Support NeoGAF

[jshackles]

Even though I was an Xbox guy (I had an OG Xbox, and 360 early last gen before it went red ring and I never replaced it) this news of "always online DRM" and them wanting to kill physical disks was what pushed me to buy a PS4 this generation. I eventually picked up an Xbox One X, but honestly only because of backwards compatibility with older games and obviously years later.

In those years where I was a PS4 player, I predominantly bought physical disks. I have almost 300 physical PS4 games now. Some of you say "but if you can't get online to update them, they're worthless" but as others have pointed out, that's not exactly the same thing. When I upgraded to the PS4 Pro, I gave my original PS4 to my son - and since most of my games were physical, he could simply pop the disk in his console and start playing without any hassles. That has provided a huge additional value to me, personally.

I bought 3 digital games on my Switch: Stardew Valley, Golf Story, and Xenoblade Chronicles 2 - the later of which I'm already regretting. I love the game, and I think my son would love it too, and I'd like to be able to pass it along to him when I'm finished - but I can't. I wish I would have bought the cartridge. In Microsoft's dream world where this scheme took off and was successful, I might have been able to give him my digital copy of the game which is cool, but at the cost of always online DRM I don't think it'd be a good trade.

All that is to say, I don't think Microsoft was right all along. I'm a huge fan of the X and it's backwards compatibility, but if their next console is 100% digital and always online that news alone would be enough to make me want to skip it.

 

[Nikana]

I really feel like all they had to do was make putting the disc in a way to circumvent the authorization.

Like that was literally the only real issue.

 

[FranXico]

I really feel like all they had to do was make putting the disc in a way to circumvent the authorization.

Like that was literally the only real issue.

The whole point was that the disc itself was subject to the same authorization as digital.

Disabling the check if the disc is used is exactly what they did later on.

 

[NickFire]

I'm very impressed with how MS has handled this generation after losing the race before it launched. But to say they were right is silly. They got outsold 2-1. Clearly they were wrong.

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

I guess you genuinely don't grasp the difference between "internet access" and "always on". Got it.

Lemme pose a scenario: even if it was "a few kb a day" or even once every week... what occurs when you happen to be offline when that check is required?

I can tell you exactly what happens because it happened on Steam every so often and actually drove me to quit the platform: you will receive a notification when trying to boot up a game stating that you need to go online. When you are unable to do so, you won't be able to play your game. Doesn't matter if the check-in is every minute, every day, or every week. The moment the check-in is required and you can't connect, bye-bye to your library.

That is unreasonable. What's even more unreasonable is the notion that I should have to prove my purchase every few hours or days or whatever. If I bought it, why does the corporation need to look over my shoulder to check if it's mine? Name a single other product that operates this way and I assure you it is seen as a hassle and not a feature like Microsoft was claiming. If I have to keep checking in with the corporation, then my videogame purchase is no longer a transaction. It is a service. I do not accept that. I do not wish to spend my money or support companies that wish to turn gaming into such a service.

In light of the data breaches and the selling of your personal data to advertisers (something Microsoft is actively engaged in and has been engaged in for the last 15 years), why would you openly accept such a proposal from that company?

Do you not remember the part where they said you could use your cell phone to check in? I'm guessing you are just conveniently skipping over it. Apparently not having internet and cell service is common to users here who fear this scenario but still somehow find a way to post on this site.

Great don't accept it, but don't accuse others of "not understanding" because it's something you don't like. And don't act like MS is the only console company "selling data to advertisers."

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Do you not remember the part where they said you could use your cell phone to check in? I'm guessing you are just conveniently skipping over it. Apparently not having internet and cell service is common to users here who fear this scenario but still somehow find a way to post on this site.

Great don't accept it, but don't accuse others of "not understanding" because it's something you don't like. And don't act like MS is the only console company "selling data to advertisers."

Wait. You're telling me that Daddy Microsoft would have allowed me to use my cellphone to protect myself from getting locked out of their my games?

Oh me oh my! What a feature!

And to be fair, the reason why I say you are "not understanding" it is due to you bringing up completely unrelated aspects of technology. And you keep doing it over and over again (similar to how Microsoft tried to gloss over the details).

Statements like "what's wrong with a few kb check-in every few days?" when trying to argue in favor of "always online" demonstrates that you do not grasp the very words you are choosing to type.

Always.

