Yeah, no. It's 2018. People, many people, still have slow internet.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Engadget: Microsoft Was Right in 2013
- Thread starter Rocco
- Start date
That's a weird comparison.
An online only console doesn't provide any more benefits than what we have today.
Blockbuster didn't embrace online itself, which did had benefits over their system.
There's a difference between approving of the inevitable future and recognising it for what it is. I'd argue most people in this thread don't think these kind of things are GOOD, but look around. Look at the always-online mobile market, the collapsing physical games market, the PC market and how insidiously people's ability to OWN their games was taken away. It's going to happen because publishers want it to happen. The games market is controlled by a very small pool of extremely powerful publishers.
They've tried multiple times before. Who can forget the Assassin's Creed II debacle? But each time they've gotten closer and closer. They've managed to hit gold by presenting games as co-op oriented therefore you need an internet connection because reasons. Companies like Ubisoft handle this very carefully because nobody wants to be accused of being "anti-consumer", but their end goals are as clear as day.
The entire industry is slyly pushing that disc off the table like one of those viral naughty cat videos. The seismic shift across the industry once one of the major publishers completely drops the caring facade will happen in less than a year.
Am I wrong in recalling that the actual breakdown of the service stated a 24hr check-in with an active connection, but would allow any content to be used offline until connected again? There was a contingency for sure with how it played out once it was adequately explained, but much like the comments here (5 years later), everyone was stuck on that first impression (which is fair, to a degree).
This.
Her argument; "but look at all these battle royale mulitplayer games people are playing nowadays".
So what? We don't need an always online console for that.
Don't force your no-disc, always online lifestyle on everyone because it is NOT applicable to every console gamer. Keep offline gaming as an option. Is Microsoft, AGAIN, going to suggest an offline X360 to all military personnel of the world if they want to play a game? Always online, 24 hour pings was a security breach to these people.
Their intention is to do both.
-------------------
We know the next-generation of consoles is coming. Spencer's confirmed new Xbox consoles are in the works, after all. But will the next-gen of consoles be the last gen?
That's what Yves Guillemot, boss of Assassin's Creed company Ubisoft, claimed in a recent interview. Speaking to Variety, Guillemot said: "There will be one more console generation and then after that, we will be streaming, all of us."
Spencer, though, disagrees.
"I could see why he would say that," he said.
"I'm a little more bullish on people having local hardware to run games for many, many years. What we will find is more people playing the quality of games we're used to seeing on a console on other devices. But that doesn't mean this experience of playing on my television with a great sound system and great frame-rate and great resolution is going to go away that quickly. What you'll see is a diversifying of the places where people can play great content.
"For a lot of us today, there's a certain kind of game we expect on a phone and another kind of game we expect on our console. It's not always true they're separate. You can see PUBG and Fortnite now on the phones doing much better, but a lot of the games there are very casual. I know content developers want to reach as many people as they can with their content. So, I do think as we move forward, more people will be playing more kinds of content on other devices. But television will be one of those.
"We're committed to that."
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-06-11-a-chat-with-phil-spencer-about-next-gen-xbox-consoles
Last edited:
It's still not possible option for all of us .I was without Internet for two months, and my phone does not have any connection at my apartment (fucking third world country), with this shit I would be unable to play anything for two months. This is as stupid as stupid can get
MS may have been right about how the landscape would look 5 years out from launch, but they went about it the wrong way. Why not just let the landscape evolve to bring about their preferred outcome rather than trying to force it on people? Boil the frog slowly.
Although there is something fundamentally different between most games being 'always online' and the base OS requiring to be online to allow you to even boot stuff.
Although there is something fundamentally different between most games being 'always online' and the base OS requiring to be online to allow you to even boot stuff.
The market voted against stupid DRM rules and paying 100 dollars more for a weaker console with an unwanted peripheral.
Yeah this. I moved into a house and my provider fucked up and i had to wait weeks for an internet connection.
Sure, i am mostly online. But why in the world would I want my console to not work offline? It was stupid back than and still is.
