I've railed (not so much complained, just refused to buy into it) against it and continue to do so. I'm probably a small niche though as there is so much PC online content for free that I see no need to pay for such a system as an extra layer. This was my #1 reason for not purchasing an Xbox 360. I had an Xbox (orig), but I never once went online with it. There is plenty of single player content. The catch will be when every single player game starts requiring useless online content which in turn forces you to pay for it. We all saw this coming, and it's complete and utter BS.
You can't tell me that MS touting the 4x power of the cloud etc had no direct correlation to forcing people to pay for live on the Xbone. I am sure with their "change of heart" (lawl) they are scrambling to find a new model/reason for this to happen. Since MS got away with charging for it last gen, of COURSE Sony is going to do it this time. That's how it works. Had no one bought into XBL, we wouldn't be paying for online games at all right now. Blame the people who bought into it the first time. This is why the backlash that occurred after E3 was so important. It was going to set another new precedent. Before you try to say, but look how bad (Nintendo/PS3 online) is, think about the PC who has more or less cheaper games and who's servers are controlled by the publishers vs the console makers. Why exactly is there an additional layer needed for consoles?
I will be waiting it out to see how devs handle these new systems. I think with the backlash that MS got at the beginning, most of them should shy away from needless online locking of single player games.
I sort of see your reasoning. OTOH, blaming MS for Sony going to a pay to play model, makes me Should I blame them for WoW doing it too? How about this, you hold every corporation responsible for its actions? In my case, I see no blame to lay. The nominal subscription fees are well worth it, as it enables the console makers to improve services and quality.I've railed (not so much complained, just refused to buy into it) against it and continue to do so. I'm probably a small niche though as there is so much PC online content for free that I see no need to pay for such a system as an extra layer. This was my #1 reason for not purchasing an Xbox 360. I had an Xbox (orig), but I never once went online with it. There is plenty of single player content. The catch will be when every single player game starts requiring useless online content which in turn forces you to pay for it. We all saw this coming, and it's complete and utter BS.
You can't tell me that MS touting the 4x power of the cloud etc had no direct correlation to forcing people to pay for live on the Xbone. I am sure with their "change of heart" (lawl) they are scrambling to find a new model/reason for this to happen. Since MS got away with charging for it last gen, of COURSE Sony is going to do it this time. That's how it works. Had no one bought into XBL, we wouldn't be paying for online games at all right now. Blame the people who bought into it the first time. This is why the backlash that occurred after E3 was so important. It was going to set another new precedent. Before you try to say, but look how bad (Nintendo/PS3 online) is, think about the PC who has more or less cheaper games and who's servers are controlled by the publishers vs the console makers. Why exactly is there an additional layer needed for consoles?
I will be waiting it out to see how devs handle these new systems. I think with the backlash that MS got at the beginning, most of them should shy away from needless online locking of single player games.
I sort of see your reasoning. OTOH, blaming MS for Sony going to a pay to play model, makes me Should I blame them for WoW doing it too? How about this, you hold every corporation responsible for its actions? In my case, I see no blame to lay. The nominal subscription fees are well worth it, as it enables the console makers to improve services and quality.
this is news to me - so ms requires xbl for xbox1?
That isn't what he said.
Way back when you had to be online all the time they said "cause of the cloud computing model to increase system performance" now they aren't saying that you get extra performance, but dedicated servers for online games. Putting single player oriented titles online can make that title require an xbl subscription to play.
He like many others, are against this if and when it happens.
I don't mind paying a few bux a month for online but I do dislike when I pay for it and am still bombarded with ads. XBL works well for what it does and people don't mind paying for it. That's fine. However, do remember that many people have no extra fees on the PC for dedicated servers and non line infrastructure so they perhaps have a different expectation.
well yeah, that is what he said, but anyways...
back when the console was "always online" you still didn't need xbl to "always be online" to play single player games. not sure where this idea came from.
you can "always be online" just fine on your xbox360 without having xbox live gold and be playing single player games.
