backtop


Print 115 comment(s) - last by Gladius777.. on Apr 8 at 8:48 PM

This may be a clue as to what to expect with the next Xbox console

Microsoft's creative director put up quite a fight in favor of always-online consoles, which is a particularly curious move -- especially on Twitter -- when the company hasn't said much about its upcoming Xbox console. 

Adam Orth, a creative director at Microsoft Studios, posted a tweet that said "Sorry, I don't get the drama around having an 'always on' console. Every device now is 'always on.' That's the world we live in. #dealwithit."



While this tweet wasn't too surprising, what transpired afterward ended up being pretty interesting. Two Twitter users -- Alex Wells (@TheonlyAlexW) and Manveer Heir (@manveerheir) -- disagreed with Orth's initial tweet, and Orth came back pretty strong. 

Here's the Twitter conversation transcribed:

Orth: I want every device to be "always on."

Wells: Off the top of my head I know 5 people who own 360's who currently have no access to the internet. They would be screwed.

Orth: Those people should definitely get with the times and get the Internet. It's awesome.

Heir: Did you learn nothing from Diablo III or SimCity? You know some people's Internet goes out right? Deal with it is a sh*tty reason.

Orth: Electricity goes out too. 
Sometimes the electricity goes out. I will not purchase a vacuum cleaner.
The mobile reception in the area I live in is spotty and unreliable. I will not buy a mobile phone. 

--

While Microsoft (or Orth) haven't made any specific mentions about how the "always-on" argument applies to the next Xbox console, this little Twitter argument may be dropping some clues. 

In December 2012, Xbox Live subscribers lost the Cloud Saved Games feature, which allows gamers to store saved games online and pick them up later on a different console if they'd like. The outage lasted anywhere from a couple of hours to a couple of days. 

Source: Kotaku



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Until
By Motoman on 4/5/2013 5:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
I have cellular wifi. Because it's the only thing available to me.

Your post is bereft of any information. And it's still indisputable that there are tens of millions of people out there who have no access to broadband.

There is no way you can run an always-on XBox, or anything else, on cellular wifi or satellite - especially granted that your cap is someplace between 2 and 10Gb. The volume of data that would be consumed by the XBox makes such a notion an impossibility.

Tens of millions of customers. Who simply CAN'T use the product you're offering, because of a very bad decision you made that locks them out while offering no one any benefit.

This is an indisputable fact. The notion that you're attempting to dispute it demonstrates exactly where on the internet the "stupid" is. Hint: between your chair and keyboard.


RE: Until
By Reclaimer77 on 4/5/2013 6:16:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And it's still indisputable that there are tens of millions of people out there who have no access to broadband.


"Tens of millions"? Dude I'm reading your posts Motoman, and it comes off as if vast swaths of this country are Alaskan style mountain wildernesses with no utilities whatsoever. What's more, apparently gillions of people are live there.

That's BS. Wake up. Even if you live on a snowy mountain, you STILL have satellite broadband available to you. Sure it's not perfect, but it's something.

quote:
Tens of millions of customers. Who simply CAN'T use the product you're offering, because of a very bad decision you made that locks them out while offering no one any benefit.


What, hillbillies who apparently live in the middle of nowhere and are loving it? Chances are these aren't exactly your typical gamer demographic anyway.

Stop making martyrs out of these people, seriously it's getting embarrassing. We cannot hold up progress because of a tiny minority!!!


RE: Until
By Pirks on 4/5/2013 7:28:53 PM , Rating: 2
wow even reclaimer noticed that mototroll has mental issues, that tells a lot! :)))


RE: Until
By Reclaimer77 on 4/5/2013 7:47:09 PM , Rating: 2
No, Moto is a solid guy. One of the best here. I respect him and I apologize if I've offended him.

But this irrational..whatever it is, is one of my pet peeves. People who complain about us becoming more ever-connected. I don't understand it.

I mean look around people and realize what age you live in. Soon, not even that soon, pretty much EVERY device in the house will be "always on". Seriously we already have wireless toasters, rice cookers, ovens and clothes washers and dryers, televisions etc etc. All "always on". And people are complaining about a gaming console requiring Internet?

I just do NOT understand this attitude. Someone help me!!!


RE: Until
By Pirks on 4/5/2013 8:08:38 PM , Rating: 2
I too noticed Moto being a total Luddite, and I also don't understand this, maybe it's a rural thing or something.


