On top of it not always being reliable, there's a monthly usage for internet as well. My limit per month is 80GB with 24 Mb/s download speed. I almost always reach my limit per month and having always online for single player games wont help at all.
Microsoft Creative Director Comments on Always-Online
- Thread starter BasedKiliK
- Start date
- Views 11,171
- Replies 126
Well, that is one of the biggest issues. Microsoft would find themselves in a lot of hot water if they tried to do both.
Ugh I'm out in the boonies, and while we get decent internet, it's prone to going down all the time because some fucking jack off natives always steal the copper wiring and everything. It's annoying.
Yeah I'm in a really populated area right now, and stuff is still prone to going out every so often. Not as much as when I was in the mountains, but it still happens.
You can go online without paying the subscription, you just can't do very much with it (eg no online Multiplayer, no video streaming, ...).
Xbox Indie games for example do already require you to be online to play.
Without subscription you can play them, but limited to online Singleplayer.
I guess the new Xbox will do the same for every game.
Why would the stop such an good money maker.
They tried the subscription scheme for both Xbox and GfWL.
Xbox users loved it, PC users didn't, thus GfWL online Multiplayer went free again.
I live in China and the internet connection is excellent but only on servers located in China. As soon as you try to visit a website outside of China, it gets shitty slow.
I don't think it would be a major problem if the always-on thing was just a DRM, but if games actually had to download resources from remote servers (something like cloud gaming) it just wouldn't work at all.
So I'll wait and see, but the principle of always-online is already making me want a PS4 more. And I won't own both (at least not in the initial years).
I don't think it would be a major problem if the always-on thing was just a DRM, but if games actually had to download resources from remote servers (something like cloud gaming) it just wouldn't work at all.
So I'll wait and see, but the principle of always-online is already making me want a PS4 more. And I won't own both (at least not in the initial years).
Games already started doing that to make cracking them a longer and more involved process. The Assassin's Creed II or whatever DRM did this, Sim City does it, etc. The cracks for these games (before the AC DRM removal update) actually involved server software running locally to feed the data to the game.
Equating always online with having to have electricity to power a vacuum is fucking stupid. I cannot believe I even have to explain why. Something like a TV, appliance, car, etc has to have a source of energy to run. As in it's required, because the laws of physics mandate that the device must receive a source of power in order to function. Same goes for organisms needing nutrition and other elements to survive (also fuel).
Always online on the other hand is completely unnecessary in single player games at the very least. Online multiplayer sure, the laws of physics are obviously in effect there. But online is not a physics-mandated requirement for experiencing a purely single player experience (or even local multiplayer). In those situations, it's something that was specifically programmed in. Except that it serves no useful function except for companies to enforce even more DRM-like restrictions on gamers (and perhaps as a more subconscious tool to further the notion that you don't truly own the games you paid for).
And in many if not most cases, DRM and other similar online checking mechanics have been hacked and removed. You can't hack into a vacuum cleaner and force it to run without electricity.
I'm going to assume at this point that the guy who tweeted this crap is just a really bad troll. Though it's rumored that MS is doing this still anyways. If so, even their response telling people not to listen to him is empty.
Always online on the other hand is completely unnecessary in single player games at the very least. Online multiplayer sure, the laws of physics are obviously in effect there. But online is not a physics-mandated requirement for experiencing a purely single player experience (or even local multiplayer). In those situations, it's something that was specifically programmed in. Except that it serves no useful function except for companies to enforce even more DRM-like restrictions on gamers (and perhaps as a more subconscious tool to further the notion that you don't truly own the games you paid for).
And in many if not most cases, DRM and other similar online checking mechanics have been hacked and removed. You can't hack into a vacuum cleaner and force it to run without electricity.
I'm going to assume at this point that the guy who tweeted this crap is just a really bad troll. Though it's rumored that MS is doing this still anyways. If so, even their response telling people not to listen to him is empty.
I usually expect Sony to be the jackasses, but Microsoft has seen the light apparently....
I've just read the entire thread, but I'm still not getting this.
To be fair, foxi4 gives some good food for thought. No matter how you look at it, internet is an added value for gaming. Yes, the anti-piracy thing is an important factor, but it's far from the only one. Blizzard patches their games for balance for years now. The first days of starcraft 2 and diablo 3 were a huge clusterfuck, but who's remembering that now? No...on the contrary: their games are praised for a large part because the developers don't just call it quits the day the thing gets put on shelves.
Why should consoles be an exception on this? Christ...even bioshock 1 had to make an online check before it allowed you to play the game. And boy, did that game FAIL!!!! /sarcasm
That said...
The thing I really don't get is why microsoft is forcing this. Assuming they ARE forcing this, because one guy trolling another one on twitter isn't exactly the most reliable source. And if anything, this one is equally reliable, and counters that statement.
Result: my bet is microsoft will just allow the game makers themselves to do online checks. That way, certain makers (I'm looking at you, EA) can decide for themselves whether they want to force their gamers to be online.
This obviously is a double edged sword. On one hand, it allows for entirely new gameplay. The next generation won't be distinguished by graphics...so why not bring MMORPG's to consoles? Or entirely new styles of MMO's where all that "interaction with other players" isn't some fancy buzz-word in a presentation, but something you actually DO?
On the other hand...yes. It WILL limit your audience (as mentioned: not everyone has reliable internet). And it's only the question whether you can keep the game profitable, as the cost of making the game and the disks gets another cost of running the servers for your gamers to play on (which will most likely mean subscriptions).
...and yeah, there's the EA approach of cutting off your own foot with that double edged sword by not correctly calculating the amount of power you'll need, thus providing a shitty experience to all. Nobody likes this. But that isn't to say it doesn't have potention. It's a growing pain. If everyone is REALLY as persistent in boycotting them as they say they are, it will vanish. If not...then it keeps around. EA isn't forcing everyone online because they're evil. It's because they see potential. It's the sales figures that'll prove them right or wrong.
