Rumor: Next-Gen Xbox Will Cost $300-$500, Be Always-Online

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

I start to think this console might actually tank. Like, tank spectacularly. We all know that whatever Sony cooks up will at least sell decently in the Japan if nothing else, but this thing? How many groups of people can you possibly antagonize at once? xD

I hope people will vote with their wallet. I'm already kinda done with dedicated videogame consoles as is, and this only makes it more clear to me that it's the right decision.

Expensive and restrictive. Thanks Microsoft for making the choice easy for me which console i should buy next generation. ^-^

TwistedEllipses:
Rumours are rumours, but at the moment saying it might use babies as power is pretty much the way for it to sound more like a step in the wrong direction...

...I mean, why have nearly all the recent consoles failed to be backwards compatible? Is it on purpose?

BC has mainly been an issue because the console is more advanced and the tech put in place for BC to work glitches out a lot. That's why the PS3 took out the PS2 BC, it didn't work well and had terrible frame rate. The PS4 won't have it because they are using an entirely different system for the games that hasn't been used before. Sucks, but at least the Wii U has BC for Wii games.

OT: These rumors are disheartening to be sure, but I doubt most of them are true. Mainly because I don't think Microsoft wants to tank Neo Geo style. If these are true then Microsoft will be out of the console race for sure as the recovery for this would cost too much.

Karadalis:
You know.. being forced to have a kinect with every new xbox... this sounds like some awfull batman villain plot to somehow take control over the world utilizing some secret device build into the kinect XD

Still wondering if the Riddler or the Joker would come up with that first...

This sounds more like Joker insanity. If it were the Riddler then he'd make all the achievements question mark trophies and force you to answer riddles in order to play your games.

I probably won't get one. I have an Xbox 360 which I use exclusively for single-player games and a PC for multi-player.

Britisheagle:
And so begin the "I need a PC" messages. Steam requires you to be always online, it does work offline, yes, but barely. My internet went down last week and I thought Shogun would be a good game to play during this down time and it wouldn't launch as I had not updated it when I installed it because I wanted to go on something else.

You must start a game once after installing it. The offline mode does work; I tested it myself on another computer over a period of about 6 months. Here are the instructions for that. https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=3160-agcb-2555

Britisheagle:
I would also like to say I am a PC gamer as well as Xbox and I love my PC far more than my console. I am just stating that it does have it's moments, such as Steam servers going down mid way through a ranked match and getting a loss, no preowned market and games that you pay money that then don't work for whatever reason (and receiving no help what-so-ever from Steam and having to spend time on forums looking for player support instead). Overall it is a far superior platform, however, and if Microsoft believe that they can match, if not better, this system then I would like to see them try.

I've had ONE game not work on Steam, and that was because it was abandoned by the company that released it, so it was never patched. Steam also posts its downtimes. http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=784745&page=1000

I try to avoid Steam and pretty much only buy multiplayer titles from them, but it hasn't been that bad.

Not buying it. I prefer to have a choice as to whether or not I'm online, I don't want to have it forced on me.

Fasckira:
Not phased by the always online requirement; I live in a 1st world country with a reliable always-on internet connection. I'm also not prone to acting like a whiney bitch. Roll on the next gen!

So do I, but as a military member I have to go elsewhere and usually I don't get that stable internet so that you'll continue to have first world problems. So I would want games that don't require and always on connection.

Wait, hang on. They seriously thought of making games console that didn't play games but had all the other shit the 360 has instead?

They should include a secret service dude, you know the kind; dark suit, dark aviators, curly-wire ear piece, chewing gum, with each console. If anyone dares try a friends game, modding, playing something second hand, using it *gasp* offline, then he can shoot them. It's the best form of DRM.

I really hope these rumors are just rumors. The xbox hasn't managed to sell itself to me in any of it's incarnations yet. And this has only distanced me further along with that bum wipes tweets earlier last week.

Predictable response though it might be, I'm staying with my PC.

Maybe this is some kind of conspiracy within Microsoft to keep us using windows. :O

Sounds stupid altogether.
Which hardcore or just regular gamer (as I am) would want an effing kinect mandatory with the console? No wonder its expensive if you force-bundle it with a stupid toy.
Well, I wasnt that impressed be the PS4, but this seriously sounds pretty shitty. Always online (why? seriously, I dont get it...hasnt sim city taught people a lesson?), stupid kinect (how many good games had the kinect? Like....zero?), sucriptions......
I rarely complain and I know its just rumors, but this sounds like a really, really, really, really, really shitty console.

