***official*** all things Microsoft Xbox One (1 Viewer)

[GoFishTN]

IGN article about that patent

Today, however, the company has responded to speculation with the following statement: "Microsoft regularly applies for and receives patents as part of its business practice; not all patents applied for or received will be incorporated into a Microsoft product."

Imagine however, 5 years from now, that xbox releases a service which allows streaming of new release movies. It costs $15 for the movie, but you have to agree to allowing the kinect to verify you don't have more than 4 people watching. Or maybe instead of having to pay $59 for a pay per view event, they allow you to pay $10 to watch it alone (again, assuming you consent to the DRM). Not interested?

None of what you said is appealing in anyway.

I can see the pay per view of like a UFC fight to be a big draw if it is pro rated by the kinect.

That would be awesome. And as a person who hates going to the theater, an option to watch new releases at home would be great.

There is a service called Prima Cinema that does this. It costs $35K to install their distribution device and $500 per movie. I just don't see the studios letting their theatre cash cow go away so you can watch new movies at home for $15.

 

[cstu]

I thought this was interesting. Supposedly from a Msoft developer.

Link

It used to be piracy was the reason game prices were high. Now it's because of Gamestop and used games. After they eliminate that what will be their next excuse?

Anyone that looks at the history of PCs will know that Microsoft is not a benevolent master after they eliminate their competition.

 

[SlaX]

If you can turn the camera/mic off, I don't see why its an issue. If the price point is going to be a deal breaker, then it looks like the PS4 is the obvious choice. Read this article today. I thought this was interesting:

"As you go into a digital world, what's happening is publishers are choosing to have different business models and consumers are saying 'Hey, if I can't resell the title, provide me a different way to get value to get into your game.' And we think the market will be efficient in finding good models that work for consumers."In essence, Mehdi said, consumer demand for good value from games will drive prices down, even if a publisher decides to fully cut off the market release valve of used game resale.

Sure seems like they are moving toward a Steam model, and that works for me - Frankly, I'd rather pay $40 for a relatively new game than buy it at 60 and have to go through the hassle of selling it on ebay a month or two later for $25-30.

If September 2011 I paid about $20 for Mass Effect 1 from the Xbox download service. That's nearly four years after its release. I think it was around $10 at Gamestop, but I didn't want to wait. So, you'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting on prices to go down because of digital delivery.

Uh...Mass Effect 1 is selling for $17.99 preowned at Gamestop, today. I have never seen it for sale for $10. For Xbox360.

You need to use ebay, not Gamestop. Ebay is typically much cheaper. Here are all the pre owned Mass Effects that have recently sold on ebay for xbox360. The entire trilogy just sold for $21. The first Mass Effect has been sold for under $5http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?LH_Sold=1&_sacat=0&_from=R40&LH_Complete=1&_nkw=mass+effect+xbox+360&_dcat=139973&rt=nc&LH_ItemCondition=4

It's kind of a moot point anyway, as MS has made no point of hiding that they have intentionally priced Games on Demand games higher due to their current contracts with retailers.

A more apt comparison would be the cost of a used game vs what it costs on Steam, where they recently had the entire trilogy for 10 bucks.

Doubting whether MS would ever really get to the Steam level of discounting when they'd be the only retailer in town (while Steam is essentially the only retailer in town from a practical standpoint, there are still alternatives that could usurp them if they got cocky about it) is a much fairer point.

Mass Effect 3 is only available on Origin. There's no way Steam had it for $10.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Mass Effect 3 is only available on Origin. There's no way Steam had it for $10.

Ah, I guess that's why they call it the Mass Effect "Bundle" rather than the Mass Effect "Trilogy" on Steam. So it was just ME1 and ME2 for 10 bucks.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

IGN article about that patent

Today, however, the company has responded to speculation with the following statement: "Microsoft regularly applies for and receives patents as part of its business practice; not all patents applied for or received will be incorporated into a Microsoft product."

Imagine however, 5 years from now, that xbox releases a service which allows streaming of new release movies. It costs $15 for the movie, but you have to agree to allowing the kinect to verify you don't have more than 4 people watching. Or maybe instead of having to pay $59 for a pay per view event, they allow you to pay $10 to watch it alone (again, assuming you consent to the DRM). Not interested?

None of what you said is appealing in anyway.

I can see the pay per view of like a UFC fight to be a big draw if it is pro rated by the kinect.

That would be awesome. And as a person who hates going to the theater, an option to watch new releases at home would be great.

There is a service called Prima Cinema that does this. It costs $35K to install their distribution device and $500 per movie. I just don't see the studios letting their theatre cash cow go away so you can watch new movies at home for $15.

Yeah I've seen that thing. Unfortunately I don't have $35k kicking around.

I don't see why the studios wouldn't be for it. Movie ticket is, what, $10-15? Theater must take a decent cut of that. Seems like selling direct to the consumer would increase there profits and also decrease piracy (I would definitely pirate a lot less if this was an option).

 

[SlaX]

Mass Effect 3 is only available on Origin. There's no way Steam had it for $10.

