Posted 8:58pm on Wed 19 June 2013
- Posts: 9,521
I think many people would rejoice at the news but I would find it a sign of weakness however according to what hifi that is precisely what they have decided to do.
Does this change things?
Posted 9:12pm on Wed 19 June 2013
- Posts: 2,802
I doubt this is true. Microsoft would be foolish just to turn around on everything they've planned and said just because of the vocal internet. Especially considering they haven't even released the machine yet. They've put way to much money into this machine to turn around now.
I don't know how the PR team would even begin to try turn things around. People are still misinformed and confused about the original plans for the XB1, so changing things now would be a nightmare.
Posted 9:17pm on Wed 19 June 2013
- Posts: 4,338
Changing it wouldn't be the problem I dont think.
If they go through with a full or partial retraction though, what it does say is that Microsoft is a pushover. I doubt whether anyone would think "aha! they listened to us! isn't that great!? consumer powah!" No I think the response is more likely to be along the lines of "See, it's not as big a deal as they make out, or they'd have stuck to their guns" or "they caved under pressure" "We won, you suck!" etc.
I still cant afford one
Posted 9:23pm on Wed 19 June 2013
- Posts: 9,521
Last comment made me giggle I'm the same.
Posted 9:34pm on Wed 19 June 2013
- Posts: 891
no matter what happens, one thing is certain.... i can't afford one
Posted 10:37pm on Wed 19 June 2013
Posted 10:53pm on Wed 19 June 2013
- Posts: 7,260
It's a massive consumer victory, no doubt about it. Quite the turnaround from MS, who have had to do something. But, it somewhat causes one to question the reason we were given as to how "Always online" was to our benefit if they are able to patch it out so easily.
NEVER forget the crap they tried to pull with this. Going back to the abuser because he said he would stop abusing is not always the smartest move.
Posted 10:57pm on Wed 19 June 2013
- Posts: 9,521
Really sad about this it was the shake up the industry needed and maybe they tried to do it all too quickly. The always online was a requirement for the DRM licensing so if no DRM is required they can remove that part of the OS and therefore no always online needed. Although most games will require a connection to play as this is the way things are going so always online was a mute point. Sad Sad Times!!
Posted 11:12pm on Wed 19 June 2013
- Posts: 6
I guess this is for the better for Sony. Now they don't have the complete out of park homerun, which will avoid them the problem of lack-of-need-to-push-boundaries-so-we-make-the-same-product-until-nobody-will-buy-it-anymore like we're kind of seeing with apple's iOS devices.
Posted 12:04am on Thu 20 June 2013
- Posts: 319
Right, firstly I'd like to apologise if anyone has thought I've been aggressive or rude in the past few posts.
What I would like to ask is if, for a moment, we could try to put any emotions to one side, put our thinking caps on and look over what facts we actually do have and see if this change in policy is really going to negatively affect the games.
So the big question is straight forward. With the 'always online' requirement gone, have they sacrificed the creativity and vision of developers or in any way limited what can be done in the games?
After all, they have spent most of the time since E3 heavily emphasising the benefits of the cloud and how the console will use it in ways that just wouldn't be possible if the console wasn't online.
That if it wasn't for the DRM, these things just wouldn't be possible.
Well before that, let's delve a little more deeply into what that 24 hour check actually was.
The 24 hour check was, despite some confusion, put on record almost immediately after the console reveal event... although like many things it was some time before it was all in writing.
So what was the check which formed the basis of the console always being 'online'?
Well, we've been told it was basically just an authentication check. To ensure that the console and the user profiles were entitled to play the games on that system.
ie, to ensure the licenses had not been sold/transferred.
We have it clearly stated that this file was tiny, just a couple of KB, and were told that if internet connectivity was a problem, we could easily tether the console to our smart phones once every 24 hours.
Costing our data plans little more than what it takes to make a couple of tweets.
So then, what did the 24 hour check that formed the basis of being 'always online' have to do with the actual gaming experience?
The cloud or persistent worlds?
Absolutely zip. It was nothing more than an authentication check, which is now gone.
When it comes to actually playing the games, what have we lost?
If the console could be quite happily played offline with the exception of an authentication check every 24 hours, then it would seem rather clear that while the Cloud offers a lot of additional benefits, it was already the case before this announcement today that it was not a fundamental requirement and it is not something the console used in the way we might have imagined.
Whether the console is offline or switched off, your driveatar can still be learning and racing against other people in the Cloud.
The Cloud does not stop because you have turned the console off nor if you have lost your internet connection for a few days.
So what benefits is the Cloud really going to bring?
Well, I think it's best to say enhancements.
Perhaps an analogy would be when you buy certain PC games that are 'enhanced' to work better with certain graphics or sound cards.
For some games, it's going to be fundamental to the experience and I don't think this very slight change of stance is going to affect them at all.
Now that the foundations are there, more games will be prepared to take the MMO style step of truly requiring Xbox Live.
Something that very few, like Final Fantasy XI, were prepared to do on the Xbox 360 (which I believe required its own subscription?).
So really, it's still early days.
It would seem rather premature to think that Microsoft have just sacrificed the consoles gaming potential, or tied the hands of what developers can do, by essentially removing the consoles requirement to send and receive a tiny key file of data, that may well be smaller than the content of this text post, once every 24 hours.