people who don't do these things as being primitive and behind. That's why his Xbox 360 comment is so hollow. Of course he would recommend an old console for people without internet. Because he believes this is a linear progression, and that having internet is inherently better than not having it. Or that multiplayer games are inherently more advanced than single player ones.
It's a complete misunderstanding of how art works. And is speaks to Microsoft's unfamiliarity with artistic endeavor. For them, Windows 8 is simply better than Windows 7, because it is one more. Microsoft's entire history is built upon iteration, and progressive improvement in feature set and functionality. Their products all render the previous one obsolete because it's the same, plus more stuff. But that thinking doesn't apply to art. Which is why they have completely misjudged how games work.
of course microsoft understands games and understands technology. they're the largest, most successful, software company in the world. what is this?
MS has made a decision on this console to maintain the fundamental use case for the device - the system specs, if you will - including an active internet connection and an active kinect. there are advantages to developers in being able to guarantee these things, since they can confidently code to a specific use case and not need to work to a variety of possible configurations.
this is especially important as regards the cloud computing aspects - most of the references to it in this thread assume that it will just function as optional features or window dressing to a game that would be compete without it. microsoft's intention with it is to have it fundamentally integrated into the game design, and to do that they need to guarantee to devs that developing a game around it is within consumer expectation. this goes the same for kinect.
in your analogy, microsoft is giving devs an out for supporting older systems or use cases. at some point, you don't demand that developers support voodoo cards anymore.
Spoken like an engineer.
:oops:
well yeah i guess i spend a fair amount of time having to explain to stakeholders that addressing their single specific use case or edge case isn't really in the software design. if you want, for instance, to use my REST service without using HTTP, i really can't help you, even if it would be possible with a lot of work for me to compile it to a local server and create some other kind of API for it.
this is to say, when i specced out my software, it was under the understanding that internet and http was going to be available, and this informed my design. saying i need to also create an "offline mode" would have produced an entirely different design.
guaranteeing a use case is a really important thing in engineering. one thing that defined the current-gen console war (that we heard PC gamers, especially bitch about incessantly) was the tendency for multiplatform releases to work to the lowest common denominator. it's not exactly a win for anyone.
MS is defining "guaranteed internet connection, guaranteed cloud computing, guaranteed kinect availability" as distinguishers that sony cannot not provide. they don't want these things to provide a little extra fluff (raise your hand to reload!), but to meaningfully inform game design.
i don't know too much about quantum break, but in that trailer, it's very possible that cloud computing would be necessary to calculate the physics of how those time-frozen events would proceed after being modified.
there are good reasons aside from DRM and giving publishers agency over the secondary market to require internet
of course, i also think that those are legit reasons as well
Hey, I totally understand the sentiment.
"If you have internet, we can give you these nice things. If we force you to have internet, we can guarantee those nice things. Think of what developers could do!"
You must admit, though. Some of those "nice things", where player sitting on their couch is not the only singular actor during your play session, that physics are computed in the cloud, that you might be racing some sort of super AI trained by a neural network where the input is the entirety of the population playing Forza Infinite or something... all of that is really high concept.
Seriously, how do you explain to people who traditionally have a console where all of the computation and logic is done on the box in front of them to saying that their console is not just the box, but also some cluster of machines working for your enjoyment. Is it even needed?
Game Console as a Service. GCAAS. Rolls off the tongue. Patenting it now if MS hasn't.
Posts
I am totally confused, was that from before Sony's conference? How do Octodad and Don't Starve possibly meet any kind of "graphics requirements"?
. Buying anolder console is not a fix for your stupid online connectivity flaw. You may as well tell us to buy the ps 4.
It's a bot that carries out certain actions on a per-thread basis. In this case, a certain user is banned from the thread, and the grey line serves as a reminder.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
That's an automatic moderator. A bot. The human mods can give it parameters for automatic moderation. In this case, the user Death of Rats is prohibited from posting in this thread because of reasons. The mods have always been lazy so this keeps the forums running smoothly in their absence. I think there's a faq somewhere around.
LA LA LA LA LA LA NOT LISTENING LA LA LA LA
Heres the video:
And heres another link, because Viacom is trying to delete it. Apparently that was not supposed to air. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f2b_1371011276
He has been the biggest surprise of E3, he really hit home on the major publishers about the DRM and if they were involved or not. He also repeatedly asked that question of EA and Ubisoft when he had them. He has been astounding, which I would not have ever imagined me saying after Doritosgate last year.