There is literally one thing that could excuse all these rumors: It's Microsoft Onlive. Always online would be a requirement just to stream your games to you, and the access to your account would be important too, so that the system knows what games you own.

Other than that, what the fuck Microsoft? Did you forget that you are trying to fill a market, and not just throw a product out expecting people to give you money? Hell, if that worked, I could glue some popsicle sticks together, and ask $30 for "hand-crafted woodworking."

Always-on internet? I hear "bad idea" being screamed but I don't know from where.

"But is that a bad thing?" What The Tech host Andrew Zarian asks Thurrott regarding the always-online requirement. "I don't know," he replies, "because I don't know what it means."

Thurrott lost all credibility in those two lines...

Way to shoot yourself in the foot Microsoft, Guess I'll be buying and Xbox 360 Slim sometime this summer because there is no way I'll be buying a system whose only lifeline is a constant internet connection.

Charli:

I really hope these rumors are just rumors. The xbox hasn't managed to sell itself to me in any of it's incarnations yet. And this has only distanced me further along with that bum wipes tweets earlier last week.

Predictable response though it might be, I'm staying with my PC.

Maybe this is some kind of conspiracy within Microsoft to keep us using windows. :O

Microsoft seems to be doing their best to alienate every sector of their operations. This is pretty much the same as the "la-la-la-can't-hear-you-because-my-fingers-are-in-my-ears" the desktop division is doing with the roll out of Windows 8. The adoption rate is abysmal for Win8 and yet Ballmer and friends are blindly pushing forward. Windows 8's Market Share is Coming at the Expense of Windows Vista/XP

Pretty much most things they've pushed out the door in the past year or so has barely fizzled on the consumer market and I don't see the new X-box being much different. Microsoft is slowly but surely wandering into obscurity as it tries to play catch up with Apple. Pretty much the only reason they aren't dead yet is that their OS runs around 75-80% of the worlds computers but even that number is starting to drop.

Back OT, I can't see myself paying for their online now while it's optional, why would I bother with a new box that make it mandatory. The only reason I bought my current xbox was for my daughter to play the Dance Central games and it hasn't been online outside the free 3 months I got when I first turned it on.

Don't really care about the rumors, but I'm curious - Is $300 and $500 expensive for console launches ? I'm asking because here it's usually around $800, so it could be worse. Also, despite my Internet connection being suprisingly stable (and most people are not that lucky) I consider always-on a terrible idea.

Ew.

Always-online, while a nice idea, has been such a colossal failure (Diablo 3, Sim City) that anyone seriously pursuing it--especially on the whole fuckdamn console--might not pay any attention to anything that happens, ever. I am glad to see a grace period for a dropped connection (hopefully it'll give you a pop-up notice along the lines of "Disconnected from internet, 3 minutes to shut down" or something so you can at least save), but I'd rather see one a bit longer (5-7 minutes). This has pretty much sealed it for me--I will quite definitely not be getting a next-gen Xbox. Especially if there's the bullshit about the Kinect needing to always be plugged in, because Kinect is bullshit. I'll probably put the money towards a new laptop instead--more portable, more usable, more features, and as a few people have mentioned, the fact that Microsoft and Sony seem to be using x86 architecture on their consoles means I probably won't be missing out on many games.

What are they trying to do?
Give Sony a chance to catch up?
Ba-dum Tish.

But seriously this sounds like a terrible Idea.

It's interesting to me that Microsoft seems to be trying to ensure that the next console generation is the last console generation. Seriously Sony, this is your game to fuck up. Making the PS4 less pants-on-head retarded than the X-Box 180 shouldn't be that challenging. Something like no always online BS, don't lock-out used games, maybe some PS2 emulation thrown in their and I'm more than willing to overlook your dumb 'Share' button thingy.

I'm hoping the backwards compatibility thing is wrong. Maybe they'll do something similar to what they did with the original Xbox games -> 360. Otherwise, that's a load of crap.

Really the only way they can make this right is if they do have a Microsoft OnLive service, and your subscription gets you access to every game on there. And even that will still see them losing customers.

CoL0sS:
Don't really care about the rumors, but I'm curious - Is $300 and $500 expensive for console launches ? I'm asking because here it's usually around $800, so it could be worse. Also, despite my Internet connection being suprisingly stable (and most people are not that lucky) I consider always-on a terrible idea.

The Xbox 360 launch was like 200-300
PS3 was like 300-600

So not really unusual.

Huh...I never really believed it, but here we stand. On the cusp of letting the companies win. While I'm still in my right mind, I'll never buy something that's always online. Well, time to get to that backlog!

Captcha: foul smelling
Yes indeed captcha, there is something foul smelling in the air

badmunky64:

Colt47:
You know what this rumor tells me? Sony is going to feel the love again! They deserve something after all of the events they had to deal with in the PS3 generation of consoles, especially the PSP, PSP Go!, and now possibly the Vita (though the Vita still looks like it can make a comeback as it's getting some good games over the next few months).

you may as well add the PS Vita to the list...

Whenever I come here, it always makes me feel like I'm the only person who actually has games to play for the Vita. I mean hell, I am in the middle of 3 different games after just recently finishing a fourth one and with Soul Sacrifice coming out at the end of the month I'm not going to have enough time to finish them. =P

(The games, if anyone is curious, are, Persona 4 Golden, Dokuro, Genkai Totsuki Monster Monpiece and just finished Senran Kagura Shinovi Versus)

CoL0sS:
Don't really care about the rumors, but I'm curious - Is $300 and $500 expensive for console launches ? I'm asking because here it's usually around $800, so it could be worse. Also, despite my Internet connection being suprisingly stable (and most people are not that lucky) I consider always-on a terrible idea.

The last Xbox launched at 299 for the core system (no HDD) and 399 for the one with the HDD.

The last Playstation launched at 499 for the cheapest model.

These are pretty safe estimates.

The more we hear, the more I feel comfortable in pre-emptively giving the award for this generation to Sony. Good job coming in first in a race between the BigBrother-Box and a home console whose software sales lag behind the freaking PSP Vita. I'm sure you feel, um, proud. No, that's not the word I wanted to use. Richer. Yes, I am sure you feel richer.

Thurott also confirmed rumors of the next Xbox's always-online requirement, which was strongly hinted at earlier this month by comments on Microsoft executive Adam Orth's Twitter. Thurott claims the system's notes specifically state that the new console "must be Internet-connected to use." The console reportedly stops functioning if its internet connection is dropped for more than three minutes.

Always on... Unless Sony also does this then there's NO way I'm going to buy into this. That's really unfortunate. I've been enjoying my 360 and was hopeful regarding the next gen. I will not buy systems and games that are reliant on the internet connection and a company's network. Both can go down and during a game that could mean bad things.

Most surprisingly though is the revelation that a new Xbox 360 console will be released alongside the next-gen Xbox. Microsoft is planning a $99 "Stingray" Xbox 360, which Thurrott claims is because the next-gen Xbox will not be backwards compatible with Xbox 360 games.

How is this surprising. The 360 bet hard and failed regarding the HD-DVD format. Of course the 720 won't be backwards compatible. It'd require an entirely different disk drive to operate. I called that the day Bluray won out.

Meanwhile at Nintendo and Sony...

However, in all seriousness, I simply cannot fathom how anyone at Microsoft would think that this could be a good idea. If they use the internet there, they would know how long a loss of connection would typically last. If they had people who could listen, they would hear customer backlash and argument. If they paid attention, they could see what happened to SimCity.

SimCity was a complete failure at launch because of it's always-online DRM, and that was just a game. Not everyone who owns a particular console will play the same game at the same time, but a whole LOT more people will own the same console and try to play it at once. If SimCity was a disaster, an always-online console will be a catastrophe.

Innocent until proven guilty, of course, but....it's definitely not looking good.

If this ends up being true, I'm very interested to hear Microsoft's reasoning and market strategy behind it.

Looks like I'll be going with the Wii U/PS4 combo this generation. This just seems too stupid to be true, but these rumors are just one right after the other and all saying the same thing. Plus you know, that twitter fiasco.

The PS3 had a lot of trouble this gen with the "599 US dollar!" to all the hacks, so it's only fair that Sony pass off the poo poo baton to Microsoft for the new gen.