And i dont really have time anymore for online games and prefer sp games.
Once again ignoring the not insignificant market both US domestic and abroad that does not have a high quality ISP available and or affordable. If streaming games becomes the norm, which in itself is already unlikely, gaming will become a hobby almost exclusively for the bourgeoise
24-hours for Home Xbox. Every hour for maybe using a friends Xbox One.
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/m...d-24-hour-check-in-for-xbox-one/1100-6409419/
Microsoft adds that "offline gaming is not possible after these prescribed times until you reestablish a connection, but you can still watch live TV and enjoy Blu-ray and DVD movies."
According to the official details, this is required so that the platform can acknowledge and verify whether users require game updates or have traded in their games. Additionally, Microsoft says games that make use of the Xbox One's cloud technology "may" require a constant connection to the Internet.
Nope MS were wrong in 2013.
You can have a console constantly connected to the Internet without making it mandatory. This was the issue - that it had to connect or else it wouldn't work. If you have an Internet outage then your console would not work - that it ridiculous and stupid.
Consoles should always be able to be played offline and wherever you want.
You can have a console constantly connected to the Internet without making it mandatory. This was the issue - that it had to connect or else it wouldn't work. If you have an Internet outage then your console would not work - that it ridiculous and stupid.
Consoles should always be able to be played offline and wherever you want.
They're still wrong because nothing in the five years has changed the basic inessential nature of the 24 hour check in.
It's still an unnecessary point of failure that locks you out if your internet goes down (hardly a rare occurrence), or the service itself goes down (which it did in the years since 2013, humiliatingly once on Christmas Day).
Not to mention anything about all the other total misfires the initial One made!
The Kinect perished.
Netflix became so ubiquitous on TVs it became cumbersome to run it through a console.
Cord cutting made the vaunted cable TV integration a useless trinket.
They got everything wrong!
It's still an unnecessary point of failure that locks you out if your internet goes down (hardly a rare occurrence), or the service itself goes down (which it did in the years since 2013, humiliatingly once on Christmas Day).
Not to mention anything about all the other total misfires the initial One made!
The Kinect perished.
Netflix became so ubiquitous on TVs it became cumbersome to run it through a console.
Cord cutting made the vaunted cable TV integration a useless trinket.
They got everything wrong!
I think Microsoft thought of it due to how many xbox 360 consoles were flashed and able to play backup disks. Nowadays I've not heard of the xbox one being modified so kind of sure it was an unnecessary mistake.
If Microsoft or Sony want to do something similar in the future they'd have to put in a simcard or something and pay for their own check-in if the console wasn't connected to the Internet temporarily.
If Microsoft or Sony want to do something similar in the future they'd have to put in a simcard or something and pay for their own check-in if the console wasn't connected to the Internet temporarily.
They do need a reason. They can't just make all games online only for shits and giggles. We know the reason they want to do it is to kill off the used game market, but if that's the case then just come out and say it. If they made ES6 online only, as a single player game, that will no doubt raise a lot of questions. They would need to respond with justification.
Physical games for consoles still will be around in 10 years. Why wouldn't they? Why cut off millions of sales? It's 2018 and I can still buy new music on vinyl. I can buy a physical book. I can still buy a movie on a disc. In 10 years I'll still be able to buy a game on a disc. There are a lot of people that still will buy physical media, and there always will be.
What makes you think people will just suck it up and embrace it? Why do you think publishers would just cut off millions of sales from people who only buy physical. It's about giving customers choice. You can't force this on the public and expect them to roll over and submit.
I'm just happy the clowns in charge of the gaming division of Microsoft back then are no longer around.
What was that bullshit? Forcing kinect on everyone (at £100 more), all this american football stuff, TV tie ins very few people wanted.
This E3 (and last the last 2) have shown they are finally about the games. People have given Phil Spencer a rough time, but he has turned it around this generation (though people really won't give credit). I'm excited for next generation, under his lead.
