I'm probably switching over to ps4 and killzone or something instead of halo, I can just watch some let's plays of the next couple to get the story from them. I just haven't been very fond of microsoft's ideas lately and couldnt be bothered with their next console, even if they changed their ways radically. It also helps that PS just flat out has better exclusive IP.
Breh, I'm already chill, I just used a few big boy words, I apologize. It's mostly because it's on every gaming news site, along with every gaming community. Sure, it can be a big deal, but talking in circles about the same thing won't do ****. What is there to discuss beyond "Yeah, I won't be getting it if it's always-online?" It bothers me because some people blew somebody's tweets out of proportion and now think always-online is confirmed. I'm more frustrated with the fact that there's no real discussion going on about it, just the same comments over and over again. To be honest, they're hardly discussing anything relevant to this thread, just their shopping decisions about a relevant product. There's the occasional discussion of exclusives, launch titles, hardware, services included but most of them come down to, "I'm not buying this." That's fine if you don't want to buy it but is that really all you came here to say? It's a possibility, just like how the PS4 was going to do it. Somebody made a tweet about it which is limited to 140 characters, it's official! Surely, it couldn't be misconstrued. I'll leave until it's officially reveal though.
There are a lot more sources than just the tweets of the creative director, but the fact that MS is clearly advocating the approach should be the most damning.
I know I said I wouldn't be active until the reveal but could you provide some of those sources then?
Here Comes the Next Xbox | Paul Thurrotts WinInfo content from Windows IT Pro The next Xbox rethinks DRM, Achievements and Xbox Live friends, our sources say | Polygon
If we're using third-party articles without Microsoft directly addressing the public: Microsoft: Next Xbox will work even when your Internet doesn?t | Ars Technica
As far as the current rumours go, that's by far the most promising. It'd be nice to see more concrete evidence of this email, but it seems like something that could be easily denied if it weren't the case, so here's hoping. This is also from the top comments: It'd be interesting to know whether this is a change in design rather than a clarification on an always in-place plan. I guess we'll probably never know for sure, but I maintain that it's worth the community in general making their views on such things very clear even at rumour stage in the off chance that minds actually can be changed based on overriding negative responses to possibilities like this.
Very true. I only expressed my frustration because it was beating a dead horse in my opinion. My apologies.
A change would also explain why the original announcement wasn't in April like everyone expected. They may have needed more time.
"The next Xbox will allow publishers to decide if their games should require an internet connection to be played." That was what the most recent thing I've heard to, Microsoft might offer benefits to publishers that have always on or some kind of shenanigans so where not in the clear yet.
Why would they offer benefits to publishers who do it? If MS had anything to gain overall by doing it, they'd enforce the policy themselves, rather than trying to bribe publishers in to it. As far as I'm concerned, that sounds like them leaving the option open to publishers, but I see no reason to suspect incentives from MS for using the feature. And yeah, that still sucks, because many publishers will utilise it if it does work out that way, but at least it gives us a chance to support good companies and a reason to avoid bad ones, rather than having to boycott the whole console.
And that's what Microsoft has to gain by 'bribing' publishers to do always-on stuff. Don't kid yourself, MS wants it because it will force consumers to buy more Xbox Live subscriptions to get the related content, play those games, etc., but by giving the game companies the 'option' to do it instead of doing it themselves, MS gets to pass the buck to them and avoid the always-on hate themselves since it's not 'technically' them enforcing the practice.
Will it really work like that, though? People will just see that the Xbox version of a game will require always online whereas the PS4 version won't. If it's an exclusive then it just makes the game less appealing, which in turn hurts the platform. Ultimately it's still going to reflect badly on the Xbox, even if it also reflects badly on publishers who choose to utilise it. If this is true and is an attempt to pass the buck, then it seems like a pretty poor attempt.
If you're going to say Microsoft is going to push developers to have an always-on DRM based on speculation that doesn't have any basis, it's just as arguable to say that Sony will do the same with the PS4 since they were talking about an always-on DRM. I don't quite understand why people think Microsoft is full of retards when it has presumably brought enjoyment to everybody on this forum. Maybe it's the idea of "the grass is always greener on the other side." If developers were being bribed, some would be notably vocal about it and regardless of whether you think so or not, the developer should be held accountable if they make such a deal and makes them more "evil" than the huge corporation making the generous offer. Just my thoughts though.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that 'passing the buck' will work, I'm just saying that feels like the mindset they would have for the idea of having the publishers do it instead of they themselves. And I'm not saying Sony or the PS4 is/will be any better in that regard, either, in case you think I'm just being anti-Microsoft about this. I'm not, I'm anti-DRM.
Yes it might hurt the xbox but it also might benefit Microsoft wallet and there is always PR lope holes do to things, I think bribing is a bad word to use, It's purely speculative there is no "Microsoft are in there evil chairs stroking a cat laughing about DRM" just talking about what the situation Could be. I used word benefit because it might be something as small as more ad space on dashboard or always on games get more publicity(a section of always on games that is pushed into your face) or maybe it is something as bad as "always on games get more money" or something. More DRM=More XBL=More money. That simple(Nothing evil just facts) So microsoft would probably want to give (unknown amounts tiny to huge) benefit to games that use DRM. You can't play Specops in halo 4 without XBL so games don't need this "feature" to force there game to be always on to play they could do it anyway. Worldwide rumors that DRM could happen means Potential for DRM,Microsoft benefits from having games DRM, Microsoft may get upto some shenanigans that will be bad for gamers so there is cause for concern. Not just "Pigs might fly, Xbox might have DRM, Worlds gonna blow up tomorrow"