Slashdot Mirror
New Console Always-Online Requirements and You
An anonymous reader writes "The new Xbox is almost here and the details appear to strongly suggest 'always on' is the way forward. We all know that this is an artificial requirement and certainly there are plenty of people on all sides of the table. To paraphrase the user 'tuffy' who commented on this issue at Ars Technica recently; if you're trying to sell 'always online' as a feature of the future, there needs to be some benefit for me the customer. There is not one. Or, rather, there is no sign yet of any actual clearly compelling reason why any end user would support this limitation to their purchase. So, what's the best way to express this? Spend your money on an Ouya? Contact the Xbox team? These are all valid options but they also lack visibility. What we need is a way that could help actually quantify the levels of discontent in the gamer community. Maybe E3 attendees could turn their backs in protest like some did during Thatcher's funeral procession. Or gamers could sign some useless petition. What do Slashdotters think? Is the upcoming Steam box a reasonable plan? As a gamer, I'm of two minds about the whole thing. I really don't like it but I may roll over eventually and join the herd because I could get used to it. Then again part of me is rankled by this slow erosion of access to me and my data."
The only winning move is not to play.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Steam basically requires an internet connection. Offline mode exists, but you need to switch it over while you have a connection, so its useless if you go offline suddenly.
I have no reason to believe that the steambox will be any different.
Use a PC for gaming and vote with your wallet (refuse to buy games that require internet connection).
Just don't buy one.
The new Xbox is almost here and the details appear to strongly suggest 'always on' is the way forward.
There's too much hysteria about this. I've not seen anything that suggests 'always on' is 'your console won't work if it isn't connected all the time'.
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
A PC, PS3 and Wii was all I had.
The few exclusives 360 had weren't worth the hassle. Not to mention how much of a rip Live is.
Most are on the other consoles and PC.
It will likely be the same. Well, worse.
A hacker will provide a fix to remove that always online requirement. Problem solved.
That would make an xbox worth buying? I didn't notice one in the previous generation...
I apologize for the lack of a signature.
Consoles are typically weaker. Except if the PC is old. Consoles are for people who can't afford 1-2 year old computers but want to play FPS games.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Microsoft knows and abuses their user base. For example, all Xbox Live game servers are hosted by players. These players pay a yearly fee to MS, so that MS will grant them the privilege of hosting these servers and playing against other players. MS is basically getting free money.
Rednecks who don't know better; Call of Duty dudebros; 13 year olds with gullible soccer moms - these are all people don't give a shit about always online and represent the core audience of the Xbox brand. They'll buy the next console without asking questions and they'll create the critical mass MS and publishers need in order to push always online.
People who hope the PS4 will save us from always online are naive. Always online has always been the publishers' wet dream. They've been pushing for this for years. At the very least, MS and Sony will implement mechanisms so that any publisher will be able to impose the always online requirement for their games. And remember, MS and Sony are also publishers, and they're quite big publishers. Where do you expect people to go once all games released by Activision, EA, Sony, MS, Ubisoft and others will all require always online? How will you fight a cartel in its own walled garden?
Blizzard games, Steam games, even the dreaded SimCity sell tens of millions of copies each year, despite the various types of (partially) always online requirements. Always online is here to stay and there's nothing you can do, because of the massive amount of people who will gobble this up without thinking twice.
Sig
Whats the point of consoles again? Its not like any next gen console have any chance in hell of being more powerful than my PC. Why should I spend money on a separate box?
The 'point' of a console is that it allows you to shove a small, simple device under your TV and play games.
And a controller is fine for FPS games. I can play Halo as easily as I can play BF3 on the PC with a mouse and keyboard.
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
Quite simple.
Do what countless users and corporations have done over the last decade: if the latest and greatest is not so much better than the existing system, do not buy it, and continue using the older system and games built for the older system.
All threats from microsoft, as in the win XP case, will come to nought. not even Ballmer, who has proved his, ah, "determination", will try to stem the flow when content designers will say: "the installed base of 360 is X million consoles, and they continue to buy both older classic games and the new ones we design. If we target only the new console with this newfangled game, we'll be lucky to sell a couple hundred thousand. No contest, babe, it's either this or Sony."
