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

Until
By Ammohunt on 4/5/2013 12:27:08 PM , Rating: 3
Broadband is ubiquitous in the US it would be a bad choice to release an "always on(line)" console gaming system...not all of us live stacked on top of each other in some smelly, dirty city.




RE: Until
By Flunk on 4/5/2013 12:43:20 PM , Rating: 4
The problem with that is broadband is very well distributed in the US. The percentage of people in the US without the ability to get broadband Internet is 6%. If you're a major corporation 6% is not a very big number. Microsoft probably had a target percentage before they rolled their new always online system out, say 5% after which they believe that enough people have access to make the product successful.

Microsoft is not the government, they don't have to make concessions to special interest groups. This is just one of the things you have to get used to if you live in a sparsely populated area.


RE: Until
By idiot77 on 4/5/2013 1:20:17 PM , Rating: 5
Did you hear yourself? 6% of the population isn't a big deal. Let's what 6% of the population is.... 18 million potential customers.

And honestly I bet that % is a bit low ball.

Let's not forget people that don't want to have to be online to play a console game. In fact, I'd argue the reason many people play consoles is so they *don't have to have* the internet on. It's just bad business any way you care to cut it.


RE: Until
By kleinma on 4/5/13, Rating: -1
RE: Until
By neihrick1 on 4/5/2013 2:14:33 PM , Rating: 5
with data caps and connection interruptions, i think i'll take orthy's advice and not get xbox.


RE: Until
By kleinma on 4/5/13, Rating: -1
RE: Until
By eagle470 on 4/5/2013 2:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
My parent's pay $50 a month for a data connection that is AT BEST 1.2mbps/600kbps. If I lived out the way they do, I'd say screw that and buy the PS4, which I'm going to do because M$ is a bunch of arrogant, outdated, blowhards. I'm pretty sure my next machine will be either Linux, Solaris, or a hackintosh. Because I can run whatever I want inside a VM and not have to deal with MS Bullsh*t.

P.S. I'm a MS Systems Engineer by trade, but not by choice.


RE: Until
By kleinma on 4/5/13, Rating: -1
RE: Until
By karimtemple on 4/5/13, Rating: -1
RE: Until
By kleinma on 4/5/2013 3:23:55 PM , Rating: 5
Sony also explicitly said you could run Linux on PS3, before they removed that ability in a firmware update.

Sony also explicitly said you could play PS2 games, before they updated the hardware to remove that feature.

Sony also explicitly said your data was safe, then they lost it all.


RE: Until
By nikon133 on 4/6/13, Rating: 0
RE: Until
By eagle470 on 4/6/2013 6:26:15 PM , Rating: 2
"There are two kinds of companies, those that have been hacked and those that don't know about it yet."

In 2004 the Vatican was getting owned on a daily basis on their web servers. What were they running? M$. What did they switch to? Solaris and they haven't been hacked since. Oh there are sandboxes on Vatican servers that you can play with, but you can't do SH*T.

M$ just hasn't admitted it to you yet....


RE: Until
By eagle470 on 4/6/2013 10:54:46 AM , Rating: 2
Streaming games and that would be a shared connection between me and my dad who works from home....garsh let me think how that would have panned out....


RE: Until
By Motoman on 4/5/2013 3:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
Your personal observations are less than worthless.

If you can't get broadband, you can't get broadband. Argument over.

How hard is it to see that it's not in Microsoft's best interests to force their console to be online all the time, when by necessity that cuts tens of millions of potential customers out of their available market?

It's product suicide. It'd be like taking maybe 15% of your profits and just shredding the money and using it for kitty litter. Just sheer stupidity.


RE: Until
By kleinma on 4/5/13, Rating: -1
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


RE: Until
By nikon133 on 4/6/2013 5:42:33 PM , Rating: 2
Is MS planning to sell next X around the world, or is it toning to be US only enterprise? You can expect that most of the world don't have high US/Canada standards when it comes to Internet service. For many of those potential buyers, insisting on always on will be strong deterrent.

In addition... here in NZ, I know number of people who will take console to vacation to provide some entertainment for kids during rainy days, which are aplenty in NZ. Since Internet is much more expensive - I'm paying NZ$120 a month for 500GB of 8Mb/1Mb connection, ant that is one of better deals you get here - not everyone will have any Internet in their holiday batch, or will have very limited connection at grandparents home, or will not be willing to pay $25 a day for usually useless Internet in hotel.

Of course, services that require Internet don't have any choice, but there is no reason why kids could not have a game of Street Fighter or split screen racer, or play together through single player campaign. Or use console as DVD/BD player with movies from local video club. Console should be able to cache trophies/achievements and update online when connection is established.

Considering all that, I would expect that such requirement will have negative impact on next X sales. Especially outside North America, which is exactly where X was lagging behind PS and where they should find way to grow.


RE: Until
By lexluthermiester on 4/7/2013 2:28:28 AM , Rating: 2
Hell, it has already had an effect. Most of the gamers I'm friends with have already committed to buying a Nintendo and/or PS4. All of us have PC's and game on them. Only a few of them have a 360 and NONE of us want a 720. That's a group of 7 people. NONE! And you're right, this issue is going to be a deal breaker for a lot of people.


RE: Until
By Reclaimer77 on 4/5/2013 6:19:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How hard is it to see that it's not in Microsoft's best interests to force their console to be online all the time, when by necessity that cuts tens of millions of potential customers out of their available market?