Right...I think some people expect though that some titles will start requiring you to subscribe to the online service regardless. I hope not and I have seen no indication of that. Even still...in years down the line if you only need xbl silver to play the game but the xb1 is no longer supported can those games be used? Maybe...maybe not. I hope there is nothing to lock it at that point and right now I don't expect that.
then people are stupid (not surprising considering all of the replies even on the forums here, since e3), because xbl has always been required to play the online multiplayer portions of a game only since it has been around. it's never been required to play single player portions of games, online or not.
burnout paradise is "always online" and you can play that game just fine single player without ever having to pay for xbl. same with forza horizon which constantly shows you high scores of your friends and rivals.
this is news to me - so ms requires xbl for xbox1?
Xbox One Requirements:
- Requires broadband internet (ISP fees apply), a Microsoft account and an account on Xbox Live in an Xbox One-supported Xbox Live country/region, and 720p or higher HDMI-compatible TV. To receive live TV via broadcast or cable, supported receiver device (television tuner or cable/satellite set top box) with HDMI output and HDMI cable required (all sold separately).
- Additional subscriptions, internet speed and/or requirements apply for some features.
Kinect Sensor for Xbox One (included) and periodic system software updates required for continued use; significant updates may be required during set-up and over time (ISP fees apply).
- Some games not transferable and have no resale value; restrictions on games usage apply.
- Games, Kinect and accessories made for Xbox 360 or original Xbox will not work with Xbox One.
- Xbox One system software uses a significant amount of storage; less internal storage will be available to users. 500 GB = 500 billion bytes.
- You must accept Xbox Terms of Use (including Xbox software terms and game license terms), Microsoft Services Agreement, and Xbox One 1-year limited warranty. Some games have additional license terms.
- Terms include binding arbitration with class action waiver to resolve disputes.
- Additional requirements will apply.
Your naivety isn't surprising in the slightest, but yes - it is required
then people are stupid (not surprising considering all of the replies even on the forums here, since e3), because xbl has always been required to play the online multiplayer portions of a game only since it has been around. it's never been required to play single player portions of games, online or not.
burnout paradise is "always online" and you can play that game just fine single player without ever having to pay for xbl. same with forza horizon which constantly shows you high scores of your friends and rivals.
I sort of see your reasoning. OTOH, blaming MS for Sony going to a pay to play model, makes me Should I blame them for WoW doing it too? How about this, you hold every corporation responsible for its actions? In my case, I see no blame to lay. The nominal subscription fees are well worth it, as it enables the console makers to improve services and quality.
Even the WiiU packed in an HDMi cable, I fully expect the XB1 to do the same. If not...is $5 for a cable that much? I have probably 6 different length HDMI 1.4 cables around my house unused cause they were so cheap.
One more reason the PS4 > Xbone
It includes an HDMI cable in the box
AS if it needed another reason
Even the WiiU packed in an HDMi cable, I fully expect the XB1 to do the same. If not...is $5 for a cable that much? I have probably 6 different length HDMI 1.4 cables around my house unused cause they were so cheap.
But if you want another minor reason, PS4 comes with an earpiece, while the Xbone doesn't. Worse the Xbone uses a proprietary headset.
But if you want another minor reason, PS4 comes with an earpiece, while the Xbone doesn't. Worse the Xbone uses a proprietary headset.
Yeah but they are touting you don't require a headset because you can just play sound through TV/Speakers and Kinnect will handle your talking so why wear something on your head when you don't need to etc.
If you want to play quietly to not disturb other people for whatever reason then you can pay $60 or whatever and buy a headset seperate. So they do offer a full fledged communication system out of the box, it's not like leaving out the headset means you can't talk to people etc. That video showing off how kinnect picks up voices no matter how much noise there is in the room was quite impressive really.
I just don't want to have to yell across the room for the mic to pick me up. I wonder what the working distance is.