submarines still can't use personal internet while deployed
deployed military has limited personal internet
so no. still wrong (always wrong)
deployed military has limited personal internet
so no. still wrong (always wrong)
-
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
It benefits publishers, and for the most part the real customers of a AAA game publisher are their stockholders. Piracy is going to be a huge problem on the Nintendo Switch in the near future, for instance. How is Nintendo going to keep their shareholders happy? (How are they gonna keep publishers happy?) Well, I wouldn't be surprised to see them resort to a Denuvo-style tech, or even Denuvo itself.
Took the time to watch this (which is way too long for the little points it makes).
I found it extremely weak and forced and trying to ride on the renewed hype from xbox fans following a positive E3 showing.
Everything is connected when we want it to be, but it's still not always on, most of us played God of War this year and experienced the magic of amazing single-player without any connection. Not being forced into online is what people wanted back then (and I still think care about, perhaps not as fervently). Just because the internet is becoming more and more prevalent doesn't mean that at the time that was appropriate- it's been 5 years after all. Disagree wholeheartedly.
I found it extremely weak and forced and trying to ride on the renewed hype from xbox fans following a positive E3 showing.
Everything is connected when we want it to be, but it's still not always on, most of us played God of War this year and experienced the magic of amazing single-player without any connection. Not being forced into online is what people wanted back then (and I still think care about, perhaps not as fervently). Just because the internet is becoming more and more prevalent doesn't mean that at the time that was appropriate- it's been 5 years after all. Disagree wholeheartedly.
The real customers are the shareholders, not the people who buy and play these games and platforms? Are you joking?
Please tell me you're joking.
The overwhelming number of responses in this thread are saying that they believe it was a bad idea back in 2013 and is still a bad idea five years later. I guess that that's what you mean by this thread being eye opening for you as well, since so many folks disagree with the Engadget video?
If you were in my shoes, there is no way you would agree with this, absolutely no way.
I imagine you may well live somewhere where an always online console wouldn't be quite as much of a burden to you as it does for me and many others (whom are not quite as privileged).
Bingo.
Last edited:
The choice between a traditional and non traditional console presented by MS is a false choice. It didn't have to be either or. And the market reacted - the compromises asked by MS to reach their vision of a digital console was too much, and too skewed in their favor over consumer convenience and rights. Sucks for the people who don't care about those things, but to those who do, it was a blessing.
If gaming does trend this way then nobody but the wealthy and those with the genetic good fortune to be born in the US or a major major Metropolitan area will even be able to game
Have you ever watched an EA presentation? Did that presentation ever make you feel that EA cared about the people buying their games? Like, at all?
The mass outcry after the XB1 reveal, and the subsequent legendary riposte from Sony at E3 2013, both say otherwise.
Products are manufactured for consumers. If you are a producer/manufacturer, and consumers dislike what you're making (and they DO like a competing product), then it doesn't really matter how noble your intentions may be.
Products are manufactured for consumers. If you are a producer/manufacturer, and consumers dislike what you're making (and they DO like a competing product), then it doesn't really matter how noble your intentions may be.
Ok you're being serious... Good god.
Explain this to me: If no customers are buying any products or services from a company, do shareholders of said company stand to earn much (if any) money at all?
Watch EA's most recent E3 press conference post lootbox-gate if you want to see whether they care about people buying their games or not.
24 hour (or less) check-in would do nothing to stop piracy on Switch. Also, even Netflix, a pure streaming service with no concept of ownership lets me access content offline a LOT longer than 24 hours without checking in.
Blockbuster failed because people didn't rent videos anymore in an age when DVD releases followed barely three months after the cinema release, followed by widespread adoption of every TV and the gadgets in the pockets of their customer base of urban westerners being able to subscribe to streaming services.
That's absolutely not comparable to MS attempting to force their global audience to go for mandatory online checks on the £50 products they buy. One is a company failing due to shifting trends in media consumption, the other was a strategy that failed because it tried to inflict a trend in media consumption that customers, particularly in rural areas and outside the US, didn't want. While, at the same time, packaging in other aspects of the product that just weren't attractive, and launching opposite a competitor that kept things simple because of a fractured global market of dozens of countries and their conflicting internet/service provider issues.
What is with this revisionist history that anyone not on board with what Ms wanted in 2013 is some kind of Luddite? Blockbuster's issue was in failing to adapt to what it's urban audience wanted, Microsoft's in offering a change that only appealed to the urban audience in one country out of the dozens it was competing in.
Things haven't changed that much in five years despite how quickly cutting edge technology moves. If they want to abandon the global audience and just cater to high-end early adopters in US cities, then great, let's see them do that, but it means retreating to just competing in one part of one market rather than globally. Focus groups love young urban professionals, but they don't make up the entire audience that lets successful consoles (like the 360) compete worldwide.