If this was true, why would Microsoft make a decision like this? There's no logic in your assumption. They know a LOT more than you or I about what it takes to be profitable. You think they made this decision without tons of research, surveys, marketing data etc etc? Someone just woke up one day and said "hey, lets shoot ourselves in the foot"?


RE: Until
By Ammohunt on 4/5/2013 7:07:54 PM , Rating: 3
Have you used Windows 8?


RE: Until
By Reclaimer77 on 4/5/2013 7:10:47 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO owned!!! Damn dude, I seriously have no comeback for that.

Well played.


RE: Until
By Ammohunt on 4/5/2013 7:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
I knew you of all people would appreciate that ;-)


RE: Until
By Pirks on 4/5/2013 7:35:18 PM , Rating: 2
More like someone just woke up one day and said "hey, lets make Kin"


RE: Until
By Pirks on 4/5/2013 7:40:16 PM , Rating: 1
oh shit! ammohunt posted standard ms-dos/xp fanatic's bs about win8 before me! grrr
anyway Kin is much more related than win8. kin was a fail from the start and win8 is not at all


RE: Until
By Motoman on 4/5/2013 9:17:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Win8 is a fail *specifically* from the start. Or lack thereof.


RE: Until
By Kyuu on 4/6/2013 12:38:01 AM , Rating: 1
The amount of bitching about the removal of a tiny little button in the bottom-left corner of the screen (which is functionally inferior to Win8's start screen) never ceases to amaze me.


RE: Until
By Reclaimer77 on 4/6/2013 1:53:13 AM , Rating: 2
Removing the Start Menu is fine, if the alternative is better.

But they removed it and replaced it with a gigantic FULL SCREEN ONE!!


RE: Until
By freedom4556 on 4/6/2013 2:39:20 AM , Rating: 1
I don't give a shit about swapping the menu for a screen, but I want the damn BUTTON back. I have a $800 27" 1440p IPS monitor that is NOT A TOUCH SCREEN . Having to perform a mouse gesture and then click the button instead of just clicking the damn button is asinine and should never have happened. It needs to detect that I have no touch device and give me my button back!


RE: Until
By superkev72 on 4/7/2013 12:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
Freedom4556 --- Except that Win8 doesn't use mouse gestures to get to the start screen. The 'button' is in exactly the same place it was, it merely isn't visible until you move the mouse there (the way it's implemented recovers some screen real estate, enough for 2 quick launch icons on the desktop) ***You seem to have no idea what you are talking about. But you want your button. I have Win8 and the reality of the change is very minor. I don't get the drama with it at all.


RE: Until
By Ammohunt on 4/8/2013 12:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
Well let me put it into perspective for you. lets say you are a mid-sized company with a workforce of 2000 people that have been using roughly the same user interface for windows for the past 18 years; hell they grew up with it. Now in order to upgrade you have to train those 2000 employees on how to use the new UI not factoring the costs of less productivity in the time it takes for them to get acclimated to the new UI(full screen metro apps absolutely baffle non technical people). Never has Microsoft completely removed the ability to run a legacy UI for example even program manager was still available as a windows manager in Windows 95. Not to mention the UI just sucks its only different not better as opposed to say Gnome 3 interface its different and better then previous incarnations.


RE: Until
By karimtemple on 4/5/2013 2:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
The problem was never that people don't have Internet. Both and Orth are missing the point entirely.


RE: Until
By someguy123 on 4/5/2013 2:57:53 PM , Rating: 5
People dislike it because the support is always horrendous as companies will tend to lowball servers while expecting numbers to stabilize. Even right now the 360 only redirects you to other servers (like streaming netflix; they aren't hosting netflix movies) or acts as a hub distributing peer2peer games. The thing barely eats any bandwidth and they already charge for it, AND there's downtime. I couldn't imagine them implementing some kind of automatic protocol to verify connection without connection problems everywhere.

All this for what? What exactly "demands" always online? If I want to stream HBO I don't need to leave my computer online just to use notepad. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever when it comes to hardware.


RE: Until
By Cerin218 on 4/5/2013 3:26:11 PM , Rating: 2
Oh the arrogance of technologists.

I have an Xbox 360 downstairs that I use ONLY for gaming.
I don't stream Fios
I don't stream HBO Go
I don't download game demo's
I don't play against other people that aren't in my house
I don't get additional game content
I don't rent 1080p movies
I don't Kinect video chat

But I find the arrogance in thinking that just because you do, that everyone else should too amusing. Same as you assume I MUST have internet at home because I am replying to you. I'm actually at work on break.

You feel there shouldn't be a reason to create a stand alone console. I don't see a good enough reason not to.


RE: Until
By Ammohunt on 4/5/2013 3:40:11 PM , Rating: 2
Same here i have an xbox360 for the kids(consoles are for kids) which they don't use much because they have their own machines. I have a separate device for streaming video and the wife and i exclusively game on the PC. I would never use a console as an entertainment hub i would sooner build a cheap HTPC. My opinion is that consoles are a dying market and casual gaming is for mobile devices and hardcore gaming is on the PC.


RE: Until
By Kyuu on 4/6/2013 12:39:57 AM , Rating: 2
Your last sentence is dead-on. There's no good reason that a console *NEEDS* to be always-on. No one is arguing that is shouldn't have features that utilize internet connectivity. But the one and only reason to REQUIRE it 24/7 is DRM. That's it.


RE: Until
By superkev72 on 4/7/2013 12:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
Kyuu - nicely said!


