NextBox will not require always-on to play games

[PolloDiablo]

NextBox will not require always-on to play games


so... that means that I don't need to turn on the console to play my games? wow... the technology

 

[Foxi4]

I just wonder how many of the whiners actually used their console Offline... ever. I find it hard to believe that an "Always Online" policy would affect a lot of users negatively. Honestly, I don't remember when was the last time any of my Wi-Fi/Ethernet-Ready consoles were "Offline".

If anything, I wonder what would the developers do with their games server-side if they were "Always-Online". While the marriage of Multiplayer and Singleplayer had its share of storms (Hi Simcity!) it doesn't mean that it can't be done right - for example in dungeon crawlers, the player could meet and trade with other players online, have the option to look for other players for their party if he or she didn't feel like playing with NPC characters and head out to instance dungeons that'd be separate for each party.

This sounds like a really good mix of RPG and MMO that's not entirely MMORPG which are somewhat infamous for fetch quests and killing quests. While "bring 150 scrolls to this NPC" or "kill 50 orcs" don't sound like very inspired quests, Co-Op'ing an entire campaign of an ordinary RPG does...

That, and let's face it - NPC stores have crappy items in just about any RPG - you have to grind if you want some epic drops and with a player-controlled economy, buying or selling goods would become an integral part of the gameplay rather than a necessary evil... but alas, people really value their single player experience.

"Always Online" could also introduce unique, epic items that only a select number of players can hold at any given time before they become undroppable, the distribution of said items controlled server-side. Those would instantly become very valuable and both a reason to trade and a reason to PvP on city arenas... Nifty.

 

[hhs]

I mentioned this on 4chan but from a policy standpoint it made sense not to fight the rumors. The reality is that most people in the market are not diehards that pay attention to every rumor that comes about before launch. That is why companies start what's called push poll, they let a balloon out into the wind to see what direction public opinion is going and how severe it is. Then, when it's obviously hostile, they can refute the rumor with minor damage as only few stock holders pulling out would even be noticed.

It also makes sense in a meta way to play public opinion in their favor. They lower the bar on themselves so much that when it's revealed they aren't making such a consumer-destructive policy everyone is impressed with the reality vs the expectation. Again, most people don't know about these rumors but journalists do. The game journalists may, as a result of the above, convey in their tone a feeling of promise and excitement of this new xbox that doesn't feature those issues. The non-saavy reader will pick up the tone and get the general warm feeling towards the console and not realize they are making an emotional decision to purchase it over rivals.

 

[Metoroid0]

I miss simpler days... ​

 

[Sterling]

I just wonder how many of the whiners actually used their console Offline... ever. I find it hard to believe that an "Always Online" policy would affect a lot of users negatively. Honestly, I don't remember when was the last time any of my Wi-Fi/Ethernet-Ready consoles were "Offline".

If anything, I wonder what would the developers do with their games server-side if they were "Always-Online". While the marriage of Multiplayer and Singleplayer had its share of storms (Hi Simcity!) it doesn't mean that it can't be done right - for example in dungeon crawlers, the player could meet and trade with other players online, have the option to look for other players for their party if he or she didn't feel like playing with NPC characters and head out to instance dungeons that'd be separate for each party.

This sounds like a really good mix of RPG and MMO that's not entirely MMORPG which are somewhat infamous for fetch quests and killing quests. While "bring 150 scrolls to this NPC" or "kill 50 orcs" don't sound like very inspired quests, Co-Op'ing an entire campaign of an ordinary RPG does...

That, and let's face it - NPC stores have crappy items in just about any RPG - you have to grind if you want some epic drops and with a player-controlled economy, buying or selling goods would become an integral part of the gameplay rather than a necessary evil... but alas, people really value their single player experience.

"Always Online" could also introduce unique, epic items that only a select number of players can hold at any given time before they become undroppable, the distribution of said items controlled server-side. Those would instantly become very valuable and both a reason to trade and a reason to PvP on city arenas... Nifty.

I was without internet for almost a year. That's coming from a place that had a reliable and readily available connection that I couldn't afford. I was forced to spend hours at a Starbucks or McDonalds to keep my life sane. I had to play my XBox offline and at one point, I was the most seen person at my local Gamestop (I even got a customer of the month award and a free game since I helped them sell a huge amount of games from their used section).