Ah, I guess that's why they call it the Mass Effect "Bundle" rather than the Mass Effect "Trilogy" on Steam. So it was just ME1 and ME2 for 10 bucks.

Origin does have the trilogy for $20, though. I think the point you were making is still valid.

 

[Insein]

A friend of mine wants to know what happens if the PPV movie features a nude scene with a hot actress, and my friend feels the need to get more personally engaged with the scene. Will Kinect be watching and tracking his hand movements?

It will look something like this.

 

[NCCommish]

A friend of mine wants to know what happens if the PPV movie features a nude scene with a hot actress, and my friend feels the need to get more personally engaged with the scene. Will Kinect be watching and tracking his hand movements?

It will look something like this.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

So, when does microsoft change from the points to currency on XBL? I have like 400 points sitting there unused because they screw you on the increment amount of things.

 

[Spanky267]

If you can turn the camera/mic off, I don't see why its an issue. If the price point is going to be a deal breaker, then it looks like the PS4 is the obvious choice. Read this article today. I thought this was interesting:

"As you go into a digital world, what's happening is publishers are choosing to have different business models and consumers are saying 'Hey, if I can't resell the title, provide me a different way to get value to get into your game.' And we think the market will be efficient in finding good models that work for consumers."In essence, Mehdi said, consumer demand for good value from games will drive prices down, even if a publisher decides to fully cut off the market release valve of used game resale.

Sure seems like they are moving toward a Steam model, and that works for me - Frankly, I'd rather pay $40 for a relatively new game than buy it at 60 and have to go through the hassle of selling it on ebay a month or two later for $25-30.

If September 2011 I paid about $20 for Mass Effect 1 from the Xbox download service. That's nearly four years after its release. I think it was around $10 at Gamestop, but I didn't want to wait. So, you'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting on prices to go down because of digital delivery.

Uh...Mass Effect 1 is selling for $17.99 preowned at Gamestop, today. I have never seen it for sale for $10. For Xbox360.

You need to use ebay, not Gamestop. Ebay is typically much cheaper. Here are all the pre owned Mass Effects that have recently sold on ebay for xbox360. The entire trilogy just sold for $21. The first Mass Effect has been sold for under $5http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?LH_Sold=1&_sacat=0&_from=R40&LH_Complete=1&_nkw=mass+effect+xbox+360&_dcat=139973&rt=nc&LH_ItemCondition=4

Agreed, but kinda defeats the OPs, "getting it right now." mindset. I know I can get it cheaper on Ebay than at Gamestop. But the comparison was actually MS digital download to Gamestop. I could probably get it cheaper at the Flea Market or on Craigslist too. But those werent the points of comparison.

I think if MS is able to implement DRM in a Steam-like method then we could see the cost of titles on the console drop. But its not going to be overnight. I dont game on PC but I have always been envious of the deals that the PC community can get on games that we in the console community can't.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

So, when does microsoft change from the points to currency on XBL? I have like 400 points sitting there unused because they screw you on the increment amount of things.

I read an article saying they'll convert your points to cash at equal or more value.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

So, when does microsoft change from the points to currency on XBL? I have like 400 points sitting there unused because they screw you on the increment amount of things.

I read an article saying they'll convert your points to cash at equal or more value.

When?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

So, when does microsoft change from the points to currency on XBL? I have like 400 points sitting there unused because they screw you on the increment amount of things.

I read an article saying they'll convert your points to cash at equal or more value.

When?

Dunno

 

[GoFishTN]

If you can turn the camera/mic off, I don't see why its an issue. If the price point is going to be a deal breaker, then it looks like the PS4 is the obvious choice. Read this article today. I thought this was interesting:

"As you go into a digital world, what's happening is publishers are choosing to have different business models and consumers are saying 'Hey, if I can't resell the title, provide me a different way to get value to get into your game.' And we think the market will be efficient in finding good models that work for consumers."In essence, Mehdi said, consumer demand for good value from games will drive prices down, even if a publisher decides to fully cut off the market release valve of used game resale.

Sure seems like they are moving toward a Steam model, and that works for me - Frankly, I'd rather pay $40 for a relatively new game than buy it at 60 and have to go through the hassle of selling it on ebay a month or two later for $25-30.

If September 2011 I paid about $20 for Mass Effect 1 from the Xbox download service. That's nearly four years after its release. I think it was around $10 at Gamestop, but I didn't want to wait. So, you'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting on prices to go down because of digital delivery.

Uh...Mass Effect 1 is selling for $17.99 preowned at Gamestop, today. I have never seen it for sale for $10. For Xbox360.

You need to use ebay, not Gamestop. Ebay is typically much cheaper. Here are all the pre owned Mass Effects that have recently sold on ebay for xbox360. The entire trilogy just sold for $21. The first Mass Effect has been sold for under $5http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?LH_Sold=1&_sacat=0&_from=R40&LH_Complete=1&_nkw=mass+effect+xbox+360&_dcat=139973&rt=nc&LH_ItemCondition=4

Agreed, but kinda defeats the OPs, "getting it right now." mindset. I know I can get it cheaper on Ebay than at Gamestop. But the comparison was actually MS digital download to Gamestop. I could probably get it cheaper at the Flea Market or on Craigslist too. But those werent the points of comparison.