RE: Until
By Motoman on 4/5/2013 9:14:25 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, you're both wrong.

Satellite? Sure, you can get that. 2 massive problems with it though:

1. Physics dictates that it must have massive lag. Guess what? It has massive lag, and is all but useless for playing online games or streaming any content.

2. All satellite things have data caps, like cellular wifi does. So in the end, once you use up your 2-10Gb of data, you're done for the month.

Both of which make an always-on XBox a total joke.

Likewise, if you have cellular wifi, your latency might be fine, but you still have a cap to deal with. So #2 is still true, even if #1 isn't - once again, making an always-on XBox a total failure.

This has nothing to do with being a "luddite" - this has to do with fundamentally not being able to be a consumer of an always-on device like this. I have to imagine that you don't actually know what that term means.

And yes - there are "vast swaths" of America that are, for all intents and purposes, utterly devoid of human occupation. And not just in Alaska. Go drive through Utah some time as an example.

There categorically are tens of millions of Americans with no access to broadband internet. That's not a made-up number, even if you want to believe it is. A couple studies that have been linked into this thread have tried to report that number as either 2% or 10% of the US population...personally I think it's more like 15%. But either way, it's millions upon millions of people. This is an indisputable fact.

The US population is ~314 million right now. 15% of that is 47.1 million. 10% of that is 31.4 million. Even 2%, the most laughably bad estimate, is about 6.3 million. Millions upon millions of Americans who, in actual fact, have no access to broadband internet - which is to say cable, DSL, or fiber. Satellite and cellular wifi just don't count because of physics, bandwidth, and throttling issues.


RE: Until
By A11 on 4/5/2013 10:02:37 PM , Rating: 1
I don't believe you are seeing the future well.

Broadband is old tech that will go the way of the CD as soon as non capped data subscriptions becomes the norm rather than the exception and, at least here in Denmark, that is happening right now.

Wireless is the future, not wires.


RE: Until
By Kyuu on 4/6/2013 12:36:03 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, totally. It's not like we already have wireless spectrum scarcity issues. We certainly don't have issues with congestion and coverage either. We totally also have wireless connections that can compete with gigabit fiber services like Google's. Yep, wireless totally rocks.

Also, when will non-capped data subs become the norm? We *used* to have uncapped data, and we've been moving further from it, not closer.


RE: Until
By A11 on 4/6/2013 10:08:21 AM , Rating: 2
It's a fact that the world is moving toward wireless and with 3G/4G speeds wireless has surpassed the speed of most broadband connections.

Billions of people already have access to this tech, or will get it very soon, how many people can get Google fiber?

It's simple really, using the phone you already have as a hot spot or setting up a small wireless box is infinitely more cost effective than laying fiber cables.

Sure wireless has its issues that needs to be worked out but I can assure you that a lot of money is going into improving the technology. You'd be a fool to think what we have now is the limit.

As for caps we used to be uncapped as well, back when data was just a sideshow to voice. Enter 3G and suddenly the data demand skyrocketed and they capped the data but now our telcos are beginning to use free data as a way to compete.


RE: Until
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2013 1:41:36 AM , Rating: 2
Man you really don't get it...

Do you seriously see things moving AWAY from the Internet because an increasingly smaller minority of the population chooses not to have it?

Seriously please get it. This isn't that hard.

quote:
1. Physics dictates that it must have massive lag. Guess what? It has massive lag, and is all but useless for playing online games or streaming any content.


Okay I don't think you get it. Just because the console might require a connection and a log-in initially, DOESN'T mean it will require good pings and lots of bandwidth. You're confusing "always on" with "always playing online".

quote:
2. All satellite things have data caps


Sounded like FUD, so I Googled. There are tons of unlimited data options for satellite internet.

quote:
So in the end, once you use up your 2-10Gb of data, you're done for the month.


And, again, if you're just playing single player games you will NOT be using much data! What about this aren't you understanding?

quote:
There categorically are tens of millions of Americans with no access to broadband internet.


Then they either need to move, get satellite, or just frankly screw off. Why should we have to suffer because of this? Internet isn't just going away.

Look the writing is on the wall, as a society and technologically things are going to continue to move in this direction. Nothing is going to stop it or even slow it down. So what are you going to do?

I'm just baffled at the argument you're trying to make here. What gives?


RE: Until
By Motoman on 4/6/2013 12:27:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Do you seriously see things moving AWAY from the Internet because an increasingly smaller minority of the population chooses not to have it?