However, the video above is not being deleted out of any Microsoft conspiracy, it's on Gametrailers YouTube channel and I imagine they want you to watch it there:
We don't need to make Microsoft more evil out of imagined conspiracies when they are doing a fantastic job of this themselves without anyone helping them. You know what the greatest part is? The likes and dislikes. So much for being for games by gamers Microsoft, or telling people the solution is to buy a 360.
Edit: He is absolutely right though, things IMO are better when you can connect to others or the Internet. Dark Souls is a good example. He is wrong in one very important way though, in that you don't need to FORCE people to do that to make an engaging and fantastic game. Dark Souls is still a fantastic game even when you aren't playing it with other people because the gameplay fundamentals are so rock solidly fantastic. It becomes enhanced, but not enslaved by an Internet connection and that's the best approach by far.
The approach where every single consumer wins.
Sure, but there's a tangible difference between, say, Verizon not putting up a cell tower in COP Nowhere, and Verizon designing a phone that self-destructs if you leave CDMA networks.
I use that as an example because Verizon unlocked my phone before deploying, so it was as simple as putting in a $10 sim to get cheap calls back to the US, and that's what reasonable customer service to deployed personnel looks like.
There's no actual technical reason for it to need a net connection, unlike World of Warcraft, so saying "luxuries aren't available anywhere," while true, disguises the difference between not having enough water for showers somewhere vs. just fucking people over. It could work, their competitors do work, and they should be called to task for it.
This is really playing out like a really bad breakup though, lol...
One year from now is really going to be interesting.
I believe that was probably the implication without saying to go for the competitor outright. The Xbox One can't be used without a net connection, so people in those situations aren't the intended audience. They do have alternatives, the PS4, PS3, Wii U or the 360. Does it suck for those people? Sure does. Is the implication here that it is Microsoft's responsibility to provide entertainment for the troops?
The rest of the interview goes into their strategy and the idea behind having a connected device. He uses smartphones as an example of how a market can change and expand rapidly and they want to be in a position to adapt to that. I remember a time when I said, out loud, that I didn't want my phone to be any more than a phone and that I was fine with a separate MP3 player, I look back at that past me like I was a fucking crazy person. They believe, whether right or wrong, that the TV is going to become an important connected device, a strategy I am all for. I am having a real difficult time understanding why people think that Microsoft should sacrifice that strategy to appeal to everyone. No one is entitled to the device, and they are within their rights to build a device for whoever they please. It just so happens they're building a device for people with a broadband connection that want to get more out of their TV's than they did last generation.
In actual gaming/Xbox One news. Ryse features a co-op "back to back" mode set in the Roman Colosseum. Sounds like a horde mode with changing set pieces that rise from the ground. Could be interesting.
Because I honestly cant see how any other interpretation is now valid.
See, there's nothing wrong with leveraging the power of the internet on your device. But if your phone isn't connected to the internet for 24 hours, it's not gonna stop you from making calls.
Clearly Microsoft disagrees. They apparently think that it's a feature to have everyone who's using it to be able to connect online. As they themselves have said their product isn't for people who can't play online. And that's okay. From a business point it's also dumb in my opinion but them's the breaks. Sometimes companies make dumb business decisions. There are other options. It is not a particularly terrible affront that you can't have every game console when deployed.
if I was Sony and my original price for the PS4 was equal to the XBox's $499 or even higher, and I decided to undercut them at the last minute after seeing their presentation, I wouldn't be undercutting by a whole $100. That'd be stupid. I'd go for undercutting them by $50, because then I beat them on price AND beat them on all the features that Sony beat them on.
Yeah. It may be time for the acceptance/moving on stage for those of whom the online thing is a deal-breaker, because they certainly don't seem to be willing to compromise to the extent that they want them to. Heh.
To the 45 year old professional, that extra $100 and internet check in isn't going to be a dealbreaker, and the tv integration may actually be a selling point.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The Don Mattrick interview explained everything. It's not hubris, it's the fact that Microsoft doesn't understand games.
Mattrick said that they designed the Xbox One for the future. That's a fair decision, it's going to have to last ten years maybe. But the way he explained that decision said everything. He talked about how when the Xbox 1 came out, people were only designing single player games, because Xbox Live didn't exist and home networking was still developing. Then they started having home connectivity, with the Halo LAN systems etc. And couch multiplayer. Then, once the internet became ubiquitous, people started playing multiplayer over the internet.
Fundamentally, he sees single player games in the same light as black and white films. Old technology to be supplanted by color. He doesn't understand that while black and white was necessitated by the limitations of early film, once technology advanced to give us color film, black and white became an artistic choice at the side, not an obsolete bottom rung on the ladder.
He said it himself. Most people play multiplayer games now. Most people are connected to the internet. He sees people who don't do these things as being primitive and behind. That's why his Xbox 360 comment is so hollow. Of course he would recommend an old console for people without internet. Because he believes this is a linear progression, and that having internet is inherently better than not having it. Or that multiplayer games are inherently more advanced than single player ones.
It's a complete misunderstanding of how art works. And is speaks to Microsoft's unfamiliarity with artistic endeavor. For them, Windows 8 is simply better than Windows 7, because it is one more. Microsoft's entire history is built upon iteration, and progressive improvement in feature set and functionality. Their products all render the previous one obsolete because it's the same, plus more stuff. But that thinking doesn't apply to art. Which is why they have completely misjudged how games work.
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
Nothing you say makes a case for the console having to be connected all the time to phone home every 24 hours. That part of the console could go away tomorrow without costing the functionality you seem to be praising.
That reads to me like the only reason that 24 hour check exists is to facilitate physical used game sales to appease Gamestop while also moving over to a proper digital system, which is fucking awesome no more losing games, theft, fire, flood, dog, other terrible random event that could destroy my games. They are just there, I can download them whenever I want. I move around every 6 - 12 months or so, a digital library is a must. The reason the time between checks is so short in comparison to the Steam 2-weeks/30-days/forever if you crack it/whatever is the part I bolded above. Used games seem to be the biggest reason of the check. If I am going to accept the check in Steam (or at least the idea of one being there), then for the Xbox One I have to be able to accept the same principle and the length of time between checks would depend entirely on how much of a pain in my ass it is to live with. My internet is 'eh' for my area, but there's no way that I would even notice this check. Like, at all. It's also the internet, it's gonna get faster and better. Also, my phone IS connected to the internet 24 hours. If my phone is on, it's attached to my data. I honestly wouldn't have a clue of my phone has a DRM check in it. This would have been one of those things that I wouldn't have noticed until it popped up in some random event if they didn't tell me.
@Yoshua
I agree and I have said previously that since they announced the 24 hour check that it was the part of all this negativity that gives me the most pause. But the more I thought about it, the less it seemed to matter and I've been putting up with the same principle on PC for ages. Lets be clear; the check regardless of the time between the checks would screw over deployed soldiers. If it were just for DRM there is no reason for it to be that soon between checks, trading games is pretty much a requirement to get shelf space at brick & mortar shops. Having minimal brick & mortar support would have been a bigger killer for the system than the check is.
That last bit of the final paragraph absolutely nails the current situation. I wonder what he is going to make of his dark prophecy coming true in the news post today (it's not up yet sadly).
I DO give two poops that I can't lend games to friends, that the system is technically not as powerful as the PS3 (spec wise), costs more and comes bundled with a peripheral I have absolutely zero interest in.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
Exactly this, if you lose a check, you lose pre owned games or you lose installing everything to hard drive and not needing a disc. Sony have kept the status quo, which is fine, but Microsoft are giving me a new service (not needing to change discs) at a price (24 hour check) that I won't notice. Pretty great for me.
And Steam proves you can install to a disc and still have an offline mode. Theirs is wonky at times, but that is an implementation issue, not an issue with the concept.
Steam doesn't allow you to trade physical copies of games authenticated to their system. PC games haven't had lending since CD-Keys. If you're talking about a backup disk, sure, but you still can't put that game on a friends Steam account. Yet.
I have no reason to doubt Microsoft's ability to keep their authentication servers running. Azure is a well regarded cloud services platform and Server 2012 has been getting rave reviews for its cloud integration. The possibility the system coming down is there, hackers are smart, but that's not something that I factor into my decision. Steam's still up.
I wasn't talking about game trading. I'm talking about how my entire Steam library remains available to me whether or not I am online. Microsoft is creating more issues for themselves than they are solving. It is going to come back to bite them in the ass.
of course microsoft understands games and understands technology. they're the largest, most successful, software company in the world. what is this?
MS has made a decision on this console to maintain the fundamental use case for the device - the system specs, if you will - including an active internet connection and an active kinect. there are advantages to developers in being able to guarantee these things, since they can confidently code to a specific use case and not need to work to a variety of possible configurations.
this is especially important as regards the cloud computing aspects - most of the references to it in this thread assume that it will just function as optional features or window dressing to a game that would be compete without it. microsoft's intention with it is to have it fundamentally integrated into the game design, and to do that they need to guarantee to devs that developing a game around it is within consumer expectation. this goes the same for kinect.
in your analogy, microsoft is giving devs an out for supporting older systems or use cases. at some point, you don't demand that developers support voodoo cards anymore.