Not "daily". Not "weekly". Always.

So why in the world would any literate person confuse "check-in once in a while" with the word "always" when they are clearly two completely different concepts (both grammatically and technologically)? Why in the world would this person confuse them over and over again, obstinately, insisting that they are the same and yet completely different (when it suits their faulty-from-the-start argument).

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

Wait. You're telling me that Daddy Microsoft would have allowed me to use my cellphone to protect myself from getting locked out of their my games?

Oh me oh my! What a feature!

For a guy who apparently "remembers" the entire original Xbox online policy I'm surprised you forgot that important detail to prevent the apparently constant drops in your internet service from preventing you from checking in.

So you resort to shitposting about your hatred of MS instead of actually discussing what was one way to check in. Great job!

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

For a guy who apparently "remembers" the entire original Xbox online policy I'm surprised you forgot that important detail to prevent the apparently constant drops in your internet service from preventing you from checking in.

So you resort to shitposting about your hatred of MS instead of actually discussing what was one way to check in. Great job!

This is really flying over your head, isn't it?

A cellphone check-in is NOT ACCEPTABLE IN MY OPINION. So, I'm unsure how you view that as a counterpoint. My sarcastic reply should've made it clear that a cellphone check-in was not acceptable in my opinion, but here we are again.

 

[Nikana]

The whole point was that the disc itself was subject to the same authorization as digital.

Disabling the check if the disc is used is exactly what they did later on.

That's what I'm saying. The whole disc issue was extremely shortsighted and is where the entire idea fell apart.

The idea was cool but I don't see where they thought having all these arbitrary rules about the disc only being able to be traded once and the trade in policy not being full done yet before announcing the box was a good idea.

It's clear they didn't talk to publishers and retail at all. They were trying to please everyone and made policies that didn't actually cater to any of them which made it come across as completely backwards.

They wanted to ease publishers mind about people not being able to trade games in who buy new games. So they let people trade in games, even though they said it wouldn't be ready at launch, whatever the hell that means.

They also wanted to do the same with publishers because the family plan could theoretically also hurt sales since 5 people could play a game with one copy without having to ever give someone a disc. So they implemented the one time trade rule.

But they also wanted to make sure no funny business was going with discs since they were treated as digital so they implamentes the check in.

The check in not being able to be corcumvented by the disc is where I get confused. They claimed it was because they are treating it like a digital game. Ok so just take the license "off" when I don't check in and let me use the disc.

I get it, it creates an issue where I can install the game and then give it to someone else to play offline. But is that really that big of deal when I could share it with 5 people anyway?

When you mix all that together you have a mess.

It almost felt like they didn't realize half of these things until way too late and mattrick made the decision to just keep going.

Like when you take something apart to fix it and when you put it back together there's pieces left over.

One of two things happen. You either take the time and take everything back apart and fix it right or you just say fuck it and pray it keeps working.

I think you know which one Mattrick went with .

 

[gypsygib]

Being able to not have to have the disc installed to play games was a very good idea. It's very nice to just switch between games freely. I never cared about online authentication, and not sure why people were so upset about the feature needing to authenticate every 24hrs or so. I play mostly on PC and Steam does the exact same thing. In fact, in order to even play in offline mode on Steam, you have to be online first to set the option. People aren't too perturbed by that so it was a bit of a double standard.

Almost everything else MS did was stupid, the most stupid of which being focusing on Kinect (which had already failed miserably as a viable gaming device) resulting in a console with less power for a greater cost. A $300 XBOX vs a $400 PS4 in 2014 after 360s success would have been a much different ball game.

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

This is really flying over your head, isn't it?

A cellphone check-in is NOT ACCEPTABLE IN MY OPINION. So, I'm unsure how you view that as a counterpoint. My sarcastic reply should've made it clear that a cellphone check-in was not acceptable in my opinion, but here we are again.

Flying over my head? Sure.

I'm not trying to change your mind, why would I want to? Don't like it, move on. JUST BECAUSE IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN YOUR OPINION DOESN'T MEAN IT WASN'T A VIABLE OPTION TO PREVENT BEING LOCKED OUT IN YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED DOOMSDAY INTERNETLESS SCENARIO. See I can say dumb shit in all caps too!

You are the one trying to paint a simple check in as a doom and gloom scenario while conveniently leaving out facts that were there. Keep it up, you're doing a bang up job!