I think if MS is able to implement DRM in a Steam-like method then we could see the cost of titles on the console drop. But its not going to be overnight. I dont game on PC but I have always been envious of the deals that the PC community can get on games that we in the console community can't.

My point wasn't how fast I got it, it was that they already have digital distribution and the prices aren't close to what you can pay for a used physical disk. I did say Gamestop, but it could have been ebay or Amazon I looked at, I don't really remember that part. I just remember it was about half the price.

If digital distribution is going to lower all the prices of games then why aren't they doing it now? And why would anyone think they are going to do it when they have no other competition?

 

[thecatch]

They will have competition - ps4 used games. As I wrote earlier, the average cost for a ps4 game is going to be a lot lower than x1 unless MS does something about prices. The interview I posted with the MS official explicitly acknowledged this.

 

[TxBuckeye]

The always-on complaints are kind of funny to me. People come up with all these theoretical situations where it would be a problem, but how often do you actually try to play games when you haven't been connected to the internet in the last 24 hours. I don't think I tried to do that a single time over the last 7 year console generation. Sure, there are times when we move and can't get the internet flipped on right away or the rare occasion where a storm knocks out the internet but not the power (usually the power is the first to go, so you won't be playing your console anyway), but how often do these actually occur for you personally, especially at a time when you would otherwise choose to play a game (I know I'm usually pretty busy during a move, not playing videogames). We're talking about maybe one or two play sessions during an entire console generation. Chances are that most people will spend more time on the internet #####ing about having to be online than they will not being able to play because they're not online. Yeah, it sucks for Joe Farmer in Bumfck, North Dakota who can't get the internet. But let's be reasonable here, you're not fighting it because you care about Joe Farmer, you're fighting it because you like to complain.

My son is deployed in Kuwait for a year right now. His nearly exclusive source of entertainment on post is his PS3. His tent isn't likely to have free internet hanging around. So, for the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that deploy to forward locations, I would say being offline 24 hours or more is going to be QUITE common. The Xbox One will be useless to these folks.

 

[Worm]

I assume the IR out port on the back will be utilized to control other devices? The situation I'm thinking about is walking into the room and saying "xbox on" to watch TV or play a game or something. Is XB1 going to have an IR repeater or something to turn my TV, etc. on? Surely they've thought of this right? It's kind of useless to be able to turn my xbox on using voice commands if I'm still going to have to pick up my Harmony and hit my "play game" button.

 

[Worm]

The always-on complaints are kind of funny to me. People come up with all these theoretical situations where it would be a problem, but how often do you actually try to play games when you haven't been connected to the internet in the last 24 hours. I don't think I tried to do that a single time over the last 7 year console generation. Sure, there are times when we move and can't get the internet flipped on right away or the rare occasion where a storm knocks out the internet but not the power (usually the power is the first to go, so you won't be playing your console anyway), but how often do these actually occur for you personally, especially at a time when you would otherwise choose to play a game (I know I'm usually pretty busy during a move, not playing videogames). We're talking about maybe one or two play sessions during an entire console generation. Chances are that most people will spend more time on the internet #####ing about having to be online than they will not being able to play because they're not online. Yeah, it sucks for Joe Farmer in Bumfck, North Dakota who can't get the internet. But let's be reasonable here, you're not fighting it because you care about Joe Farmer, you're fighting it because you like to complain.

My son is deployed in Kuwait for a year right now. His nearly exclusive source of entertainment on post is his PS3. His tent isn't likely to have free internet hanging around. So, for the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that deploy to forward locations, I would say being offline 24 hours or more is going to be QUITE common. The Xbox One will be useless to these folks.

Yeah, and I don't think Microsoft is expecting those folks to buy one. Whether that's a decision that will affect their bottom line, I don't know.

 

[TxBuckeye]

The always-on complaints are kind of funny to me. People come up with all these theoretical situations where it would be a problem, but how often do you actually try to play games when you haven't been connected to the internet in the last 24 hours. I don't think I tried to do that a single time over the last 7 year console generation. Sure, there are times when we move and can't get the internet flipped on right away or the rare occasion where a storm knocks out the internet but not the power (usually the power is the first to go, so you won't be playing your console anyway), but how often do these actually occur for you personally, especially at a time when you would otherwise choose to play a game (I know I'm usually pretty busy during a move, not playing videogames). We're talking about maybe one or two play sessions during an entire console generation. Chances are that most people will spend more time on the internet #####ing about having to be online than they will not being able to play because they're not online. Yeah, it sucks for Joe Farmer in Bumfck, North Dakota who can't get the internet. But let's be reasonable here, you're not fighting it because you care about Joe Farmer, you're fighting it because you like to complain.

My son is deployed in Kuwait for a year right now. His nearly exclusive source of entertainment on post is his PS3. His tent isn't likely to have free internet hanging around. So, for the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that deploy to forward locations, I would say being offline 24 hours or more is going to be QUITE common. The Xbox One will be useless to these folks.