Last edited:
I dunno about right or wrong, but the market definitely didn't want what they were offering at the time (and it wasn't really hard to guess either). As of now, I'm not so sure, but a similar offering would probably be met with similar disdain.
This whole discussion feels weird anyway, we're discussing stuff which didn't happen and while there is a crap ton of irony surrounding the reaction to the X1 reveal (like how the internet won the battle against having to connect to the internet ...), what was envisioned at the time still didn't happen to this day, no matter how you look at it. Yes there are a ton of GaaA, always-online games now, but the consoles can still be used to a degree without an internet connection.
As for physical media dying, well, yeah, at some point console games retail will be like PC games retail, probably (as in a small portion of sales, and in the end just a freakin' download code). But we're not there yet.
This whole discussion feels weird anyway, we're discussing stuff which didn't happen and while there is a crap ton of irony surrounding the reaction to the X1 reveal (like how the internet won the battle against having to connect to the internet ...), what was envisioned at the time still didn't happen to this day, no matter how you look at it. Yes there are a ton of GaaA, always-online games now, but the consoles can still be used to a degree without an internet connection.
As for physical media dying, well, yeah, at some point console games retail will be like PC games retail, probably (as in a small portion of sales, and in the end just a freakin' download code). But we're not there yet.
The concept wasn't right because it wasn't supported by the availability of high speed internet worldwide, and that's still true to this day.
If a plan is so ahead of its time that it still can't be implemented without serious issues half a decade later, it's a bad plan.
If a plan is so ahead of its time that it still can't be implemented without serious issues half a decade later, it's a bad plan.
EA only care about lootbox-gate because it threatens their stock price and relationship with shareholders. This is why publicly traded corporations tend to behave so badly. For instance, if the terrible working conditions in the games industry threatened their stock price, they'd suddenly care a whole lot about employee welfare. Shareholders are the real customers. If you're an airline, you can physically assault as many passengers as you want and your stock price won't be hurt. But if you dare give employees a raise, your investors will be baying for blood. They are your real customers. The people you actually answer to. Not the people who fly on your planes or buy your videogames.
EA do not care whether "the fans" want a mobile Command and Conquer game, for instance. They know this game will print money and that makes their investors happy. They'd parade the corpse of classic C&C on a stick if it'd boost revenue.
The length of the periodic check doesn't really matter. All that matters is that it's short... enough. Denuvo has opted for a few weeks, but that could change at the drop of a hat.
They were wrong in 2013, and I worry the direction they are trying to take in 2018. I don't want an always online future where I don't own the content, cant freely share or sell it on when I have finished the game. I like GaaS but I have no time for more than 1 or 2 in my life,
Except they do care, they're actually routinely ranked among the best companies to work for, especially for LGBT people.
Their arguments:
- The biggest games today have Online multiplayer
- "70% of adults in the US had broadband connection in their houses "
1) But why mandatory online checks every day ? Why take away consumer rights about game ownership?
2) The world is bigger then the United States OF America, and this is one of the reasons MS never catch up Sony.
And I LOVE this historical revisionism about crossplay. Last gen the one prohibiting was Microsoft, when they were in the same position as Sony they changed the tone.
Seems accurate
- The biggest games today have Online multiplayer
- "70% of adults in the US had broadband connection in their houses "
1) But why mandatory online checks every day ? Why take away consumer rights about game ownership?
2) The world is bigger then the United States OF America, and this is one of the reasons MS never catch up Sony.
And I LOVE this historical revisionism about crossplay. Last gen the one prohibiting was Microsoft, when they were in the same position as Sony they changed the tone.
Seems accurate
Good for you... But also understand that people (such as myself) don't have access to internet at home...
[QUOTE="daniel77733, post: 9169903, member: 13687"]Can't wait to see them go in the streaming direction in two years with increased internet service prices and everyone rejects them yet again. It will be classic.[/QUOTE]
What makes you think this is something MS would do? That seems like a wild prediction.
What makes you think this is something MS would do? That seems like a wild prediction.
from the resetera faq:
op, don't just drop a video without context if you want to see good discussion
Yet multiple employees described working on ME: Andromeda as having the worst crunch they'd ever experienced.
https://www.pcgamer.com/most-of-mass-effect-andromeda-was-developed-in-just-18-months-report-says/
No, I don't want my console to have to check home once every 24 hours or lock me out of using my games.
The only reason I bought an XB1 at launch is because they reversed that and I love Dead Rising too much to miss it. If they tried it again, I won't buy the next box.
The only reason I bought an XB1 at launch is because they reversed that and I love Dead Rising too much to miss it. If they tried it again, I won't buy the next box.
Practically 90 Percent about my smartphone is online only
I still don't have to do mandatory checks every 24 hours
Fuck you too Engadget
I still don't have to do mandatory checks every 24 hours
Fuck you too Engadget
The fact that today we are closer to that dystopian reality doesn't remove the fact that it is indeed a dystopia.
