Xbox 720 to require always on internet connection?

I dont really get the rage. Especially on Xbox which has been a console built around multiplayer gaming. You can't play COD/BF/Halo/Gears of War when your internet is out in the 1st place. Most people that buy this system will be that audience.

However I dunno if it will be online required. I think the dev kits are required so they can receive the latest firmware updates. I think its a good way to keep tabs on developers and at the same time prepare them to deal with firmware updates in the middle of development. This will cut down on those day 1 updates you generally have to perform on games the first time you stick them in your console. MS is doing a leaps and bounds better job of keeping their stuff underwraps than Sony so far. The specs have leaked but none of the hardware... thats because its all stripped with designs that have devs fearing that theirs might have a specific pattern that would let MS know who leaked pics. Since developers can't leak pics they can only leak what they have experienced with their kits by word of mouth. Dev kits are never the final product, we'll have to wait until MS holds a presser...

I'd like my console to update while I'm not using it. Hell right now on my current xbox I like turning it off when I have a big DLC or update... i just wait until the power button LED stops blinking to know its done.

I usually download dlc or updates before I go to sleep at night so I can set the PS3 to auto turnoff after its all done. I think the rage thats been coming out is the possibility of "online required" I know a few people that have had financial hardships and needed to turn off their internet service to make sure they made their house payments. As long as they had single player campaigns they were able to keep playing BF3, CoD or any other game. I think if the new Xbox had "online required", then those gamers would most likely not get the system because of potential internet issues they might have to deal with again. If the game console was the only source of electronic entertainment in a household, one internet billing issue could screw these individuals out of having access to the potential hundreds of dollars of products they paid money for.

I could understand how some games would require an internet connection to play because of copyright protection that was built into the game. StarCraft 2, SimCity.. but those games stated that an internet connection was required. But if one console requires that connection for all games, while another does not, then I could see why people would get pissed.

Thats the one thing I don't get about PS3... you cant download anything while the system is off.

While I see you point. The main source of income for MS is its DLC and online community. Its been built that way through its XBL subscription service. Chances are if you have an xbox, you're paying for xbox live.... While Xbox does have single player games, the majority of its library is dedicated towards co-op and multiplayer. People may not like it, but online required is going to be a fixture of gaming in the future, especially when Google fiber goes global.

Another way to look at this is the fact that most developers want online requirements. Lets say MS gives them this, while Sony does not? Who will get most the games, timed exclusives, and DLC content? If Microsoft has been pressured into this by the gaming industry then they are doing whats best for their business in terms of raking in exclusives. Meanwhile, Sony's console may claim that it doesn't have online requirements, but I can guarantee that games like Destiny will require online connectivity regardless. So while MS gives into pressure, it will adversely affect PS4 anyways.

Online requirement will serve a different purpose on consoles. Rather than copyright issues, it will provide a way to better serve the player through on the fly patches, game balancing, and server updates without the need to interrupt gameplay. I've already notice this somewhat being done on COD when playlists get updated and people have to back out to the title screen to refresh their list to be able to join their friends that just got online.

Another way to look at this is the fact that most developers want online requirements. Lets say MS gives them this, while Sony does not? Who will get most the games, timed exclusives, and DLC content? If Microsoft has been pressured into this by the gaming industry then they are doing whats best for their business in terms of raking in exclusives. Meanwhile, Sony's console may claim that it doesn't have online requirements, but I can guarantee that games like Destiny will require online connectivity regardless. So while MS gives into pressure, it will adversely affect PS4 anyways.

 

Online requirement will serve a different purpose on consoles. Rather than copyright issues, it will provide a way to better serve the player through on the fly patches, game balancing, and server updates without the need to interrupt gameplay. I've already notice this somewhat being done on COD when playlists get updated and people have to back out to the title screen to refresh their list to be able to join their friends that just got online.

Good points. I also believe that always online requirements will be the future of gaming. I played the hell out of Guild Wars 1. That game was online only required back in 2005. I'm playing Defiance on PS3 and it is online only. Even if I am not playing with anyone else, this game connects to Defiance servers and requires an online connection at all times. These kind of games are becoming the standard. And from what I've seen of Destiny, an online connection will be required.

The one thing I am noticing tho, is that games like Defiance are relying more on their own in game purchase system to earn extra money. Like buying new outfits or vehicles. These purchases appear to be occurring outside of the PSN system, which means that its a direct purchase from the company and Sony makes no money off the transaction. I noticed that the DLC is still purchased from within the PSN store, but it makes me think that the companies are going to start focusing more on micro transactions so that the platform developers don't get their share of the profits. While PSN and Xbox live will continue to get a cut from DLC purchases, more of the current DLC will now transfer over to the in game only purchases. Like in FFXIII-2, there are a variety of outfits to purchase for the characters. They are all separate DLC that is purchased through the PSN store. However, in Defiance, new outfits are sold through the Defiance store. This cuts out the middle man and PSN is left with less money to skim off the top. I can only assume the same thing will be happening with Xbox Live. Once more games are relegating their transactions through their own in game systems, the consoles are going to start loosing out on revenue. Once this starts happening, PSN and Xbox Live are going to see their revenue streams start diminishing and will have to make their money some other way.

It makes me think that the game developers are trying to make more money off the platforms they are using, which is fine. But Sony and Microsoft must realize this.. which makes me think they will start charging more for access to their networks to recoup that revenue. I have a feeling that the monthly or yearly cost of access to PSN or Xbox Live will be a big determining factor for what system will come out on top.

