Jimquisition: The Xbox One: A Lying Failure Machine

theApoc

New member
Oct 17, 2008
252
0
0
Rainbow_Dashtruction said:
Really? Because I've NEVER played a single player game which told me I had to use an internet connection to play it outside of Diablo 3 and Simcity. I'd only have to be online if it gave me some benefit, or allowed me to play an online mode.

Secondly, I DO have an online connection, outside Dark Souls 2 (and Dark Souls1), I think the last time I played a game and it told me I needed a connection to play or enjoy the majority of it was 14 months ago with Persona 4 Arena. I rarely touch online modes. For good reason. Most are standard boring deathmatch games which essentially become playing the same game over and over again because they have no intelligence behind the game. Its why I stopped playing AC multiplayer after Brotherhood, because it started focusing on the completely awful deathmatch mode which added nothing to the game and generally got boring in 15 seconds.
So what you are saying, in a nutshell, is that since YOU don't "need" the multiplayer aspect of always online, or needing to be online for the FULL game experience, then a company incorporating that into their system is definitely some sort of anti-consumer thing. Um, ok.


If I had required an online connection for many of the fantastic single player games that are still constantly released, when my internet fails quite a bit, I'd have been god damn furious.
Do you get furious at netflix or hulu or youTube when the net is down and you are missing content? Point being, there are pros and cons to connected media. Listing all of the cons and ignoring the benefits does not make it a bad thing, it just means you like to complain about something that should have always been a non issue, just like Jim.


What you have failed to argue, is my entire point. What benefit do I get from requiring a constant connection? Disk-less gameplay on a console? Couldn't care less. More multiplayer games coming out which are awful since I can count on my fingers a list of multiplayer games worth playing, many of which are for PC only? Constant connectivity with my 'friends'? Theres a reason I keep notifications turned off when I play on console. People are annoying. I tend to avoid them when its not on PC and being less annoying is actually possible.

What I don't understand is why I NEED constant connectivity. Which I never did. I simply never did. And the Xbox One never proved any reason at all why I need connectivity to enjoy my games. Especially since most great games that are released nowadays are single player focused.
You are missing the point. Requiring a constant connection, for any one of the reasons YOU just mentioned is a valid strategy in the current market. REGARDLESS of whether or not the consumer is ready for such a strategy, THAT in and of itself does not make it "anti-consumer". AND regardless of anything else, they removed the feature so you and Jim are complaining about something that never actually happened. At least not in the orwellian way you are making it out.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
theApoc said:
Do you get furious at netflix or hulu or youTube when the net is down and you are missing content? Point being, there are pros and cons to connected media. Listing all of the cons and ignoring the benefits does not make it a bad thing, it just means you like to complain about something that should have always been a non issue...
The context you're refuting specifies single player games.

Furthermore, you have yet to actually provide a firm answer to why should these games should require an always online connection, so arguing "you're just ignoring the pros" in this instance is awfully presumptuous...and false, since a single player game doesn't need a constant internet to function once installed.

Which means in this context, there is no "Pro" to consider for always online. (partially online yes, but not always online)
Making your comparison to online streaming services a big ol strawman.
 

GonzoGamer

New member
Apr 9, 2008
7,063
0
0
Rainbow_Dashtruction said:
GonzoGamer said:
Rainbow_Dashtruction said:
The 360 has about a 20% failure rate, not 50%. Some people are just super unlucky.
Is that what it is Now? Because I remember them taking years to fix the problem and around the time they fixed the thing, it was determined that it had a 50% defect rate. I think I read the article here in fact; can't imagine where else.

Granted it's not like your buying GM (a RROD 360 never killed anyone), but regardless of what the actual percentage was, they let that crap go on for way too long.
50% failure rate is a lot harder to bullshit an article about when most devices have a 5% failure rate max. I'll agree its still bullshit tho. What I found hilarious was people bitching that they bought 5 Xbox 360s after they kept breaking. After the second time I'd just throw in the towel and get a PS3 like a normal person.
Yea, those are the people who compelled MS to perform their suicide stunt at last years E3. That was brutal. But at the same time, so many people did keep buying 360s, I'm surprised MS backpedaled on so much. I bet that if they stuck to their guns and not changed a thing from the infamous e3 announcement, the XBone's sales figures wouldn't be that much lower...at this point in time.

It was probably just 50% for a week at the peak of the problem (I always hoped that someone was being creative with that figure) but however someone BSed that figure, it's still high.
Yea, I had a friend who bought an extra one for while his was being fixed.
 

COMaestro

Vae Victis!
May 24, 2010
739
0
0
theApoc said:
Do you get furious at netflix or hulu or youTube when the net is down and you are missing content? Point being, there are pros and cons to connected media. Listing all of the cons and ignoring the benefits does not make it a bad thing, it just means you like to complain about something that should have always been a non issue, just like Jim.
Netflix and Hulu are services that you choose to pay for, knowing that they require an internet connection to work. Same with YouTube, though you don't need to pay for it. If the net is down, I don't get upset with them, I get upset with my ISP. But for a console, I have a physical disc which contains the game I want to play. With the original idea, if my Xbox One was not able to call home at least once a day, my disc, which I paid for and own, is worthless because the console would refuse to play anything. This provides 0 benefit to the consumer, so how can you possibly argue that it is not anti-consumer? It's one reason why many people chose not to pay for an Xbox One.

You are missing the point. Requiring a constant connection, for any one of the reasons YOU just mentioned is a valid strategy in the current market. REGARDLESS of whether or not the consumer is ready for such a strategy, THAT in and of itself does not make it "anti-consumer". AND regardless of anything else, they removed the feature so you and Jim are complaining about something that never actually happened. At least not in the orwellian way you are making it out.
A strategy that only includes a benefit for the corporation and none at all for the consumer is anti-consumer. That's all there is to it. The consumer should NEVER be ready for such a strategy, and thankfully enough people voted with their wallets and Microsoft backpedaled.

The fact that this "feature" was removed does not change the fact that MS had designed it and planned to implement it and it was only for their benefit, to ensure that no Xbox One was harboring pirated software, and to record how often people were using their console and for what. Requiring the console to check in with home every 24 hours or it would disable virtually all features was no benefit to the consumer at all, and companies need to be reminded that consumers won't put up with shit like that or they'll try it again. That's why we continue to complain about it and why we refuse to laud MS for their backpedaling.
 

theApoc

New member
Oct 17, 2008
252
0
0
COMaestro said:
Netflix and Hulu are services that you choose to pay for, knowing that they require an internet connection to work. Same with YouTube, though you don't need to pay for it. If the net is down, I don't get upset with them, I get upset with my ISP. But for a console, I have a physical disc which contains the game I want to play. With the original idea, if my Xbox One was not able to call home at least once a day, my disc, which I paid for and own, is worthless because the console would refuse to play anything. This provides 0 benefit to the consumer, so how can you possibly argue that it is not anti-consumer? It's one reason why many people chose not to pay for an Xbox One.
You do not "own" the game you bought. You "own" a license to play it. The disc is a physical license to play the game. If you sell the disc, you have sold the license. Same thing with a DVD, you don't "own" that movie(you are not legally allowed to copy it and sell the originals or the copies), you are licensed to watch it. Yes a constant connection allows for tighter control over content, but it also allows for greater consumer access to said content. So to claim there is "0 benefit to the customer" is wrong.

A strategy that only includes a benefit for the corporation and none at all for the consumer is anti-consumer. That's all there is to it. The consumer should NEVER be ready for such a strategy, and thankfully enough people voted with their wallets and Microsoft backpedaled.

The fact that this "feature" was removed does not change the fact that MS had designed it and planned to implement it and it was only for their benefit, to ensure that no Xbox One was harboring pirated software, and to record how often people were using their console and for what. Requiring the console to check in with home every 24 hours or it would disable virtually all features was no benefit to the consumer at all, and companies need to be reminded that consumers won't put up with shit like that or they'll try it again. That's why we continue to complain about it and why we refuse to laud MS for their backpedaling.
Again, you are ignoring the actual benefits to suit your argument. Unobtrusive updates, faster digital distribution, cloud services... Those are not worthless to customers, no matter how much you disagree with the always on-line policy. No it is not necessary for those features, but claiming the ONLY reason MS wanted this feature on the device was to screw the consumer has no basis in fact. Sorry.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
theApoc said:
Unobtrusive updates, faster digital distribution, cloud services...
Those are not worthless to customers, no matter how much you disagree with the always on-line policy.
Well prepare to be debunked, again.

*"Unobtrusive updates"
I get those through Steam already (anyone can) and it doesn't require Always Online.
(partially online, yes, but not always online)

A fact you've repeatedly ignored. Probably because you cannot refute it.
Not that I require a reply; the truth is more a benefit to the reasoned than the dishonest.

*"Faster digital distribution"
How does requiring a constant connection increase throughput speed?
Does Microsoft have a team of literal networking Wizards? Does their internet backbone run through Hogwarts?
My internet connection doesn't get faster the longer I leave it on, and neither does yours.

The only ways to make digital distribution faster is either by better data scheduling (which is just better back-end efficiency) or through better raw network speeds.

Always online as a model implicitly offers NEITHER.

*"Cloud services"*
Well, that's just nebulous.
That could potentially include anything related to the network (or even internet).
For the sake of brevity, I'm confining it to the pre-180 XBONE pitch features:

-Social media functions/Streaming services
These aren't implicit benefits of the cloud, but Microsoft could technically host any proprietary service off their cloud.
In any case, their existence does not define all the functions of a game console (or whatever you choose to call it; it makes no difference) and therefore is not proof that an always-online requirement is a strict benefit.

-Cloud processing power
Ah yes, the so-called "future proofing" feature.
The short version: It's completely impractical due to insane technical requirements.

Cloud processing functions fine for other software with long rounds of number crunching, but the thing there, is that such crunching isn't what we in the networking business call "timely". That is, the program won't suffer functionality loss if the answer isn't delivered in a very short time, so long as it is eventually delivered.

But most video games (any that could actually use the processing boost) are not only "timely", they're easily the most timely programs around.

How timely?
Just for running a typical game at 60 FPS, would require a network latency of less than 16 milliseconds (1/60 seconds = 16 milliseconds).

Most of a typical game's processing load is in raw graphical data, and it's usually done on a per-frame basis (which is why previous-gen games were capped at around 30FPS). While cloud computing could improve other lines of code, none of them are significant to the point where it would show noticeable improvement.

Now, 16 milliseconds is REALLY DAMN GOOD latency under normal online conditions; that's close to typical LAN speed.
For most online games, 16ms is seamless.

Keep in mind: 16ms is the ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM allotment of delay from all sources totaled.

Meaning, the XBONE has to send a relatively large wad of pre-processing graphical data to the server, wait for it to get crunched and sent back it in less than that time. On a local processor, 16 milliseconds is plenty of time (most delays are measured in nano-seconds at that level, 3 orders magnitude smaller).

But on a network connection? That's not overnight delivery, but "in 15-minutes-or-it's-free".

Right now, cloud-processing boosts just aren't going to work on the average broadband connection. Or more accurately, where used they won't contribute anything significant.

MAYBE somewhere like South Korea where every household has incredible throughput on an all-fiber network, but definitely not the bulk of the gaming mass-market.

-Data backup
This is the only cloud function that actually provides a direct benefit to gamers...only Steam offers cloud saves and backup as well, and once again, doesn't require Always Online for the rest of the system either.

I'll just sum up the main problem with your arguments (all of them in this thread really):
You can argue the benefits and convenience offered by Always Online til' you're blue in the face.
(and this assumes you're being honest; something that I have silently questioned often in this thread)

But the fact is that partially-online design offers access to all the same conveniences and benefits you tout without sacrificing any functionality to the user. Because it's just the same system with logical failsafes and options the consumer can tailor to their situation.

Therefore, it's just flat out the better system. Yet, Microsoft tried to offer an always online system with main features that shouldn't require a constant connection in spite of that fact; and that behavior is not only questionable, but anti-consumer (whether intentional or not).

The most obvious answer (and only real logical one; discounting mind-bending stupidity; I'd like to think a company as powerful as Microsoft isn't quite that stupid), is that the system was changed from its previous offering strictly for their benefit.

They tried to pitch it, the market revolted (more than just the few whiny videos like Jim Sterling's; pre-order numbers speak louder than words to companies as big as Microsoft).
 

theApoc

New member
Oct 17, 2008
252
0
0
Atmos Duality said:
theApoc said:
Do you get furious at netflix or hulu or youTube when the net is down and you are missing content? Point being, there are pros and cons to connected media. Listing all of the cons and ignoring the benefits does not make it a bad thing, it just means you like to complain about something that should have always been a non issue...
The context you're refuting specifies single player games.

Furthermore, you have yet to actually provide a firm answer to why should these games should require an always online connection, so arguing "you're just ignoring the pros" in this instance is awfully presumptuous...and false, since a single player game doesn't need a constant internet to function once installed.

Which means in this context, there is no "Pro" to consider for always online. (partially online yes, but not always online)
Making your comparison to online streaming services a big ol strawman.
Since MS wanted to incorporate "the cloud" into gaming, presumably for a streaming service similar to PlaystationNow. And with the stated intent of using "the cloud" to offload processing allowing for a richer experience. The reasons as to why they wanted always online, are clear, stated, AND being ignored by you to further your point.

My contention was that Jim was full of crap claiming MS was anti-consumer, simply because they had some things planned that the consumers didn't "get". I stand by that contention. Regardless of what YOU agree with, their stated intentions make sense, do not screw the user needlessly and honestly operate in much the same way as any 360 does today.

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 regardless of ANY of that. THEY TOLD YOU UP FRONT AND NO ONE FORCED ANYONE TO UPGRADE. I know for a FACT that I have not upgraded to an XBOX ONE for one reason and one reason only. The games I play are still available for the 360 and there is nothing new driving me to the new console. In 2 years when the 360 is truly legacy, we will see that the XBOX ONE is doing just fine in terms of sales. Just like the PS4.
 

theApoc

New member
Oct 17, 2008
252
0
0
Rainbow_Dashtruction said:
Ok so you are saying that every game that comes out has a worthwhile multiplayer aspect that is the focus of the game? No, I do believe thats a stupid fucking line.
No I am saying that multiplayer and DLC are aspects of games that REQUIRE an online connection. Neither of which has anything to do with MS.

Secondly, why do I NEED internet to connect to a single player game when it gives me NO benefit. You are doing exactly what you say except backwards. Ignoring all the flaws and only praising the positives.
Because that is how they designed the device. No one forced anyone to buy it. The constant back and forth between the XBOX ONE and the network shares the same benefits with any other device that is always connected. Everything from updates, social networking. Saying there is "NO benefit" to such a thing is silly.

Thirdly, no, I don't mind when those services don't work without internet, because they couldn't work without internet. A single player game can work without internet, and theres no argument against that.
A single player game could work without the internet. And for a lot of them, you would not be getting 100% of the game if that were your choice. Paying for less than 100% of something seems silly, and is also irrelevant. Since MS was straight up about the requirements from day one. And beyond that, the PS4 is NO different. For 100% functionality you need an internet connection. Most games are designed that way, and that has nothing to do with MS or Sony.

Fourthly, you seem to be saying I don't think theres any benefit to connectivity. The main flaw with the original Xbone is that it had so little benefits to a internet requirement that were not already supported by the current system. If I want internet requiring features, I'll try and get my internet working or just go without. I shouldn't have to do that when I want something that doesn't.
You don't HAVE to do anything. They did not pull support for the 360. Part of the reason the XBONE is not selling more is because a lot of people have no reason to upgrade.

Fifthly, a better metaphor would be: Would I be annoyed if I cannot call someone on my phone when I lack an internet connection. YES. Because I don't need one to call someone, and its asinine to add restrictions for things that don't need them.

There is no reason to have the internet requirement for games. I don't care if I only get to play the good parts of a game and not the tacked on multiplayer.
Network connection. Your phone requires a network connection. You can't make a call when that is down. The XBOX requires a connection as well to operate, or at least it did. The only way you would have a valid complaint would be if they sold the device without the requirement and added it later. In this case, no one was forcing you or Jim to accept anything MS presented.

And yes, imposing restrictions with no benefit towards what you previous offered before IS anti-consumer.[/quote]
 

theApoc

New member
Oct 17, 2008
252
0
0
Atmos Duality said:
Well prepare to be debunked, again.

*"Unobtrusive updates"
I get those through Steam already (anyone can) and it doesn't require Always Online.
(partially online, yes, but not always online)

A fact you've repeatedly ignored. Probably because you cannot refute it.
Not that I require a reply; the truth is more a benefit to the reasoned than the dishonest.
Who said it required always online. What I said was that a constant connection allows for updates at any time. 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.

*"Faster digital distribution"
How does requiring a constant connection increase throughput speed?
Does Microsoft have a team of literal networking Wizards? Does their internet backbone run through Hogwarts?
My internet connection doesn't get faster the longer I leave it on, and neither does yours.

The only ways to make digital distribution faster is either by better data scheduling (which is just better back-end efficiency) or through better raw network speeds.

Always online as a model implicitly offers NEITHER.
Nope. But they can pre-load updates, DLC, new games, features, media... Any number of things. Companies do this frequently now with DLC. They include the DLC in a patch and when you buy it, you are simply unlocking the content. So instead of two updates to play a game, or get new content. You have one. One is less than two. Thus by default it is a faster means of distribution, especially if the apply said updates in the background or on off hours.

*"Cloud services"*
Well, that's just nebulous.
That could potentially include anything related to the network (or even internet).
For the sake of brevity, I'm confining it to the pre-180 Xbone pitch features:

-Social media functions/Streaming services
These aren't implicit benefits of the cloud, but Microsoft could technically host any proprietary service off their cloud.
In any case, their existence does not define all the functions of a game console (or whatever you choose to call it; it makes no difference) and therefore is not proof that an always-online requirement is a strict benefit.