Besides, of all the games i own on PS4 none (and i mean none) requires online.
Besides, of all the games i own on PS4 none (and i mean none) requires online.
They were right. They were so right they should do it again next gen. All of it. Always online, no used games etc etc.
Let's see what the market says then.
EDIT: Also she completely missed the fact that we probably would have cross-platform play had Microsoft not fucked up at the start of the generation and the userbase had been more evenly split. What a glorious hot take of a video
Let's see what the market says then.
EDIT: Also she completely missed the fact that we probably would have cross-platform play had Microsoft not fucked up at the start of the generation and the userbase had been more evenly split. What a glorious hot take of a video
Also isn't it funny that the video presenter goes on about how Microsoft couldn't / didn't explain the intricacies of always online when we have video interview of Microsoft telling people to buy X360 if they don't have an online connection... That's a pretty clear statement that if you want to be on the new generation Microsoft system better make sure you have a 24/7 internet ready...
EDIT: Is it just me or does the video gives a vibe like the consumers were dumb fucks to not give Microsoft a chance with it's always online... And now those same consumers gobble up multiplayer games like no tomorrow...
EDIT: Is it just me or does the video gives a vibe like the consumers were dumb fucks to not give Microsoft a chance with it's always online... And now those same consumers gobble up multiplayer games like no tomorrow...
The market would be more excepting to it now yes, But at its time.. fuck no.
And you know.. Net neutrality anyone?
And you know.. Net neutrality anyone?
Gamepass, a sub, seems very different to what was being offered in 2013. Also, people are way more used to paid streaming services like Spotify, Netflix and Hulu than they were in 2013. This was before Netflix had a better catalogue of originals, before Prime Video had anything worthwhile. We had big MP games then too, and no one was complaining you needed to have an online connection to play MP games.
Most of the planet doesn't have net neutrality, though. While it has implications elsewhere, it's largely an American concern.
Yes, yes but why would a console manufacturer remove the ability to play games offline? Why would a console manufacturer not provide an offline gaming option? Why would a single player, game disk-owning gamer needs to be online and do checkins ever 24 hrs? Does this console manufacturer know that daily online checkins is a gross breach of security for a significant part of their domestic audience (ie. military personnel)?
I don't understand...How was MS right?
PS was the one that did more for online gaming ecosystem and more prepared with setting up PS Now, Share Play, and now the iconic Share Button.
PS revolutionized steaming service into mainstream.
It went from WTF is US Steam and Twitch? But with the PS4, it blew up.
One button to capture your stream and vblog your life.
And now everyone is trying to play catch up to Share Play and PS Now technology as gaming pass service.
So...PS did everything and better than MS in 2013.
Then how was MS right again by playing catch up?
Come on now Engadget...Twitch wouldn't have grew this big without that Share Button.
It was effing call Justin.tv or some thing back then, and MS didn't even know people wanted streaming in 2013.
And because streaming got big, more gamers would go online to watch streams as a new hobby due to easy accessibility and coverage, and then more people play online game to stream their online actions to share their experience as well.
It is a positive loop.
So don't tell me that online stuff would get big with MS since they wouldn't have pushed Twitch or created the easy to use Share Button.
PS was the one that did more for online gaming ecosystem and more prepared with setting up PS Now, Share Play, and now the iconic Share Button.
PS revolutionized steaming service into mainstream.
It went from WTF is US Steam and Twitch? But with the PS4, it blew up.
One button to capture your stream and vblog your life.
And now everyone is trying to play catch up to Share Play and PS Now technology as gaming pass service.
So...PS did everything and better than MS in 2013.
Then how was MS right again by playing catch up?
Come on now Engadget...Twitch wouldn't have grew this big without that Share Button.
It was effing call Justin.tv or some thing back then, and MS didn't even know people wanted streaming in 2013.
And because streaming got big, more gamers would go online to watch streams as a new hobby due to easy accessibility and coverage, and then more people play online game to stream their online actions to share their experience as well.
It is a positive loop.
So don't tell me that online stuff would get big with MS since they wouldn't have pushed Twitch or created the easy to use Share Button.
Last edited:
you'd have to ask Don Mattrick and his coke dealer. It was a bad idea then and now. My post was basically disagreeing with the premise of the video.
No they were not.
Regarding lending used games, I might play next gen 100% digital or even streaming but that would be my choice. I still want them to include a BR drive and allow used games.
The always online logic still makes no sense, especially if you're like me (I play essentially single player games).
Regarding lending used games, I might play next gen 100% digital or even streaming but that would be my choice. I still want them to include a BR drive and allow used games.
The always online logic still makes no sense, especially if you're like me (I play essentially single player games).