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
"As a gamer, I'm of two minds about the whole thing. I really don't like it but I may roll over eventually and join the herd because I could get used to it."
And that's your problem right there. Why is everybody expecting that sticking to your principles doesn't need something in return?
...there needs to be some benefit for me the customer.
Does there? Or will people just buy it anyway and in some cases complain about it after their purchase?
Always on is the content industry's wet dream, whereby the purchase model turns to a leasing model. This has huge ramifications.
The time people will really start caring is in ten years time when the activiation servers are switched off and they can't play their games anymore.
I'm fairly sure the "always online" requirement on these things is a play to get better marketing data on consumers en masse. The thing that concerns me is: when you tie that desire, the always-online requirement that's gaining popularity, and the technology behind Kinect, what happens?
Am I just paranoid, or is this a rational concern? I'm sure as hell not letting anyone watch me in my goddamn living room.
Unplug it from power outlet and the network? Lets see if its ALWAYS ON then? ;)
You know? With the android mobile gaming market showing signs of serious growth and market presence, how is it they think they can milk the addicted gaming market for more that so many can tolerate? They want their $50-60 every time the disk media changes hands? When fun little games exist on Android devices for a dollar?! Really?
I'm rather interested to see how badly the "big ticket" gaming market fails. Their greed will be the root cause.
It's bizarre, OK I suppose MS have done their homework, but why force this on consumers?
Sure, I suppose nearly all of their target market has a connection, but even so, I can think of many use cases where that might not be available, including intentionally.
For example, when my children were young, I was happy for them to be playing with consoles not connected to the internet, since I could control exactly what games they could use, (nice mix of fun & eductaion, all safe).
Also, at home my internet connection goes down..a lot.
So, agree with the major sentiment here; fuck 'em, do not buy.
Build yourself a nice little PC instead.
Steam only has DRM the publishers chose. You're free to support the ones who do things DRM free. Steam does not require a connection to play in any way shape or form.
These are the facts.
What I hate so much about "always online" is that EVENTUALLY these companies are going to shut down their servers and people who want to play these games in the future will be screwed. I really do hope hacking solutions come out of this, otherwise you're going to have an entire generation of games that literally cannot be played in the future. Imagine if movies did that and you could no longer watch The Shawshank Redemption because its profitability expired a long time ago and it cost money to keep the movie servers running.
If you think this won't happen, see how Microsoft has pulled the plug on multiplayer Halo 1 / 2 or Mercenaries 2. At least the single player component wasn't affected, but for future games, it will be. Over enough time, without proper cracks, these games will be IMPOSSIBLE to play.
I hate this mentality of forcing everyone online with no recourse for when the plug eventually gets pulled. It's intentionally destroying culture in the name of profit, which I find immoral.
Oh, that's right, they don't say, do they.
They don't say if it has third-party DRM either.
And to install you HAVE to connect to their service. Upates? Have to connect. And sometimes, though the game itself may be OK with being offline, the Steam client demands you log on to update IT. And since you have to (or at least normally do, and have no reason to know you shouldn't this time) run the steam client to start the game, it won't start because the steam client won't run.
Microsoft is just using this whole always online thing to get everyone worked up so they are super focused on the fact that there is this onerous requirement. That way when they announce that it is not in fact going to be always on, the press will spend so much time focused on that they won't even notice that it's price is in the stratosphere unless you agree to a subscription regardless.
So, what's the best way to express this? Spend your money on an Ouya?
Are you fucking DAFT?! You have to connect the Ouya to the Internet AND give it your credit card information before you can even use it. It requires a mandatory firmware update out of the box. Then, EVERY game must be Free To Play in some capacity. As a game dev I want to like the OUYA, but it's shit. I can't even just put a full version of a game and demo version out and have you buy the game outright if you want -- Nope, instead I have to create an in-app-purchase and lock away features calling the locked neutered game a "demo", and then I have to check with the Ouya DRM servers before you start playing the full version of the game (better be connected to the Internet, always). Other games that are "free to play" and funded via in-app-purchased micro-transactions are roughly equivalent to "always online DRM", you doofus.
Ouya == Free To Play PITA == Always Online DRM. You want to escape this crap?! So do I. Game on your damn PCs. PLEASE!
...also "feature an always on", and they recommend that it's turned on so it can automatically update the system while turned "off".
I have however - paranoid as I am - blocked the camera on the console with black tape, there's hardly any games using that camera anyway.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
... let them do it. They fucked up with Win8 , lets just get the popcorn and watch them fuck up xbox too.
People - an xbox is just a toy. If we were talking PC operating systems requiring always on then fine, that would be Bad News. But an Xbox? Meh, who cares. Its hardly a crucial purchase and hardcore gamers will use PCs anyway.
There is a benefit to the consumer: playing video games on the new Xbox. The consumer doesn't pick, in isolation, whether they want always-on connectivity; they choose whether or not to buy the whole bundle of good and bad design decisions that make up the Xbox. There is presumably a group of people who will move from wanting an Xbox to not wanting one because of this feature, but my gut feeling is that they won't be that numerous, because I think that the games, not the technical requirements, are probably uppermost in peoples' minds when buying a console.
Microsoft have emphatically denied this is the case.
MS has denied that the guy who opened his mouth about this spoke on their behalf. You know, the guy who doesn't work for MS anymore?
MS needs to come out and say this won't be a requirement for their console, but they haven't. They've spun things via PR and plausibly deniable comments.
If they code the 'always on' functionality into their SDK then they are responsible for any game studio that uses it whether MS makes it a hard requirement or not. Enabling is not a guilt free action.
I'll just leave this here: Why Boycotts Fail Where Whining Tantrums Win.
People hate 'always on' DRM. No one likes it. Some hate it with a fiery passion.
It's 'people' like you who assume the following:
That gives M$ the notion that doing this would work. Seriously, only because people like you exist, the "if you're getting raped you might as well enjoy it" logic people...fsk you and your notions of consumer choice.
Platforms can die when the alienate their users and/or make bad business decisions, ex: Sega, Neo/Geo
Thank you Dave Raggett
Still playing Pandora's Tower, The Last Dtory was great, Xenoblade Chronicles awesome, The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword amazing, Red Steel 2 fabulous, Goldeneye: 007 riveting, The Conduit quite entertaining, Metroid PrimeTrilogy --- I need to go back and finish that...
By the time I'm done, there should be games I want for the Wii U --- hoping for a motion-controlled RPG.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Xbox360 charges for its online component. I figure I already pay for my Internet so why should I have to pay more. I didn't buy an Xbox360 last generation because of this. Always on makes me want to play even less so it looks like I won't be buying this generation either.
God spoke to me
Don't worry about it, you're not the target audience. :)
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Microsoft screwed up with their redesign of Windows 8 and lousy integration...I don't even want to pirate Windows 8.
Then they screwed up with the attempting to tie Office to a single PC for life. As a person who just had a computer short out, and who might have to replace the left-hand-side of the computer, my definition of 'single PC' and Microsoft's is different.
Then there's online-office. What? You expect me to use office ONLINE? No thanks.
It's now XBox's turn for Microsoft to screw up.
ATI has come out and said there won't be another DirectX. Does Microsoft /really/ want to give away gaming, the only reason to still have a PC in the home?
The modern Windows Phone can't be counted, because it never really happened...and same with Windows RT.
Maybe their next mis-step is something in the back office. Exchange? Maybe they'll implement a per-message fee.
I just don't see it. Why do the shareholders still support Balmer?
In my country I can, please stop spreading misinformation.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
I personally find the Modern UI featured in Windows 8 to be more of a keyboard oriented interface. Much less requirement to use a mouse, I love it.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Don't worry about it, you're not the target audience after all. :)
Right. The target market is clearly people who prefer poor quality games and lots of bullshit. You?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Consoles are better for developers as they have uniform specs and interface resulting in (theoretically) better performance. Unfortunately it seems that instead of better performance, they reduce the amount they spend on development and aim for similar performance.
That's because it was already broke.
your alternative is to maintain a ridiculous and expensive beast of a PC where the video card alone costs more than a console.
Video card? What video card? Skyrim is playable without one now.
In my country I can
If other people reading this want what you have, what is your country looking for in immigrants?
Second hand sales let you get (relatively) recent game for lower price. The same as do steam sales. Which is why you can support second hand sales and steam in the same breath. Heck I can at the moment buy a lot of gmae half price, on steam, some of which I saw full price or only 10% off in retail stores.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
But isn't the fact that you need to "buy" an Internet connection when you buy/use the Xbox an example of some sort of illegal bundling? Or would that only be the case if MS owned and sold the Xbox and the connection? Not trying to troll, just curious.
Bark less. Wag more.
Then always play offline unless playing multiplayer
Part of the complaint is that games don't support offline multiplayer through LAN or, in appropriate genres, offline multiplayer through connecting several Xbox 360 Controllers to a PC's USB ports.
but DRM on Steam is actually optional
So what phrase should I look for in the game's description in the Steam store to be sure that a game uses neither Steam DRM nor third-party DRM? Or should I just switch to GOG?
I am just wondering if the Internet echo chamber has blew this way out of proportion. What if they are referring to always online in another sense?
Downloading updates, games, or movies when the console is in standby mode
The ability to use it as a Media Center when it is in standby
That's just a couple examples, but I am sure there could be many other benefits of having a console that is always online that has nothing to do with DRM. After the highly visible fiascoes such as the Sim City launch and the lack of Internet availability or stability in many parts of the country, much less the world, I can't see them writing off a large percentage of potential buyers by requiring to be online to play every game, even in single player. I still have a few friends in rural areas that are on dialup that do not have access to broadband, or one on satellite with it's 500 ms ping times on a good day.
Consoles are better for developers as they have uniform specs
True, but PCs are better for (especially smaller) developers in a different way: lower barrier to entry. PCs don't automatically exclude home-based businesses nor charge a $40,000 fee for patch certification.
Thirty years from now, someone's going to take their Xbox out of the attic and say, "This is what daddy used to play games on!", hook it up to their 4 meter wide screen, somehow patch it to their Internet3 connection, only to realize MS went under twenty years earlier and the games are no longer playable.
~ Don't be sad Daddy! We could still play them in emulation!
~ Ah, it's not the same. Besides, no one bothered to make an emulator for this box. The games pretty much sucked.
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Seriously. Want to still play games, but the consoles don't do what you want? Use a computer. They are first-flight gaming platforms these days. Currently more powerful than any console, even with lower range hardware. You can also get games with whatever your DRM tolerance is. Being open platforms, developers can really do wahtever they like so you find it runs the gamut. There are some games with always-on DRM, Ubisoft is pretty (in)famous for that. There are games with DRM that requires you to go online to activate once, but then not again. There are games with DRM that kinda fades in to the background and is just part of the setup (like Steam). Finally there are games with no DRM at all.
So you can play whatever games meet your requirements in terms of level of DRM. There's nothing being forced by a larger entity, and indeed because of the varied market it is easy to vote with your dollars and developers can see the result of that.
So you don't have to wait for some alternative, there is already one here, and you probably already have the basics of what you need. A Windows PC (there just aren't many games for Linux at this point) with a reasonably modern processor is a good foundation, then knock a $100ish graphics card in and you are good to go.
Yes you can hook it to your TV and use a controller, if that is what you desire.
But they'll grant publishers free reign on always online in software.
Will publishers be required to disclose "INTERNET CONNECTION REQUIRED DURING PLAY" conspicuously on the front of the box? If so, that'll be fine: gamers can just vote with their wallets against such games.
Steam forces their own DRM, Steamworks, on all games. Unlike some other DD servers (Impulse for example) there is no capability to release a game without the built-in DRM. Publishers can use additional DRM as well, but Steamworks is mandatory.
It's pretty low key DRM over all, most people are ok with it (I am) but it is DRM. You have to have Steam running and be logged in to your account to be able to play a game. You don't have to be online, you can cache your credentials and play offline, but you must have Steam running and logged in or you cannot play a game.
Many people are ok with Steam DRM, I'm one of them, but don't be disingenuous and claim there isn't DRM. There is and it is required.
But I just don't play consoles anymore. I can run my web browser ETC in my second monitor of my PC while I play games on the other, and the graphical quality and controls are unsurpassed by any console.
Consoles are migrating their way to the variety of things a good gaming PC can do, but haven't made it there yet. Why waste time on a garbage machine from Microsoft anyway?
When fun little games exist on Android devices for a dollar
I agree that turn-based point-and-click games work well with a touch screen or mouse, but I suspect that people who buy a console do so because they aren't big fans of turn-based point-and-click games. Games in some genres, such as platformers and fighting games, don't work so well with only a pointing device. Some games for iOS and Android try to emulate a gamepad, but when I've tried a few of those games, I've ended up pressing the wrong button or no button at all because when I'm watching the action in the middle of the screen, I can't see whether my thumb is centered over a button, nor can I feel the edges of the buttons on the flat sheet of glass that is a Nexus 7 tablet's touch screen. It's possible to plug a USB game controller into an Android 4 device through an OTG cable, but developers can't rely on this because you can't bundle a controller or even an OTG cable with a game download.
Or by "Android devices" did you mean one coming out in two months that has essentially no consonants in its name?
You're likely not that target audience.
You have sprayed this catchphrase all over this story's comments section. I'll agree for the sake of argument that this product isn't designed for audiences that aren't Microsoft's target, such as homes with minor children, homes with poor availability of Internet connections, or using a console away from home. But what comparable product is for these audiences?
Steam only has DRM the publishers chose. You're free to support the ones who do things DRM free.
I'd like to learn how. Please see my other comment.
Nope, instead I have to create an in-app-purchase and lock away features calling the locked neutered game a "demo"
Doom by Id Software split the game into three episodes and made the entire first episode a demo. Buying the game bought you two additional episodes (at first) or three (once The Ultimate Doom was out).
and then I have to check with the Ouya DRM servers before you start playing the full version of the game (better be connected to the Internet, always)
Or the game can cache the receipt locally for a month like Steam does.
Game on your damn PCs.
Let me know when PCs have a rich selection of PC games that allow multiplayer with two to four gamepads and one PC. Developers appear stuck in the desktop, one-machine-per-player mentality because selling two to four copies to a household is more lucrative than selling one.
You can have the beneficts of being online, like getting automatic updates for software, sharing videos, even be able to play multiplayer matches, withouth being forced to be always online.. you only need to be online for when data transfer occurs.
Then a game can just require data transfer more often. Querying for whether automatic updates are available is data transfer. Saving your game or loading your saved game is data transfer.
They have their FuckMe gun on full auto and haven't let off the trigger yet.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Is piracy really that rampant on the Xbox? Seems like every time I've heard about a new hack, M$ has been quick to fix it and ban hammer those exploiting it. You can't even clone a factory HD to a bigger one and pop it in without getting busted.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Just like the 'hackers' jailbroke the 360, right? Oh that's right, they didn't.
well they did provide a way to play backups pretty early on.. removing the online requirement.
if ps4 and xbox 360 have hackable(practical) flaws remains to be seen though, of course.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Why Boycotts Fail Where Whining Tantrums Win.
Is there a transcript of this video that I could read?
How about whining tantrums that mention a boycott in the conclusion? "And this is why none of my friends will be buying this product."
Never seen the surface or the commercial.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Do you return to PC gaming, but only play indie games
Bingo. Indie games and GOG.
You can also look on the right side of the screen. I cannot find any examples right now, but I know I have seen it say online connection required in the same list
"Online connection required" can mean that a connection is required to play at all (the Assassin's Creed 2/Diablo 3/SimCity way), or just that a short connection is required to renew the cached receipt every few weeks (which is the typical behavior of Steam DRM and the recommended behavior of Google Play licensing). Some people complain even about the latter, especially people who were burned by defects in early versions of the Steam client that would lose the "offline mode" receipt at an inopportune time.
I'll just leave this here: Why Boycotts Fail Where Whining Tantrums Win.
the "new" endings to me3 are just as shitty as the old ones. just a little longer and underlining more precisely that yes, they wrote the script to be stupid(as to shut up some creative types who had came up with more sensible explanations for the last 5 minutes).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Let them do it, then a week after release spend an hour or two with a glass of wine reading about how it crashed and burned while laughing until tears run down my cheeks.
I actually stopped following consoles long ago. My last console was the PS2, I didn't buy into the PS3 hype and I never bought into the Xbox hype. I've been playing MS games since the early 90's and if the console mimicked the way pc games from MS was heading it was a direction I didn't like. FF to today and everyone cries when a console company does something to cripple the platform.
The solution is easy, simply spend your money on other things. Personally I was sick of purchasing a new console which at the time seemed like every two years one would come out. Then you had to repurchase your game library. I still use my pc for gaming on occasion but it's rare these days. You know what all my games work still, and they work well.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
You would think this issue would have been resolved now for most places.
It hasn't been resolved, and it probably won't without government intervention. It took what is now the Rural Utilities Service to get electric power to farms in the United States. As you wrote in your current signature: "progress is not obligatory."
A comparable product for a different audience based off what you described... Off the top of my head, a Wii U maybe
Thank you for the rational suggestion. It's just that a lot of other posters have latched onto a meme to this effect: "Stuck on a poor Internet connection? Sucks to be you. You can always try doing something other than video games." Perhaps you could give a brief suggestion: "You're probably not Microsoft's target audience. You could try the Wii U instead." Or did you avoid that for fear of being labeled a shill for Nintendo?
There is nothing wrong with the current gen consoles. Graphics look good, games still play well. If game companies are encouraged the continue making games for the current consoles due to a lack of adoption by the new consoles, then the players win.
Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll.
Holy fucking shit im sick of this. This is based off what. What some fucking blogger speculated on his blog last week (which was posted on slashdot days ago if not yesterday) which itself is based on some tweets by a guy that got fired for his tweets. Wow. Is someone going to link to this article in 2 days and talk about how the new xbox will DEFINITELY have always on DRM. This shit is ridiculous.
what say we all use the PC that we all currently own?
That depends. A lot of people currently own a laptop or compact desktop whose onboard video can't easily be upgraded. A lot of people currently own a desktop PC but aren't willing to spend as much as a current-generation console for a video card. A lot of people own a PC but no PC gamepad* and aren't really into FPS, RTS, or other point-and-click games. And a lot of people are choosing to be PC-free, making a smartphone or tablet the center of their computing experience.
* My wired Xbox 360 controller works wonderfully with my PC. But it's a bit harder to get a wireless 360 controller, a PS3 controller, or a Wii controller working: you first need to buy the right wireless receiver. At least with controllers for classic consoles, you can get a USB adapter from retrousb.com.
There's the core market that take whatever dross is shovelled to them under a certain brand. They get sucked in to buying all the DLC even if it's just cosmetic or even maps from the last revision (no, they don't qualify as versions anymore).
There's enough mindless COD sheep to keep the new consoles going for quite a while, meaning this will not go away this coming console generation or next.
"We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
Why play with Microsoft when you can play with your friends instead!
A little over 1% of the US population make up the membership of the NRA. Love them or hate them, it's obvious that even a small group of people who unite to work for a cause can get a lot done. Something like a Fair Play Alliance, call it the FPA, would have to be organized and stage some high visibility events. Perhaps a few well places campaign donations could get some Senators and Congressmen on board. Petitions, phone campaigns, letter writing and publicity stunts would help but only if there was an organization behind them.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Have you ever tried it? It sucks. My Android widgets that grok HDMI can't even scale to the screen size properly (yay black borders!), let alone output native-resolution 1080-anything. And the audio only seems to be capable of producing stereo PCM, which meh.
Fix all that, and maybe add a useable remote control and a user interface that works properly with it, and oh yeah - we're back to Ouya.
Kid-proof tablet..
the ps3 and xbox360 have been dead in the water for years now. the new console are just a attempt to stay alive handhelds and the tablet market has dommanted them and including junk like always on drm is not the step you take to prevent your own demise even sony knows this. in other words i care less bought 720 or ps4.bt even with the ps4 its a attempt to make the vita revlent because they cant get games on that system for some reason.
This is just more rumor mill junk! Reads like a hit piece put out by a competitor. Do none of you remember when games on the Sony platform broke because they were hacked and PSN was taken down?
http://www.1up.com/news/capcom-always-online-psn-drm-decided-case-by-case
http://www.ps3trophies.org/forum/announcements/39949-read-psn-service-down-some-titles-unplayable.html
-]Phreak Out[-
This is my biggest issue with this sort of thing; I still have my original Nintendo Entertainment System from 1985. I am an avid fan of retro gaming. What if, in 30 years, I still have an XBox 720? Is Microsoft going to guarantee lifetime online authentication for this console? When/if the servers go offline, it's time to throw it in the trash? This is a piece of hardware that I would be paying for, and should be able to enjoy it for 50+ years, pass it down, whatever.
"True refinement seeks simplicity."
I don't have either my PS3, or my Xbox 360 connected to the Internet, and I get sufficient enjoyment from both. Though, not having either console connected isn't by choice, as I don't have an effective, reliable, and affordable "broadband" connection. My only choice is Verizon Wireless LTE, which runs at $80 a month for 10GB, plus $10 per 1GB over the plan's allocation. My county is in(officially) the Metro Atlanta Area, but neither AT&T or Comcast give a shit, as neither will provide Internet access to the majority of the counties closest to me.
These rumors about an Internet connection being a requirement, until proven, are total bullshit. If such a requirement were put into place, it would raise Sony as the near-inherent winner, by pushing away the massive amount of people that hate DRM(well, further DRM; consoles are already heavily laden with DRM) and those without broadband, or those, like myself, that are severely limited. If Microsoft makes such a decision, I will refuse to purchase the system, as will many others, irregardless of whether others believe the contrary.
Microsoft has shown us, many times over, that it will make monumentally stupid decisions(Windows 8 relatively being one of the most current of such decisions), so nothing will surprise me. Regardless, I would hope that those with the ability to veto such a requirement would do so, as the overall market won't support such a move. Internet access, especially broadband Internet access that will support such bloated services, isn't as ubiquitous as so many here, and elsewhere, believe it to be.
And a controller is fine for FPS games. I can play Halo as easily as I can play BF3 on the PC with a mouse and keyboard.
Well of course; when you use a controller, auto-aim is enabled. Console shooters have been doing this for a while. Some new pc games support this, too.
Where are all the Sony fanboys? Sony has explicitly stated always-on connectivity isn't necessary for the PS4, nor is it their biggest concern. They may enjoy their fair share of walled gardens, but at least they respond well to what we as consumers actually want.
.... But your alternative is to maintain a ridiculous and expensive beast of a PC where the video card alone costs more than a console.
...
I'm going to point out now that a $250 video card is way more powerful then any console you can buy today. WiiU, Xbox 360, and of course, the PS3.
It might be the same price as those consoles, but way way more powerful then any of them.
And there's the thing. Because we are going to get 2 new consoles with updated hardware, that $250 graphic card will let you play those new games coming out, at decent frame rates. And guess what? that $250 is cheaper then the new consoles.
Be seeing you...
And a controller is fine for FPS games. I can play Halo as easily as I can play BF3 on the PC with a mouse and keyboard.
You must be the worse PC BF3 player around then.
Be seeing you...
So the new XBOX has a 3D video camera built in to it and it requires constant internet connection. Does this bother anyone else? Even if you aren't paranoid about a deliberate plan for in home surveillance you must admit the potential for abuse.