Also funny how people thought of Sony as the good guy, best friend through the generation and still defend their BS.
I never want this always online shit. I had no internet for 3 weeks when I moved into my flat in London this past september.
What was that bullshit? Forcing kinect on everyone (at £100 more), all this american football stuff, TV tie ins very few people wanted.
This E3 (and last the last 2) have shown they are finally about the games. People have given Phil Spencer a rough time, but he has turned it around this generation (though people really won't give credit). I'm excited for next generation, under his lead.
Also funny how people thought of Sony as the good guy, best friend through the generation and still defend their BS.
I never want this always online shit. I had no internet for 3 weeks when I moved into my flat in London this past september.
Great video! And yes i agree that the world was ready for always online in 2013 and maybe the gaming world would have looked (slightly) different if they went with it.
The problem for Microsoft were that they thought "always online" was a positive in it self. It was not, it is not and it will never be. At best "always online" will be a neutral, but for most it is a negative (albeit a very small one for most). If they cant tell consumers why always online is good for them, it will not be a success if there are options.
There are plenty of ways this could happen, one very obvious is price. If you control and get payed for used discs (or sell the vast majority digital, increase online spending etc) you could lover prices for consumers and remain as profitable. I think if Xbox games were $10 cheaper then the same game on Playstation that would have made a huge difference.
I was so sure, and i discussed it back then as well, "no chance in hell they are selling undeniably worse games at the same price as Sony". But I was very wrong. Microsoft actually thought they could sell games at objectively worse value (no unlimited reselling) for a objectively weaker but more expansive console at the same price as Sony did. It is still mind blowing.
The problem for Microsoft were that they thought "always online" was a positive in it self. It was not, it is not and it will never be. At best "always online" will be a neutral, but for most it is a negative (albeit a very small one for most). If they cant tell consumers why always online is good for them, it will not be a success if there are options.
There are plenty of ways this could happen, one very obvious is price. If you control and get payed for used discs (or sell the vast majority digital, increase online spending etc) you could lover prices for consumers and remain as profitable. I think if Xbox games were $10 cheaper then the same game on Playstation that would have made a huge difference.
I was so sure, and i discussed it back then as well, "no chance in hell they are selling undeniably worse games at the same price as Sony". But I was very wrong. Microsoft actually thought they could sell games at objectively worse value (no unlimited reselling) for a objectively weaker but more expansive console at the same price as Sony did. It is still mind blowing.
If they really were to try the same strategy again with the nextbox, by all means they should. It was bad then and its still a bad idea now lol.
I don't know why some choose to constantly ignore that there are people in countries outside of the US and the bigger European countries that loves games too. This plan would have and would still ensure that lots of people without reliable internet lose interest in Xbox.
Microsoft's gaming brand might as well not exist in any non-US market right now. Going with their 2013 philosophy regarding online functionality would kill the brand dead.
This is a North American centric forum but there is a reason the PS4 is crushing sales.
This is a North American centric forum but there is a reason the PS4 is crushing sales.
I think everyone sees these things. It's not some magic insight Microsoft had in 2013 that they were uniquely right about, as others have tried to portray. Everyone sees the rise of new delivery methods, and the negotiation that's going on between consumer and seller on rights around that. Everyone sees that the model is and will be different to physical. Everyone has seen that for a long time.
What MS was wrong about, and continues to be wrong about, was in the attempt to override the long-established physical model with new set of digital rules, which even by digital standards at the time were quite draconian.
Maybe the physical model will get pushed off the table over time. If it does happen though, I think it will be in response to consumer demand. But while that model is around, it was and remains a mistake to try and rewrite the 'ownership' rules in that model. Microsoft has to understand that it built the Xbox business off the back of the physical model, with all its established consumer expectations. It is not a new startup in the cloud streaming space, for example, building its audience from scratch within that context. It has an audience, that has expectations that physical models will still be available for now, and certainly has strong expectations about how it will work if offered. New delivery models are opening up, MS should offer them, but I think it's not unreasonable for consumers to expect MS to continue to support the physical model in the console space at least as long as the demand is there, and certainly to respect the established ownership rules around the physical model while they continue to offer it. It would have been better, IMO, to ditch physical altogether and go 100% digital if they wanted to do that, in so far as at that at least would have avoided confusing customers, and confounding their expectations of how a disc would behave. It would probably still have been a bit of a betrayal of consumer trust in the brand, especially for customers globally, but at least it would have been very clear where their flag was planted.