 

[Gander]

This video completely missed peoples biggest concern. The always on connected to the internet wasn't a problem, it was the always on connected to the internet with MS having a camera and microphone right in your living room. Kinect was the biggest issue. Kinect being incorporated also made Xbox One slightly less powerful.

 

[Isurus]

People say that conference destroyed the Xbox this gen, but 90% of X1 and PS4 owners are completely unaware of that conference and have no idea who Don Mattrick is, right?

I think the fact that it was $100 more than PS4 while being less powerful is what hurt it. This other stuff probably had a marginal effect, in comparison.

 

[ReBurn]

No they were just wrong. You gotta remember that the fan base of video games goes beyond America and other 1st world nations.

People in developing nations have access to the internet. I travel a lot to what was once considered the third world and the people there who would have the disposable income to buy a modern console tend to have reasonable access to the internet via mobile networks as well. They're gaming like crazy on their always connected mobile phones.

5 years ago you would have been more right. But today the people in developing nations that could afford to buy a new console would be able to check in once per day.

 

[Fox Mulder]

They were horribly wrong in 2013, the xb1 was weaker and more expensive than the ps4 and had bad PR too.

of course online connectivity and digital purchases were going to take off as consumers shifted towards it, MS just gave up a generation with their original vision of the xb1.

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

I think the fact that it was $100 more than PS4 while being less powerful is what hurt it. This other stuff probably had a marginal effect, in comparison.

Yeah I don't know how they thought this was a good idea (price difference). Then to completely botch the e3 presentation & messaging just compounded it. At least the silver lining is they got rid of Mattrick (who would have thought a games guy would screw up so bad?) and are moving ahead with a great direction.

 

[Moneal]

Flying over my head? Sure.

I'm not trying to change your mind, why would I want to? Don't like it, move on. JUST BECAUSE IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN YOUR OPINION DOESN'T MEAN IT WASN'T A VIABLE OPTION TO PREVENT BEING LOCKED OUT IN YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED DOOMSDAY INTERNETLESS SCENARIO. See I can say dumb shit in all caps too!

You are the one trying to paint a simple check in as a doom and gloom scenario while conveniently leaving out facts that were there. Keep it up, you're doing a bang up job!

I have spectrum internet and it goes out about 1 day a month. While that isn't internetless world ending scenario, its enough for me to skip any device that requires an internet connection to play anything offline.

 

[MMaRsu]

No they weren't. It was a stupid idea then and its a stupid idea now.

 

[MajinSweet4]

I've tried to hear out reasons why Microsofts Always Online plan had any merit, but the same thing happens every single time. It's happened since Microsoft first announced it, it happened when Microsoft tried to defend it from the backlash, and it happens every time the topic comes up. It's happened in this thread as well. No one can ever name a single feature or advantage an "always online" console has. Not even a tiny niche feature, nothing. Son_of_Zardoz for example has said "A small, kb sized check in every week or so is fine with me and I would have had no issue with it at all for the benefits it provided. " without ever saying what any of these supposed benefits are. You'd think with how adamantly some people defend this, at some point people would roll out the list of great things this would bring us, but it never happens. Microsoft could only vaguely talk about the "Power of the Cloud" which doesn't make any sense at all. How does a console that will lock you out if you don't have a constant connection going to make Cloud technology better? Hell, the PS3 has Cloud features, it doesn't make any sense. And the great irony is how self defeating these arguments are. People love to say things like "everything is already always on, look at the PS4!". Doesn't that like...perfectly prove that all the Xbox One was doing was DRMing you? Would the PS4 be any different if it REQUIRED an Internet connection? Obviously not. It just baffles me that people will argue to the death of something that seems pretty clearly only designed to protect the company making the product. It doesn't do anything to serve the customer in the slightest.

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

I have spectrum internet and it goes out about 1 day a month. While that isn't internetless world ending scenario, its enough for me to skip any device that requires an internet connection to play anything offline.

And I don't see how anyone could knock you for not wanting to deal with it. I was simply telling him that the phone check in was a viable backup for outages.

Ugh, Spectrum--I am doomed to their service also. It has gotten better for me since I bought my own modem but hurts that I live just outside of a small town that built it's own fiber network before our lovely state legislature passed a law against it happening again (which also prevents them from expanding beyond city limits).

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

No one can ever name a single feature or advantage an "always online" console has.