Same goes for the durango, I guess. I propose we hold back bitching about it until it hits the stores.
To be fair, foxi4 gives some good food for thought. No matter how you look at it, internet is an added value for gaming. Yes, the anti-piracy thing is an important factor, but it's far from the only one. Blizzard patches their games for balance for years now. The first days of starcraft 2 and diablo 3 were a huge clusterfuck, but who's remembering that now? No...on the contrary: their games are praised for a large part because the developers don't just call it quits the day the thing gets put on shelves.
Why should consoles be an exception on this? Christ...even bioshock 1 had to make an online check before it allowed you to play the game. And boy, did that game FAIL!!!! /sarcasm
That said...
The thing I really don't get is why microsoft is forcing this. Assuming they ARE forcing this, because one guy trolling another one on twitter isn't exactly the most reliable source. And if anything, this one is equally reliable, and counters that statement.
Result: my bet is microsoft will just allow the game makers themselves to do online checks. That way, certain makers (I'm looking at you, EA) can decide for themselves whether they want to force their gamers to be online.
This obviously is a double edged sword. On one hand, it allows for entirely new gameplay. The next generation won't be distinguished by graphics...so why not bring MMORPG's to consoles? Or entirely new styles of MMO's where all that "interaction with other players" isn't some fancy buzz-word in a presentation, but something you actually DO?
On the other hand...yes. It WILL limit your audience (as mentioned: not everyone has reliable internet). And it's only the question whether you can keep the game profitable, as the cost of making the game and the disks gets another cost of running the servers for your gamers to play on (which will most likely mean subscriptions).
...and yeah, there's the EA approach of cutting off your own foot with that double edged sword by not correctly calculating the amount of power you'll need, thus providing a shitty experience to all. Nobody likes this. But that isn't to say it doesn't have potention. It's a growing pain. If everyone is REALLY as persistent in boycotting them as they say they are, it will vanish. If not...then it keeps around. EA isn't forcing everyone online because they're evil. It's because they see potential. It's the sales figures that'll prove them right or wrong.
Same goes for the durango, I guess. I propose we hold back bitching about it until it hits the stores.
Should these unfounded rumors prove true...non-issue for me for two reasons.
1) I have a kick-ass, consistent internet connection.
2) I'm not an early adopter of anything and will have plenty of time to see the hardware in action before deciding "I'm not going to buy that based on rumors circulating prior to it even being announced."
It is funny though seeing everyone freak out over heresay and hypotheticals...
"Aliens: Colonial Marines is a steaming pile of garb...SQUIRREL!"
"The WiiU is losing third party supp...SQUIRREL!"
"Microsoft is forcing gamers to connect to the intern...SQUIRREL!"
1) I have a kick-ass, consistent internet connection.
2) I'm not an early adopter of anything and will have plenty of time to see the hardware in action before deciding "I'm not going to buy that based on rumors circulating prior to it even being announced."
It is funny though seeing everyone freak out over heresay and hypotheticals...
"Aliens: Colonial Marines is a steaming pile of garb...SQUIRREL!"
"The WiiU is losing third party supp...SQUIRREL!"
"Microsoft is forcing gamers to connect to the intern...SQUIRREL!"
You're forgetting one problem, down the line you may not be able to play your games 5-10 years later, trust me you'll want to play the old games once in a while and guess what if always online is true, they will be no good 5-10 years later or longer. I would not want a collection of games that would be worthless and unplayable 5+ years down the line.
There are also other reason this should be an issue, preservation and emulation down the line, you won't be able to properly preserve a game to play later on or just for history's sake if it has always online DRM or even play the system and emulation could be affected, future generations should be able to play these games if they so desire.
If it's always online too I bet you anything it won't be free so you'll be forced to pay for xbl or whatever it will be. No thanks - I already pay for one internet!
Of course it won't be free. Microsoft made you pay for the original Xbox for years, and the 360 for years. I'm pretty sure they've made more than enough money to cover server costs for a long time.
Hell today I was playing Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate online, and every room I went in, a lot of talk was about this guy's comments. Everybody is sure that it'll be online only because Microsoft is causing themselves a lot of trouble with this, and they're not denying or saying anything. It's not like saying "we wont be online only" will hurt them at all. It'll restore a lot of faith.
I don't think anyone forgets the first days of Diablo 3 
Nowadays most people are focusing on the fact that the game sucked compared to Diablo 2.
Now recently we saw Sim City concerns, tho they seem to have come to a good server quota now.
But IF the Xbox720 is going to require always on in order to actually play a game, I think a lot of people will be quite sad they can't play games when their internet is down.
Nowadays most people are focusing on the fact that the game sucked compared to Diablo 2.
Now recently we saw Sim City concerns, tho they seem to have come to a good server quota now.
But IF the Xbox720 is going to require always on in order to actually play a game, I think a lot of people will be quite sad they can't play games when their internet is down.
This, I would hate not being able to play, I usually catch up with single player campaigns when my internet is down. If I can't do that, that's really crap...
Hey guys. XBL Silver is free so stop worrying about them making you pay for Gold. You'll have to be online for the box to "phone home" but you wont be able to play online against anybody. IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE!
"If your Xbox is on for more than 4 hours, consult a technician."
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
Sicklyboy:
@Xdqwerty, to answer your question, they're a fusion Brit-pop/J-pop/electronic band with a woman vocalist. Flamingo is hands down their best known song but they've got a ton of other really good songs+1 -
@
Sicklyboy:
For example, one of my other favorite songs from them, with some massive house music influence -+1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