Their audience's interest in physical may dwindle over time, but it still wouldn't make the 2013 attempt to reinvent that model in their (and publishers') own interests 'right' or 'ahead of its time'. Let the other models take over if consumers lead in that direction, but in the meantime if you're going to stay in the physical space, don't try to retcon the constraints of the digital model onto everything and piss all over your audience's expectations of the physical model.
Last edited:
I don't think Microsoft has to revolutionize AI in order to do that. I remember someone already could that a few years back, without quantum computers.
It might sound like bullshit but beside the quantum computers part, which are still many years away, the existing AI could definitely does that already.
"The world" doesn't even have stable internet in large heavily populated sections of entire continents, let alone suggest that they are ready for a device that literally doesn't function without the internet. That's just idiocy to dismiss entire markets off hand because of something that isn't even viable in places like the US beyond major metro areas yet.
Terrible video. No attempt is even made to counter or address any of the actual issues consumers had regarding Microsoft's original 'vision' for their console, only 'Netflix is a thing and online multiplayer is so hot right now'.
Even the closing arguement is befuddled and weak: 'If Microsoft followed through with their vision, everything would be exactly the same as it currently is, except Microsoft would have more of a say'.
Would they though?
Because all of the bullshit consumers actually had issues with in the reality which this video completely ignores would still be a thing, and would have resulted, I think, in a Microsoft who are in an even weaker position than they currently are.
Even the closing arguement is befuddled and weak: 'If Microsoft followed through with their vision, everything would be exactly the same as it currently is, except Microsoft would have more of a say'.
Would they though?
Because all of the bullshit consumers actually had issues with in the reality which this video completely ignores would still be a thing, and would have resulted, I think, in a Microsoft who are in an even weaker position than they currently are.
They were wrong then and they would still be wrong today.
I hope they still know that because they have been doing all the right things recently. All of the services that are available on the platform and require an online connection are optional.
Even in Forza Horizon 4 where the online MMO-lite stuff looks to be the main selling point for this iteration in the franchise, being online is optional.
So no, based on their recent policies even Microsoft agree that they were wrong and still would be today, no matter what some die hards want to say.
I hope they still know that because they have been doing all the right things recently. All of the services that are available on the platform and require an online connection are optional.
Even in Forza Horizon 4 where the online MMO-lite stuff looks to be the main selling point for this iteration in the franchise, being online is optional.
So no, based on their recent policies even Microsoft agree that they were wrong and still would be today, no matter what some die hards want to say.
I can't watch this right now so just taking the thread title literally I can only laugh.
They were right about always online? About a mandatory Kinect that nobody wanted that made the console way overpriced? Were they right about releasing a console that was less powerful yet still $100 more than their competition?
Like I said I can't watch this now so maybe I'm being completely unfair... But boy that title.
They were right about always online? About a mandatory Kinect that nobody wanted that made the console way overpriced? Were they right about releasing a console that was less powerful yet still $100 more than their competition?
Like I said I can't watch this now so maybe I'm being completely unfair... But boy that title.
Keep options is not "being unprepared for the inevitable changes within a business". If I'm playing an single player game with none or testimonial online features, I want to be able to play it offline. Full stop. What the video says is that: "since the most popular games only work online already, lets force that requirement to the rest". And, honestly, that sounds incredibly stupid. It's as saying "since people spend a lot of hours in Netflix, we should force an online connection too in order to allow people to watch their Blu-Rays".