Yeah, and I don't think Microsoft is expecting those folks to buy one. Whether that's a decision that will affect their bottom line, I don't know.

Why not? Working folks with regularly paying jobs, age 18-42. Seems like a primary game buying demographic to me. I can tell you, every time I deployed, there were dozens of consoles around. It was our primary source of entertainment along with laptops. In fact, the first console game I ever played (Grand Theft Auto: Vice City) was played during a deployment on a crewmembers PS2.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

The always-on complaints are kind of funny to me. People come up with all these theoretical situations where it would be a problem, but how often do you actually try to play games when you haven't been connected to the internet in the last 24 hours. I don't think I tried to do that a single time over the last 7 year console generation. Sure, there are times when we move and can't get the internet flipped on right away or the rare occasion where a storm knocks out the internet but not the power (usually the power is the first to go, so you won't be playing your console anyway), but how often do these actually occur for you personally, especially at a time when you would otherwise choose to play a game (I know I'm usually pretty busy during a move, not playing videogames). We're talking about maybe one or two play sessions during an entire console generation. Chances are that most people will spend more time on the internet #####ing about having to be online than they will not being able to play because they're not online. Yeah, it sucks for Joe Farmer in Bumfck, North Dakota who can't get the internet. But let's be reasonable here, you're not fighting it because you care about Joe Farmer, you're fighting it because you like to complain.

My son is deployed in Kuwait for a year right now. His nearly exclusive source of entertainment on post is his PS3. His tent isn't likely to have free internet hanging around. So, for the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that deploy to forward locations, I would say being offline 24 hours or more is going to be QUITE common. The Xbox One will be useless to these folks.

Yeah, and I don't think Microsoft is expecting those folks to buy one. Whether that's a decision that will affect their bottom line, I don't know.

Why not? Working folks with regularly paying jobs, age 18-42. Seems like a primary game buying demographic to me. I can tell you, every time I deployed, there were dozens of consoles around. It was our primary source of entertainment along with laptops. In fact, the first console game I ever played (Grand Theft Auto: Vice City) was played during a deployment on a crewmembers PS2.

Thank you for you and your son's service.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Does steam have steam sales because of competition or because it's just a super awesome company who loves giving people deals?

I like to think the latter.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Does steam have steam sales because of competition or because it's just a super awesome company who loves giving people deals?

I like to think the latter.

I think it's very much both. Steam has realized you can be an immensely profitable company without having to actively try to #### over your customer base.

 

[Worm]

The correct answer was "neither".

They do it because it makes money. And if it made sense for Xbox money wise they would do it too.

 

[TxBuckeye]

Thank you for you and your son's service.

Thanks SM, appreciate it.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

The correct answer was "neither".They do it because it makes money. And if it made sense for Xbox money wise they would do it too.

meh, competition/makes money is just different semantic ways of saying basically the same thing. And I disagree with your assumption that Microsoft always makes the proper business decision in regard to the Xbox. I think this will be clear once these next generation of consoles get released and the Xbox takes a dive compared to how it did with the 360.

 

[Worm]

The correct answer was "neither".They do it because it makes money. And if it made sense for Xbox money wise they would do it too.

meh, competition/makes money is just different semantic ways of saying basically the same thing. And I disagree with your assumption that Microsoft always makes the proper business decision in regard to the Xbox. I think this will be clear once these next generation of consoles get released and the Xbox takes a dive compared to how it did with the 360.

Whoa whoa whoa... never said that and don't believe that.

 

[rail]

I've been an Xbox guy since the original came out 10 years ago. This new version gives me great pause. I think I'll just sit on the 360 for about a year to see how this plays out. Sony may be getting my money - which hasn't happened in a long time.

 

[larry_boy_44]

The always-on complaints are kind of funny to me. People come up with all these theoretical situations where it would be a problem, but how often do you actually try to play games when you haven't been connected to the internet in the last 24 hours. I don't think I tried to do that a single time over the last 7 year console generation. Sure, there are times when we move and can't get the internet flipped on right away or the rare occasion where a storm knocks out the internet but not the power (usually the power is the first to go, so you won't be playing your console anyway), but how often do these actually occur for you personally, especially at a time when you would otherwise choose to play a game (I know I'm usually pretty busy during a move, not playing videogames). We're talking about maybe one or two play sessions during an entire console generation. Chances are that most people will spend more time on the internet #####ing about having to be online than they will not being able to play because they're not online. Yeah, it sucks for Joe Farmer in Bumfck, North Dakota who can't get the internet. But let's be reasonable here, you're not fighting it because you care about Joe Farmer, you're fighting it because you like to complain.

My son is deployed in Kuwait for a year right now. His nearly exclusive source of entertainment on post is his PS3. His tent isn't likely to have free internet hanging around. So, for the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that deploy to forward locations, I would say being offline 24 hours or more is going to be QUITE common. The Xbox One will be useless to these folks.

Yeah, and I don't think Microsoft is expecting those folks to buy one. Whether that's a decision that will affect their bottom line, I don't know.