RE: Until
By SPOOFE on 4/5/2013 3:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let's what 6% of the population is.... 18 million potential customers.

On the other hand, people that live sans certain technologies are less likely to be desiring other technologies. I can't imagine someone living in, say, Slab City ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slab_City ) being too keen on snatching up the latest Xbox.


RE: Until
By Motoman on 4/5/2013 3:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
6%? Yeah, way too low.

It's likely closer to 20%, which is the percentage of Americans that live in rural areas, which very frequently have no broadband access.

Many such people have to try to get by on cellular wifi, which may function OK if they're lucky enough to be near a tower - but they'll be living under draconian usage restrictions of anywhere from 2Gb to 10Gb per month.

Satellite has the same usage restrictions, and also has such bad latency that you can forget playing games on it at all.

I can be downtown in my state capitol in 30 minutes...but I'm 1.5 miles from the nearest spot where you can get DSL. And there's no cable either. *Vast* numbers of people/homes around me have no broadband available...maybe never will.

While 6% is certainly too low, I'm sure 20% is too high - let's take a stab at 15% being the right number. According to the all-knowing Google, there's ~314 million people in the US. 15% of that number is 47.1 million people. Sure, some of those are children, some are elderly, so on and so forth and therefore not a target market...but still. For companies like EA, Ubisoft, so on and so forth - and apparently maybe Microsoft - to just say "eff you guys" and not create products that can be bought by tens of millions of people? That's utterly retarded.


RE: Until
By amanojaku on 4/5/2013 1:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
I don't mind my devices having Internet connectivity. I just don't think it's a good idea for all devices to REQUIRE Internet connectivity. MS can do whatever it wants, and it's up to consumers to determine if an always-on device makes sense for them.

What's missing from all this is context: is MS claiming the Xbox will require Internet access, becoming inoperable when connectivity is out, or will it just loose access to BS like Facebook, Twitter, the 50 million system patches, etc...?

The main reason I'm concerned about always-on devices is the move to subscription-based games. I'm not that hardcore of a gamer anymore now that I'm in my 30's. I just turned on my console and looked at the last save file: March of 2012. I paid $20 for that game back in 2006 and never finished it, but I will eventually. If I was paying $15 a month for a subscription over the last eight years that would be $1440!!!

Of course, I'm not the target market for these companies, either...


RE: Until
By talikarni on 4/5/2013 2:18:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The problem with that is broadband is very well distributed in the US.


I think you miss the point, there is a difference between availability, regional coverage and reasonably priced. Sure 98% of the nation can get at least 3G coverage, but who is going to try hooking up their always on console needing 20-200GB worth of downloads each month to a slow and data capped cell based connection?
You say 6%, but lets remove those whose only option is a data capped higher cell connection, those who cannot get at least a 1Mb DSL/cable wired connection, those that cannot afford $70/mo for a 20Mb connection (which will be needed in order to continue the 20-200Gb per month download at reasonable speed) and thats over 70% of the US population.

Compare the above areas with potential system sales and they should figure a good 40% of console buyers either cannot afford a higher speed option, do not have a higher speed option, or do not have reasonable high speed available.
That makes approximately 40% of those consoles that require always on to become $500 door stops (since most stores refuse to take a system/game back once opened). If they go through with it anyways, you can expect that people can request a patch disc or download to remove the always on option.


RE: Until
By laviathan05 on 4/5/13, Rating: 0
RE: Until
By Motoman on 4/5/2013 3:28:59 PM , Rating: 2
What's even more fun is when people don't read the things they link to.

Your first thing, from a study by "Leichtman Research Group" (whoever the f%ck they're supposed to be) is pretty obviously wildly off the mark...like in saying that only 2% of US households don't have access to broadband. That's so obviously wrong it isn't even funny. But that report says that 90% of people have broadband...

...and then your second link says that 68% of people had broadband...dropping to 60% in "rural" areas (although I think that number's vastly too high itself, but anyway...).

So which is it? 90% or 68%? And then it says 10% have no access to broadband at all - a number 500% the size of what your first study said. Which I feel is still too low, as from my own extensive experience in IT over the past several years in both urban and rural areas, I think it's got to be more like 15%.

But either way. 68% vs. 90%. 10% vs 2%.

If you think you're making an argument...you're losing.


RE: Until
By laviathan05 on 4/5/2013 3:54:48 PM , Rating: 1
It says 90% of people that own computers have broadband. You should reference your own post about reading the link.


RE: Until
By Motoman on 4/5/2013 5:26:50 PM , Rating: 3
Holy f%ck you're retarded. Who do you think the other study is referencing when they say:

quote:
Broadband adoption rates currently stand at 68.2%
Rural communities have adoption rates of around 60%
28% of all Americans do not use the Internet at all
Around 10% of Americans lack access to even the most basic broadband


Reckon that those are people who have broadband internet, but don't have computers? WTF are you smoking? Saying that "90% of people who own computers have broadband" is like saying "90% of people who own cars have spare tires in the trunk." Guess what - if you don't own a car, you have no need for a spare tire - and if you don't own a computer, you have no need for broadband internet access.


RE: Until
By laviathan05 on 4/5/2013 8:46:28 PM , Rating: 1
Are you seriously this stupid? Why do you think the studies conflict each other?

One says that 90% of Americans have access to broadband internet and roughly 68% of those Americans have it.

The other study says that approximately 80% of American households have a computer at home and of that 80%, 90% of them have broadband internet.

I can't understand your reasoning that this doesn't make sense.