Wow you're dense. These people don't choose not to have broadband internet. They can't get it. And no, "move to the city" isn't a valid response.

quote:
Okay I don't think you get it. Just because the console might require a connection and a log-in initially, DOESN'T mean it will require good pings and lots of bandwidth. You're confusing "always on" with "always playing online".


I think you don't get it. Patches for the console and games will take up massive amounts of your tiny data allotment, which you're going to have to share with your normal computer use too. And I don't know what the ping rate is normally for a console that doesn't exist yet, and neither do you - nor do I know whether or not it will cause a game to hang or lag while it's trying to call home even just to say hello.

quote:
Sounded like FUD, so I Googled. There are tons of unlimited data options for satellite internet.


You're wrong. There are ZERO options for unlimited satellite internet, unless you can prove me wrong by linking them here.

quote:
And, again, if you're just playing single player games you will NOT be using much data! What about this aren't you understanding?


What I'm not understanding is what you're f%cking problem is. If you're just playing single player games, for what POSSIBLE reason would one even *want* to have their console connected to the internet? What *need* is satisfied in that case? And again, at a minimum, you're ignoring console and game patches and updates that can suck up serious amounts of bandwidth - using up bandwidth that you needed to depend on to use with your computer and other devices too.

quote:
Then they either need to move, get satellite, or just frankly screw off. Why should we have to suffer because of this? Internet isn't just going away.


Telling someone to "move" because they're not within range of broadband internet does nothing but expose you as a collosal douchebag. Not everyone in this world is a vapid dipsh1t that wants to live like sardines packed into tiny apartments so small that they can't actually own anything. Satelllite categorically is NOT a solution. Data caps and the latency. And yes, the latency in and of itself disqualifies satellite from even being considered "broadband" - let alone the data caps that exist ON ALL SUCH SERVICES.

No one says internet is going away. And at no time have I ever even implied I wanted it to go away. What I'm pointing out is that it is massively stupid for ANYONE - Microsoft, EA, whoever - to *require* always-on connections to use their devices. It serves no pupose - none. No one benefits from it. And in the end all it does is prevent tens of millions of people from being able to use that product.

quote:
Look the writing is on the wall, as a society and technologically things are going to continue to move in this direction. Nothing is going to stop it or even slow it down. So what are you going to do?


Not use products that require always-on connections, unless someone brings me actual broadband. And the same will be true of tens of millions of other Americans. Here's a question for you: why the f%ck are you carrying such a huge hard-on for such devices to require an always-on connection anyway? It does no good! It makes no f%cking difference! Just let people play their games without requiring an internet connection. Who loses in this scenario? Tens of millions more people may go ahead and purchase that product. They win by getting to play those games, and Microsoft wins by selling tens of millions more consoles, and game producers win by selling tens of millions more games.

No one loses. Everyone wins. So what madness must envelope your dark little soul such that you *want* Microsoft to take the approach that forces them to LOSE tens of millions of customers for themselves and game producers? Are you even listening to yourself?

quote:
I'm just baffled at the argument you're trying to make here. What gives?


I just re-made the same argument, and it's indisputably correct. There is no benefit to always-on. There is massive detriment in the loss of tens of millions of potential customers, both to Microsoft and to game publishers. There is massive detriment to the consumer who would capriciously be denied the ability to use a product they'd otherwise like to purchase. THERE IS NOTHING BUT DOWNSIDE TO ALWAYS-ON. There is no upside. NONE. How is it that you are trying to find a way to defend such a categorically moronic idea?


RE: Until
By Motoman on 4/6/2013 12:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
Also, Microsoft is distancing themselves from this nutjob's anti-consumer rant about wanting always-on.

http://consumerist.com/2013/04/05/microsoft-apolog...

quote:
“We apologize for the inappropriate comments made by an employee on Twitter yesterday. This person is not a spokesperson for Microsoft, and his personal views do not reflect the customer centric approach we take to our products or how we would communicate directly with our loyal consumers. We are very sorry if this offended anyone, however we have not made any announcements about our product roadmap, and have no further comment on this matter.”


With any luck the shortsighted, idiotic little man will lose his job over his stupidity.


RE: Until
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2013 7:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow you're dense.


Well that's always a nice opener...

quote:
These people don't choose not to have broadband internet. They can't get it. And no, "move to the city" isn't a valid response.


Fine since you've eliminated satellite as even being an option simply because of pure stubbornness, fine, they don't have a choice. Hold on while I play the worlds smallest violin for these people.

quote:
Patches for the console and games will take up massive amounts of your tiny data allotment


What does that have to do with "always on" again? So you're saying you would, if you had the choice, simply not patch games or the console? Huh? Are you on Mars or something, NOBODY does that! Wtf? You sound more like a Luddite every post.

And simply because the console is always on, why must we assume these updates will be compulsory? Current consoles inform the user of available updates and give us the choice to run them. Why do you assume that will change?

quote:
You're wrong. There are ZERO options for unlimited satellite internet, unless you can prove me wrong by linking them here.


Did you even look before you said this?

http://www.broadbandblue.com/plan-pricing

Even the cheapest plan is 40 gigs. Sure the unlimited one is expensive as hell, but oh well. You never said it had to be cheap, you simply said "available". Well this is available, and you know what, high latency broadband is better than none at all!

What you aren't getting is that Internet access is now no different than electricity or running water. Its' a necessity. And if you don't have it, well, you need to do whatever it takes to get it. Or else guess what? You're getting left behind! Thems the facts, deal with it.

quote:
What I'm not understanding is what you're f%cking problem is. If you're just playing single player games, for what POSSIBLE reason would one even *want* to have their console connected to the internet?


What the...do you even USE a console? Friends lists, instant messages, bonus content I mean holy crap, I can take all day listing the benefits to being connected to the Internet, but apparently you're a cave man!!!

quote:
THERE IS NOTHING BUT DOWNSIDE TO ALWAYS-ON. There is no upside. NONE. How is it that you are trying to find a way to defend such a categorically moronic idea?


I'm sure people said the same thing when Internet access evolved from dial-up modems to Ethernet NIC's that were "always on". Seriously...just wow, this discussion has severely lowered my opinion of you when it comes to technology.

Now it's Doctor Phil time. Moto since you've already identified yourself as one of these rural people with poor internet choices, it's clear you're projecting your feelings onto this issue. You feel threatened and even disenfranchised by the continual requirement of broadband access into your daily life. I'm sorry but that's a fact, and I hope you can find a better way to deal with it than railing on some forum against the world.


RE: Until
By Motoman on 4/7/2013 11:04:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fine since you've eliminated satellite as even being an option simply because of pure stubbornness, fine, they don't have a choice. Hold on while I play the worlds smallest violin for these people.


Nope. It's eliminated because of physics, and data caps. If you want to whine about that, whine to the universe and the people who set data caps.

quote:
Did you even look before you said this?
http://www.broadbandblue.com/plan-pricing
Even the cheapest plan is 40 gigs. Sure the unlimited one is expensive as hell, but oh well. You never said it had to be cheap, you simply said "available". Well this is available, and you know what, high latency broadband is better than none at all!


There is no unlimited option on that shady fly-by-night wifi service you came up with. There's an "unlimited*" service, and nowhere on their site that I can see does it actually explain what the "*" is in relation to "unlimited." There's little to no chance that it's not "unlimited*" in the same way as T-Mobile, where you get XGb at full speed, and then get kicked down to 10Kbps. Sorry...that's not unlimited - it's horrifically limited.

quote:
What does that have to do with "always on" again? So you're saying you would, if you had the choice, simply not patch games or the console? Huh? Are you on Mars or something, NOBODY does that! Wtf? You sound more like a Luddite every post.


Yes, I would not patch. Or, I would patch only at the end of a month when I had a few Gb left over that I knew I wasn't going to use. I have friends that have XBox 360s that live in similar areas to me, who can't get broadband either and who either have cellular wifi or in some pathetic cases satellite. Those XBoxes, save for one, have never been on the internet. They've never downloaded a patch...in years. And there's no problem with any of them.

The one that did only tried to go online to download a "free" extra track for a motocross game the kids got that came with some DLC coupon code. It was a nightmare. The family wasted about a Gb of their monthly 5Gb allotment trying, unsuccessfully, to get the huge file to download over their wifi, and eventually just gave up. And the Xbox was immediately disconnected from their wifi and has never been on again since.

This isn't luddite. In fact, your mis-usage of that term demonstrates that you actually don't know what it means. A "luddite" is someone who fears technology. I, and these people I just described, embrace technology. Or at the very least, try very hard to embrace it. But if it doesn't f%cking work, then it doesn't f%cking work.

quote:
What you aren't getting is that Internet access is now no different than electricity or running water. Its' a necessity. And if you don't have it, well, you need to do whatever it takes to get it. Or else guess what? You're getting left behind! Thems the facts, deal with it.