Yeah, but on the other hand we all know the kind of awful PR move it is to make something that soldiers like and use to connect at times and then upgrade it in a way that they no longer can use it anymore...

The only way Microsoft is not gonna end up with CRAZY bad PR out of this is if they prove somehow that the "always on" thing is needed for the games to run as good as they do and they can prove that their games do things that PS4 games don't because of the connection...

 

[Spanky267]

The always-on complaints are kind of funny to me. People come up with all these theoretical situations where it would be a problem, but how often do you actually try to play games when you haven't been connected to the internet in the last 24 hours. I don't think I tried to do that a single time over the last 7 year console generation. Sure, there are times when we move and can't get the internet flipped on right away or the rare occasion where a storm knocks out the internet but not the power (usually the power is the first to go, so you won't be playing your console anyway), but how often do these actually occur for you personally, especially at a time when you would otherwise choose to play a game (I know I'm usually pretty busy during a move, not playing videogames). We're talking about maybe one or two play sessions during an entire console generation. Chances are that most people will spend more time on the internet #####ing about having to be online than they will not being able to play because they're not online. Yeah, it sucks for Joe Farmer in Bumfck, North Dakota who can't get the internet. But let's be reasonable here, you're not fighting it because you care about Joe Farmer, you're fighting it because you like to complain.

My son is deployed in Kuwait for a year right now. His nearly exclusive source of entertainment on post is his PS3. His tent isn't likely to have free internet hanging around. So, for the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that deploy to forward locations, I would say being offline 24 hours or more is going to be QUITE common. The Xbox One will be useless to these folks.

Yeah, and I don't think Microsoft is expecting those folks to buy one. Whether that's a decision that will affect their bottom line, I don't know.

Yeah, but on the other hand we all know the kind of awful PR move it is to make something that soldiers like and use to connect at times and then upgrade it in a way that they no longer can use it anymore...

The only way Microsoft is not gonna end up with CRAZY bad PR out of this is if they prove somehow that the "always on" thing is needed for the games to run as good as they do and they can prove that their games do things that PS4 games don't because of the connection...

Isnt that basically what MS has been saying? That while the ping every 24hrs is about DRM, the need to be connected has more to do with using cloud computing to take some of the load off the X1 so that its processing power is devoted to graphically intensive activities?

 

[larry_boy_44]

The always-on complaints are kind of funny to me. People come up with all these theoretical situations where it would be a problem, but how often do you actually try to play games when you haven't been connected to the internet in the last 24 hours. I don't think I tried to do that a single time over the last 7 year console generation. Sure, there are times when we move and can't get the internet flipped on right away or the rare occasion where a storm knocks out the internet but not the power (usually the power is the first to go, so you won't be playing your console anyway), but how often do these actually occur for you personally, especially at a time when you would otherwise choose to play a game (I know I'm usually pretty busy during a move, not playing videogames). We're talking about maybe one or two play sessions during an entire console generation. Chances are that most people will spend more time on the internet #####ing about having to be online than they will not being able to play because they're not online. Yeah, it sucks for Joe Farmer in Bumfck, North Dakota who can't get the internet. But let's be reasonable here, you're not fighting it because you care about Joe Farmer, you're fighting it because you like to complain.

My son is deployed in Kuwait for a year right now. His nearly exclusive source of entertainment on post is his PS3. His tent isn't likely to have free internet hanging around. So, for the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that deploy to forward locations, I would say being offline 24 hours or more is going to be QUITE common. The Xbox One will be useless to these folks.

Yeah, and I don't think Microsoft is expecting those folks to buy one. Whether that's a decision that will affect their bottom line, I don't know.

Yeah, but on the other hand we all know the kind of awful PR move it is to make something that soldiers like and use to connect at times and then upgrade it in a way that they no longer can use it anymore...

The only way Microsoft is not gonna end up with CRAZY bad PR out of this is if they prove somehow that the "always on" thing is needed for the games to run as good as they do and they can prove that their games do things that PS4 games don't because of the connection...

Isnt that basically what MS has been saying? That while the ping every 24hrs is about DRM, the need to be connected has more to do with using cloud computing to take some of the load off the X1 so that its processing power is devoted to graphically intensive activities?

Yes, but the same argument has been made about Sim City (and probably Diablo III) and, honestly, I don't think anyone really cares. They still hate the DRM, they are still angry about the always online, and they still think badly of the companies who released those games (ESPECIALLY EA) for doing that.

They need to prove it in a way that we can actually see, because the typical person doesn't understand the difference and doesn't really care.

But here is the problem:

I'm not sure that argument is going to work even if it is valid (it probably is) and they can figure out a way to absolutely prove it. Why can't people play the other games on XBox One that don't need the cloud computing while offline? That's going to be the question and the constant black eye Microsoft keeps getting over and over for the next year+. The truth is there isn't a reason that Sony (or even Nintendo theoretically) couldn't make a game that requires a constant internet connection for cloud computing on a game they make. Both systems are capable of mulitplayer games which require a constant online connection, this just does the same for a single player game... And they don't require once a day checks.