Also, if you have an Xbox, PS4, Netflix account, AppleTV, SmartTV, etc. but no computer, you might want broadband internet.


RE: Until
By Motoman on 4/5/2013 10:53:26 PM , Rating: 3
You're wrong. You haven't read the articles.

The source for the 68.2% article is here: http://www.pcworld.com/article/220057/broadband_fa...

If you'd clicked on the link you'd have seen where that 68.2% comes from:

quote:
The NTIA also announced new broadband adoption information Thursday. About 68.2 percent of U.S. residents subscribe to broadband now, compared to 63.5 percent a year ago


It doesn't say that 68.2% of the 90% of Americans who have computers have broadband, as you've imagined. It says 68.2% of Americans have broadband...period. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Also, the map that *that* study is based on is clearly erroneous, likely because of traditional faults in the surveying methods - like declaring a whole zip code to be "good" if broadband is available to one household in it.

http://www.broadbandmap.gov/

That's the map, resulting from the survey that the article is based on. When I search my address, the map declares that I have access to DSL. I don't. No one within at least 1.5 miles of me does. Which is part and parcel of why I state vehemently that the estimates for the percentage of Americans that don't have broadband access are far too low - the very data they're presenting as proof is demonstrably wrong in about 5 seconds.

Also, what's the chances that someones going to have any of the services/products you listed without a computer in the house? Next to zero. So knock it off.

So...now that I've positively shown your arguments to be false, do you still want to continue making them or have you learned your lesson?


RE: Until
By laviathan05 on 4/6/2013 11:04:04 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
It doesn't say that 68.2% of the 90% of Americans who have computers have broadband, as you've imagined. It says 68.2% of Americans have broadband...period. No ifs, ands, or buts.


You're right, it doesn't say that, and neither did I. It's unbelievable how poor your reading comprehension is.

If approximately 80% of Americans have computers, and 90% of those with computers have broadband, then the result is very close to the total percentage of Americans that have broadband, which is 68%.

The point I was making was that:
A) A vast majority of all Americans have the ability to subscribe to broadband.
B) Of the people that would be most likely to want broadband (i.e., people that own computers), 90% of them have it, which goes against the original post I was replying to that implied through fake statistics that most Americans probably couldn't afford to have a broadband account even if they had access to one.

Please take your stupidity elsewhere.


RE: Until
By Motoman on 4/6/2013 12:30:58 PM , Rating: 2
Nice of you to now invent an additional 80% to throw into your morony to try to make your point.

Please just step off. You're making the internet stupider.


RE: Until
By laviathan05 on 4/6/2013 1:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
Invent the 80%? It's in the post five above this you idiot. You really do have trouble reading don't you?


RE: Until
By Motoman on 4/6/2013 2:02:06 PM , Rating: 2
"80%" doesn't exist in the articles you linked. You made that number up.


RE: Until
By laviathan05 on 4/6/2013 2:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, totally made up.

http://www.esa.doc.gov/Reports/exploring-digital-n...

I didn't make anything up. Need we keep going on?


RE: Until
By Motoman on 4/6/2013 4:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
Oh I'm sure I could keep going off and finding other previously uncited articles to prop up whatever specific point was being discussed at that time too - so we certainly could keep going on.

But I suspect there's not really any point. You're not going to accept the fact that your numbers aren't reflective of reality...so you just go on with your bad self.

The actual fact is that probably around 15% of Americans have no access to actual, functional broadband internet. Cellular wifi and satellite categorically aren't "broadband" no matter what the TV commercial tells you. Slow speeds, high latencies, and data caps preclude them from being considered as such.

You can either accept that, or you can cry more about how it can't be true. I don't care.


RE: Until
By laviathan05 on 4/7/2013 4:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I guess we should just go with your fabricated conclusion as the be all and end all for this information. We probably should just stop running surveys, censuses, and experiments altogether and just ask you what the answer is from your anecdotal evidence. Fantastic idea.

quote:
The actual fact is that probably around 15% of Americans


Such a stupid thing to say after the argument you've been trying to make this whole time.


RE: Until
By wempa on 4/8/2013 12:48:49 PM , Rating: 2

In those articles, it doesn't say what is considered broadband. A 320K DSL connection or a satellite connection are a lot different than a 50Mb/s cable modem connection. It only says that 90% of consumers have access to some sort of broadband. I'm sure a lot of people who only have access to the slower broadband services really aren't interested in having a console gobble up unnecessary bandwidth and data while they play a single player game.


RE: Until
By Reclaimer77 on 4/5/2013 6:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your first thing, from a study by "Leichtman Research Group" (whoever the f%ck they're supposed to be) is pretty obviously wildly off the mark...like in saying that only 2% of US households don't have access to broadband. That's so obviously wrong it isn't even funny. But that report says that 90% of people have broadband...


Actually 100% of US households have access to broadband. It's called satellite. Unless your definition of "access" wildly differs from mine.


RE: Until
By Motoman on 4/5/2013 9:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
I would suggest you use a definition from someone who matters...like the FCC.