It benefits no one. A device can be as online focused as it wants, but at the end of the day, it shouldn't force its userbase limitations when those aren't necessary. And an online check isn't necessary if I want to play God of War or the Uncharted 4 campaign. If the industry decides (like it has decided) to shit focus to games with heavy online components, service focused and all that jazz, it's expected for future devices to have more robust Internet capabilities that answer to the industry needs. But those design decisions are something that should be up to the developers, and not something to be widely enforced by the OS.
And even if we were about to see a push towards a online only future, there are much better implementations than what Microsoft wanted to push. I can use inDesign for over 3 months without connecting to the Internet. Once I download a PS+ game, I can play it offline for months since the game shares my sub expiration date. There are a lot of ways to push this service stuff that companies have loved for the past few years and the Xbox One wasn't the best of it. I think. It's not as if they actually were clear with their messaging.
Because Xbox One reveal was a mess. A lot of half truths, maybes, evasive questions and people that didn't understand why they were being roasted. There wasn't a unified message, there wasn't a roadplan or an answer to the user questions. To outsiders, it looked like they were in panic. Then they suddenly announced some Library Sharing feature to see if they could control damage. And a few days after that, they did a complete reversal. The fact that a branch from a company as big as Microsoft could handle the situation in such an awful way was a sight to behold.
Nope. Fuck this bullshit. Back when DOOM was Denuvo-enabled I couldn't play it during connection outages so I'm not on board for anything which ransoms your game behind a phone-home DRM.
It's practically an argument for piracy and I never pirate. If I buy a game that isn't an MMO or similar I expect to be able to play it when I want. Otherwise it's not really my game at all is it (don't give me that crap about purchasing a license to play it, I'm not interested)
It's practically an argument for piracy and I never pirate. If I buy a game that isn't an MMO or similar I expect to be able to play it when I want. Otherwise it's not really my game at all is it (don't give me that crap about purchasing a license to play it, I'm not interested)
Microsoft were wrong because of the restrictive methods they used to try and achieve their vision. The video even ends with "Today, an always online console isn't much of a stretch. It's already a reality", which just proves that forcing the requirement was completely unnecessary.
They didn't come out and clarify their plans because the reaction would've been overwhelmingly negative and Microsoft knew that. People just don't want things taken away from them, especially unnecessarily and if it's something as important and established such as playing used games.
Also, was there really complete silence when the Xbox One price was announced? Some videos have clapping, and some people in the comments even say there was booing. But I find that hard to believe since it wasn't open to the public back then.
They didn't come out and clarify their plans because the reaction would've been overwhelmingly negative and Microsoft knew that. People just don't want things taken away from them, especially unnecessarily and if it's something as important and established such as playing used games.
Also, was there really complete silence when the Xbox One price was announced? Some videos have clapping, and some people in the comments even say there was booing. But I find that hard to believe since it wasn't open to the public back then.
They very much can.
They don't need to justify anything. Their game will sell buckets regardless. They can just wheel out some fluff about how being always online is super important for the rich GaaS experience that their beloved customers now expect from their singleplayer games. It's gonna be interesting watching Bethesda push everyone onto Creation Club modding using Fallout 76, too. Oh, Bethesda are totes in support of modding! (On their terms.) Just watch them wheel out a new engine for The Elder Scrolls VI that doesn't allow traditional modding. They did the exact same thing with Doom 2016 and Id Tech 6.
Every AAA publisher is transitioning their games to being live services. Once they reach ~90% digital, and that will happen in the near future, they will move to cut their losses because the benefits for them outweigh the minority of lost sales. Publishers want physical to die. They want to cut out as many middle men as possible. (Including Steam.) No physical means more money for them. It also means more control.
It won't be millions of sales. Game retailers are on the brink of collapse. As digital grows and physical atrophies, before long the number of people buying physical games will be insignificant. The exact same thing happened to PC. Sure there are some physical games on PC, but they don't even chart, and they typically are just a key to download the game. Also, the industry at large is moving towards a subscription model. That's going to put even more nails in the coffin.
