They've said they are looking in to some sort of solution for the military a few weeks back.
Which is curious since other statements have been made that it's impossible and this is how the console was designed and it can not work otherwise.
it's gonna be a challenge for sure.
i'm sure they can engineer their way around the authorization req with a dongle of sufficient sophistication, but the fact is that they're really pushing their devs into making central facets of their games expect an internet connection.
when i was deployed to greenland, i had basically zero internet. it sucked. my cell phone didn't work on the greenland signal. that sucked too. i couldn't buy carts for my ds at the bx. that sucked too.
being deployed is a hardship - no bones about it. that's why they pay you to do it.
The difference being before this next gen it wasn't an issue, you could play your single player games because you had the necessary console + TV, It wouldn't really matter how remote you were so long as you had electricity. Now that is changing, and understandably they are upset about it. What will most likely happen realistically though is that you'll jsut see a massive shift in the Military from Xbox to PS4 (if it wasn't already that way, that I don't know)
Delphinidaes on
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
They've said they are looking in to some sort of solution for the military a few weeks back.
Which is curious since other statements have been made that it's impossible and this is how the console was designed and it can not work otherwise.
it's gonna be a challenge for sure.
i'm sure they can engineer their way around the authorization req with a dongle of sufficient sophistication, but the fact is that they're really pushing their devs into making central facets of their games expect an internet connection.
when i was deployed to greenland, i had basically zero internet. it sucked. my cell phone didn't work on the greenland signal. that sucked too. i couldn't buy carts for my ds at the bx. that sucked too.
being deployed is a hardship - no bones about it. that's why they pay you to do it.
The difference being before this next gen it wasn't an issue, you could play your single player games because you had the necessary console + TV, It wouldn't really matter how remote you were so long as you had electricity. Now that is changing, and understandably they are upset about it. What will most likely happen realistically though is that you'll jsut see a massive shift in the Military from Xbox to PS4 (if it wasn't already that way, that I don't know)
i absolutely don't blame them at all. i mean, if i were deployed again i'd want to be able to play console games too. and i'd buy a console that worked wherever i was going.
but i also don't think that microsoft is under any patriotic obligation to build their console around the use case of "deployed to an internet-free zone in afghanistan"
Irond Will on
+1
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
They've said they are looking in to some sort of solution for the military a few weeks back.
Which is curious since other statements have been made that it's impossible and this is how the console was designed and it can not work otherwise.
it's gonna be a challenge for sure.
i'm sure they can engineer their way around the authorization req with a dongle of sufficient sophistication, but the fact is that they're really pushing their devs into making central facets of their games expect an internet connection.
when i was deployed to greenland, i had basically zero internet. it sucked. my cell phone didn't work on the greenland signal. that sucked too. i couldn't buy carts for my ds at the bx. that sucked too.
being deployed is a hardship - no bones about it. that's why they pay you to do it.
The difference being before this next gen it wasn't an issue, you could play your single player games because you had the necessary console + TV, It wouldn't really matter how remote you were so long as you had electricity. Now that is changing, and understandably they are upset about it. What will most likely happen realistically though is that you'll jsut see a massive shift in the Military from Xbox to PS4 (if it wasn't already that way, that I don't know)
i absolutely don't blame them at all. i mean, if i were deployed again i'd want to be able to play console games too. and i'd buy a console that worked wherever i was going.
but i also don't think that microsoft is under any patriotic obligation to build their console around the use case of "deployed to an internet-free zone in afghanistan"
Oh of course they aren't, but it's understandable that the people who played 360 before are upset, and it should be no surprise that MS loses that market.
The thing is that they are losing people left and right because of these changes, and while I'm sure that they'll be fine in the long run it is just interesting to watch. It's not often you see a business purposefully narrow it's market on such a scale, normally they are trying to reach out and gather up more demographics.
It will be interesting to see what happens and if they losses they are taking from this will be made up by the core demographic they are catering to.
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
+5
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
They've said they are looking in to some sort of solution for the military a few weeks back.
Which is curious since other statements have been made that it's impossible and this is how the console was designed and it can not work otherwise.
it's gonna be a challenge for sure.
i'm sure they can engineer their way around the authorization req with a dongle of sufficient sophistication, but the fact is that they're really pushing their devs into making central facets of their games expect an internet connection.
when i was deployed to greenland, i had basically zero internet. it sucked. my cell phone didn't work on the greenland signal. that sucked too. i couldn't buy carts for my ds at the bx. that sucked too.
being deployed is a hardship - no bones about it. that's why they pay you to do it.
The difference being before this next gen it wasn't an issue, you could play your single player games because you had the necessary console + TV, It wouldn't really matter how remote you were so long as you had electricity. Now that is changing, and understandably they are upset about it. What will most likely happen realistically though is that you'll jsut see a massive shift in the Military from Xbox to PS4 (if it wasn't already that way, that I don't know)
i absolutely don't blame them at all. i mean, if i were deployed again i'd want to be able to play console games too. and i'd buy a console that worked wherever i was going.
but i also don't think that microsoft is under any patriotic obligation to build their console around the use case of "deployed to an internet-free zone in afghanistan"
Oh of course they aren't, but it's understandable that the people who played 360 before are upset, and it should be no surprise that MS loses that market.