Here's a quote from their August, 2012 inquiry into the state of broadband internet access in the USA:

quote:
Nevertheless, in the last three broadband progress reports, the Commission found that “advanced telecommunications capability” was not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.15 The Commission found that “advanced telecommunications capability” at a minimum must permit an end user to download content at speeds of at least 4 megabits per second (Mbps) and to upload content at speeds of at least 1 Mbps over the broadband provider’s network (4 Mbps/1 Mbps or benchmark).16 Most recently, in the 2012 Eighth Broadband Progress Report, the Commission found that despite the expansion of broadband, approximately 6 percent of Americans—nearly 19 million people—remain without fixed broadband service meeting the benchmark.17 The data also indicate that people living in rural and on Tribal lands are disproportionately lacking such access and that 80 percent of E-rate recipients say that their broadband connections do not fully meet their needs. Based on these and other results, we concluded that broadband was not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.18 The Commission also noted that consumers’ uses are changing and higher speeds and capacity are necessary to continue driving innovation.


So...4Mbps down and 1Mpbs up might be good. Although I heavily dispute their notion that only 6% of Americans are without any access to broadband at all...the real number is at least twice that, perhaps three times that. Their methodologies for surveying such things have been highly suspect, like just declaring a whole zip code to be "good" if one resident has functional broadband.

Satellite and cellular wifi are categorically *not* broadband. Regardless what their marketing says. And I speak from personal experience, and the experience of supporting others around me who have to try to get along on these services.

4G wifi on my cellphone realistically never gets above .5Mpbs, and frequently is down around .1Mpbs. Until I get throttled, then it drops to about .02Mpbs, sometimes .01Mbps. And even if you're happy with the download speed you get from cellular wifi, the problem is you hit the data cap wall pretty much instantly if you're doing anything like online gaming. You can have between 2 and 10Gb or so on a wifi plan. How long do you reckon that's going to last you with an always-on XBox constantly download patches and whatnot?

Satellite is significantly worse than wifi. Firstly, you have the same data caps to deal with. But then on top of that, the latency is horrific - which is a necessity of the physics involved. Satellite is essentially unusable for online gaming to start with...and then you still hit the same data cap wall.

So no...wifi and satellite absolutely, positively, do NOT qualify as broadband. Not in any real, functional sense. Satellite and wifi are little more than a cruel hoax played upon their users...who simply have no other viable choices.


RE: Until
By Motoman on 4/5/2013 9:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Until
By Fujikoma on 4/6/2013 8:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
There's a fairly larger percentage of people that still use dial-up or cell phone wi-fi because of the cost or limited availabililty in rural areas. I don't think those, who are parents, are suddenly going to shell out more money so that their kid can use the newest console.
The $40 I pay a month for the DSL is too much as it is. There's no reason to have a console that's always connected to the internet. It's too much of an intrusion and there's no real justification for it.


RE: Until
By Reclaimer77 on 4/5/2013 4:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh what is this, the 1980's? Seriously get with it people! Its just embarrassing hearing this kind of Luddite talk.

This is like complaining that appliances don't have a coal-burning option because a few out there don't have electricity.


By TakinYourPoints on 4/5/2013 6:36:32 PM , Rating: 5
Looks like they were just making jokes with each other.

http://i.imgur.com/deQuQpm.png

It doesn't matter though, Orth screwed up bigtime by making light of something that is actually bad for users. Twitter is no place for company officials to be making provocative in-jokes.

He should have kept his mouth shut. IMs are a place for things like that, not frigging Twitter. Someone in a public facing position telling the entire internet to move to a real city if they want to play his console, even if he's just joking, is awful PR.

There's also clearly some truth to it as the "always on" aspect of the new XBox has come up from other developers.

His attitude encapsulates the "coddled suburbanite yuppie" problem that's prevalent at Microsoft middle management, where everyone there has been living in a utopia bubble. He should ask the COO about how bad things were when Azure went down, or about the 30% return rate on Surface. Clearly the insanely high defect rate on the 360 made no impressions on him.

Yoshida at Sony said to Eurogamer that Sony knows they have customers who don't want to or cannot be connected all the time. His view is far more realistic and less hostile to customers.

Ok, here's how things will go down: Microsoft will officially confirm the always-on thing. A massive contingent of fans will defend this decision to the bitter end. The console will launch and 95% of the userbase will not be able to play on release day because the servers are down. Repeat for every major game release. Users tolerated over a 30% defect rate on the 360 (over 60% with the original version), so they should be able to get away with this very easily.

http://i.minus.com/ibwI1puhNCjqAg.gif
http://i.imgur.com/KyeJtwR.gif

Hooray!




By TakinYourPoints on 4/5/2013 6:38:10 PM , Rating: 3
Oh my, they keep on coming: https://i.minus.com/iZ4Xc7uzxvJUA.gif


By Motoman on 4/7/2013 5:05:30 PM , Rating: 2
That was awesome. And the dig at the Wii U at the end was great - I don't get that thing either.


By Mr Perfect on 4/7/2013 4:39:48 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, sometimes these people, right or wrong, should just remain quiet.

This incident reminds me of the Diablo 3 team starting a bitch-fest on twitter when the Diablo 2 lead developer very gingerly pointed out flaws in their game. To me, they ended up looking like childish jerks who don't know how to interact with other humans. Any sympathy I had for the D3 team trying to out-do the cult classic that is D2 immediately vanished.


A flawed argument for a flawed purpose
By karimtemple on 4/5/2013 1:00:25 PM , Rating: 1
What I find hilarious about this argument is that even if you concede to it -- say for example you simply throw your hands up and admit that a company has every right to make a shit product -- it's still broken because the "drama" was never that people don't have Internet, it's that "always-on" is entirely unnecessary and only serves to furnish Microsoft's [still hypothetical, at the time of this posting] anti-used-games agenda. Tweet your defenses to the abolishment of used games, Orth. Go on, we'll wait. lol.