Sorry, you're not even vaguely connected to reality. For starters, you've switched from "don't have broadband" to "don't have internet" - we do have internet. Usually cellular wifi when we can't get real broadband. We're not getting left behind at all. It's just not reasonable to tell people who can't get real broadband that a f%cking game console has to be always-on in order to play it - or a game like SimCity. It's an unreasonable demand...period. That's all there is to it.

quote:
What the...do you even USE a console?

Yup.
quote:
Friends lists

Don't care.
quote:
instant messages

Don't care.
quote:
bonus content

Don't care.
quote:
I mean holy crap, I can take all day listing the benefits to being connected to the Internet, but apparently you're a cave man!!!

AGAIN, we are connected to the internet. Somehow you keep getting confused about "not having DSL or cable" with "not having internet." You might be able to get some medication to help with that confusion. But none of those things have anything to do with playing a video game on my own console in my own house. As for living like a caveman - there's virtually no chance that you have even half the electronics and entertainment stuff that we have in our house.

quote:
I'm sure people said the same thing when Internet access evolved from dial-up modems to Ethernet NIC's that were "always on". Seriously...just wow, this discussion has severely lowered my opinion of you when it comes to technology.


No, pretty much no one complained when they got to move away from dial-up. But you're confused again. When I said "there's no benefit to "always-on"" it was clear that I was talking about requiring a game console to be always-on. You're missed that obvious point, and may need more ESL classes to catch up.

As for your opinion of me, I don't give a rat's a$$ what you think of me. You're one of the stupidest people on the face of the planet, and I find it regrettable that you keep using up oxygen that the rest of us could use.

quote:
Now it's Doctor Phil time.


That's very cute, but during this whole diatribe you posted I've noticed that you've once again failed to address the *actual* issue. The important one that I raised a long time ago. The fact that there is no benefit to the console maker, the game publisher, or the consumer in requiring the console to be always-on. And the fact that there is a massive downside to it, because tens of millions of people will not be able to purchase and use that console, or the games that go with it.

The console maker loses tens of millions of potential sales for no good reason.

The game makers loses tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of potential sales for no good reason.

Consumers lose the opportunity to own and play a console and games that they might otherwise be dying to pay for and use.

So, you royal f%cking dipsh1t, for what possible reason are you arguing in support of requiring consoles to be always-on with regard to requiring internet connectivity? Explain to me how this makes any sense at all, either financially for the producers or socially for the consumers.

This is the one and only important issue that you have to answer. I won't hold my breath waiting though.


RE: Until
By Motoman on 4/7/2013 11:13:47 AM , Rating: 2
Oh and LOL about your "broadbandblue" fly-by-night wifi thing you came up with. I still had the webpage up and just noticed that it boasts "3G technology - up to 2Mbps download speed"

XD

That doesn't even qualify as broadband anyway!


RE: Until
By lexluthermiester on 4/7/2013 2:20:19 AM , Rating: 2
And I'm going add the topic of privacy issues, or lack there of, which is why I DO NOT have a 360[and thus a XB Live account] or a PSN account. By way of comparison, I DO have a 3DS, a Wii and WiiU and I connect them to the net ONLY when they need to be. I HIGHLY respect and value Nintendo's observance and respect for my privacy. That and other reasons are why I do not own a 360 and have no intention of buying a 720. Microsoft has zero respect for peoples privacy and think they can do as they please with peoples personal info. Eff them and there upcoming failure of a game system.

I'm very happy with my Nintendo's and Windows 7 PC. I might replace my PS3[I do miss it since it YLOD on me] or buy a PS4, but those are maybes. Microsoft has little to offer that can not be found elsewhere and done better...


RE: Until
By BRB29 on 4/8/2013 8:54:16 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry dude, 6% of population has no internet. Let's say that's roughly 18mil people.

That's is raw population. Let's say average household is 3 people. Your potential sales is down to 6 million consoles.

Out of those 6 million households, people have a choice of PS or xbox so let's say 50% chance. Now you're down to 3 million.

Out of those 3 million that prefer xbox over ps3, how many will actually buy? Considering it is out in the rural, it's more likely to be lower than 1/6.
Top Reasons:
1. High cost compared to income
2. Less availability
3. High resistance to tech

You end up with much less than 1 million potential sales.