IF this rumor is true, then my response is the following:

1. Too expensive (not going to buy it).
2. Always-online has been shown to be a bad idea (not going to buy it).
3. Creating a subscription model in addition to the upfront cost smacks of a scam to weasel more money out of customers than the worth of the device or service (not going to buy it).
4. The corporate heads of the game industry have conclusively proven they are incapable of learning (not going to buy it).

I think I may be skipping this upcoming generation entirely. I'm not liking what I'm seeing. About the only system so far that doesn't seem to be trying to dick customers over is the Wii U.

DarthSka:
Looks like I'll be going with the Wii U/PS4 combo this generation. This just seems too stupid to be true, but these rumors are just one right after the other and all saying the same thing. Plus you know, that twitter fiasco.

Yeah, after the ps3's mistakes I would never have guessed that Sony would get things right this generation and microsoft (who has done amazingly with their two generations except for the HD-DVD/Bluray decision) would do something that is currently winning EA the worst company of the year award.

TKretts3:
However, in all seriousness, I simply cannot fathom how anyone at Microsoft would think that this could be a good idea. If they use the internet there, they would know how long a loss of connection would typically last. If they had people who could listen, they would hear customer backlash and argument. If they paid attention, they could see what happened to SimCity.

Something scary to consider, there is a reason.

Always on = DRM. An almost complete reduction of the chance of piracy. This is also why EA did it. Additionally, research does show that social involvement in games does encourage long term use of games though the studies fail to grasp correlation and causality. This is also why EA forced the always on for the single player experience. In case the user ever gets tempted to use the social features they'd always be there.

So, from a business perspective it makes sense on the surface level. But it fails to understand its target audience and so they end up pulling an EA move of hubris and greed. I guess every console just has to shoot themselves in the foot. At this point in the game, why would people by the 720 over the ps4? Even if one console is slightly weaker than the other games will still be made to fit on both systems (because developers like making a profit and porting makes sense). I think Microsoft thinks they're big enough of a console name to do this and not get hurt. I'm afraid of the idea that they could be right...

But hey, this is all too early so we'll see what actually happens. But the fact that high-level client-facing representatives have confessed not understanding what our complaint about always on riles us so much is extremely concerning that this is a valid rumor. The fact that it upsets us so much should be all that matters since we are the consumers. I mean, there are situations that the customer can be wrong, but it's bullheaded to make a choice if you don't understand why we don't like it.

There are a number of reasons:
1. Consoles require a significant degree of technical knowledge to hack to the point that you can pirate games. Console specific titles also take more work and more specialized knowledge to rip than pc games do. So there's already a specific drop in the possibility of piracy so Always on as DRM is even less acceptable.
2. Reliance on the internet assumes that we have constant internet connection. Am I seriously the only person who has taken my console to a party so that we can play on it? Requiring internet connection for all of the machines we have hooked up would be stupid. Likewise, reliance on ISP's for a single player experience can be a nightmare. I also have friends in more rural areas who have weeks without internet on a weekly basis. Other countries can have it worse as well.
3. Reliance on Microsoft's network is an additional concern. Any update or network failure means we can't use the machine or games that we've purchased.
4. We only barely tolerate gaming as a service. It's getting close to reaching a head but we don't think of movies or other IPs as services. There are many of us who don't buy games that require always on and having a system the requires it means EVERY game and movie and anything else suddenly requires something we don't want.
5. At the end of the day, we want to own what we purchase. We don't want to rent it. Always on means we never actually own the license because the day the game stops being supported online is the day we lose our IP.
6. There is NO benefit to this requirement for the user. None. This only hurts us. We will hate you for it.

I think having a subscription model would be a great idea. The odds of me plopping down $600 bucks like I did for my 360 are pretty much zero, so if they had a $100 dollar buy in with $10 bucks on month or something service, that would be a pretty nice deal. The price points need some work, but the idea is solid.

On the other hand, I haven't been sold on always online. Internet stability aside, what does always online need to be on a console? I can count the number of times I've used my 360 online on one hand, so why I would buy a product that is always online makes no sense. If I want to go online I use my PC.

What I love is that all the rumors are bad.

Seriously, this combined with Microsoft not confirming is definitely enough to raise a few eye brows and make people realize that "maybe it's not this"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

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