RE: A flawed argument for a flawed purpose
By semiconshawn on 4/5/2013 4:39:02 PM , Rating: 2
Everybody who makes games has an anti-used game agenda. Don't let 'em fool ya. $$


RE: A flawed argument for a flawed purpose
By TakinYourPoints on 4/5/2013 6:41:59 PM , Rating: 2
I hate to say it but this is true. Consoles are merely catching up with where PCs have been for years with services like Steam, etc.

Its all about if it is done right (Starcraft 2: Heart Of The Swarm, more recent Valve games) or wrong (Sim City, Diablo 3).

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic but I don't have faith that Microsoft will properly estimate traffic on launch. Having always on as a requirement is also too much. At least Steam has a somewhat reliable offline mode.


RE: A flawed argument for a flawed purpose
By Reclaimer77 on 4/5/2013 7:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
When is the last time you ever heard of Xbox Live crashing because of traffic? Like...never. Seriously I don't think that has EVER happened.

Microsoft has spent untold billions on that network. Say what you want about the Xbox, but nobody outside of maybe Blizzard has a more robust service.

Also consoles that are simply "always on" wont necessarily use a lot of bandwidth. Depends what people are doing on them.


By TakinYourPoints on 4/5/2013 8:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yesterday: http://i.imgur.com/DSQ6FeB.jpg

It's happened before and it will happen again, especially when traffic slams them on launch.

I need to make it abundantly clear that the "always on" requirement isn't what bothers me the most, I think its fine if it is done well. Blizzard and Valve are among the best at this and even they have had major issues with their networks. Microsoft needs to provide for a good offline mode if someone cannot get connected. We'll see how well they do.

The bigger thing for me how Orth screwed this up so publicly. This sort of thing isn't what someone in his position jokes about on something like Twitter, its bad representation for the company.


It worked really well for EA and Simcity
By Hakuryu on 4/5/2013 12:45:27 PM , Rating: 4
Especially with the current in your face SimCity fiasco, you'd think MS would at least hold of on commenting until people start to forget about always on troubles.




By TakinYourPoints on 4/8/2013 4:15:42 AM , Rating: 2
Even Blizzard, who did amazingly with the Heart Of The Swarm and Mists Of Panderia launches, fumbled the Diablo 3 launch because they underestimated the number of concurrent users they'd have.

This has happened so many times that it has to be Microsoft's main concern. We'll see how they handle it though, even now XBox has outages, and concurrent traffic is going to be much much larger when the new model launches.


Sure, fine
By bug77 on 4/5/2013 12:54:26 PM , Rating: 5
I'll deal with it: no xbox for me. And I do have broadband internet.




not nice, but true
By MadMan007 on 4/5/2013 12:46:33 PM , Rating: 1
It's not a nice 'customer service' way of putting it, but he's right. Not having the internet as a gamer seems pretty silly. Those 5 people this twitterer knows who have a 360 but don't have internet? How does that compare to the people who have a 360 and do have internet.




RE: not nice, but true
By deathwombat on 4/5/2013 2:51:53 PM , Rating: 3
I have high speed internet from my cable provider. There's a coax cable in my computer room that connects to my modem, and the modem connects to my computer through a Cat6 cable. I don't use wifi and I have no interest in doing so. I use my computer when I want to play online games, and I use my video game consoles when I want to relax on my couch with an offline game. If Microsoft doesn't care that their always-on DRM will prevent me from buying their products, I'm sure that Sony and Nintendo will send them a lovely thank you note when I buy their products instead. It's not hard to figure out: if your anti-piracy measures prevent legitimate customers from buying your product, maybe you're shooting yourself in the foot.


My major concern with it
By Mathos on 4/5/2013 1:02:06 PM , Rating: 2
Is I've lived in area's with sketchy at best broadband service. Thats what happens when you live out in the country though. One of the services I had was a wireless broadband service. And there were times where we'd go a week or more without service after major storms, etc. But, you didn't have any other choice, because thats all that was available. Which is more or less how broadband in the US works, because there is no real competition.

With a console that has to have always on internet, if your service is down for any length of time. You're basically looking at having an expensive brick attached to your tv. Not to mention if money gets tight, and broadband ends up having to be one of the things cut for a time to get by.




RE: My major concern with it
By Ammohunt on 4/5/2013 3:33:00 PM , Rating: 2
I think Microsoft is saying you should move to where internet access is available and give up this rural living nonsense!


A joke gone wrong
By sprockkets on 4/5/2013 6:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
While he should not have used a public account, and will probably lose his job over it...

It was a joke. He was trying to troll his friend.

See here:http://i.imgur.com/Na2Xkh0.png




RE: A joke gone wrong
By Kyuu on 4/6/2013 12:47:27 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, unfortunately it's really bad judgment to joke around about a controversial topic like that on a PUBLIC twitter feed when you're the PR face for Microsoft.


i have great internet but.....
By mjnoir1 on 4/7/2013 1:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
i live in nyc i have very good internet and i am almost always online but i would not purchase a console that requires me to be online all the time. why? a few reasons obviously some are the what "if "scenarios. when hurricane sandy hit there were many areas that lost power cable internet and other services. i lost my web but not power i played some games to pass the time. imagine how angry i would be if i couldnt play my single player game because the manufactures had an always online requirement. i spent hundreds of dollars on video game related purchases and suddenly i cant have access to the games i bought? this is lunacy .forget all previous arguments about spotty internet and rural areas for a second. this online requirement is all about piracy once again the consumer is treated ike theif i have to prove i bought a legit copy of a game in order to play. i know the pc gamer community us used to it but i and anyone else can still voice thier opposition of this idea coming to consoles. a console is like any other electronic device that plays something. music movies photos ect... i dont want to buy a device that i can only use on some one elses terms. i paid for it so i should have access when ever i want. the console should exsist to work when i power it on. its no ones business how i got my games. if i bought new, used ,borrowed whatever. imagine a blue ray player or cd player ipod or anything else requireing to prove you own the media u want to play. its awful that its come to this. i dont want to have any device i cant use when i want where i want i really hope ms is listening. this is still just rumors but people need to scream and yell to remind them that the gamer is only as loyal as the platform xbox could go away next gen. i would hate to miss the next halo and gears but i could always see the endings on youtube.




RE: i have great internet but.....
By wempa on 4/8/2013 12:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you 100%. I have internet as well, but offline mode is very important to me. Let's say you want to take your console and a bunch of games to some secluded place for a vacation that doesn't have internet access. With an online-only console, you can't do that. Then, the other issue is that there is really just no reason to have such a restriction. If you want the extra bells and whistles that online offers, go for it. Otherwise, you should still have a playable game. Improving technology should be offering us MORE freedom of choice, NOT LESS ! An online-only console benefits only MS and the games companies. If they decide to make their next Xbox online-only, I can say with 100% certainty that I will not purchase it. There's no way I would pay several hundred dollars for a console and then $60 each for games that become paperweights if internet access is not available to me.


I'm curious...
By dxf2891 on 4/5/2013 3:39:43 PM , Rating: 3
what the marketing guys at Microsoft are saying to this guy right now. He in essences said, "I'll tell you what you want, and you'll like it!!!" I like my XBox, but I won't be dictated to. If it's a choice between being online all the time to enjoy the console or not playing the next iteration of XBox, I'll buy a PS4. That's what I love about competition. MS, please understand that if you threaten your customers, every other console make will gladly take them off your hands!!!




No Big Deal
By CaedenV on 4/5/2013 4:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
Not to sound terribly jaded or anything, but MS does not want to service people who are not on some form of broadband service. Games sold in stores have profits that go to stores rather than to MS. MS wants to capitalize on content streaming, DLC, game sales, and media purchases. There is sooooo much money in those currently untaped (or undertaped?) markets that they are more than willing to sacrifice those who simply would not purchase it in the first place to provide more interesting services to those who do have it.

That being said, if you live in an area without broadband then console gaming is perhaps not for you. Current gen consoles have a bunch of features that need internet. And even though the PS4 does not *require* and internet connection, I am sure that 90+% of the features will simply not work, and a lot of publishers will require it wether sony requires it or not.

As for those who complain that 'always on' implies that everything is going to be like SimCity just need to grow up. You cell phone is 'always on', your land line is 'always on', your cable service is 'always on', most games you already play on PC or console already have an 'always on' requirement, Holy Steam itself is a very successful (and useful) 'always on' service. All that it means is that when you open a program then it has to be able to call home to verrify that your liscense is valid, and not in use in a different location.
The issue with Sim City is not that it required an internet connection. The problem is that EA (in their infinate wisdom) decided to offload a lot of the processing to the server rather than the client. That is a developer issue, not a platform problem.

Now I don't have an xbox (I am a PC gamer at heart), but I do use a bunch of MS services including email, skydrive, weather widgets, bing, web office, and whatever online features are used by Win8 and WP8, and I have not had any MS interruptions on any of those services for as long as I have had them. I have had the occasional issue where my internet goes down (had a bad cable modem), but then again when the internet goes down at my house then I have 4 people who start thinking that armageddon is comming.

Anywho, point is that if you don't like an online requirement then vote with your wallet. But the simple fact is that most of the people complaining are going to want to play the new Halo, or whatever AAA title, and guess what; If you want to play, then you need to get a decent internet connection. And while I am not too stoked about MS getting extra $$ by being the sole supplier of content for their consoles, I love the idea that piracy on consoles may be a thing of the past, and that game developers will get the money they deserve, and have accurate sales numbers for the first time ever. That is most likely a good thing.

I'm still not going to buy one myself, but that is because I don't use consoles. But don't assume that an online requirement is going to hurt MS any (because it wont), and don't assume that just because it requires a connection that it will cause you internet grief via usage or issues like simcity (because it won't).




RE: No Big Deal
By Philippine Mango on 4/7/2013 8:43:07 AM , Rating: 1
My cell phone and various other devices work just fine without being tied to the grid or any other internet service, it's just that they don't get to use those features that depend on the internet. However what Microsoft is trying to do is pull an EA where the user is literally dependent on the company to provide the service, that if the company uproots or decides to discontinue support for a game, that game or device becomes entirely useless...

My cellphone doesn't become entirely useless if ATT goes belly up, I can still use wifi or shit even switch to tmobile. This is entirely motivated by DRM and trying to increase profits at the expense of the user experience. With all the low quality, rehashed games and the anti-user sentiment that is going around, I foresee a 1982 style video game crash again. Why the fuck would I pay $60 for a rehashed game that severely limits what I can do and comes with all these strings attached and won't work at all in 10 or even 5 years times because the company that made the game no longer has its servers running?

If that isn't going to drive these companies into the ground, I don't know what will.