The thing is that they are losing people left and right because of these changes, and while I'm sure that they'll be fine in the long run it is just interesting to watch. It's not often you see a business purposefully narrow it's market on such a scale, normally they are trying to reach out and gather up more demographics.
It will be interesting to see what happens and if they losses they are taking from this will be made up by the core demographic they are catering to.
i am not a fan of microsoft in general, but i have admired how ballsy they've been with their "vision" as exemplified by design decisions lately.
the metro UI is a really ambitious overhaul. going into touch-screen devices is ambitious. forcing win8 to boot to metro and getting rid of the stupid start menu is ballsy. azure is ballsy. office-as-a-service is ballsy. the xbone is ballsy.
like, after 20 years of microsoft playing me-too and mitigating risk on the way to financial success, they're actually leading for a change
They've said they are looking in to some sort of solution for the military a few weeks back.
Which is curious since other statements have been made that it's impossible and this is how the console was designed and it can not work otherwise.
it's gonna be a challenge for sure.
i'm sure they can engineer their way around the authorization req with a dongle of sufficient sophistication, but the fact is that they're really pushing their devs into making central facets of their games expect an internet connection.
when i was deployed to greenland, i had basically zero internet. it sucked. my cell phone didn't work on the greenland signal. that sucked too. i couldn't buy carts for my ds at the bx. that sucked too.
being deployed is a hardship - no bones about it. that's why they pay you to do it.
The difference being before this next gen it wasn't an issue, you could play your single player games because you had the necessary console + TV, It wouldn't really matter how remote you were so long as you had electricity. Now that is changing, and understandably they are upset about it. What will most likely happen realistically though is that you'll jsut see a massive shift in the Military from Xbox to PS4 (if it wasn't already that way, that I don't know)
i absolutely don't blame them at all. i mean, if i were deployed again i'd want to be able to play console games too. and i'd buy a console that worked wherever i was going.
but i also don't think that microsoft is under any patriotic obligation to build their console around the use case of "deployed to an internet-free zone in afghanistan"
They're not under any obligation, no. They're a private company.
But it is saying that have no interest in the disposable income of members of the armed forces.
They've said they are looking in to some sort of solution for the military a few weeks back.
Which is curious since other statements have been made that it's impossible and this is how the console was designed and it can not work otherwise.
it's gonna be a challenge for sure.
i'm sure they can engineer their way around the authorization req with a dongle of sufficient sophistication, but the fact is that they're really pushing their devs into making central facets of their games expect an internet connection.
when i was deployed to greenland, i had basically zero internet. it sucked. my cell phone didn't work on the greenland signal. that sucked too. i couldn't buy carts for my ds at the bx. that sucked too.
being deployed is a hardship - no bones about it. that's why they pay you to do it.
The difference being before this next gen it wasn't an issue, you could play your single player games because you had the necessary console + TV, It wouldn't really matter how remote you were so long as you had electricity. Now that is changing, and understandably they are upset about it. What will most likely happen realistically though is that you'll jsut see a massive shift in the Military from Xbox to PS4 (if it wasn't already that way, that I don't know)
i absolutely don't blame them at all. i mean, if i were deployed again i'd want to be able to play console games too. and i'd buy a console that worked wherever i was going.
but i also don't think that microsoft is under any patriotic obligation to build their console around the use case of "deployed to an internet-free zone in afghanistan"
They're not under any obligation, no. They're a private company.
But it is saying that have no interest in the disposable income of members of the armed forces.
...who are looking for a console for use while deployed without internet
You know what would have helped clear up a lot of the confusion about privacy, the system, its on/off state, and a number of other matters? If MS has been willing to do round-tables and journalist interviews after their presser.
Perharps but than someone would claims Phil Spencer or Dan Mattrick was lying. I don't know how it got this way. My X360 is always online at boot. I don't feel my privacy as been violated in any shape or form. Yes I do have the kinect 1 connect to.
Possibly, but a lot of the hesitancy regarding this device is inherently tied to not being able to get either consistent answers or any answer at all. I am with you though on the on/off thing as I think MS has mostly put that to bed. I would like confirmation from them as to what kinds of data it is going to track and whether that will be stored locally, for how long, and if MS will ever have access to it. Not because I'm a conspiracy theorist - mind you - but because I like having reassurances.
That's a legitimate request. I understand that. We have to leave the assumption and speculation of PRISM/NSA using Kinect out of it. I would be interested too. Just for curiousity.
I am having a hard time understand the reluctance of users to be online. We are in 2013. Even my TV connects to the internet. Next thing we know, my toaster will have firmware update....I don't know what it is about living room and online that makes people go crazy. I love being online. Being 100% online is not detriment is a feature for me. So this is the part where gamers that are not comfortable with that will buy a PS4. I have nothing against that. I might buy one myself down the road. (I have an X360, PS3 and Wiu at home). I am gamer at heart. I don't care about company allegiance, I just love gaming. I've been doing it since the days of Vic 20 and Commodore 64. I look toward the future, Cloud computing is where it at. Blending single player and multiplayer into 1 experience is only going to get stronger.
Do you own any devices that are disabled when not online?
Its an ONLINE CONSOLE. Why is so freaking hard to understand. It was design to be ALWAYS ONLINE. That's the deal. If you cannot live with this requirement, than don't. You can always buy a Wiiu and wait forever before a game comes out or buy a PS4. its up to you.
Symtex, you really need to calm down. Maybe you think you're the Last Man That Likes The Xbox One in the thread or something, but yeah. These responses don't really lead to further meaningful discussion about the subject at hand... they know they don't have to buy the device.
I don't mean to be rude. Its only the same fear mongering useless argument :
First person : Xbox one cannot be play in Poland !!1 It sucks
2nd person : Do you ever plan to go to Poland ?
First person : no
2nd person : so why do you care ?
First person : In case I want too.
Look at the previous post. Its all about Microsoft hates the military. Is Blizzard also hating the military because they cannot play World Of Warcraft?
Not to be snide, but are you suggesting that Polish people do not have a legitimate right to be upset if the console doesn't work in their country? I personally, do not plan on traveling to Poland anytime soon, but I think for anyone currently living in Poland the matter is of some importance.
to be fair, almost every console in history has had a staggered release. it sucked, i guess, that japan got their ps vita before me, but it's not exactly an insult to all americans or something.
Agreed, however, region locking does not exist on the PS4, and in my opinion, shouldn't exist on this device either.
there are some really compelling business reasons to have region locking schemes - not least of which being the fact that Russia and China refuse to respect the IP law of any other country.
the only people i can really think of who are negatively impacted by region locking are importers and people who move internationally and want to buy local products for their now-foreign devices. am i missing an important use case?
Military members stationed in other countries. Civilians and contractors on work Visas in other countries. People who travel.
Region locking is different than geo or ip locking though.
every px or bx i've ever been to has copies of US games and US region consoles.
and i mean, going on vacation or travel with one's xbox and needing to pick up a local copy of a game instead of getting one shipped from amazon does strike me as an edge case.
The gaming selection in many PX and BX stores is shit though.
Guys, I have to apologize to you. I've been a total idiot.
Here I was in the Penny Arcade forums asking about previous devices that had to be connected or they wouldn't work. The Penny Fucking Arcade fucking forums.
The funny thing is, I'd could probably start defending DivX disks right now. I mean for how most people would watch most movies they'd probably save money over buying DVDs.
And yeah, I'm sure it's been brought up before and confessions of my stupidity are not entirely ironic.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
+3
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Guys, I have to apologize to you. I've been a total idiot.
Here I was in the Penny Arcade forums asking about previous devices that had to be connected or they wouldn't work. The Penny Fucking Arcade fucking forums.
The funny thing is, I'd could probably start defending DivX disks right now. I mean for how most people would watch most movies they'd probably save money over buying DVDs.
And yeah, I'm sure it's been brought up before and confessions of my stupidity are not entirely ironic.
They've said they are looking in to some sort of solution for the military a few weeks back.
Which is curious since other statements have been made that it's impossible and this is how the console was designed and it can not work otherwise.
it's gonna be a challenge for sure.
i'm sure they can engineer their way around the authorization req with a dongle of sufficient sophistication, but the fact is that they're really pushing their devs into making central facets of their games expect an internet connection.
when i was deployed to greenland, i had basically zero internet. it sucked. my cell phone didn't work on the greenland signal. that sucked too. i couldn't buy carts for my ds at the bx. that sucked too.
being deployed is a hardship - no bones about it. that's why they pay you to do it.
The difference being before this next gen it wasn't an issue, you could play your single player games because you had the necessary console + TV, It wouldn't really matter how remote you were so long as you had electricity. Now that is changing, and understandably they are upset about it. What will most likely happen realistically though is that you'll jsut see a massive shift in the Military from Xbox to PS4 (if it wasn't already that way, that I don't know)
i absolutely don't blame them at all. i mean, if i were deployed again i'd want to be able to play console games too. and i'd buy a console that worked wherever i was going.
but i also don't think that microsoft is under any patriotic obligation to build their console around the use case of "deployed to an internet-free zone in afghanistan"
They're not under any obligation, no. They're a private company.
But it is saying that have no interest in the disposable income of members of the armed forces.
...who are looking for a console for use while deployed without internet
Exactly, which is a direction Microsoft is no longer going in meaning they are no longer interested in that particular market.
Honestly for me the online requirement thing wouldn't bother me as much if it didn't also disable all your games if you didn't check in. The ones that are multiplayer? Sure no problem there, but my single player games that I like to play in situations when I'm without internet? (temporary outages, travelling, etc) that is unacceptable to me.
Now when Google Fiber is in every home sometime in the future and people have access to free internet anywhere in the world then have at it, but I don't think we are there yet and to me it seems foolish to shed those markets at this time.
Delphinidaes on
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
Guys, I have to apologize to you. I've been a total idiot.
Here I was in the Penny Arcade forums asking about previous devices that had to be connected or they wouldn't work. The Penny Fucking Arcade fucking forums.
The funny thing is, I'd could probably start defending DivX disks right now. I mean for how most people would watch most movies they'd probably save money over buying DVDs.
And yeah, I'm sure it's been brought up before and confessions of my stupidity are not entirely ironic.
i have an recentish-gen appletv at home
i love it and use it all the time
doesn't do shit without internet though
You can't play video from your iPad with it?
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
They've said they are looking in to some sort of solution for the military a few weeks back.