Um, apparently you never read any of the threads back then because family sharing is a huuuuuge benefit that it would have allowed. I use the current, gimped version to share games with my oldest son and when his younger brothers get older it would be amazing to not be limited to the 2 licenses. Wasn't the original limit 5? I would call that an amazing benefit, especially to those with kids/multiple systems in the same household. How do you share one disc on multiple systems simultaneously?

Currently I pay $60 instead of $120 for us to play the same game together. When his brothers are older it would be $60 instead of $240. That's a pretty big fucking feature for you to gloss over because it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[MajinSweet4]

Um, apparently you never read any of the threads back then because family sharing is a huuuuuge benefit that it would have allowed. I use the current, gimped version to share games with my oldest son and when his younger brothers get older it would be amazing to not be limited to the 2 licenses. Wasn't the original limit 5? I would call that an amazing benefit, especially to those with kids/multiple systems in the same household. How do you share one disc on multiple systems simultaneously?

Why does that need a constant internet connection? Couldn't it just prevent you from using it if your online drops, like any other online feature? How does the whole console potentially getting locked down make this feature better? I mean, you can do it now on the current Xbox One? So does the constant check for an Internet connection upgrade that to 5 somehow? What? I really don't follow the logic here.

 

[Iggzy]

No and they've got rightfully punished for their shenanigans.

 

[Fox Mulder]

I have spectrum internet and it goes out about 1 day a month. While that isn't internetless world ending scenario, its enough for me to skip any device that requires an internet connection to play anything offline.

I was just without internet for a few days, but even the PS4 gets limited. I never watched a bluray or DVD in my new ps4 pro until I wanted to with no internet, I couldn't do it without connecting to the internet. I played Horizon Zero Dawn, but couldn't even look at the trophies without internet. GT Sport isn't worth playing without internet and you can't even buy cars.

Everything will only expect more internet connectivity going forward.

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

Why does that need a constant internet connection? Couldn't it just prevent you from using it if your online drops, like any other online feature? How does the whole console potentially getting locked down make this feature better? I mean, you can do it now on the current Xbox One? So does the constant check for an Internet connection upgrade that to 5 somehow? What? I really don't follow the logic here.

Do you not understand that a check in isn't a constant connection?

Or that we use the current form of this feature to play games together online so if the internet goes down there is no point.

Tell me how a shared library of digital games would work without some sort of verification.

 

[bitbydeath]

They weren't wrong, just too early.

Maybe in the next 50-100+ years the world will be ready... maybe

 

[Shuguy]

I feel like they wat they went about it was to aggressive. They pushed it on everyone before they were ready, and there were contradicting information depending on who you asked at Microsoft. Worst of all PlayStation didn't have to change anything. I feel like they are still paying the price with how bad the publicity was for the Xbox.

 

[MajinSweet4]

Do you not understand that a check in isn't a constant connection?

Or that we use the current form of this feature to play games together online so if the internet goes down there is no point.

Tell me how a shared library of digital games would work without some sort of verification.

So basically, you need a "check" to use online features. Wouldn't that "check" just be, being online to begin with? Like, I really don't understand any of the logic behind this. Like, you're telling me that you can't use online features without online, just like the PS4. The only thing that separates the Xbox One is that if you went too long without online that it would lock you out of things that don't require online. Do you not see how that's simply backwards? Like, think about how silly you sound when you say "verification". It's called just going online. Like, you have a library of digital games. Then imagine you have a section called "shared" that you've let other people use via an online connection. It that person doesn't have online, it doesn't let them play it. But they could still play single player games they own. The PS4 already has a system like this. This doesn't have anything to do with "Always On". So we're right back at the start of this.

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

So basically, you need a "check" to use online features. Wouldn't that "check" just be, being online to begin with? Like, I really don't understand any of the logic behind this. Like, you're telling me that you can't use online features without online, just like the PS4. The only thing that separates the Xbox One is that if you went too long without online that it would lock you out of things that don't require online. Do you not see how that's simply backwards? Like, think about how silly you sound when you say "verification". It's called just going online. Like, you have a library of digital games. Then imagine you have a section called "shared" that you've let other people use via an online connection. It that person doesn't have online, it doesn't let them play it. But they could still play single player games they own. The PS4 already has a system like this. This doesn't have anything to do with "Always On". So we're right back at the start of this.

