Cube Posted April 5, 2013 Author Posted April 5, 2013 It's especially stupid as this started off as "banter" between him and a friend of his. It was especially stupid from both sides. When you represent a big company, you do not do that on a public place like Twitter. Even with it being banter, some of the stuff he said was especially stupid.
gaggle64 Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 There's an argument for always-online in this day and age. That guy sure ain't making it though.
Cube Posted April 5, 2013 Author Posted April 5, 2013 There's an argument for always-online in this day and age. That guy sure ain't making it though. I can see points for "no" but no points for "yes". I can understand "online to activate" arguments - especially as so many games have important day 1 patches, but certainly not "always online".
Grazza Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 Thing is, you need electricty in order to use a vacuum cleaner, just as you need a phone connection in order to use a mobile phone. To date, it has not been necessary to have an internet connection for a games console, and it never should. To do so just makes them less convenient for us, not more so. We'd be making a rod for our backs, but why? A better experience if you're connected? Great. More versatility? Fine. A one-off registration? Acceptable to me, although there will still be some who lose out. But not mandatory - it's just crazy. Adam Orth is coming across as incredibly petulant if he can't understand why people wouldn't buy the next Xbox over this.
Gio001 Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 Oh dear!! This kind of attitude ain't gonna sell consoles. Especially when Sony are going all out to please developers and customers with the PS4.
Ashley Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 Microsoft will learn lessons like Sony had to learn lessons and everyone will be all the better for it. Orthy sounds like a right asshole. Wouldn't like to be him when he walked into work today. I want a gif of you trying to spin this for them at work As you said though, Sony became arrogant and had a fall and Nintendo did so years ago. Part of 'growing up' in this industry I suppose.
Captain Falcon Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 I was browsing a thread over at another popular gaming site, you know which one but why give them more free advertising here, when I came across this gif which I thought was rather amusing, especially the end.
Cube Posted April 6, 2013 Author Posted April 6, 2013 Although with regards with Diablo 3 and SimCity...weren't those both massive successes in terms of sales?
Shorty Posted April 6, 2013 Posted April 6, 2013 Hm, the rumours said "always on", and an internet connection required to start a game. Not "always online". Orth also said "Every device is now 'always-on'", which to me suggests a kind of standby mode, or the way your phone/tablet is always on and ready to go. I can't see anywhere stating that the next Xbox might require a permanent internet connection.
Rowan Posted April 6, 2013 Posted April 6, 2013 For the enthusiast it's a shame that Microsoft look set to go down this route. There are concerns that having digital downloads might mean we might not be able to redownload titles in the future when the servers go down. So assuming that this always online is going to poll an Xbox server, it could mean that in 10 years time the 720 is going to be a useless box as the server to connect to might be offline. For the mainstream consumer this will probably not deter them too much from buying the new console. Either way, Microsoft must have something up their sleeve to allow them to get away with always online. My guess is a subscription contract with a low upfront fee ($/£99). Perhaps tied in with TV channels over the internet.
Dcubed Posted April 7, 2013 Posted April 7, 2013 (edited) Oh hey. Seems that Paul Thurrott is corrobating the rumour (see from 54 mins onwards) so that means that it's probably true... He also mentions that Microsoft are launching a $99 Xbox 360, codenamed "Stingray", this November alongside Durango, as a means of making up for the Durango lacking 360 backwards compatibility and that it's around $500 for the console or $300 with a subscription subsidy. For the enthusiast it's a shame that Microsoft look set to go down this route. There are concerns that having digital downloads might mean we might not be able to redownload titles in the future when the servers go down. So assuming that this always online is going to poll an Xbox server, it could mean that in 10 years time the 720 is going to be a useless box as the server to connect to might be offline. For the mainstream consumer this will probably not deter them too much from buying the new console. Either way, Microsoft must have something up their sleeve to allow them to get away with always online. My guess is a subscription contract with a low upfront fee ($/£99). Perhaps tied in with TV channels over the internet. That's the worst part of it for me. It effectively means that all of these games for the console will cease to exist, the moment that the Durango's servers get shut down. It's tantamount to book burning and for that reason alone I would refuse to buy the console Edited April 7, 2013 by Dcubed
Cube Posted April 7, 2013 Author Posted April 7, 2013 I thought my expectation for the 360 couldn't get lower, but it has. I can't recall a single good thing I've heard about it so far. Another thing. Either the contact for the lower price is for four or five years, or Xbox live is getting a significant price increase.
madeinbeats Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Begs the question; if this is how much a weaker console costs, then how much is the PS4 going to cost or how much are Sony prepared to lose on it and where do they plan on making the difference up? It's like these companies want to make gaming a commodity. Sorry, but that's a step too far for me; gaming to me should be a light-hearted hobby, not a monthly contract.
Dcubed Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Begs the question; if this is how much a weaker console costs, then how much is the PS4 going to cost or how much are Sony prepared to lose on it and where do they plan on making the difference up? It's like these companies want to make gaming a commodity. Sorry, but that's a step too far for me; gaming to me should be a light-hearted hobby, not a monthly contract. Don't forget the Durango comes with Kinect 2. That'll no doubt push the cost of the hardware up significantly. I suspect that PS4 will probably end up being roughly the same price as the Durango, give or take about £30-40.
Shorty Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Thurrott is just guessing regarding the costs. Apparently there is a contract offer on the xbox? This is USA only? I dont recall ever seeing such deals here without mobile phones involved. Not much difference to buying your console on low/no interest payments really, which you could do at Currys or Argos or whatever.
Happenstance Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 I think MS said that the trial of the cheaper 360 with a contract actually did quite well over there so it wouldnt surprise me if they did it again for the new console. I wont be buying one anyway though as I dont like the way they are supposedly taking it and have already gone with the 360.
Cube Posted April 8, 2013 Author Posted April 8, 2013 Ah, so it's more like a separate financial thing and not "sign up for Gold for X amount of time".
Happenstance Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Yeah I think so. It was only available out of a few specific Microsoft branded stores in the US and you could get the 360 for a cheap price if you signed up for this certain contract. I don't know if Gold was included in that.
Dcubed Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Yeah I think so. It was only available out of a few specific Microsoft branded stores in the US and you could get the 360 for a cheap price if you signed up for this certain contract. I don't know if Gold was included in that. It was included in that deal and probably will be with this Durango one too.
Happenstance Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Here we go: You Can Now Buy An Xbox 360 For $99 (If You Can Find A Microsoft Store) The rumored $99 Xbox 360 bundle is now no longer a rumor. It's live. You dish out $99 up front and commit to two years of Xbox Live Gold at $15/month, you get a 4GB Xbox 360 and a Kinect. (Oh and also you have to buy it at a Microsoft Store. Yes, there is such thing as a Microsoft Store. There are 21 in the United States. Six in California. None in New York. Good hunting.) Wondering whether it's worth it? Well, $99 + $15/month for two years is a total of $459. The list price for a 4GB Xbox 360 and Kinect is $299. Xbox Live Gold will run you $60/year. So that's a total of $420. In other words, this bundle will cost you $40 extra. http://kotaku.com/5908241/you-can-now-buy-an-xbox-360-for-99-if-you-can-find-a-microsoft-store
gaggle64 Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Hang on, I'm trying to get my head round it all - Are they setting it up as a sort of dedicated cloud-access-service console with everything saved and stored somewhere out in the ether? Is that what this looks like?
Shorty Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 I think the idea is just to have a system which keeps itself up to date, DRM checks your games and wakes up quickly.
Recommended Posts