Spoken like an engineer.
Clearly, the internet terrorists win when you allow them to dictate your purchasing decisions on the possibility that they will strike and ruin your ability to play a game after 24 (or longer should they change that part of the policy) hours.
I'd be more worried about any pid that could be exposed more than "I can't play my games" in such a scenario, the same as with Amazon, iTunes and other services that have bits of my pid and such...
edit: just saying, it's going to a silly place with the "Teh Hackers" fear-mongering approach against the service.
:oops:
well yeah i guess i spend a fair amount of time having to explain to stakeholders that addressing their single specific use case or edge case isn't really in the software design. if you want, for instance, to use my REST service without using HTTP, i really can't help you, even if it would be possible with a lot of work for me to compile it to a local server and create some other kind of API for it.
this is to say, when i specced out my software, it was under the understanding that internet and http was going to be available, and this informed my design. saying i need to also create an "offline mode" would have produced an entirely different design.
guaranteeing a use case is a really important thing in engineering. one thing that defined the current-gen console war (that we heard PC gamers, especially bitch about incessantly) was the tendency for multiplatform releases to work to the lowest common denominator. it's not exactly a win for anyone.
MS is defining "guaranteed internet connection, guaranteed cloud computing, guaranteed kinect availability" as distinguishers that sony cannot not provide. they don't want these things to provide a little extra fluff (raise your hand to reload!), but to meaningfully inform game design.
i don't know too much about quantum break, but in that trailer, it's very possible that cloud computing would be necessary to calculate the physics of how those time-frozen events would proceed after being modified.
there are good reasons aside from DRM and giving publishers agency over the secondary market to require internet
of course, i also think that those are legit reasons as well
So that's what we get with some kind of "mod-regulated xbox one thread"? Faux engineers and people using terms like "Internet Terrorists"?
Mfw
I'll let myself out...
Hmmm.
Raising my arms to waggle off zombies? Oh my, this truly is a revolution in gameplay. Well so much for that point and with most games being multiplatform, you can expect most developers to do with the kinect what they did last time: utterly ignore it or use it for trivial voice commands.
As to the cloud point you made you really need to start with this as required reading:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-in-theory-can-xbox-one-cloud-transform-gaming
And also note that when interviewed on this subject things like real time dynamic calculations such as the one you think of for Quantum Break is beyond the clouds capabilities (for the reasons given by Eurogamer). Most of his uses he gave for it were things that didn't need moment to moment actual calculations, such as lightning models and similar. Anything that requires instant or dynamic feedback/calculations, flatly works poorly with the way the cloud works. Especially depending on how long it takes the player to do it or if the player needs to be involved in some way (changing the calculation afterwards by say trying to move through something would break it entirely).
Cloud computing is really just a fancy buzzword for "We tried to think of a way to justify this online bullshit, so hopefully you buy this and don't think about it like the modders that hacked apart Sim City did".
When Microsoft was speccing out the machine, they ran up against hard performance limits due to the comparatively glacial read-speed of the disc drive. After some investigation they determined that the best way to deal with these issues would be to force every game to install and run entirely from the hard drive. Unfortunately, that would open them up to piracy on a tremendous scale. So they made it phone home, assuming that most of their market at this point has an internet connection that can handle sending an auth code once a day.
Once they require the internet connection, it opens them up to a lot of other design possibilities - the cloud stuff, a direct digital download platform that they can guarantee everyone has access to, being able to stream your feed to Twitch at any point, etc. There's a lot of stuff you can actually do with this. Removing used games is a (very nice) side-benefit, and one I personally think they should have just gone with outright, akin to Steam, rather than the wishy-washy half and half crap they're pulling now.
Hey, I totally understand the sentiment.
"If you have internet, we can give you these nice things. If we force you to have internet, we can guarantee those nice things. Think of what developers could do!"
You must admit, though. Some of those "nice things", where player sitting on their couch is not the only singular actor during your play session, that physics are computed in the cloud, that you might be racing some sort of super AI trained by a neural network where the input is the entirety of the population playing Forza Infinite or something... all of that is really high concept.
Seriously, how do you explain to people who traditionally have a console where all of the computation and logic is done on the box in front of them to saying that their console is not just the box, but also some cluster of machines working for your enjoyment. Is it even needed?
Game Console as a Service. GCAAS. Rolls off the tongue. Patenting it now if MS hasn't.