YES HOLY SHIT YES, IF YOU PLAY GAMES ONLINE IT WOULD CHECK! And if you're not playing online it would still check. Why is that so evil? (The proposed system). How would you get digital games if you're so terrified of the internet to begin with? This is idiocy.

So you're saying the PS4 has a system where you can share a single copy of a game on 5 systems simutaneously? That's news to me.

 

[MajinSweet4]

YES HOLY SHIT YES, IF YOU PLAY GAMES ONLINE IT WOULD CHECK! And if you're not playing online it would still check. Why is that so evil? (The proposed system). How would you get digital games if you're so terrified of the internet to begin with?

So you're saying the PS4 has a system where you can share a single copy of a game on 5 systems simutaneously? That's news to me.

The PS4 limits you to 2 I believe. And now we're basically at square one again as you've totally missed the point. The fact that it's checking provides nothing to you as the consumer. Why would I want a console checking if I'm online even I'm not using online when it provides nothing for me? Super simple example, I often travel with my PS4, regularly going a week or so with no Internet connection. Why would I want to lose the ability to do that for nothing. This is really not complicated. Stop strawmanning like crazy with "terrified of the Internet" and other such nonsense. There is simply no reason for a console to potentially limit offline features because you don't have online. The check ins don't do anything for me, why would I want them? Like others have pointed out, you can still use apps on a phone without Internet, why would a console be any different?

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Do you not understand that a check in isn't a constant connection?

The usage of the term "always" does not actually mean "sometimes, maybe, and only occasionally".

If you'd like to discuss "sometimes online" maybe don't comment on an an article about "always online".

Or that we use the current form of this feature to play games together online so if the internet goes down there is no point.

Complete strawman argument. No one took issue with playing online-multiplayer games online.

People took issue with offline-capable games being otherwise unplayable unless there was an online connection. See: various Ubisoft and EA games over the past decade. Microsoft wasn't the only one to suffer negative press when attempting to implement these features so let's not pretend like it's simply due to some sort of "anti-Microsoft bias" or other such zealotry. Gamers have consistently spoken up and complained when any company implemented an online check or online-required feature for games with single-player modes. It wasn't acceptable for AssCreed or The Sims. Why would it be acceptable for an entire console?

Using online-multiplayer games to justify an always-online (or even occasional online check) system is asinine. It is the equivalent of using a motorboat to illustrate various techniques of safe motorcycle highway driving. YES HOLY SHIT YES, IF YOUR VEHICLE HAS A MOTOR THEN IT GOES ON THE HIGHWAY WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND?!

Tell me how a shared library of digital games would work without some sort of verification.

License Verification and always-online are two different things, which has already been explained in this thread.

But there is a real-world example of how this has worked: PS3. I could download games to multiple consoles just fine. There were limitations, but the fundamental system worked without requiring regular check-ins. GOG.com manages to be DRM-free and still turn a profit. If you'll allow a non-gaming example, the iTunes model would probably work too (you buy a license and then whatever you do with the song after that is up to you).

Even for the PS4 and the PS Vita (which do not allow any sort of account sharing), I could unplug my PS4 today and play the digital content I currently own until the capacitors in my system go pop, no online check-in required. In theory, a company could limit your digital library to a certain number of systems and otherwise let you do as you please.

"Always online" and "digital ownership" are two different issues. Microsoft would love for consumers to believe they are inextricably tied together. They aren't. If you consider using your digital content how you want to be an "advantage" of an always-online system, then you have already resigned yourself to the notion that you have no rights over those purchases.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Conference or not what killed Xbox this gen was mom heading into the store to buy their kids a new toy for Xmas and see $499 vs $399.

Plus they are still wrong because my nephews live in the country of our county and from their house can literally see 1 gig fiber but their internet is still metered DSL their only option besides terrible satellite they have tried.

 

[Fox Mulder]

The PS4 limits you to 2 I believe.

It's not really digital sharing though. If I wanted to share ps4 games with my brother on his ps4, my profile must login on his console and be changed to primary, meaning I lose access to my games offline.

 

[MajinSweet4]

It's not really digital sharing though. If I wanted to share ps4 games with my brother on his ps4, my profile must login on his console and be changed to primary, meaning I lose access to my games offline.

Isn't that how any "digital share" would work? You have to be online to use it effectively? Either way, that's a separate topic entirely.