 

[bshell27]

This thread reminds me of this- http://www.hulu.com/watch/182716

 

[Spanky267]

The always-on complaints are kind of funny to me. People come up with all these theoretical situations where it would be a problem, but how often do you actually try to play games when you haven't been connected to the internet in the last 24 hours. I don't think I tried to do that a single time over the last 7 year console generation. Sure, there are times when we move and can't get the internet flipped on right away or the rare occasion where a storm knocks out the internet but not the power (usually the power is the first to go, so you won't be playing your console anyway), but how often do these actually occur for you personally, especially at a time when you would otherwise choose to play a game (I know I'm usually pretty busy during a move, not playing videogames). We're talking about maybe one or two play sessions during an entire console generation. Chances are that most people will spend more time on the internet #####ing about having to be online than they will not being able to play because they're not online. Yeah, it sucks for Joe Farmer in Bumfck, North Dakota who can't get the internet. But let's be reasonable here, you're not fighting it because you care about Joe Farmer, you're fighting it because you like to complain.

My son is deployed in Kuwait for a year right now. His nearly exclusive source of entertainment on post is his PS3. His tent isn't likely to have free internet hanging around. So, for the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that deploy to forward locations, I would say being offline 24 hours or more is going to be QUITE common. The Xbox One will be useless to these folks.

Yeah, and I don't think Microsoft is expecting those folks to buy one. Whether that's a decision that will affect their bottom line, I don't know.

Yeah, but on the other hand we all know the kind of awful PR move it is to make something that soldiers like and use to connect at times and then upgrade it in a way that they no longer can use it anymore...

The only way Microsoft is not gonna end up with CRAZY bad PR out of this is if they prove somehow that the "always on" thing is needed for the games to run as good as they do and they can prove that their games do things that PS4 games don't because of the connection...

Isnt that basically what MS has been saying? That while the ping every 24hrs is about DRM, the need to be connected has more to do with using cloud computing to take some of the load off the X1 so that its processing power is devoted to graphically intensive activities?

Yes, but the same argument has been made about Sim City (and probably Diablo III) and, honestly, I don't think anyone really cares. They still hate the DRM, they are still angry about the always online, and they still think badly of the companies who released those games (ESPECIALLY EA) for doing that.

They need to prove it in a way that we can actually see, because the typical person doesn't understand the difference and doesn't really care.

But here is the problem:

I'm not sure that argument is going to work even if it is valid (it probably is) and they can figure out a way to absolutely prove it. Why can't people play the other games on XBox One that don't need the cloud computing while offline? That's going to be the question and the constant black eye Microsoft keeps getting over and over for the next year+. The truth is there isn't a reason that Sony (or even Nintendo theoretically) couldn't make a game that requires a constant internet connection for cloud computing on a game they make. Both systems are capable of mulitplayer games which require a constant online connection, this just does the same for a single player game... And they don't require once a day checks.

Well I think one way that Microsoft can prove the need is based on the capabilities of the machine. It's running 3 different OS's sometimes simultaneously. The X1 is going to need to offload some of its processing to the cloud. Especially since its using slower GDDR3 Ram.

I know this internet connection thing is a huge bummer for our troops who are deployed and the small number of gamers who only play single player with no internet connection. But these seem like small subsets of the gaming community. I would imagine that the overwhelming majority of console owners have a steady internet connection.

Please dont misconstrue my comments as being denigrating of our troops. I think Microsoft really needs to revisit this 24hr internet ping situation. There have got to be other ways to institute a viable DRM system that doesnt constrain the owner of the hardware in the event that they dont have an internet connection for any given period of time.

I live in Florida. I can envision a scenario where in the aftermath of a tropical storm or hurricane that we wont have phone or internet service but I may have power thanks to my generator. In that case I wont be able to pass the time waiting for services to be restored playing the single player campaigns of my games. At least with the X1's architecture as currently described.

 

[larry_boy_44]

The always-on complaints are kind of funny to me. People come up with all these theoretical situations where it would be a problem, but how often do you actually try to play games when you haven't been connected to the internet in the last 24 hours. I don't think I tried to do that a single time over the last 7 year console generation. Sure, there are times when we move and can't get the internet flipped on right away or the rare occasion where a storm knocks out the internet but not the power (usually the power is the first to go, so you won't be playing your console anyway), but how often do these actually occur for you personally, especially at a time when you would otherwise choose to play a game (I know I'm usually pretty busy during a move, not playing videogames). We're talking about maybe one or two play sessions during an entire console generation. Chances are that most people will spend more time on the internet #####ing about having to be online than they will not being able to play because they're not online. Yeah, it sucks for Joe Farmer in Bumfck, North Dakota who can't get the internet. But let's be reasonable here, you're not fighting it because you care about Joe Farmer, you're fighting it because you like to complain.

My son is deployed in Kuwait for a year right now. His nearly exclusive source of entertainment on post is his PS3. His tent isn't likely to have free internet hanging around. So, for the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that deploy to forward locations, I would say being offline 24 hours or more is going to be QUITE common. The Xbox One will be useless to these folks.

