True - its hard to even quantify the rumours as the most popular/widely permeated ones are plainly the most controversial/newsworthy, which doesnt really infer they might be the most truthful...
ps3ud0
More XBox Rumours...Constant Internet Connection Required
- Thread starter jrodga2k5
- Start date
ps3ud0
Of course that's what these threads are for, rumours and discussing them. Isn't it?
Either way if I was MS I'd have released a statement along the lines of "It's not true you will require an always on connection and stay tuned for our announcement"
The lack of anything approaching a rebuff of what that nobbler said on twitter is a bit stupid. I really hope it isn't true but I'm not that optimistic.
Although that might well be the case, the original rumour was very specific. It was reported that if you lost your connection mid-game, you had 3 minutes to restore it before it was automatically paused and the network troubleshooter launched.
I don't think it's a question of our interpretation of "always on". Either the rumour was a lie or it wasn't
Then the blog from that Adam guy is hard to misinterpret too. He implied that losing your connection would be in the same category of disaster as losing your electricity.
This didn't sound like a facility to download updates in standby mode. It sounded like losing your connectivity would interrupt being able to use the device. Otherwise, why make a comparison that makes it sound worse than it is?
That Adam chap couldn't have been sufficiently inept to make things sound worse than they really are, could he?
He was pointing out that anytime someone mentions that an internet connection is required for anything, the already connected internet community go off on one saying "But I dont have internet, mine does not work" etc etc.
Is the internet an important utility in this day and age, YES.
If yours was so unreliable, surely you should be taking it up with the Internet provider?
I am aware there are people living in some areas where broadband proliferation is not very high but corporates will see the bigger picture moving forward and they will want to be positioning their product for the future. A disc and "offline" play is very "nineties".
Maybe Microsoft have data on their users and they know exactly what percentage of customers suffer disconnects and the gains from running such a service outweigh losing some customers, like it or not. If the product/service is not suitable, then end users are not forced to purchase it.
Maybe his points were to the extreme and maybe he was just trolling someone he knew.
Is the internet an important utility in this day and age, YES.
If yours was so unreliable, surely you should be taking it up with the Internet provider?
I am aware there are people living in some areas where broadband proliferation is not very high but corporates will see the bigger picture moving forward and they will want to be positioning their product for the future. A disc and "offline" play is very "nineties".
Maybe Microsoft have data on their users and they know exactly what percentage of customers suffer disconnects and the gains from running such a service outweigh losing some customers, like it or not. If the product/service is not suitable, then end users are not forced to purchase it.
Maybe his points were to the extreme and maybe he was just trolling someone he knew.
Last edited:
If your service is unreliable and you're with an ISP like TalkTalk, then you'll be forced to spend more money to change ISP first. And then you might have breach of contract issues.
As I'm with TalkTalk and have suffered connectivity issues for over three months, I know just how ineffective they are at resolving line faults.
So you're effectively increasing the cost of the console by mandating a more expensive ISP too.
WHAT?
No, I mandate a WORKING internet service provider. Price has nothing to do with it.
If your paying money for a service which is not being received, that is unfortunate. It does not matter how "cheap" something is, if it does not work, you are paying too much. Consumers need to put pressure on these companies to improve the service they are paying for or simply not use them in the first place. In this case, I thought TalkTalk had a stinking reputation on the whole anyway?
It is however wrong to expect everyone else to compensate for the fact the service you receive is inadequate.
Last edited:
Gimpy, in the real world, try getting a budget ISP to do anything about an intermittent fault. If the first Openreach engineer doesn't find anything, your ****ed.
I spent 3 months *actively* persuing TalkTalk and they did nothing after the first engineer reported "no fault". Those 3 months were entirely wasted. In the end the fault rectified itself and none of us are any the wiser what the cause was.
This is the reality of using a budget ISP, and there is no point denying it. So if internet connection of good quality (reliable) is essential, you will *force* many people to a more expensive ISP.
Or they can buy a PS4. Not a hard choice.
I understand where your coming from FoxEye.
I think the whole telecommunications sector needs a shake-up though regarding this sort of thing.
A budget airline still gets you from A-B, probably a bad analogy though.
As I said previously, ISP faults will become frowned upon more and more over the coming years, especially when services such as Television and HD streaming become the "Norm" in households and such ISP's will either change or fold.
At the moment, a lot of people just "accept it", especially those who know no better so these companies oversubscribe and use that to offset their "lower price".
I think the whole telecommunications sector needs a shake-up though regarding this sort of thing.
A budget airline still gets you from A-B, probably a bad analogy though.