 

[TheMikado]

They were definitely wrong in 2013, but 2019-2020 is the tipping point.
There will generally be physical media but optical drives have one foot in the grave at this point.

Its time to face facts. Data, its ownership, and transport as we know it is changing dramatically.

 

[Barakov]

1000% wrong. It was decision they are still paying for. Always online is flat out just a bad idea. MS put up quite a barrier for people to enjoy the X1 and Sony didn't for the PS4. That's the difference maker right there.

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

Isn't that how any "digital share" would work? You have to be online to use it effectively? Either way, that's a separate topic entirely.

Good god, no it is not--that is family sharing, exactly what I am talking about. SHARING ONE GAME WITH UP TO FIVE LICENSES SIMULTANEOUSLY. Like you said <paraphrasing> you play online and it checks <end paraphrase>. But it also has to check when you aren't actively playing because if not how would they limit the amount of people you share it with? Why is the concept so hard to grasp?

 

[cubicle47b]

There's a difference between a lot of popular games being multiplayer titles and having to connect once a day to the internet for your system to continue working. Microsoft was wrong then and I think they'd see the same kind of backlash if they tried it with their next system.

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

Wait. You're telling me that Daddy Microsoft would have allowed me to use my cellphone to protect myself from getting locked out of their my games?

Oh me oh my! What a feature!

And to be fair, the reason why I say you are "not understanding" it is due to you bringing up completely unrelated aspects of technology. And you keep doing it over and over again (similar to how Microsoft tried to gloss over the details).

Statements like "what's wrong with a few kb check-in every few days?" when trying to argue in favor of "always online" demonstrates that you do not grasp the very words you are choosing to type.

Always.

Not "daily". Not "weekly". Always.

So why in the world would any literate person confuse "check-in once in a while" with the word "always" when they are clearly two completely different concepts (both grammatically and technologically)? Why in the world would this person confuse them over and over again, obstinately, insisting that they are the same and yet completely different (when it suits their faulty-from-the-start argument).

Nice, I see you edited out your BUT MS SELLS YOUR DATA TO ADVERTISERS garbage. MS said that you could play your games without being online so long as you still allowed a check in during the 24hrs or whatever the timeframe was. WHERE EVEN IF YOUR INTERNET WAS DOWN YOU COULD STILL CHECK IN WITH YOUR PHONE. Then again, that must be hard to understand from the guy who doesn't understand the definition of the word bias.

 

[MajinSweet4]

Good god, no it is not--that is family sharing, exactly what I am talking about. SHARING ONE GAME WITH UP TO FIVE LICENSES SIMULTANEOUSLY. Like you said <paraphrasing> you play online and it checks. But it also has to check when you aren't actively playing because if not how would they limit the amount of people you share it with? Why is the concept so hard to grasp?

Even if this was true and there was literally no other way to do this without the console constantly checking if your online, why does it need to lock me out of offline features if I'm not online. Why doesn't Apple advertise a new Iphone that disables your calculator app if you lose signal? You constantly avoid this very obvious point no matter how many times it's brought up. And to get into the "how can it track without Always Online". Every time you share a game it sends that data to a server. So Microsoft or whoever will always have data telling them how many times you've shared, and to who, without even needing you to be online. Because obviously, you have to be online every time you share, and every time you share, it tracks that data. Again, that's license verification, it's been around without Always Online.

 

[deriks]

So right that Phil Spencer still is trying to fix shit from past

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

Even if this was true and there was literally no other way to do this without the console constantly checking if your online, why does it need to lock me out of offline features if I'm not online. Why doesn't Apple advertise a new Iphone that disables your calculator app if you lose signal? You constantly avoid this very obvious point no matter how many times it's brought up. And to get into the "how can it track without Always Online". Every time you share a game it sends that data to a server. So Microsoft or whoever will always have data telling them how many times you've shared, and to who, without even needing you to be online. Because obviously, you have to be online every time you share, and every time you share, it tracks that data. Again, that's license verification, it's been around without Always Online.

You could play offline between check ins so I don't even know where the "console shuts down the second the internet is disconnected" crap comes from. You and the "I hate MS but I'm not biased" guy don't want to accept that. Ugh.

 

[cubicle47b]

I can't wait for the follow-up video, "Was bundling the Xbox One with the Kinect actually a good idea?" Maybe one about how Playstation 4 system updates and game patching after not turning the console on for a couple months is in no way demoralizing and how great the Dual Shock 4's battery is.