Let's compare that to the Xbox360 base to estimate how much will sell. With current 360 sales, we can expect the next gen to sell about 100-120mil consoles. Compared that to your potential sales lost by "always on" feature. I am actually still within 99% confidence level if i eliminate that 6% of the population.

I am sorry if you are within that 6% of the population but really want the next gen console. But I am 100% sure microsoft did their statistics and the trade off was worth it. As a project manager, I would not change a major design feature if my statistician tells me I am still well within my 95% confidence of sales target.

Marketing and accounting pretty much has the final influence on how many consoles will actually sell and can vary that number by as much as 50% by their pricing and marketing strategy.


RE: Until
By Motoman on 4/8/2013 11:18:15 AM , Rating: 2
How are you wrong? Let me count the ways...

Firstly, 6% is the wrong number..."official" studies often put it at 10%, but their methodology is frequently demonstrably poor, such as declaring a whole zip code to have broadband if one household in it has broadband. 15% is a more reasonable estimate.

Secondly, they *have* internet. For the most part, anyway...overwhelmingly people can get either cellular wifi (best of possible non-broadband options), satellite (automatically not valid for gaming because of latency...not to mention caps like wifi), or of course good old dial-up.

Thirdly, you think people who live in rural areas have a lower income? You're insane. People who live in rural areas have much better than average income, especially compared to the vapid morons who live in urban apartments so small they can't actually own anything...except an XBox.

Fourth - "high resistance to tech?" Based on what analysis did you get that idea in your pointy little head? Sure, I suppose there's some hermits in the hills someplace living Unabomber-style...but there's no predictable aversion to technology for people who choose not to live in a city. That's just your own stupidity talking.

Fifth - you say "less availability" - but don't say of what. So, that point is pointless.

The realistic fact of the matter is that something like 47 million Americans without access to broadband. Cut that down however you like...make up whatever number you want as potential sales for the new XBox. Say it's 5 million, for no particular reason.

What's the new XBox going to sell for? Let's say $400 for the sake of argument. There's $2 billion dollars in abandoned revenue on the loss of those sales right there. Does $2 billion sound like a reasonable amount of income that Microsoft should pass up, if you're a Microsoft shareholder? How about the continuing revenue from those extra 5 million XBox users? And how about game sales to those 5 million extra XBox users? How many games does an average XBox user buy? Let's say they buy 5 games each, at $60 a pop. There's another $1.5 billion that the game publishers didn't make, because Microsoft abandoned a large portion of the available market. Reckon you'd be happy with Microsoft if you were an XBox developer over the loss of $1.5 billion from your market?

As for any kind of "trade off analysis" that you think Microsoft did...firstly, it's clear they didn't. But assuming they did, how about you demonstrate how the loss of billions of dollars from abandoning a significant portion of the market for no good reason will be made up by forcing the console to be "always-on." How is "always-on" going to make up for the loss of billions of dollars? Is you XBox just going to creep to your wallet late at night and phone home with your credit card number? Is that why it needs to be "always-on?" Or is there some other way that "always-on" will magically make up for those lost billions of dollars?

In the end, the point is this: regardless of what you think the size of the abandoned market is, and what the lost revenue there was, artificially forcing the requirement of "always-on" guarantees lost revenue, but produces no new revenue. No matter how you slice it, Microsoft, the game publishers, and the potential consumer base all lose. There is no possible upside. There's no way. If I was a Microsoft shareholder (I'm not), I'd be furious. Class-action lawsuit on the way.


RE: Until
By spamreader1 on 4/8/2013 4:46:30 PM , Rating: 2
I live in a fairly populated (120k people) county in Texas and can't get broadband. I'm only 50 minutes away from DFW, and I'm using att hspa+, which was just recently upgraded from 3g, it's that, satalite, or dial up here.


RE: Until
By xti on 4/6/2013 9:30:04 AM , Rating: 2
man...they better not jack up the price of stuff more because it has to account for people who live in the freaking woods.

move towards civilization.


RE: Until
By Motoman on 4/6/2013 2:05:44 PM , Rating: 2
...praytell, how exactly would *not* forcing into the console an utterly unnecessary "requirement" to be always-on raise the price of anything?


RE: Until
By Manch on 4/8/2013 9:32:39 AM , Rating: 2
PEBKAC


"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki