theApoc said:
Who said it required always online. What I said was that a constant connection allows for updates at any time.
Fair enough.
Of course, the same could be said of a system that doesn't mandate a constant connection, but just makes use of one when detected.
So yeah, it works just like any other connected device. You and Jim are claiming that wanting a constant connection implies malice towards the customer from MS. That is complete BS. They stated why they wanted this in the device. You can ignore their reasons all you like. Replacing those reasons with the implication that they are anti-consumer is just silly.
When a new product comes with even more unnecessary restrictions than the last (all of which are to the producer's benefit), that's textbook anti-consumer behavior. There was no good reason for the always-online killswitch for gaming, and it only makes sense to mandate one purely for their benefit at our expense.
Why? Because it takes MORE EFFORT to create that restriction than it does to omit it.
They were clearly banking on getting some added monetize-able benefit out of doing so, otherwise it doesn't make sense because if there is any one thing companies hate as much as reduced revenue, it's rising costs.
So tell me, why would Microsoft spend more money on developing a function that only serves to limit consumer utility if their intention WASN'T making money on anti-consumer bullshit?
It's one thing to assume there's no intention of questionable behavior, it's another to blatantly ignore evidence of questionable behavior right in front of you while doing it (and you then accuse others of tunnel vision; such irony).
Even if we go the purely neutral route, and assume no anti-consumer intentions from Microsoft, the loss of conveniences caused by always online (convenience that DEFINES dedicated game consoles) was still a big negative for that market.
What? You think that the
XBONE isn't a games console or that the gaming function isn't significant?
I think I'll address that in a bit, and you will see how silly that notion is, "Word of God" from M$ or not.
Nope. But they can pre-load updates, DLC, new games, features, media... Any number of things. Thus by default it is a faster means of distribution, especially if the apply said updates in the background or on off hours.
That's just pre-packaging updates. Anyone can do that; hell everyone already DOES that. Even for shit I don't want or need (it's why I have to tell Adobe I don't want the McAfee bundle or Ask.com to fuck off every time I update Flash).
It in no way makes the actual delivery method faster; at best it gets lucky with its assumptions and you end up using the content.
More to the point, it's not an implicit benefit to MANDATE always online when you can program software to detect when a connection is up/down and tell it to do its thing then. Windows Update does this innately, and I've trained Steam, GR3 and a myriad of other software packages to do the same with task scheduling. (fucking MALWARE has been programmed to do that for decades now)
So what you are saying is that MS is bad because they want to make those things a reality? Because you realize that there stated intent of "cloud" usage was pretty much all of the above. So shame on them for trying something new?
There's one big flaw in your argument: Innovation purely for its own sake (or more accurately, for marketing) is not inherently good.
Innovation is certainly not good when it can be far more easily used to impose limitations or concessions than benefits.
See below.
So there is no benefit to a massive network of machines sharing processing load? None whatsoever? This was all about MS trying to screw the customer?
Begging the question will not change anything.
I've explained in detail why games would not benefit much if at all from cloud computing.
But I will add that's especially relevant when the broadband internet in the US (the largest market for
XBONE) is locked in oligopoly. An oligopoly that has gone out of its way to stifle the necessary fiber optic infrastructure development to even make significant cloud boosting for games viable. (you need ridiculously low AVERAGE latency with few to no spikes)
I would hope that Microsoft, being the tech behemoth it is, who has a stake in the Internet business, who is owned and operated in the same country as the aforementioned oligopoly, and who needs an INCREDIBLE internet backbone just to deploy that big ass cloud network, would know about that situation.
And yet they pitched the cloud as if it were viable for boosting anyway even though only a tiny minority of their market could even dream to make use of it (the same folks who could probably afford an all-in-one media monster PC with top grade gaming hardware anyway).
Knowing that, from Microsoft's point of view, it makes far more sense to use the cloud as a cheap (relative to the cost per user for processing), extensible always-online DRM manager than a way of boosting end user system power.
