Rumor: More Evidence Suggests Always-Online For Next Xbox

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

If this is true then I probably am not going to participate in this console generation at all. I'll just stick to pc thank you.

sooo what happens if my internet connection is turned off? which i often do to save mony on power bills. is my new console going to just be a very pretty paper weight until i turn the internet back on or what?

So I'm a disabled person with absolutely no need for a kinect bar (don't tell me I can wave my arms around to change the dashboard, I don't need to look anymore of an idiot than I already do!)
Also I live in England we have largest amount of CCTV in the world anyway, Big Brother is already watching me, I don't need Microsoft peeking at me too!

I also live in an area with terrible internet access that can and will disconnect at will, so what'll happen? the machine will switch itself off? my game progress will be lost?

And these are mandatory?
Sorry Microsoft, you'll be losing a customer.
and I know they don't care, but it makes me feel better!


If any of that were the case, I like when a company makes my purchase decision for me. It takes away some of the pressure.

I don't think MS will force developers to use an always online DRM. Not because its anti-consumer but because such DRM requires time and money to develop/integrate into a game, and not all studios would want to invest the required resources for that.

It doesn't need to be a developers/publisher's responsibility... It could be integrated inside the OS of the durango, the same way cross-chat is integrated into the 360 platform, or be a primitive in the new XDK.

I hate to admit it, but I think my morals might get a bit flexible on this one. As much as I want to say that I won't buy it no matter what... I have to admit that it'll probably depend on their implementation. Just like Steam undermined my "I hate all DRM" stance, the Durango has the potential to do the same to Always-Online connections.

Sim City 2013 wasn't just an always-online fiasco, it was a bad freaking game, and thus was easy to pass on. But imagine if their servers hadn't taken a huge dump, and the game hadn't sucked? Would that have looked more tempting? I know I'd have been considering it.

I know I'm not alone here. The truth is, the companies know that they'll take a short-term loss in customers, while they wear people down, but they're gambling on long-term benefits of always-online being accepted. And at this point... I can't help but wonder if they're right.

The other key unasked question will be what will this "always on" Internet be doing to a users monthly services bill. mS is not exactly noted for lean or lowest common denominator coding? How often is this thing going to clog my bandwidth pulling in marketing crap that it thinks I might like? What if my Internet has a bandwidth cap? How badly will this automated spy to trash that?

Also, bets on how long it will be before a court challenge forces them to disable at least one of the always on kin next or always on Internet, as a gross and illegal privacy violation (that users are obviously to stupid to recognize or agree to in an informed manner.)

Wow its a dam shame, I used to be an Xbox Fanboy (back in the day) till I got my first Gaming PC and after reading this, I'm glad I never looked back. As well as the other oblivious reasons =P

Zachary Amaranth:


Or maybe people with bad itnernet connections will finally wake up and start demanding their ISP to stop charging them a fortune for some crap connection that became obsolete 20 years ago....

Yes, making demands of monopolies generally gets things done.

Look, you're expecting people to make a big fuss to companies known for terminating service for people who make a big fuss. Doesn't that seem...You know, unrealistic?

I know the gaming community has a hard on for getting screwed over by publishers/companies, but there has to be a limit. There has to be an act that finally gets the community to rebel.There has to be....right?


I know the gaming community has a hard on for getting screwed over by publishers/companies, but there has to be a limit. There has to be an act that finally gets the community to rebel.There has to be....right?

I would hope so, but in this case I doubt it's the limit. I mean, we're not just talking gamers who have a history of being screwed over by ISPs. Even worse, gamers tend to be what are called "power users," and power users are generally among the first to be cut.

ISPs are kind of like insurance companies: they tend to want to take your money, but tend to not want to do anything for it. When you start using resources or demanding changes, they are more prone to look for a reason to terminate you. Which, thankfully, is not literally in the case of internet service.

Besides, these are the same consumers that bought a product that said "no refunds" with a known online-only service and demanded refunds when they couldn't play their game because of the online-only service. I don't think gamers are going to buck up here, period.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here