 

[DryvBy]

Nope, It was wrong.

And we're done here.

 

[MajinSweet4]

You could play offline between check ins so I don't even know where the "console shuts down the second the internet is disconnected" crap comes from. You and the "I hate MS but I'm not biased" guy don't want to accept that. Ugh.

We'll go over this one last time. Why would I accept any sort of check ins. Why would I want to buy something that requires a check in? My Cell Phone doesn't require a check in why would I want a console that does? You're argument is "this isn't as bad as you think!" When I buy something, I want something good, not something only slightly terrible. This is what my very first post was about. Quite frankly, your argument is nonsensical. It doesn't actually say anything about why Microsoft was right. Which is the whole basis of this. It only serves to say "hey guys, we could bear with it right? I mean, it would only kind of suck!"

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Nice, I see you edited out your BUT MS SELLS YOUR DATA TO ADVERTISERS garbage.

Um, what? It's on the previous page:

In light of the data breaches and the selling of your personal data to advertisers (something Microsoft is actively engaged in and has been engaged in for the last 15 years), why would you openly accept such a proposal from that company?

Seriously. You're having a meltdown.

MS said that you could play your games without being online so long as you still allowed a check in during the 24hrs or whatever the timeframe was. WHERE EVEN IF YOUR INTERNET WAS DOWN YOU COULD STILL CHECK IN WITH YOUR PHONE. Then again, that must be hard to understand from the guy who doesn't understand the definition of the word bias.

I shouldn't need permission to play the games I bought. End of story.

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

We'll go over this one last time. Why would I accept any sort of check ins. Why would I want to buy something that requires a check in? My Cell Phone doesn't require a check in why would I want a console that does? You're argument is "this isn't as bad as you think!" When I buy something, I want something good, not something only slightly terrible. This is what my very first post was about. Quite frankly, your argument is nonsensical. It doesn't actually say anything about why Microsoft was right. Which is the whole basis of this. It only serves to say "hey guys, we could bear with it right? I mean, it would only kind of suck!"

No one's asking you to. Don't like it, don't fucking buy it. Complain about check ins while playing (or at least having your console) online everyday. Knock yourself out, I'm not trying to change your mind. The problem is you asked for a benefit and I provided one but you apparently can't understand the concept of family sharing.

 

[Gormless Noodle]

People say that conference destroyed the Xbox this gen, but 90% of X1 and PS4 owners are completely unaware of that conference and have no idea who Don Mattrick is, right?

Most people won't outside the hardcore, yeah. But those are exactly the people that provide you with your initial momentum going into a new gen, not just by sales but also by word of mouth. Unless you have an instantaneous hook for the masses like the Wii did, you'll be in for a rough time if you don't keep your base happy to some extent.

 

[Son_of_Zardoz]

Um, what? It's on the previous page:



Seriously. You're having a meltdown.


I shouldn't need permission to play the games I bought. End of story.

No, it's called being on a work machine that is a piece of junk. So you hate MS, I would reasonably presume don't have/want an Xbox, so why is this such a big problem for you?

And yes, I am having an absolute, overblown meltdown says the guy who hates MS and posts in their threads adding nothing to the conversation. MS had a terrible e3 when they unveiled this and completely butchered the messaging but the core idea is sound, just look at Steam. Oh that's right you already whined about it too.

 

[MajinSweet4]

No one's asking you to. Don't like it, don't fucking buy it. Complain about check ins while playing (or at least having your console) online everyday. Knock yourself out, I'm not trying to change your mind. The problem is you asked for a benefit and I provided one but you apparently can't understand the concept of family sharing.

But you said Xbox One currently has family sharing. But then you say Family sharing requires online checks that the Xbox One doesn't have? I asked follow up questions about this and you never elaborated. Like, without check ins they can track ONLY 2 people, but they can track more with checks? That doesn't make any sense. To be perfectly honest with you, I don't think you have any idea how this stuff works or how family sharing requires constant Internet checks to be possible. And hell, I'll be honest, I'm not an expert on it either, so I won't say I know for a fact. But like I said earlier, family sharing should be possible with license authentication that's already been done for years. It just seems like your trying to latch on to anything to defend something that clearly wasn't implemented for your sake. And to me that's just...weird.