Trouble All Around
By sluze on 4/5/2013 1:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
this is the type of thing that causes people to want to hack firmware, more apple style behavior from microsoft. it makes no sense, there is no reason for an always on console; on top of that internet caps and huge overage fees make always on devices more and more worrisome.




why are people complaining?
By BRB29 on 4/5/2013 1:08:26 PM , Rating: 2
There's more than one console. If you don't like it then buy another console.
Every product is designed a specific way to target a certain market. It will not suit everyone. Just like apple phones, ipods, and ipads are not designed to sell to people who doesn't want to pay $100 for an extra 16 GB.




By semiconshawn on 4/5/2013 4:32:13 PM , Rating: 2
The arrogance of this a-hole, who if he thinks he is or not is representing MS is enough to turn me off to it. That said we have 3 360's all are used as streaming hubs and for gaming. Without internet they are just toys.




no problem if.........
By Bubbacub on 4/6/2013 12:13:31 PM , Rating: 2
the new xbox has:

1: a built in cell phone with a basic free very slow data connection -like the original kindle - to phone home and sort out the DRM (but not obviously for downloading games/streaming video etc.). This would totally negate all the bad press about it excluding all the people without decent broadband.

2: has considerably cheaper games as they will not be 'losing' any of their cash to the second hand games market. Pricing your games realistically, perhaps with a further price cut a month after release, would give you access to a large market without driving your customers to the competition. i.e. a market with a ban on second hand games on xbox but not playstation with no price differential on the cost of games will result in people leaving the xbox ecosystem.




ms
By p05esto on 4/6/2013 5:19:01 PM , Rating: 2
MS better get their heads out of their ass FAST because I'm losing the faith here quickly. Win8 blows serious chunks and everything I read about the Xbox 720 sucks.

Requiring internet would be a deal killer for me, so would not being able to buy used games or trade with friends. Either of those things would totally KILL the xbox. I have a TV downsairs where there's no internet. Sometimes we bring our xbox up north on vacations where there's no internet. If MS says it's a requirement we'll buy the PS4 hands down. Same with used games, 3/4 of our games off of ebay to save on costs. I refuse to pay $60 for games. If that's what MS is going to force down my throat then I'll do something else with my time.

Go to hell MS, it's time for a drastic change over there.




By Milliamp on 4/7/2013 5:21:12 AM , Rating: 2
Does anyone remember the time play station network was down for like 3 months because hackers wrecked it only a few years ago?

I mostly only used my PS3 for Netflix streaming but for 3 months it was a paperweight despite having a fully working connection to the Internet because it needed PSN access to run the Netflix app.




They make MONEY on XBL.
By flyingpants1 on 4/7/2013 5:31:45 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft makes MONEY on XBL. They don't make money on selling you a console. They don't make money on selling you games, unless you buy 10-15 games to make up the cost of the console. They make MONEY on XBL. They make like a billion dollars a year on XBL. They just don't give a duck about the people who don't play on XBL. Maybe it won't work out in reality, but their line of thinking makes PERFECT sense.




always on == connected standby
By Bytre on 4/7/2013 10:40:51 PM , Rating: 2
would be my guess. Up to date status, content, facebook feed, etc. Not a big conspiracy.




Here's Why
By ResStellarum on 4/8/2013 12:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
There's one and only reason Microsoft wants to do this, and it's the same reason Diablo III and Simcity did it - to counter piracy. Many commentators here and elsewhere are saying it's for many reasons, but that's all BS. It's only function is to prevent users from chiping/softmoding xbox consoles and playing downloaded content for free. It's not a feature, it's an annoyance, just as the unskipable piracy warnings on DVD's/BR's are.

Although there are also other potential reasons for doing this, such as preventing game reselling by locking a game to a specific console's id, the primary reason is definitely to deter piracy.

It's stupid if you ask me, as all it does is punish legitimate users with restrictions. Obviously Microsoft didn't learn from the Diablo III debacle. The cha-chinging sound has overridden any sense they might have had.




By Gladius777 on 4/8/2013 8:48:47 PM , Rating: 2
This always on thing is just another reason people pirate games... I have been buying my games for years and am a MS fanboy i.e. Pocket PC, Windows phone 7(2) Windows 8, Xbox and 2 Xbox 360's, MS OS from Dos 3.3 up to Windows 8 today... Having said all that, having to have a constantly connected console equals no more Xboxes for me.

I don't want monitoring of when I'm playing a game or watching a movie etc. (that I can't opt out of) and having moved to the country, my internet is dodgy compared to the ADSL2+ I had in town. I hope people vote with their wallets and send the message that this riduculous DRM has to stop.

Many people buy consoles because they are simpler and less is required (setup wise) than a PC, I guess MS want that advantage to end.
I sometimes ask my self why I pay for games that have install restrictions, read issues (remember securerom etc.) and the pirates just get on with playing...

Buy crippled or play with freedom, the games companies are helping to turn the honest customer into the disgruntled criminal...




By Pirks on 4/5/2013 8:51:47 PM , Rating: 1
So you gotta grow up and deal with it, ya all rural people.
If Valve has ignored you - MS will too, I can guarantee that.




By strapmonkey on 4/6/2013 1:16:49 AM , Rating: 1
The REAL issue with MS' always on bullshit is that, via the auspices of mandatory Kinectivity (see what I did there?), MS will have a motion detector, camera and microphone in your living room 24/7/365. I'm sure no harm will come when the Federal authorities demand access to that feed under the aegis of an NSL. All in the name of safety, kids. And the children, won't somebody think of the children?




"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

Related Articles













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