Thats interesting about the PS3, but they don't get away with that on XBL even for microtransactions. It was XBL that started the initial outrage of DLC pricing. For a while, console players were missing out on DLC for games because while it was Free for PC versions, MS requires all DLC to be approved by them and then they charge for it regardless. Developers didn't want to be seen as having a double standard by having content free on one platform and not the other. MS has a pretty firm grip on their service, and no one gets away with making money without owing them a piece of the pie. It seems strict, and at the time it was seen as a disadvantage, but now paying has become the standard. These days maps are not free on the PC anymore. Microtransactions within a game? If you click purchase, the XBL prompt pops up asking you if you want to pay by points or paypal. All payments go through the systems standard purchasing screen weather you do it from the XBL Store, or within the games own marketplace.

Now here and there free stuff gets through, but I assume you have to be a big time developer with a ton of pull... Borderlands 2 has provided free content they squeeze in through patches and COD World at War had a free map from the few I can recall. In the case of BL2, they also have "shift" which is some service provided within the game you can access from the title screen... all it really does is allow you to enter codes that have been frequently advertised on facebook and other social media outlets to give you a "golden key" which allows you to access a special chest in the central safe zone of the game. The chest can only be opened by these keys that are not dropped by anyone. This chest will always give you a purple rare weapon/shield/class mod that is the level requirement you are at. Its a pretty innovative way to give players free loot.

Ah, I've seen the numerous "Shift" codes that were promoted through twitter. i always wonder what advantage those codes gave players. Thanks for letting me know.

As for the Defiance DLC, I have not purchased any of the outfits or extras yet, so I'm not sure if it does go thru PSN or not. But I had an issue with not receiving my pre-order bonuses and I noticed that when they resolved my issue, the pre-order bonuses were applied directly to my Defiance account. Because it was applied directly to my Defiance account, I was not given a PSN redeemable code. I have pre-ordered games through PSN before and all pre-order bonuses are added to my "Download List" through my transaction menu. However, with Defiance, these bonuses are were given to me in game only and are not in my Download list. I can only assume that the in game purchases circumvent the PSN store, seeing as the PSN store has no record of these bonuses.

This is a major issue for those of us that don't have reliable internet and I understand the rage because I'm one of those people (its the reason I quit playing Diablo 3 and won't go back to playing it until my ISP gets there issues with internet connectivity resolved). If the "Durango" (I refuse to call it the 720 until its officially announced) requires a constant internet connection I will not buy it and will cancel my XBL Gold subscription the minute that's announced (I rarely play MP games anymore due to my internet problems, sucks when your having an awesome match in Halo 4 only to be disconnected because your internet is acting like a little bitch again). To force single player games or games with a single player campaign to these standards is retarded. For games that rely solely on MP to sell this is fine but honestly forcing games (like RPG's) to this standard is asking for backlash from the gaming community (Gamespot users (like myself) have been in a rage the last few days since that one Microsoft employee told us the deal with it, it's actually spawned a new meme).

This might be the year I go back to Sony or just not continue with console gaming (or gaming) in general.

I figure if a game requires a constant online connection, it should be sold with that information well known, like the case was with StarCraft 2. As for all other games, I don't see the point in requiring an online connection even for the initial loading of the game, especially for strictly single player games like most RPGs. I have a feeling that if MS puts this restriction on their new console, then they'll only be limiting their target audience. I know some games on Steam require an online connection and when the Steam connection goes down, you'll see the people raging on their official forums. I could only imagine the outrage people would have if Xbox live had some connection issue that prevented games from playing.

The thing with Starcraft 2 is it only requires a connection initially, if you're dc'd in single player campaign you can continue to play without the ability to gain achievements (something I honestly don't know why Blizzard put into the game, achievements do nothing for gameplay). Diablo III on the other hand does require a constant internet connection to even play it (even if your anti-social like me and only want to play it yourself) because you need to connect to their servers to even load your character (thank you Blizz for a retarded idea, should of just stuck with the Diablo 2 model). If MS was shooting for something like SC2's model then I doubt people would have the problem they're having but all leaked news is pointing toward needing that connection to do anything. That's a bad business model no matter how you look at it and is going to alienate their loyal fan base. I've supported the Xbox for 6 years now and didn't even raise a fuss when MS decided to tack another $10 onto their yearly Gold subscription case but this is just something I can't support. MS just likes to shoot themselves in the foot and then wonder why everyone gets angry with them.

I've seen what you're talking about with SC2. They had server issues when I was first playing the game. Over half of the achievements I should have got never registered. I'm glad it didn't disconnect my game. Its one thing to disable achievements because of an online issue (which is stupid considering my PS3 trophies can resync next time I log in to PSN), but if I got booted out of a single player game because of their server issues, I can honestly say I would have been raging.

I've "Lost Session" to Dice / EA servers far more than should have ever happened. I might get booted out of that match, but at least I have the chance to rejoin my friend's session and get back into the match even though my stats for that round were wiped. I've only had maybe 2 issues with PSN connection problems, usually the issue I have is the game developer's servers. I do feel bad for anyone with ISP issues if this kind of setup does become the next standard.

Imagine if even Blu ray playback required a constant internet connection. lol. That would be horrible if you get bad pings. Playback could possibly interrupt for no damn reason with "Check your connection" errors.