Which is curious since other statements have been made that it's impossible and this is how the console was designed and it can not work otherwise.
it's gonna be a challenge for sure.
i'm sure they can engineer their way around the authorization req with a dongle of sufficient sophistication, but the fact is that they're really pushing their devs into making central facets of their games expect an internet connection.
when i was deployed to greenland, i had basically zero internet. it sucked. my cell phone didn't work on the greenland signal. that sucked too. i couldn't buy carts for my ds at the bx. that sucked too.
being deployed is a hardship - no bones about it. that's why they pay you to do it.
The difference being before this next gen it wasn't an issue, you could play your single player games because you had the necessary console + TV, It wouldn't really matter how remote you were so long as you had electricity. Now that is changing, and understandably they are upset about it. What will most likely happen realistically though is that you'll jsut see a massive shift in the Military from Xbox to PS4 (if it wasn't already that way, that I don't know)
i absolutely don't blame them at all. i mean, if i were deployed again i'd want to be able to play console games too. and i'd buy a console that worked wherever i was going.
but i also don't think that microsoft is under any patriotic obligation to build their console around the use case of "deployed to an internet-free zone in afghanistan"
They're not under any obligation, no. They're a private company.
But it is saying that have no interest in the disposable income of members of the armed forces.
...who are looking for a console for use while deployed without internet
Exactly, which is a direction Microsoft is no longer going in meaning they are no longer interested in that particular market.
Honestly for me the online requirement thing wouldn't bother me as much if it didn't also disable all your games if you didn't check in. The ones that are multiplayer? Sure no problem there, but my single player games that I like to play in situations when I'm without internet? (temporary outages, travelling, etc) that is unacceptable to me.
Now when Google Fiber is in every home sometime in the future and people have access to free internet anywhere in the world then have at it, but I don't think we are there yet and to me it seems foolish to shed those markets at this time.
it's definitely a consideration for some folks. personally, i can't think of a time in the past decade where i wanted to play console video games and had power but no internet.
remember, microsoft's vision for this console is "single player" =/= "offline"
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Guys, I have to apologize to you. I've been a total idiot.
Here I was in the Penny Arcade forums asking about previous devices that had to be connected or they wouldn't work. The Penny Fucking Arcade fucking forums.
The funny thing is, I'd could probably start defending DivX disks right now. I mean for how most people would watch most movies they'd probably save money over buying DVDs.
And yeah, I'm sure it's been brought up before and confessions of my stupidity are not entirely ironic.
i have an recentish-gen appletv at home
i love it and use it all the time
doesn't do shit without internet though
You can't play video from your iPad with it?
i think maybe i can. i could probably stream something from my mac to it also. i guess i've never tried that.
This is the first launch I can remember where there'll be more games that I have time to play ready for launch. I want literally every launch game announced so far, although I don't have room for Kinect Sports so that's an easier one to miss. I think my priorities will be Forza and Dead Rising/Watchdogs if it's out, but it'd be tough to pass up COD and Battlefield. November is going to be a great month for gamers, and an awful month for bank accounts.
I'd appreciate it if someone who's gungho for the XBO or especially knowledgeable about it could answer this for me. I've read a lot about it and watched most of the stuff from E3 but I still don't see where it sets itself apart as a home media system.
I actually think the entertainment features of the XBO are good, but not overwhelmingly so, as I still don't think it makes very good use of Kinect. Voice activation and hand movements simply don't add value for me, and it wouldn't surprise me if that's a common sentiment.
What does add value for me is that the device is acting as a pass-through for television, the same way Google TV does. I like the idea of searching for all my content from one screen (plus not changing inputs.) The problem is that the pass-through features don't require all the restrictions on the system nor should they require the $15/mo fee for Live, on top of my cable bill + Netflix + Amazon + HBO. Admittedly I'd be purchasing it anyways, but the extra $120/yr XBL costs over PS+ is far more expensive than that feature is worth to me. Switching inputs and keeping live TV separate from Netflix/Amazon/HBO is clumsy, but it's not $120/yr clumsy.
And I'm sure both will be just fine as media center devices, just like the 360 and PS3 currently are. I realize that Microsoft is branding it as an all-encompassing media center system, but they haven't actually shown me how that's true. A pass-through and voice commands are not much added value. Both systems will let me stream things from my computer and will work as all-around movie players from Bluray/Netflix/Amazon/HBO. One is just slightly more convenient than the other.
So what are they talking about when they say it's substantially better suited for a media center than the PS4? Please don't say the Halo TV show.
It looks like MS screwed up their Live marketing with the subsidized console, since only subsidized 360's Live costs $15 a month. Normal Live is $5 a month, or cheaper if you get deals on cards like a lot of people do.
They've said they are looking in to some sort of solution for the military a few weeks back.
Which is curious since other statements have been made that it's impossible and this is how the console was designed and it can not work otherwise.
it's gonna be a challenge for sure.
i'm sure they can engineer their way around the authorization req with a dongle of sufficient sophistication, but the fact is that they're really pushing their devs into making central facets of their games expect an internet connection.
when i was deployed to greenland, i had basically zero internet. it sucked. my cell phone didn't work on the greenland signal. that sucked too. i couldn't buy carts for my ds at the bx. that sucked too.
being deployed is a hardship - no bones about it. that's why they pay you to do it.
The difference being before this next gen it wasn't an issue, you could play your single player games because you had the necessary console + TV, It wouldn't really matter how remote you were so long as you had electricity. Now that is changing, and understandably they are upset about it. What will most likely happen realistically though is that you'll jsut see a massive shift in the Military from Xbox to PS4 (if it wasn't already that way, that I don't know)
i absolutely don't blame them at all. i mean, if i were deployed again i'd want to be able to play console games too. and i'd buy a console that worked wherever i was going.
but i also don't think that microsoft is under any patriotic obligation to build their console around the use case of "deployed to an internet-free zone in afghanistan"
They're not under any obligation, no. They're a private company.
But it is saying that have no interest in the disposable income of members of the armed forces.
...who are looking for a console for use while deployed without internet
Exactly, which is a direction Microsoft is no longer going in meaning they are no longer interested in that particular market.
Honestly for me the online requirement thing wouldn't bother me as much if it didn't also disable all your games if you didn't check in. The ones that are multiplayer? Sure no problem there, but my single player games that I like to play in situations when I'm without internet? (temporary outages, travelling, etc) that is unacceptable to me.
Now when Google Fiber is in every home sometime in the future and people have access to free internet anywhere in the world then have at it, but I don't think we are there yet and to me it seems foolish to shed those markets at this time.
it's definitely a consideration for some folks. personally, i can't think of a time in the past decade where i wanted to play console video games and had power but no internet.
remember, microsoft's vision for this console is "single player" =/= "offline"
I have, in Afghanistan. Albeit I skipped consoles and just played PC this time around. Per Sniper Hill (the provider for a substantial portion of Afghanistan) TOS, non-PC devices aren't allowed on the internet at all, even where it does exist.
On the second issue, online singleplayer doesn't have much space to go. D. Souls made a compelling case that it can be done well, but a substantial number of gameplay ideas simply cannot meaningfully benefit from it, especially without increasing budgets, which is another issue.
It looks like MS screwed up their Live marketing with the subsidized console, since only subsidized 360's Live costs $15 a month. Normal Live is $5 a month, or cheaper if you get deals on cards like a lot of people do.
Now I'm confused.
So if I buy an XBox One, to get all the online features requires XBL Gold, which is $60/year. What's XBL Silver?
It looks like MS screwed up their Live marketing with the subsidized console, since only subsidized 360's Live costs $15 a month. Normal Live is $5 a month, or cheaper if you get deals on cards like a lot of people do.
Now I'm confused.
So if I buy an XBox One, to get all the online features requires XBL Gold, which is $60/year. What's XBL Silver?
You can watch tv through it, and play blu-ray discs.
CorriganX on Steam and just about everywhere else.
It looks like MS screwed up their Live marketing with the subsidized console, since only subsidized 360's Live costs $15 a month. Normal Live is $5 a month, or cheaper if you get deals on cards like a lot of people do.
Now I'm confused.
So if I buy an XBox One, to get all the online features requires XBL Gold, which is $60/year. What's XBL Silver?
You can watch tv through it, and play blu-ray discs.
And single player games.
Lets not assume they're hiding singleplayer games behind a paywall without any supporting evidence whatsoever.
I had assumed when he said online features he would know about the different between single player/multiplayer games and would just be looking for the other 'features' listed in the xbox one package. Yes you can play games offline without gold. My bad.
CorriganX on Steam and just about everywhere else.
I had assumed when he said online features he would know about the different between single player/multiplayer games and would just be looking for the other 'features' listed in the xbox one package. Yes you can play games offline without gold. My bad.
Whoops, rushed to that too soon. Sorry about that. So much is up in the air, however, that there are a lot of assumptions being thrown about which we just don't know the answer to yet. I'm just trying to keep straight the things we do know, and correct people on the things that are just assumptions at this point. You know, so the thread doesn't become a crazy game of telephone.
I had assumed when he said online features he would know about the different between single player/multiplayer games and would just be looking for the other 'features' listed in the xbox one package. Yes you can play games offline without gold. My bad.
Whoops, rushed to that too soon. Sorry about that. So much is up in the air, however, that there are a lot of assumptions being thrown about which we just don't know the answer to yet. I'm just trying to keep straight the things we do know, and correct people on the things that are just assumptions at this point. You know, so the thread doesn't become a crazy game of telephone.
I heard a Microsoft exec said military members aren't supported by them, and may not even work more than once every 24 hours in Poland, apparently MS has been using the Kinect to watch a bunch of guys in a nuclear sub, that's how he knows.
They've said they are looking in to some sort of solution for the military a few weeks back.
Which is curious since other statements have been made that it's impossible and this is how the console was designed and it can not work otherwise.
it's gonna be a challenge for sure.
i'm sure they can engineer their way around the authorization req with a dongle of sufficient sophistication, but the fact is that they're really pushing their devs into making central facets of their games expect an internet connection.
when i was deployed to greenland, i had basically zero internet. it sucked. my cell phone didn't work on the greenland signal. that sucked too. i couldn't buy carts for my ds at the bx. that sucked too.
being deployed is a hardship - no bones about it. that's why they pay you to do it.
The difference being before this next gen it wasn't an issue, you could play your single player games because you had the necessary console + TV, It wouldn't really matter how remote you were so long as you had electricity. Now that is changing, and understandably they are upset about it. What will most likely happen realistically though is that you'll jsut see a massive shift in the Military from Xbox to PS4 (if it wasn't already that way, that I don't know)
i absolutely don't blame them at all. i mean, if i were deployed again i'd want to be able to play console games too. and i'd buy a console that worked wherever i was going.
but i also don't think that microsoft is under any patriotic obligation to build their console around the use case of "deployed to an internet-free zone in afghanistan"
They're not under any obligation, no. They're a private company.
But it is saying that have no interest in the disposable income of members of the armed forces.
...who are looking for a console for use while deployed without internet
Exactly, which is a direction Microsoft is no longer going in meaning they are no longer interested in that particular market.
Honestly for me the online requirement thing wouldn't bother me as much if it didn't also disable all your games if you didn't check in. The ones that are multiplayer? Sure no problem there, but my single player games that I like to play in situations when I'm without internet? (temporary outages, travelling, etc) that is unacceptable to me.
Now when Google Fiber is in every home sometime in the future and people have access to free internet anywhere in the world then have at it, but I don't think we are there yet and to me it seems foolish to shed those markets at this time.
it's definitely a consideration for some folks. personally, i can't think of a time in the past decade where i wanted to play console video games and had power but no internet.
remember, microsoft's vision for this console is "single player" =/= "offline"
I have, in Afghanistan. Albeit I skipped consoles and just played PC this time around. Per Sniper Hill (the provider for a substantial portion of Afghanistan) TOS, non-PC devices aren't allowed on the internet at all, even where it does exist.
On the second issue, online singleplayer doesn't have much space to go. D. Souls made a compelling case that it can be done well, but a substantial number of gameplay ideas simply cannot meaningfully benefit from it, especially without increasing budgets, which is another issue.
I'm always surprised when people dismiss the idea of online-connected single player as being worthless. I think it's far, far too soon to make a judgment like that. Considering how much we've talked in here about the significance of those people who don't have ready Internet access, you have to acknowledge that there's a hesitance to release a product of that nature from a financial perspective. When you can reasonably expect your audience to have reliable Internet access, you can throw little touches and hooks into your single player experience that you might otherwise leave out.
I'd like to see what can come out of that. Not happy about a lot of aspects of the system, but I recognize that it's making room for some potentially exciting content.
One thing I have learned is that you can never, ever, under any circumstances get all hot and bothered about "potential" and "promised" gameplay designs/mechanics because very, very rarely will a game come out that meets the promises the developers sold you the game with.
Hell, we're talking about a theoretical magic cloud that does everything from making gaming better to curing cancer.
Games that don't even exist on Xbone hardware (videos and "gameplay" at E3 was on HP Windows 7 PCs with much, much more powerful Nvidia hardware than what the Xbone (AMD based) is capable of), if that hardware/firmware even exists yet.
Hell, I doubt that many of the games even exist yet in the context of "game". Anyone can bullshot a turd and make it look like ice cream.
Give me a million dollars, and I'll make the most amazing "gameplay" video with the most fantastic "in-engine" graphics ever seen, but like every single launch of every single console to date, very, very few games actually launch with all of that promised graphics, features, and gameplay.
Is there anyone here that truly believes that E3 is an accurate portrayal of what to expect in the coming months? Is it surprising that a convention where companies try to sell their product uses bait and switch, outright lies, and so much gray area I'm surprised PSX-era Silent Hill didn't sue to impress the press? This has been standard for what, 25 years (minus the couple of years E3 was cancelled).
So I keep hearing that the genius of MS requiring an internet connection is that it will allow developers to erase the artificial distinction between single player and multiplayer games. This is because developers will be able to count on that internet connection being there for every single XBO out there. Indeed it makes some sense.
But surely that means MS is no longer going to put a paywall between their customers and their developers online experiences.
To the developer what is the difference between a console disconnected from the internet and one without a gold sub?
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
One thing I have learned is that you can never, ever, under any circumstances get all hot and bothered about "potential" and "promised" gameplay designs/mechanics because very, very rarely will a game come out that meets the promises the developers sold you the game with.
Hell, we're talking about a theoretical magic cloud that does everything from making gaming better to curing cancer.
Games that don't even exist on Xbone hardware (videos and "gameplay" at E3 was on HP Windows 7 PCs with much, much more powerful Nvidia hardware than what the Xbone (AMD based) is capable of), if that hardware/firmware even exists yet.
Hell, I doubt that many of the games even exist yet in the context of "game". Anyone can bullshot a turd and make it look like ice cream.
Give me a million dollars, and I'll make the most amazing "gameplay" video with the most fantastic "in-engine" graphics ever seen, but like every single launch of every single console to date, very, very few games actually launch with all of that promised graphics, features, and gameplay.
Is there anyone here that truly believes that E3 is an accurate portrayal of what to expect in the coming months? Is it surprising that a convention where companies try to sell their product uses bait and switch, outright lies, and so much gray area I'm surprised PSX-era Silent Hill didn't sue to impress the press? This has been standard for what, 25 years (minus the couple of years E3 was cancelled).
That is why I like Nintendo. They tend to be pretty accurate and offer a sense of humility with their products. You tend to get what they offer.
In 1990 these marketing techniques worked because technology (at the consumer level) was always expanding. Bits and byte changes were noticeable. Graphics and gameplay actually did evolve at one point.
But now-a-days? Pfft. Nope. I mean... people are happy if a console or a game does the core basics anymore. Trusting E3 or marketing used for these games is like being an abusive relationship. Everytime you get hurt, they say they have changed and come back do it all over again.
I just stick with what I like and it makes the whole thing a lot easier. My passion for games has been heavily doused over the last few years.
Journey is the go-to example I think. A single player game with a transcendent online feature that greatly enhances the experience.
Scale that up to, say, Mirror's Edge 2 and I can get onboard with all this cloud nonsense.
I think you mean Dark Souls.
Well he was talking about single-player experiences. So in Journey, the intrusion is completely benign. They can't interact in any physical way, or help with environmental puzzles. It's just thematic.
But yeah, Dark Souls is an ideal example. As I understand it, Watch_Dogs literally has that exact mechanic. Except with all sorts of cool hacker stuff on top.
So I keep hearing that the genius of MS requiring an internet connection is that it will allow developers to erase the artificial distinction between single player and multiplayer games. This is because developers will be able to count on that internet connection being there for every single XBO out there. Indeed it makes some sense.
But surely that means MS is no longer going to put a paywall between their customers and their developers online experiences.
To the developer what is the difference between a console disconnected from the internet and one without a gold sub?
I think one of the biggest differences is that you can give a sort of "generic" computational resources to everyone for use in "single player" games.
Multiplayer still requires specific software for most games. It's more than just extra CPU muscle for complex situations.
Posts
When did Cliffy B become stupider than Jeff K?
He tried playing it off like a joke but given it's him, I'm pretty sure it's just another statement rooted in ignorance.
The difference being before this next gen it wasn't an issue, you could play your single player games because you had the necessary console + TV, It wouldn't really matter how remote you were so long as you had electricity. Now that is changing, and understandably they are upset about it. What will most likely happen realistically though is that you'll jsut see a massive shift in the Military from Xbox to PS4 (if it wasn't already that way, that I don't know)
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
i absolutely don't blame them at all. i mean, if i were deployed again i'd want to be able to play console games too. and i'd buy a console that worked wherever i was going.
but i also don't think that microsoft is under any patriotic obligation to build their console around the use case of "deployed to an internet-free zone in afghanistan"
Oh of course they aren't, but it's understandable that the people who played 360 before are upset, and it should be no surprise that MS loses that market.
The thing is that they are losing people left and right because of these changes, and while I'm sure that they'll be fine in the long run it is just interesting to watch. It's not often you see a business purposefully narrow it's market on such a scale, normally they are trying to reach out and gather up more demographics.
It will be interesting to see what happens and if they losses they are taking from this will be made up by the core demographic they are catering to.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
i am not a fan of microsoft in general, but i have admired how ballsy they've been with their "vision" as exemplified by design decisions lately.
the metro UI is a really ambitious overhaul. going into touch-screen devices is ambitious. forcing win8 to boot to metro and getting rid of the stupid start menu is ballsy. azure is ballsy. office-as-a-service is ballsy. the xbone is ballsy.
like, after 20 years of microsoft playing me-too and mitigating risk on the way to financial success, they're actually leading for a change
and i like it
They're not under any obligation, no. They're a private company.
But it is saying that have no interest in the disposable income of members of the armed forces.
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
...who are looking for a console for use while deployed without internet
The gaming selection in many PX and BX stores is shit though.
Thankfully, Amazon ships to APO boxes.
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
Here I was in the Penny Arcade forums asking about previous devices that had to be connected or they wouldn't work. The Penny Fucking Arcade fucking forums.
The funny thing is, I'd could probably start defending DivX disks right now. I mean for how most people would watch most movies they'd probably save money over buying DVDs.
And yeah, I'm sure it's been brought up before and confessions of my stupidity are not entirely ironic.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
i have an recentish-gen appletv at home
i love it and use it all the time
doesn't do shit without internet though
Exactly, which is a direction Microsoft is no longer going in meaning they are no longer interested in that particular market.
Honestly for me the online requirement thing wouldn't bother me as much if it didn't also disable all your games if you didn't check in. The ones that are multiplayer? Sure no problem there, but my single player games that I like to play in situations when I'm without internet? (temporary outages, travelling, etc) that is unacceptable to me.
Now when Google Fiber is in every home sometime in the future and people have access to free internet anywhere in the world then have at it, but I don't think we are there yet and to me it seems foolish to shed those markets at this time.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
You can't play video from your iPad with it?
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
it's definitely a consideration for some folks. personally, i can't think of a time in the past decade where i wanted to play console video games and had power but no internet.
remember, microsoft's vision for this console is "single player" =/= "offline"
i think maybe i can. i could probably stream something from my mac to it also. i guess i've never tried that.
You can, but calling an apple tv "functional" without an internet connection would be quite a stretch.
Me.
And I cost a hell of a lot less than $499. Especially if you get me drunk.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I actually think the entertainment features of the XBO are good, but not overwhelmingly so, as I still don't think it makes very good use of Kinect. Voice activation and hand movements simply don't add value for me, and it wouldn't surprise me if that's a common sentiment.
What does add value for me is that the device is acting as a pass-through for television, the same way Google TV does. I like the idea of searching for all my content from one screen (plus not changing inputs.) The problem is that the pass-through features don't require all the restrictions on the system nor should they require the $15/mo fee for Live, on top of my cable bill + Netflix + Amazon + HBO. Admittedly I'd be purchasing it anyways, but the extra $120/yr XBL costs over PS+ is far more expensive than that feature is worth to me. Switching inputs and keeping live TV separate from Netflix/Amazon/HBO is clumsy, but it's not $120/yr clumsy.
And I'm sure both will be just fine as media center devices, just like the 360 and PS3 currently are. I realize that Microsoft is branding it as an all-encompassing media center system, but they haven't actually shown me how that's true. A pass-through and voice commands are not much added value. Both systems will let me stream things from my computer and will work as all-around movie players from Bluray/Netflix/Amazon/HBO. One is just slightly more convenient than the other.
So what are they talking about when they say it's substantially better suited for a media center than the PS4? Please don't say the Halo TV show.
I have, in Afghanistan. Albeit I skipped consoles and just played PC this time around. Per Sniper Hill (the provider for a substantial portion of Afghanistan) TOS, non-PC devices aren't allowed on the internet at all, even where it does exist.
On the second issue, online singleplayer doesn't have much space to go. D. Souls made a compelling case that it can be done well, but a substantial number of gameplay ideas simply cannot meaningfully benefit from it, especially without increasing budgets, which is another issue.
So if I buy an XBox One, to get all the online features requires XBL Gold, which is $60/year. What's XBL Silver?
You can watch tv through it, and play blu-ray discs.
CorriganX on Steam and just about everywhere else.
And single player games.
Lets not assume they're hiding singleplayer games behind a paywall without any supporting evidence whatsoever.
CorriganX on Steam and just about everywhere else.
Whoops, rushed to that too soon. Sorry about that. So much is up in the air, however, that there are a lot of assumptions being thrown about which we just don't know the answer to yet. I'm just trying to keep straight the things we do know, and correct people on the things that are just assumptions at this point. You know, so the thread doesn't become a crazy game of telephone.
I heard a Microsoft exec said military members aren't supported by them, and may not even work more than once every 24 hours in Poland, apparently MS has been using the Kinect to watch a bunch of guys in a nuclear sub, that's how he knows.
Pass it on. :^:
There's a joke in here about your mom and cheap broadband penetration but it's too fucking late for me to figure it out.
I'm always surprised when people dismiss the idea of online-connected single player as being worthless. I think it's far, far too soon to make a judgment like that. Considering how much we've talked in here about the significance of those people who don't have ready Internet access, you have to acknowledge that there's a hesitance to release a product of that nature from a financial perspective. When you can reasonably expect your audience to have reliable Internet access, you can throw little touches and hooks into your single player experience that you might otherwise leave out.
I'd like to see what can come out of that. Not happy about a lot of aspects of the system, but I recognize that it's making room for some potentially exciting content.
Scale that up to, say, Mirror's Edge 2 and I can get onboard with all this cloud nonsense.
Far too late I'd say. Lucky I'm not one of those humorless people... my mom has stage 4 kidney cancer in her pancreas.
If you'd call your mother more often you would have known that, I told her all about it.
While I was crying.
After we had "sexual relations".
I think you mean Dark Souls.
Hell, we're talking about a theoretical magic cloud that does everything from making gaming better to curing cancer.
Games that don't even exist on Xbone hardware (videos and "gameplay" at E3 was on HP Windows 7 PCs with much, much more powerful Nvidia hardware than what the Xbone (AMD based) is capable of), if that hardware/firmware even exists yet.
Hell, I doubt that many of the games even exist yet in the context of "game". Anyone can bullshot a turd and make it look like ice cream.
Give me a million dollars, and I'll make the most amazing "gameplay" video with the most fantastic "in-engine" graphics ever seen, but like every single launch of every single console to date, very, very few games actually launch with all of that promised graphics, features, and gameplay.
Is there anyone here that truly believes that E3 is an accurate portrayal of what to expect in the coming months? Is it surprising that a convention where companies try to sell their product uses bait and switch, outright lies, and so much gray area I'm surprised PSX-era Silent Hill didn't sue to impress the press? This has been standard for what, 25 years (minus the couple of years E3 was cancelled).
But surely that means MS is no longer going to put a paywall between their customers and their developers online experiences.
To the developer what is the difference between a console disconnected from the internet and one without a gold sub?
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
That is why I like Nintendo. They tend to be pretty accurate and offer a sense of humility with their products. You tend to get what they offer.
In 1990 these marketing techniques worked because technology (at the consumer level) was always expanding. Bits and byte changes were noticeable. Graphics and gameplay actually did evolve at one point.
But now-a-days? Pfft. Nope. I mean... people are happy if a console or a game does the core basics anymore. Trusting E3 or marketing used for these games is like being an abusive relationship. Everytime you get hurt, they say they have changed and come back do it all over again.
I just stick with what I like and it makes the whole thing a lot easier. My passion for games has been heavily doused over the last few years.
Well he was talking about single-player experiences. So in Journey, the intrusion is completely benign. They can't interact in any physical way, or help with environmental puzzles. It's just thematic.
But yeah, Dark Souls is an ideal example. As I understand it, Watch_Dogs literally has that exact mechanic. Except with all sorts of cool hacker stuff on top.
I think one of the biggest differences is that you can give a sort of "generic" computational resources to everyone for use in "single player" games.
Multiplayer still requires specific software for most games. It's more than just extra CPU muscle for complex situations.
Does he not realize that the majority of the US is a barren shithole in terms of quality internet?