Yeah, and I don't think Microsoft is expecting those folks to buy one. Whether that's a decision that will affect their bottom line, I don't know.

Yeah, but on the other hand we all know the kind of awful PR move it is to make something that soldiers like and use to connect at times and then upgrade it in a way that they no longer can use it anymore...

The only way Microsoft is not gonna end up with CRAZY bad PR out of this is if they prove somehow that the "always on" thing is needed for the games to run as good as they do and they can prove that their games do things that PS4 games don't because of the connection...

Isnt that basically what MS has been saying? That while the ping every 24hrs is about DRM, the need to be connected has more to do with using cloud computing to take some of the load off the X1 so that its processing power is devoted to graphically intensive activities?

Yes, but the same argument has been made about Sim City (and probably Diablo III) and, honestly, I don't think anyone really cares. They still hate the DRM, they are still angry about the always online, and they still think badly of the companies who released those games (ESPECIALLY EA) for doing that.

They need to prove it in a way that we can actually see, because the typical person doesn't understand the difference and doesn't really care.

But here is the problem:

I'm not sure that argument is going to work even if it is valid (it probably is) and they can figure out a way to absolutely prove it. Why can't people play the other games on XBox One that don't need the cloud computing while offline? That's going to be the question and the constant black eye Microsoft keeps getting over and over for the next year+. The truth is there isn't a reason that Sony (or even Nintendo theoretically) couldn't make a game that requires a constant internet connection for cloud computing on a game they make. Both systems are capable of mulitplayer games which require a constant online connection, this just does the same for a single player game... And they don't require once a day checks.

Well I think one way that Microsoft can prove the need is based on the capabilities of the machine. It's running 3 different OS's sometimes simultaneously. The X1 is going to need to offload some of its processing to the cloud. Especially since its using slower GDDR3 Ram.

I know this internet connection thing is a huge bummer for our troops who are deployed and the small number of gamers who only play single player with no internet connection. But these seem like small subsets of the gaming community. I would imagine that the overwhelming majority of console owners have a steady internet connection.

Please dont misconstrue my comments as being denigrating of our troops. I think Microsoft really needs to revisit this 24hr internet ping situation. There have got to be other ways to institute a viable DRM system that doesnt constrain the owner of the hardware in the event that they dont have an internet connection for any given period of time.

I live in Florida. I can envision a scenario where in the aftermath of a tropical storm or hurricane that we wont have phone or internet service but I may have power thanks to my generator. In that case I wont be able to pass the time waiting for services to be restored playing the single player campaigns of my games. At least with the X1's architecture as currently described.

I agree it isn't a major % of the consumer market, and I am sure that this fact is why they basically have taken a "if you have no viable connection, we have an offline machine, its called XBox360" line...

The problem is that there are portions of people this is affecting (those in the military, those without network connection but who have power, etc.) are very, very, VERY sympathetic portions of the playing population and it looks really bad on them to take gaming away from them.

 

[GoFishTN]

This thread The FFA reminds me of this- http://www.hulu.com/watch/182716

FYP.

 

[Worm]

No one is taking gaming away from them.

 

[Worm]

Someone is looking to buy a car. They can't decide if they'd like to buy a minivan or an SUV. Do they rage at the SUV company because they don't provide sliding doors on their model? No, they buy the minivan. Maybe if the SUV has enough features to make up for the lack of sliding doors, they buy the SUV.

 

[Jobber]

Does anyone know if an Amazon preorder will allow me to cancel at a later date? In the event Microsoft releases some nice bundles for the same price?

 

[Fennis]

Does anyone know if an Amazon preorder will allow me to cancel at a later date? In the event Microsoft releases some nice bundles for the same price?

PS4 ship date is moving into 2014.

 

[Jobber]

Does anyone know if an Amazon preorder will allow me to cancel at a later date? In the event Microsoft releases some nice bundles for the same price?

PS4 ship date is moving into 2014.

I'm not asking about the PS4, thanks.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I've canceled pre-ordered stuff through Amazon. As long as there's no money down, what can they do?

 

[Fennis]

Does anyone know if an Amazon preorder will allow me to cancel at a later date? In the event Microsoft releases some nice bundles for the same price?

PS4 ship date is moving into 2014.

I'm not asking about the PS4, thanks.

sorry. the answer to your question is yes: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_sn_chng?nodeId=595034

 

[Jobber]

Thanks guys. I guess this is one more reason to use Amazon for every purchase possible.

 

[Worm]

Lost in the Xbox vs. PS4 debate is the Oculus Rift. They apparently showed the new HD version at E3 and everyone is raving about it. Could be pretty interesting over the next year or two if they are able to develop it further and get it to release.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Someone is looking to buy a car. They can't decide if they'd like to buy a minivan or an SUV. Do they rage at the SUV company because they don't provide sliding doors on their model? No, they buy the minivan. Maybe if the SUV has enough features to make up for the lack of sliding doors, they buy the SUV.

That's not the analogy.