I would buy it. It's the SKU I wanted this gen. My PC like many current ones does not have a disk drive.
So, Xbox was right all along in shoving artificial always-online requirements in things that don't need it (OS, SP games, local MP games) because today, things that DO need it (online MP only games) are pretty popular? What?
No argument was actually made in the entire video. It was talking about completely unrelated things.
No argument was actually made in the entire video. It was talking about completely unrelated things.
I like how she says "70% of adults in the US had a broadband connections" and immediately after that "the world was ready".
Didn't realize that US = world.
Btw, that's the main reason why Xbox lost - it's too American centric. And another reason - it was too expensive.
Didn't realize that US = world.
Btw, that's the main reason why Xbox lost - it's too American centric. And another reason - it was too expensive.
The exaggerations in this thread about theoretical online/offline inconvenience tho. Have any of you ever played/experienced the ORIGINAL Xbox One with all of its regulations?
Not getting the whole "I bet they won't do it again" posts. Of course they won't. That's a redundant requirement to impose when all the top games do it for them. It would be like EA bringing back online passes in a time where all of their games are raking in cash from their multiplayer modes.
If they were right in 2013 (or really thought they were and failed to listen to consumers) then they wouldn't be right today (even further behind the competition and their next console would be dead too).
If you buy digitally already, why are you concerned that others who prefer physical copies or have a weaker online service are downloading patches when buying a disc? It doesn't affect you in any way, you're just saying 'My internet access for 50gb games is alright so sod everyone else'. It's the exact same argument that saw the angry response to Adam Orth's 'why would I want to live there?' tweet in 2013 and summed up why large chunks of the planet don't want 'always online, online only' yet. Five years later and things aren't so much better connected worldwide that it makes the argument now a good one.
I'm sorry but the points made on this video are stupid:
1. It's not about what we do, it's about the options we have. I had an issue with my internet connection last week, 3 days without it at home. That means with MS system I wouldn't have been able to play during 2-3 days depending on the last time I signed in.
Not playing for 3 days it's not a problem. The fact that it's restricted because MS decide so would have been.
2. If I buy a physical game, I want to be able to use it wherever and whenever I want. Just like a CD or a DVD. I'm not paying 70 bucks for a case that gives me a 1 time only code. I think not being able to use the games in your account in more than 2 ps4 it's already stupid. Or that if there are psn login issues, the games brought in my secondary account are useless.
I get that they don't want to lose money, but if all I get by purchasing online it's "getting access to the service", you should never put those prices. Yeah, I have a friend which I buy digital games with, but we are not always interested in the same things.
3. Have we forgotten that Kinect was mandatory in their ecosystem? So If you weren't interested in that, you had to eat it just to justify the 500$ price tag? And do we understand the consequences that not overturning that could have mean to the owner privacy?
4. MS would have never approached the cross-play route if they weren't behind in the race. During PS2 and Ps3, Sony was the one pushing for cross-play with the likes of PES 6 or Portal 2 while MS didn't want any of that.
MS move was with the same goal as every other company: Ensure more income in their pockets. They wanted to have full control over the software sold and the players using it, but they weren't offering a great value in exchange. That's why that shit was a fiasco as big as the PS3 launch.
As an industry, we're transitioning from physical to digital, but that's because now there's an ok value in this thanks to the discounts they're doing. The gaming industry has watched what Netflix it's doing and they're starting to understand that at the right price and value, people can jump in the digital wagon.
I've had internet outages that have lasted the better part of a week in the past five years. I'm sure I'm not alone in having less than perfect internet.
It's not a hypothetical I would have been locked out.
It still baffles me that after all this time there are people hell bent on defending this. This is evolved Stockholm syndrome, defending negative actions that never actually happened. The market has spoken. Microsoft have spoken and via their actions (even most recently) have agreed that they were wrong.
Forcing people to be online once every 24h benefits nobody.
Forcing people to be online once every 24h benefits nobody.