Why? Because it all but kills piracy on their system, enables absolute monitoring of user activity, and gets them in good with the more iron-fisted sort of AAA publishers which leads to more business and royalty opportunities.
The only thing holding them back is selling it to the public.
And in the end, the public's response numbers pressured Microsoft to abandon that model.
Whatever, always online was not a way to screw the customer. You may not agree with it, but you have no proof..
The proof lies in the negative balance always online requires.
Why not give the consumer the option of added convenience where it can be implemented as circumstances allow?
Why mandate a constant connection for features that do not require it?
Because other features might need it at times? Well, that's just shit logic.
Imagine if someone designed a car with the following feature:
"You cannot open the doors unless there is at least 1 gallon/liter of gas in the tank."
Under the assumption that nobody would EVER need to get inside their car unless they were going to drive it; and to drive it, you obviously need fuel.
That is also anti-consumer, because it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the market's needs at best, or outright contempt for them at worst.
Yup. See you forget that a big push on the XBOX ONE was its use as a media center, so much so that the focus of their presentation last year was on those features, a big one at the time being, replacing a cable box.
I "forgot" it because it's fucking ridiculous.
First, who the hell spends 500 dollars on a cable box?
Second, who the hell packs gaming grade hardware into a cable box?
Now call me crazy, but if I were a spokesman for a big corporation, and if my corporation just spent upwards of 1.5 billion dollars specifically on developing a gaming grade GPU and chipset for my new product, I would feel pretty motivated to emphasize the gaming function. I would certainly emphasize it more than "You can play movies and watch TV!"
You can downplay the gaming aspect of the Xbox brand all you want but the fact of the matter is that if you weren't buying it for the gaming capability, YOU'RE WASTING A LOT OF MONEY. Anyone could easily get all the non-gaming features for a THIRD of the asking price. Decent cable boxes run about 60 bucks on average, blu-ray players for 30.
A smart TV with a tuner is about 250 (and falling each year). So even if you outright splurge on a new TV kit, you're still spending 150 bucks less than an
XBONE.
And with games?
The PS4 is currently outselling the
XBONE by a factor of 3. Nuff said.
(yes, I see you using CAPS to remind me of the actual name; and it's for that reason I keep using
XBONE. Deal with it.)
When they realized that people weren't getting it, or that people weren't associating the device with that type of service. They changed their tune, and that is not anti-consumer.
That point I can agree with. And thank God the market demonstrated they had something resembling a spine for once, because I really do not want to see an always-online hell become the industry standard. Not when I know we can do better.
I have two devices in my living room. A 360 and my sound system. I don't need anything else. THAT is what they were going for. The average home is not quite there yet, but trust me, they will be...
Oho, no! No no no no NO they fucking won't! The cable companies are making sure of that.
But even beyond that, nobody should ever be "ready" for Always Online, because it provides no benefit that a smarter system with failsafes can't and you know it.
theApoc said:
No, I do not need to be online to play my 360. But I would need to be online to get my save games if using the cloud was more convenient for me. I would need to be online to get any DLC. I would need to be online to compete with my friends. There is actually less of an argument for being offline with a device such as this than there is for being always online.
And there is always more an argument for there being offline failsafes for functions that don't need to be online than mandating the whole thing always be online. See that "always" in "always online" implies it isn't optional but mandatory.
I, like anyone who can distinguish based on important details, make a distinction between Always Online, Offline, and Partially Online. The third option is the best of the lot, because it retains maximum utility at no loss.
In light of all this, I find it questionable why you deliberately ignore and hand wave all the evidence (practical and theoretical) about why Always Online is largely problematic, and something to avoid where possible.
If I had to guess, I'd say you're a Microsoft employee, because NOBODY I've ever met, worked for or know in reality acts or thinks like you do about always online.
The best defense you've ever come up with for the
XBONE since this whole debacle started amounts to
"It doesn't effect me because I prefer always online, and everyone has internet anyway.".
Which doesn't address anything, but merely dodges the issue entirely by hiding behind the shield of subjectivity.
It's strawman bullshit, and it's high time someone called you out on it.