Employees at Microsoft could potentially monitor video streams. The kinect has always been creepy. It also can't be secure. Even if there is never an inside job there is potential that some exploit could be found. Hackers around the world could be tapping in to the live feed off the camera in your living room that is always on.
Don't dare say that this is difficult or compare it to a laptop with a built-in webcam without looking at this post here:
https://community.rapid7.com/community/metasploit/blog/2013/01/24/weekly-update
I have a Roku box attached to my TV. It is always on and always connected. Since I got the box, I have thought this dangerous. (but I leave it on . . .)
"Is the upcoming Steam box a reasonable plan?"
Um, you mean a supposed console from *THE* company who has done more to promote and force acceptance of DRM to the masses than any other?
What video game crash? Unless you are referring to arcade games, video gaming is more lucrative and ubiquitous than ever.
If not large chunks of markets will be unconnected and if it does work large security complexity results.
One /.er commented the only on an isolated subnet....
OK sure but my home router/NAT box does not even begin to address
this level of complexity.
Yes I could build a firewall with a multi homed computer but not for the sub ten watt power budget and less than $100 budget I think should apply here. There are some SOC devices out there that support a single GigE link but not the five that I would like.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
if my internet's down?
depends on what you want to play and what resolution your monitor is.
you don't need to spend $600+ on a video card.
a $100 or $150 card will be more than adequate for maximum or near max settings on most games at 1920x1200 (or the more common 1080p of current cheap LCDs 1920x1080).
i've got an nvidia 560Ti which cost me about $170 AUD when it was new about 18 months ago (or maybe longer, i can't remember exactly). it's overkill for most games, hundreds of fps for some (any my 1920x1200 monitor is a fixed 60fps anyway). for some games i have to turn down the anti-aliasing or something.
a current equivalent would be the 650 or 650Ti or maybe the nvidia 660 ($115, $155, and $180 respectively). or an AMD 7790 or therabouts for around $150. they're not much, if any, faster than my 560Ti but they probably use less power and run cooler & quieter.
if you've got a 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 monitor or multiple monitors with one huge virtual desktop, you might need a faster video card.
which is probably the only reason i'd consider upgrading my video card in the next few years, if i upgrade to a 27" or 30" 2560x1600 monitor. and even then i'd probably still be happy with the performance of my current card on most games (but some would make me want to upgrade)...and, most likely, i'd just wait a little while until the current $600 cards are down around $200 or so.
PC stuff gets a lot cheaper and better very quickly. console stuff gets a bit cheaper, but no better (until years later there's a new model and then it's expensive again). Android-based consoles may change that in a few years as there won't be the monopoly on console hardware.
ps: i've never owned a console as the idea of spending $600+ on a single-function gaming machine just seemed absurd...and as much again for the competing brands of consoles (xbox, sony ps, wii) if you want to play their exclusive titles too. a PC might cost as much or more but you can do a lot more with it.
also, i really hate game controllers. i've never found one i like or can even use long enough to play a game - my hands cramp in minutes. i much prefer keyboard and mouse.
I'd recommend the 3DS (XL if you're inclined towards a much bigger screen, 90%). It's portable. It's got a great selection of games. The console and games are cheaper. You can connect with friends for multiplayer. Last I checked, it is the best selling console on the market?
It just seems to me, handhelds are the future of consoles anyway.
Do all USB Bluetooth receivers for PC work with PS3 and Wii controllers, or does one need a specific chipset? I'm trying to figure out what to recommend, but I don't currently have the money to buy every make and model. I seem to remember that back in the DS era, communication between a PC and a hacked DS needed a Wi-Fi card with a specific Ralink chipset. As for mobile, Android 4.2's changes to the Bluetooth stack appear to have broken communication with Wii Remotes (and, for a few months, PS3 controllers). Some Android devices don't support the part of Bluetooth used by the Wii Remote at all.
I don't know, check the specs of the receiver against the controller, i'm sure some basic searching will enable you to find similar details about the ps3 controller, or connecting it and debugging it yourself to identify the details.
...but open.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
...only if you fix all that first.
Kid-proof tablet..