The analogy is more like they ask if you are in the military and remove the engine if you are.

Not saying its fair, but its way more accurate than what you are describing.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Someone is looking to buy a car. They can't decide if they'd like to buy a minivan or an SUV. Do they rage at the SUV company because they don't provide sliding doors on their model? No, they buy the minivan. Maybe if the SUV has enough features to make up for the lack of sliding doors, they buy the SUV.

That's not the analogy.

The analogy is more like they ask if you are in the military and remove the engine if you are.

Not saying its fair, but its way more accurate than what you are describing.

Horrible analogy. Everybody gets the same car. It's just that it happens not to function on military bases.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Someone is looking to buy a car. They can't decide if they'd like to buy a minivan or an SUV. Do they rage at the SUV company because they don't provide sliding doors on their model? No, they buy the minivan. Maybe if the SUV has enough features to make up for the lack of sliding doors, they buy the SUV.

That's not the analogy.

The analogy is more like they ask if you are in the military and remove the engine if you are.

Not saying its fair, but its way more accurate than what you are describing.

Horrible analogy. Everybody gets the same car. It's just that it happens not to function on military bases.

I didn't say it was good, I know its bad...

Its just better than the one I was replying to...

 

[SlaX]

Someone is looking to buy a car. They can't decide if they'd like to buy a minivan or an SUV. Do they rage at the SUV company because they don't provide sliding doors on their model? No, they buy the minivan. Maybe if the SUV has enough features to make up for the lack of sliding doors, they buy the SUV.

That's not the analogy.

The analogy is more like they ask if you are in the military and remove the engine if you are.

Not saying its fair, but its way more accurate than what you are describing.

Horrible analogy. Everybody gets the same car. It's just that it happens not to function on military bases.

The car only works in cities and on major highways.

I was watching the Avengers with some friends yesterday and the scene at the end where (I'll put it in spoiler tags in case somebody here hasn't seen the movie)

Spoiler

Iron Man takes the missile in through the wormhole to destroy the Chitauri fleet. All of the forces just drop dead on Earth. One of us said "they must have not been able to make the connection to XBox Live within the 24 hour timeframe." There ya go for an analogy.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Someone is looking to buy a car. They can't decide if they'd like to buy a minivan or an SUV. Do they rage at the SUV company because they don't provide sliding doors on their model? No, they buy the minivan. Maybe if the SUV has enough features to make up for the lack of sliding doors, they buy the SUV.

That's not the analogy.

The analogy is more like they ask if you are in the military and remove the engine if you are.

Not saying its fair, but its way more accurate than what you are describing.

More like you can't drive a sports cars with low clearance over the terrain required for a military base, so they shouldn't build any sports cars with low clearance because not everyone can use them.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Someone is looking to buy a car. They can't decide if they'd like to buy a minivan or an SUV. Do they rage at the SUV company because they don't provide sliding doors on their model? No, they buy the minivan. Maybe if the SUV has enough features to make up for the lack of sliding doors, they buy the SUV.

That's not the analogy.

The analogy is more like they ask if you are in the military and remove the engine if you are.

Not saying its fair, but its way more accurate than what you are describing.

More like you can't drive a sports cars with low clearance over the terrain required for a military base, so they shouldn't build any sports cars with low clearance because not everyone can use them.

No, that doesn't work, because for most games, the XBox One should work without the network connection, as most games will be cross-platform with PS4 and I seriously doubt they would require the cloud computing to work.

That's the issue with the analogys so far. XBox is CHOOSING to not allow certain people (including certain sympathetic groups) to use their hardware. Its not a necessity for every part of the hardware, only certain parts, but they choose to, instead of letting you use the parts that would work, not let you use any of it at all.

There is no functional reason that every game released on XBox One both as a retail release and as a downloaded release needs an internet connection. The next version of Bejeweled or Angry Birds released on XBox One Arcade isn't going to use cloud processing.

 

[Fennis]

Someone is looking to buy a car. They can't decide if they'd like to buy a minivan or an SUV. Do they rage at the SUV company because they don't provide sliding doors on their model? No, they buy the minivan. Maybe if the SUV has enough features to make up for the lack of sliding doors, they buy the SUV.

That's not the analogy.

The analogy is more like they ask if you are in the military and remove the engine if you are.

Not saying its fair, but its way more accurate than what you are describing.

More like you can't drive a sports cars with low clearance over the terrain required for a military base, so they shouldn't build any sports cars with low clearance because not everyone can use them.

No, that doesn't work, because for most games, the XBox One should work without the network connection, as most games will be cross-platform with PS4 and I seriously doubt they would require the cloud computing to work.

That's the issue with the analogys so far. XBox is CHOOSING to not allow certain people (including certain sympathetic groups) to use their hardware. Its not a necessity for every part of the hardware, only certain parts, but they choose to, instead of letting you use the parts that would work, not let you use any of it at all.

There is no functional reason that every game released on XBox One both as a retail release and as a downloaded release needs an internet connection. The next version of Bejeweled or Angry Birds released on XBox One Arcade isn't going to use cloud processing.

WWND?