 

[Foxi4]

I was without internet for almost a year. That's coming from a place that had a reliable and readily available connection that I couldn't afford. I was forced to spend hours at a Starbucks or McDonalds to keep my life sane. I had to play my XBox offline and at one point, I was the most seen person at my local Gamestop (I even got a customer of the month award and a free game since I helped them sell a huge amount of games from their used section).

It's fair to say that people who cannot afford the Internet probably cannot afford video games, let alone a video game console in the first place. Your example is rather rare and a result of an unfortunate turn of events, not a general rule, at least in my opinion.

 

[Sterling]

It's fair to say that people who cannot afford the Internet probably cannot afford video games, let alone a video game console in the first place. Your example is rather rare and a result of an unfortunate turn of events, not a general rule, at least in my opinion.

True, but gaming is a passion of mine and to afford internet at the time just required a little too much sacrifice for the essentials (food, water, toilet paper, and other cleanliness items) than I was comfortable with.

 

[dgwillia]

Thank god then, now I might actually consider buying it then. Just depends on the launch games

 

[Gahars]

*snip*

And I'm going to have to disagree. For a console, it is a terrible idea.

Internet access is not stable across the world, let alone the first world - even in relatively wealthy areas outages and downtime can be all too frequent. It's not that rare. I can't count all the times I've lost internet access while I was in the middle of a play session (or I decided to start a play session because I could no longer browse the internet). That's not to mention that connection problems don't always stem from the players themselves, as the SimCity server fiasco, or Diablo 3's launch, etc. demonstrated.

I don't want to be locked out out of a console I've spent several hundred dollars on just because Comcast or Microsoft messed up. That's not enriching the experience - that's needlessly punishing the consumer.

For just games themselves, I think it varies. After all, MMOs are pretty much inherently always on. Still, I don't like the idea of forcing that into solitary game experiences (Sim-drone yet again). Personally, when it comes to multiplayer and singleplayer, I'm a bit like George Wallace - I'd rather them kept segregated. (See Bioshock 2; I liked the multiplayer mode, but I also appreciated the fact that I could experience the story on my own without others intruding and interrupting.) That's just me, though.

 

[DSGamer64]

Who cares whether it does or it doesn't? If Microshit wants to do it, let them, then they can see their console sales shrivel up and die. It's their money to piss away as they please.

 

[Maxternal]

Here, it seems that no matter how much you pay for Internet, it DOES go down every once in a while. Between that and the idea that if you suddenly get laid off from your good job you were buying games with and paying for Internet with and are then forced to get a crappy job just to get by, you still have all the games you bought previously. If you suddenly can't play them because you're no longer able to pay for an Internet connection that would suck. Same thing if a kid's rich grandmother get's them a NextBox for Christmas and some games but Mom and Dad don't have the cash to be paying Internet bills, you wouldn't want it to be useless, especially if grandma is still clueless enough to buy them some more games for their birthday later on. EDIT : Oh, and there's also the case of the kid that gets a summer job to get one ...

(And there's always LOCAL multiplayer ... I just hope that it's still covered even though that e-mail didn't mention it specifically.)

 

[Isaac]

Well, If I can get a summer job, I may decide to get one! Seems like a better investment than "drivers training".... Depending of course, on the rpg's they release for it.

 

[Bladexdsl]

now show me some decent games instead of shooters, racing and sports games and I MIGHT get one.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

now show me some decent games instead of shooters, racing and sports games and I MIGHT get one.

I'd rather them show any game because none have really been show.

But don't worry I'm sure it'll just be shooters, racers, and sports games because the Xbox 360 was totally that and definitely not a sweeping generalization.

 

[2ndApex]

Aaaannnddd I'm done with internet rumors.

 

[Rydian]

~

(1:43:15 AM) Rydian: Blargh net went out.
(1:43:39 AM) Til sunlight dies: What kind of connection do you have???
(1:44:36 AM) Rydian: DSL, but it goes out at 1:21 AM every day when the ISP resets something.
(1:44:45 AM) Rydian: And it sometimes takes forever to reconnect.
(1:45:07 AM) Til sunlight dies: I see....lol

(1:23:54 AM) Stephapanda: Sorry, did I piss you off?
(1:24:08 AM) Rydian: No no no, I get disconnected at 1:21 AM every night.
(1:24:22 AM) Rydian: Sort of annoying.
(1:24:27 AM) Stephapanda: That's.. odd
(1:24:46 AM) Stephapanda: I thought you might have been mad at me or something, lol

(12:02:54 AM) Rydian: Also, does my IP change every day? 'Cause I get disconnected from my ISP at 1:21 AM every day on the dot, never fails. Gotta' wait an hour or just reboot the router.
(12:03:30 AM) Rgoodermote: I can't tell you.

Available internet does not imply stable internet, even on landlines.

 

[Foxi4]

Available internet does not imply stable internet, even on landlines.

I'm sure it's terrible with today's routers which automatically re-connect (or attempt to) in case of connection failure.

 

[Sterling]

Available internet does not imply stable internet, even on landlines.

Dude, that reminds me, I haven't seen StephaPanda in forever.

 

[Rydian]

I'm sure it's terrible with today's routers which automatically re-connect (or attempt to) in case of connection failure.

The one I was using there started doing it after a firmware update (it was a gateway so I didn't have much tweaking ability), but sometimes it would just not be able to connect for an hour, and the connection breaking at all is of note anyway.

 

[Foxi4]

The one I was using there started doing it after a firmware update (it was a gateway so I didn't have much tweaking ability), but sometimes it would just not be able to connect for an hour, and the connection breaking at all is of note anyway.

Right, I'll repeat what I said a few times already when issues of "Always Online" popped up:

"We may not be at the level of technological sophistication of networks necessary for the introduction of such a system yet, but eventually we will be and it brings some interesting new opportunities that are worth to explore"

There. All I'm saying here about server-side activity, be it in single or multiplayer games is pure "what if". Besides, I believe that games should work both Online and Offline, even if only for archival purposes, however having the option to be "Always Online" brings a lot of benefits. Hell, background patching would be nice.

I'm in my bed, I don't know any better, I get up, I turn on my console first thing in the morning to Trophy Whore and BAM! - I need to download a 2GB patch first (and patches are only going to get bigger and bigger as games themselves grow) - is that not annoying? Wouldn't it be nice for the console to do that for me through the night without me having to check whether there's a new patch or not?

Again, I'm talking about it being an option - there's no technical reason for the XBox not to turn on when it's not connected to a Network, however I can see how certain games or the console's sub-systems should strongly benefit from being connected to the Web at all times.

And I'm going to have to disagree. For a console, it is a terrible idea.

Internet access is not stable across the world, let alone the first world - even in relatively wealthy areas outages and downtime can be all too frequent. It's not that rare. I can't count all the times I've lost internet access while I was in the middle of a play session (or I decided to start a play session because I could no longer browse the internet). That's not to mention that connection problems don't always stem from the players themselves, as the SimCity server fiasco, or Diablo 3's launch, etc. demonstrated.

My argument lives in the mythical world where the Internet is perfect and an "Always Online" scheme can benefit the player by means of exclusive content. It's theoretical, not practical at this point in time.

I don't want to be locked out out of a console I've spent several hundred dollars on just because Comcast or Microsoft messed up. That's not enriching the experience - that's needlessly punishing the consumer.

I consider "Always Online" to be an option that you can opt to use rather than an established mechanism that you have to deal with. I put all the possible Network interactions that happen without the user's direct and intended input in the "Always Online" basket, not the (somewhat silly) concept of the console just refusing to work when it's not connected - that's not what I mean by "Always Online". Like I said, Smartphones can work in, say, Flight Mode - they're not connected to anything, most of the functionality is cut by proxy but hell, you can play Minesweeper... right? It's a castrated experience but an experience nonetheless.

For just games themselves, I think it varies. After all, MMOs are pretty much inherently always on. Still, I don't like the idea of forcing that into solitary game experiences (Sim-drone yet again). Personally, when it comes to multiplayer and singleplayer, I'm a bit like George Wallace - I'd rather them kept segregated. (See Bioshock 2; I liked the multiplayer mode, but I also appreciated the fact that I could experience the story on my own without others intruding and interrupting.) That's just me, though.

This is why I said that you should have the option to play with other players within your
Singleplayer game, but an option that doesn't seem like going to a menu and clicking "Multiplayer". Again, creating Instance-based maps is not a difficult thing to do these days so every Singleplayer fan could do whatever he or she feels like with bots and the more sociable players could go straight into "this exact same dungeon" and not interrupt the other player at all.

inb4ParallelDimensions