-Cloud processing power
Ah yes, the so-called "future proofing" feature.
The short version: It's completely impractical due to insane technical requirements.

Cloud processing functions fine for other software with long rounds of number crunching, but the thing there, is that such crunching isn't what we in the networking business call "timely". That is, the program won't suffer functionality loss if the answer isn't delivered in a very short time, so long as it is eventually delivered.

But most video games (any that could actually use the processing boost) are not only "timely", they're easily the most timely programs around.

How timely?
Just for running a typical game at 60 FPS, would require a network latency of less than 16 milliseconds (1/60 seconds = 16 milliseconds).

Most of a typical game's processing load is in raw graphical data, and it's usually done on a per-frame basis (which is why previous-gen games were capped at around 30FPS). While cloud computing could improve other lines of code, none of them are significant to the point where it would show noticeable improvement.

Now, 16 milliseconds is REALLY DAMN GOOD latency under normal online conditions; that's close to typical LAN speed.
For most online games, 16ms is seamless.

Keep in mind: 16ms is the ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM allotment of delay from all sources totaled.

Meaning, the Xbone has to send a relatively large wad of pre-processing graphical data to the server, wait for it to get crunched and sent back it in less than that time. On a local processor, 16 milliseconds is plenty of time (most delays are measured in nano-seconds at that level, 3 orders magnitude smaller).

But on a network connection? That's not overnight delivery, but "in 15-minutes-or-it's-free".

Right now, cloud-processing boosts just aren't going to work on the average broadband connection. Or more accurately, where used they won't contribute anything significant.

MAYBE somewhere like South Korea where every household has incredible throughput on an all-fiber network, but definitely not the bulk of the gaming mass-market.
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? 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?

-Data backup
This is the only cloud function that actually provides a direct benefit to gamers...only Steam offers cloud saves and backup as well, and once again, doesn't require Always Online for the rest of the system either.
Whatever, always online was not a way to screw the customer. You may not agree with it, but you have no proof, neither does Jim, that MS wanted it to harm the customer.

I'll just sum up the main problem with your arguments (all of them in this thread really):
You can argue the benefits and convenience offered by Always Online til' you're blue in the face.
(and this assumes you're being honest; something that I have silently questioned often in this thread)

But the fact is that partially-online design offers access to all the same conveniences and benefits you tout without sacrificing any functionality to the user. Because it's just the same system with logical failsafes and options the consumer can tailor to their situation.

Therefore, it's just flat out the better system. Yet, Microsoft tried to offer an always online system with main features that shouldn't require a constant connection in spite of that fact; and that behavior is not only questionable, but anti-consumer (whether intentional or not).

The most obvious answer (and only real logical one; discounting mind-bending stupidity; I'd like to think a company as powerful as Microsoft isn't quite that stupid), is that the system was changed from its previous offering strictly for their benefit.

They tried to pitch it, the market revolted (more than just the few whiny videos like Jim Sterling's; pre-order numbers speak louder than words to companies as big as Microsoft).
Their intent for always online, was clear. DRM? Yup. Device inter connectivity used to MS's advantage? Yup. Expansion of the social aspect of their device as well as its use as a multimedia device? 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. You know what needs to be "online" to function 100% these days? To get listings and info and DVR scheduling? A cable box. So while you may talk about what is and isn't needed in terms of gaming. You and Jim forgot one tiny little thing about the XBOX ONE. It isn't a gaming machine. It was presented as a multimedia hub. From day one. And the reason it was going to require a constant connection, was to full fill that role as such a device. 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.

Did you never wonder why it looks like a cable box? Their vision was clear. A misstep no doubt. Yup they misread the market. You are correct. But anti-consumer? BS. You and Jim are both full of crap because your narrow mindedness only sees the small picture, MS was shooting for something bigger, and as of right now, the community AND the longevity of the 360 are fighting against that.

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...
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
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.
 

ssgtnelson

New member
Jul 25, 2014
8
0
0
Aside from Microsoft backpedaling I really don't understand. I have an Xbox One and really enjoy the console. Are there issues? Sure, what new console doesn't have some issues? Will it be made better in the long run? Definetly. Look at release day Xbox 360 and present day Xbox 360. HUGE difference in capabilities. So aside from the constant petty complaints by people what's the real problem with the console? If Microsoft came out and said, "We are making a game only console, no video, no internet, no Netflix, no Hulu, etc," the same people complaining now would be complaining then. "What? I can't get to Netflix? I can't watch TV? The Xbox One is a terrible concept." The reality is, sadly, that people seem to get off on jumping on the angry at Microsoft bandwagon instead of trying to find what's good about something.