Microsoft All But Confirms Always-Online Console, Tells customers to "Deal With It"|General Gaming Discussion|Forum|SNES HUB

Mongunzoo said
This is the sorriest piece of PR I have ever seen.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/m…..ox-6406464

So in the course of one TwitterWar, he all but reveals 1)Durango will be always online (meaning that you cannot load or play your games unless an internet connection is present.), and 2)That if we don’t like it we can “deal with it”)

 

Will the mainstream support an always-online console? The answer is no. Why should anyone buy a product that is so anti-consumer? Yet many people will buy it without realizing this ‘feature’. I can just see a steady stream of complaints to Microsoft as to why their new Xbox won’t work when the Internet is down. This could become very expensive for Microsoft.

 

You don’t get to tell customers to “Deal With It”. You must bend for the customer. You don’t get to enlighten the customer. the customer will always enlighten YOU.

 

It is like Nintendo trying to enlighten their customers on 3D Mario, Monkey Island Zelda, and Anime Metroid. Still, at least with Nintendo’s brand of arrogance I can STILL PLAY MY GAMES WHENEVER I WANT!

 

I fully expect these game designers to be brought back to earth in a brutal fashion this generation across the board. I am looking forward to hearing more.

To be fair, the PC gamers have been putting up with “always online” games for some time now.  By and large, they’ve grown to accept it.

The console gamer is a different beast however.  There are a LOT of console gamers who never bring their system online and still buy all of their games from the local GameStop.  An “always online” Xbox will NOT go over well with this crowd.

As for me personally, I think I’m going to sit this next generation out.  My existing collection is already large enough that I simply don’t need to buy any new games.  Should I get the urge for a new game, there are still plenty of experiences from past generations that I still haven’t tried.

Requiring a constant internet connection for marginally improved graphics doesn’t sound like a good deal to me.  Of course, one day Microsoft will stop supporting the DRM servers and the games themselves will all be unplayable.

Exactly.

My guess (which is pure speculation) for each faction (out of the current market) is:

1. Non-complaining buyers = 60%
2. Complaining buyers = 30%
3. Non-buyers = 10%

Ghost, this is effectively an anti-piracy measure.  The PC market has been doing this for years, with SimCity being the latest, high profile example.  The constant internet connection effectively ensures you are playing a legit copy at all times.

While this is an effective anti piracy measure, it also punishes your paying customers, which is why it is so unpopular.  It also treats your customer base with a ton of suspicion, which people do not take kindly to.

To be fair, however, piracy is and has always been a big issue for the gaming industry.

The gaming industry is somewhat Draconian in its stance on piracy and used games.

On the used game front, there is a ton of hostility towards gamers and GameStop since publishers make nothing off of used sales.  On this front, GameStop may be wise to throw the industry a bone and give them a small cut of their used sales.  I’m sure this move would be wildly unpopular with shareholders (GameStop is basically a pawn shop and makes all of their money off used games).  

However, in the long term, it may be what keeps them alive, since the industry is actively looking for solutions to  curb used game sales (online passes, etc.) and may look to outright eliminate them in the future.

Another big question is, will Microsoft approach Steam-level pricing with Durango?  If so, then this may work out ok for them.  If they want to have their cake and eat it too, then I think they may find the consumer response humbling.

I should also point out that I thought Xbox live was already a decent anti-piracy measure.  It’s well known that modded/hacked Xboxes can’t play online, so wasn’t that enough piracy protection?

I hope they can approach Steam level pricing.  With the Steam Box coming, they will pretty much have to.  

Sony seems to be going into this generation the strongest, though without backwards compatibility, they’re still not giving consumers what they want.

I’m perfectly content to just sit on my collection for a few years and see how this whole thing plays out.

$1,000 is for a high end SteamBox machine and at that price, yeah, there’s no point in getting one.  I’m guessing we’ll start to see a few models less then $400 once Valve throws their weight behind it.  

Valve is well aware that you can connect your PC to your TV with an HDMI port.  Heck, they’re even promoting it, through Steam, with their Big Picture initiative.

Give Valve a little credit.  They’re a 2.5 billion dollar company with 400 employees.  

Firstly, Valve would be crazy to go public.  Why share their success with us?  At $2.5 billion with 400 employees, there is more then enough money to keep every employee more then happy and build up a substantial war chest.

Secondly, you argument that Valve is only good at making money off of hardcore gamers, therefore the Steam Box is a non-competitor doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Do you really think Valve is making the SteamBox for the hardcore PC gamer?  Do you really think they’d bother trying to sell an underpowered pre-packaged box to folks who are used to building their own liquid cooled rigs with custom cases?  

Hardcore PC gamers are the least likely to buy a SteamBox.  It’s not for them.  The SteamBox is aimed directly at the Xbox crowd, someone who wants a plug and play experience for a few hundred bucks.  

So the question is; if you’re not going to own your own games are you better off with a Durango or a SteamBox?

(Obviously, Valve has revealed very very little about the SteamBox so I am making a ton of assumptions here.  That said, I gotta believe Valve wouldn’t enter the hardware market to go after the hardcore PC gamer crowd; that just doesn’t make any sense).

I understand that Valve is interested in being a storefront.  

That said, the SteamBox will be a disruptive product or it will be an outright failure.  There’s not a lot of middleground when it comes to these sorts of products.

If Valve sells a SteamBox, then they’re taking aways sales from Microsoft and possibly Sony.  Why buy an Xbox when you already have a SteamBox and all you want to do is play CoD?  When you look at what Microsoft offers gamers, there really aren’t many exclusives that don’t end up on Steam.

You are right that they are treating this as a broadening of Steam, but you are wrong to say they are a non-competitor.  They are trying to get the Xbox crowd to buy their games over Steam INSTEAD of Xbox Live Arcade.  Sounds pretty competitive and disruptive to me.

PS – When are we playing SF4?

You’re also right, the amount of worship Valve gets as a company is simply absurd.  Valve fanboys remind me of Nintendo fanboys in that regard