As I said previously, ISP faults will become frowned upon more and more over the coming years, especially when services such as Television and HD streaming become the "Norm" in households and such ISP's will either change or fold.
At the moment, a lot of people just "accept it", especially those who know no better so these companies oversubscribe and use that to offset their "lower price".
Last edited:
Indeed, while the announced PS4 seems forgotten about
People would much rather speculate about something they know little about, than discuss something that's already been confirmed.
I've said it before, but all MS has do is put in an offline mode the same way steam does. No internet connection ? no problem, just play Single Player offline as you do now with XBL being down this weekend.
But the rumour was that after 3 minutes of no internet that it would "launch the connection assistant" and implied it would cut you off. The whole "always on" thing doesn't have to mean it will cut single player off if you have no internet connection. It can ask for a connection always, but that doesnt mean it will refuse to function unless it has one.
Steam / Origin both have offline modes for a reason.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,497
You seem to think every corner of the world has a decent, stable internet connection, which is not the case.
In the middle of Bristol I loose phone signal, at friends houses in villages there is slim to no signal and <1 Mbit internet.
Covering the UK in a complete internet coverage is a MASSIVE task and who is going to pay for it?
Always on DRM is a retarded idea at this point in time.
Simcity proved that very nicely and has prevented me from buying the game because of it!!
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 4,539
'Always on' is a terrible idea at this time. It is a 'feature' that provides absolutely zero benefit to the consumer and a large potential for frustration. Ultimately this is being done to prevent piracy which is a fair enough cause, but I would guess than MS will lose more money from lost customers who refuse to buy such a product than they would gain from any reduction in piracy.
In some ways I hope microsoft do go with the 'always on' functionality as it will make my choice of next generation console trivial.
In some ways I hope microsoft do go with the 'always on' functionality as it will make my choice of next generation console trivial.
someone will probably hack the life out the next xbox and play games off line, there is always ways round it. but i really hope they don't go ahead with it, mircosoft even haven't came out to say they aren't doing it.
looks like a wii u and ps4 combo for me
looks like a wii u and ps4 combo for me
Cool thanks for your input.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 1,400
lol, whats the point console games already outsell pc games by a massive amount. the whole point of consoles is ease of access and pre owned games and offline play is a lot of that. plenty of people still have unstable internet and usage caps etc. apparently 40% of Americans only have unstable internet/dial up only 3g through there phones etc! so yeah this is basically suicide for Microsoft unless sony do it to, if that's the case i think console sales will drop dramatically.
Shows you the difference between a company that feels they are well behind the competition, and a company that feels like they are the market leader.
Go back to the launch of the 360 and Microsoft clearly had a huge amount of ground to make up. How did they achieve this - by making the consumer the number one priority in almost every decision.
And what does it look like we're getting now, after already having to put up with their 'casual' gamer **** over the past few years (Kinect, seriously, go away). What we get now is the potential of an always online system that does nothing for the consumer other than provide a huge barrier to gaming. And I'm calling it 'always online' because that's the rumour, not online checks, or online activatons etc, any of those I would be fine with. But an always online system, the next Xbox is going to need a lot of outstanding exclusives if I'm going to put up with that.
If we could stop comparing devices that don't brick without an online connection, that would be nice. A tablet, desktop, laptop, smartphone, none of these are literally unusable without an online connection. Hopefully these rumours are no more than an exaggeration of the truth, I'll not be surprised if they are accurate though.
Go back to the launch of the 360 and Microsoft clearly had a huge amount of ground to make up. How did they achieve this - by making the consumer the number one priority in almost every decision.
- Xbox Live - Done 'right' out of the box (infact I've seen every update since the blades as a step backwards).
- Forcing a demo for every arcade game.
- Forcing devs to make updates as small as possible (See PS3 for the alternative to this).
- Securing content from the best studios, as well as putting money behind their own to create excellent exclusive software for the system.
- Adding extra RAM to the system at the last minute off the back of devs telling them that they could make beter games with more memory.
And what does it look like we're getting now, after already having to put up with their 'casual' gamer **** over the past few years (Kinect, seriously, go away). What we get now is the potential of an always online system that does nothing for the consumer other than provide a huge barrier to gaming. And I'm calling it 'always online' because that's the rumour, not online checks, or online activatons etc, any of those I would be fine with. But an always online system, the next Xbox is going to need a lot of outstanding exclusives if I'm going to put up with that.
If we could stop comparing devices that don't brick without an online connection, that would be nice. A tablet, desktop, laptop, smartphone, none of these are literally unusable without an online connection. Hopefully these rumours are no more than an exaggeration of the truth, I'll not be surprised if they are accurate though.
Last edited: