A Slightly More Convincing Reason For The Xbox One's Forced Online

There's a very good argument that Microsoft's biggest failure this week was not its Xbox One policies, but its messaging. The way gamers were lumped with obligation, instead of opportunity.

Take the console's mandatory online check-in. For nearly every single one of you, that will never be a problem, at least on your end (should Microsoft's servers go down is another story). Practically, at least. But on principle, it's come across very badly, because all Microsoft said was that you needed to check in, not why.

You can sell almost anything to almost anyone if you package it right, and I wonder how differently Microsoft's week would have been had it let Xbox One engineering manager Jeff Henshaw talk about the online requirement like he did earlier today.

At a "closed-door meeting", reported by GamesIndustry, Henshaw gives what Microsoft has been lacking all week: a real enticement for being always-online, instead of just an order.

Sure, some developers had already tried this; Turn 10's Dan Greenwalt gave us some early, "first step" ideas for the use of cloud computing earlier in the week. But they were hardly as promising a sell as this.

Saying that Microsoft has cloud servers spread all across the world to help run Xbox One games, Henshaw says "Game developers are building games that have bigger levels than ever before. In fact, game developers can now create persistent worlds that encompass tens or hundreds of thousands of players without taxing any individual console, and those worlds that they built can be lusher and more vibrant than ever before because the cloud persists and is always there, always computing."

"Those worlds can live on in between game sessions", he adds. "If one player drops out, that world will continue on and can experience the effects of time, like wear from weather damage, so that when a player comes back into the universe it's actually a slightly evolved place in the same way that our real world evolves a little bit from the time we go to sleep to the time we wake up. Game developers have given us incredibly positive feedback on the crazy different ways that they can use this incredible new cloud power resource."

Vague promises of games to come at the time of a console's launch are hardly something you can take to the bank.

Is that enough to sway people's opinions? Without actual examples, it's hard to say. Vague promises of games to come at the time of a console's launch are hardly something you can take to the bank. And it's only half the coin; the other side of course being Microsoft is still wanting to exert some form of control over the console, which will never sit well with people.

But as bad as things seem now, if Microsoft and developers can actually take advantage of this network of servers and truly provide living game worlds, they may bring people around to the idea of having a console tethered to the internet. Slowly and reluctantly, maybe, but as we've already explored earlier this week, gamers will let a company do almost anything to them if the experience is worth it.

Xbox One has power of 10 Xbox 360 consoles, says Microsoft [GI.biz]


    That's not really justification as much as just saying online only games like similar MMOs are possible on the XBOX One, seeing as games like DCUO, MAG, DUST 514, etc that 'live in the Cloud' have been on the PS3 for years without the need for the console itself to be always online. I mean this hypothetical Cloud game isn't going to be playing by the 24 hour rules they've setup. You're either online and you can play or you're not.

      Exactly. MMO's have using persistent worlds since the Ultima days. Persistent worlds have NOTHING to do with being always online. Those games exist in the servers regardless of where you are or what you are doing.

      This is just Microsoft trying to spin the news in their favour....again.

        But why would devs develop for the cloud if there was no guarantee that every console owner had access to the cloud? It's the same argument for bundling the Kinect sensor with the console - you can be sure that everyone's got one, so the risk of developing a Kinect-enabled app or game is lessened.

          Because most people do have online, the console allows it and is easy to set up to go online, and it has enough perks most people are encouraged to keep it online. You don't need required online to get people to be online, just gotta have encouragements for them to be online and make it not too complicated to get online (these days it really isn't hard to convince people to use online features).

          As a network software engineer at a games studio, I think this is probably the best explanation I have read so far. Any limitations on the audience that can play your title is a bad thing, even it means lessening the experience. For example, console titles that get ported to PC. Although they usually support gamepads, they have to support keyboard... and usually end up playing quite poorly. So it would not surprise me that the decision to have always online was to give developers the knowledge that every XBOne is online often.

          Although that said, it is obviously not the case. If I leave my XBOne offline for several months then go back online. I would assume it will just connect and carry on, but does it download updates for all of the days it has been offline? I don't know.

          But why would devs develop for the cloud if there was no guarantee that every console owner had access to the cloud?

          I understand what you're saying and totally agree with the concept, it's why I was so excited about having the Kinect built-in, but their policy doesn't guarantee Cloud access. Having usable access to the Cloud and having the ability to maintain the back to base 24 hour check in are two different things.
          The 24 hour rule contradicts the Cloud to the point where we're back to asking if a single player game can keep going if your internet drops out. Either it can't and a momentary connection loss/drop in quality will interrupt your single player gameplay, or single player games are going to be required to not use the Cloud for anything important.

          You do it the way every MMO currently does. That one specific game tells purchasers that it is an online game which requires an internet connection to function, and you leave single-player games the fuck alone if they aren't making use of that 'feature'.

          It's the weakest excuse for anti-piracy inconvenience.

          The kinect argument is sound, the always online one, not so much. Developers will make as many cloud-enabled games for the PS4 as the Xbox One, "the cloud" is in reality just a platform agnostic server in some data centre.

          Developers making games have the guarantee that everyone who has an Internet connection and a next-gen console will be able to play their games. It's exactly the same for both platforms. The difference being, Xbox One users without an Internet connection won't be able to play any games, cloud enabled or not.

          While cloud-gaming will inevitably hit it big in the next generation, there are still some games which fundamentally don't need to be connected to the Internet in any way whatsoever. Why should an Internet connection be required to enjoy these games?

      I agree, online games yeah I can see the console needing to be online (dah lol) and i have no issue with it.. its when you are forced to be online to play offline that there is an issue..

      all M$ needs to do to get me to buy the Xbox One is change the check-in stuff to allow you to play an offline game offline and I am sold.

      I am sorry but no one will ever be able to convince me that a console has to be online all the time just to play an offline game, ill never be convinced that is the case.

    the cloud persists and is always there, always computing.

    God I hate the term 'cloud'...

      I see where you are coming from really. It feels like everything is cloud: Why? Because Cloud. How? By Cloud.

      But it would be worse if they called it what it actually was:

      "the system of integrated data centres persists...." that would get old, there needs to be a shorthand and cloud is as good a name as any.

        It's just a marketing tool indeed, but when I literally heard someone say 'they store data in clouds now!' I wanted to slap them lol.

      I do like the term Box Hugger however to describe those that cling to physical servers. I wear the badge proudly.

    So true Dogman, PS4 is going to be offering the same 'cloud computing' with Gaika just without the online check-in.

    That still doesn't explain why it's mandatory for everyone to be connected.

      Could be Microsoft's strategy is to use the xbox ones that aren't playing to be used as part of the "cloud" computing?

        That would require getting users to accept having their 'inactive' xbone being used for the cloud computing, because if it's crunching large amounts of data, it also has to be transferring that data. Both in, crunching, then out. And they've already run into folks complaining about data caps, and assured us that the 'check in' data will be minimal.

        So even if it's a possibility, it'll be one users would have to 'opt-in' for.

      It's probably a form of DRM. Of course, having no piracy on the console comes at a price (lol SOPA)...

        I don't even think it's piracy, seriously how many people do you know that pirate console games these days? I seriously don't know anyone.

          Yeah I agree with thiis point. I pirated on Wii and PS2, DS and mobile games.

          But there's no way I'd pirate on PS3 - for several reasons - file size is too big, cost of modding / flashing is too much, official firmware and official PSN offers too much, I want access to online features, cost of games steadily decrease, the quality of games has been excellent and well worth my $20 to $40, even when only a 10 hour campaign - especially given the ability to resell the disk.

          I won't pirate on Vita, if I get one, because I'll already have "free" games via PSN+.

          I won't pirate on PC games because I don't want to risk getting viruses, and I don't want to go through the difficulties in getting cracked games to work.

          I won't pirate on Android because I don't want to risk getting viruses, and I don't want to go through the difficulties in getting cracked games to work., and because there are plenty of quality free or low cost options in any case.

            very good reply!

            the best way i reckon to combat piracy is to offer the consumers things that are of good value, and good service, which you just outlined.

              Honestly the best way is to making buying games easier and simpler and not price it so high that all the sudden it's worth the hassle of pirating.

              Strict DRM does not do that, in fact it discourages buying cause you make pirating easier and simpler.

              And people wonder how Steam is making money hand-over-fist on the one platform which is universally accepted as being the home of piracy. Easy.

              Consumers want advantages in the following categories: price, convenience/ease of access, quality of product. If you can't beat the pirates on price, beat them on the other two. It helps if you can reduce the difference in price, as well. (See: Steam Sales.) Valve themselves noted that areas like Russia had high piracy. They improved their localization and watched their profits soar.

              This is not fucking rocket science and it pisses me off that purveyors of content somehow fail to understand this very, very basic equation and their responsibilities in adjusting its variables.

      Agreed, the thing that bugs me most is the constant lies. Exactly the same as Sim City and regardless of what anyone says we all know EA pushed for that, as they more than likely did with the Xbox one. There is no reason at all for the 24 hour online checks other than to prevent used games sale, and it's illogical. How much of the market is MS willing to loose to miserably attempt to assist publishers in stomping out used games sales? I would love it if MS could come up with a rational and justifiable reason for it but they can't, because there simply isn't one.

        Look at Microsofts track record with Windows. They push for change, and don't really consider how much of the market they will loose.

        Windows Vista was a flop, and admittedly they listened with Windows 7, but Windows 8 is a perfect example of pushing for a change that no one wanted, nor asked for. Now the Xbone is the same. No one wants it, but they will push it harder than a woman giving birth, until the sheep in market accept it.

        How much of the market is MS willing to loose to miserably attempt to assist publishers in stomping out used games sales?

        None. It's a smoke screen argument that only serves to distract from their actual agenda. If Microsoft/publishers in general were actually concerned about it they wouldn't have supported used-game dealerships to the point where they wiped out almost all competition, or at the very least the wouldn't continue to support them far better than everyone else. Even if it is a problem it's easily solved without nuking gamers in the process.
        Microsoft are doing this for one main reason, they want to create an App Store stranglehold on gaming. They've seen what Apple have done, they see it as an inevitability for console games, and they want to make sure that when it happens they're the ones at the top of the pile. The side effects like sucking up to publishers in order to get more exclusives are just a bonus.

        Last edited 15/06/13 1:12 pm

          I agree with your statements regarding MS wanting to mimic the success Apple has had with apps, however once again even that doesn't require an online check-in every 24 hours. I can have no internet on my phone for days and still play any single player game on it. With the Xbox one that won't be possible.

          This is the first time in console gaming where a decision has been made that I just don't understand, like @akuma07 was saying MS are getting into the habit of going against consumers. Did anyone want the metro themed Windows 8? I doubt it.

          Even today another primary example of their inability to go with the desires of consumers was apparent, Office for Apple products has just been revealed and about god damn time too. So this sounds like a good thing yeah? Well not so fast, Office on Apple products (iPad, iPhone and IPods) requires a subscription... Seriously WTF? Who in their right mind would want to pay a subscription for a word processor? It's a joke, and a sick and twisted one at that.

          Microsoft is basically just saying to consumers "We have this product you all wanted, however you see that great big middle finger over there? You have to sit on that to use it because we're Microsoft."

          Currently I love my 360, but my motivation to purchase Microsoft's entry in the next generation of consoles is non-existent.

            Always online is not the problem. Just the 24hour lockout, which is ridiculous. They could easily change the Dashboard code to alter this... unless there is actually a security lockout chip on the actual hardware itself.

            The online check in is required for MS's system because they tried to make some way gamers could sell the game (with concessions). IF they didn't have that, if it was like iOS and buying digital where there is no support for transferring apps/games whatnot, they wouldn't need the check in (the check in is to make sure you haven't sold any games lately so they can remove the approval for you to play it on the console).

            MS would have been far better off just finding ways to encourage people to buy digitally (offer some perks of digital, maybe like allowing sharing of your whole digital library for up to 10 friends of your choosing, their location not important. Make it so you can play your digital library on any xbox console if you login there. Make it so you can always redownload the digital copy if something happens. And of course, offer discounts on digital games). If they made it enticing enough people would move over and start using that and for those that really cared about selling games/having a physical copy, they still had that choice. But if you make the benefits enticing enough, people will decide the trade off is worth it and move over. And viola, they of their own choice are going to a system that doesn't allow resale of games and they're probably thanking you for adding in so many niceties to digital.

            And if they are feeling extra sneaky, make the longterm goal be to go entirely digital on the next gen console (the point being get enough market this time used to just buying digital that you don't upset too many people the next time over when you just get rid of physical copies).

            Instead MS decided to go the impatient way that instead of goes, "Here is why you should move over to this model" says, "We aren't allowing you to use the old model and here is why you shouldn't be upset". One allows people to of their own choice move over and they will be much happier when they choose to do so, the other just makes you feel like you are deaf to your customers and coming up with excuses why they shouldn't be upset.

              Agreed. The payoff from sharing my library with 10 of my friends and having access to their libraries is incentive enough for me. So I have to (at worst) tether my phone once per day wirelessly. Or I could just put my wi-fi password in and never thing about it again.

              I can understand that for people without a wifi hotspot phone or an internet connection to their house that it may seem like too much hassle or not worth it, but for me its not an issue. My house is full of net enabled devices and they are all connected to my router. Sure, ive only got adsl 2+ (with barely 8 down and 0.9 up) but thats one of the reasons the fiancée and I are building on a block that already has the nbn connected. The future of our entertainment is online services.

    That still makes no sense. If you're going to play an MMO or multiplayer anything, of course you're going to go online, so you don't need to be forced to connect.. How does it benefit being forced to connect once every 24hrs to play a scripted single player campaign?

      It doesn't. It's all bullshit.

      This answer can be applied to pretty much anything coming out of their mouths at the moment, unfortunately.

    I say, get rid of 2nd hand completely than there wouldn't be any need to check in for 24hrs. If it was more like steam no one will care. Just give us sales and take our cash.

    My only issue is and please Kotaku for the love of God ask them. What happens in 6 years time when the nextbox comes out and they shut off the servers. Does the console just become a brick? It is the only thing that is holding me back from pre ordering one.

      Really? REALLY? thats the only thing holding you back?
      You are wondering in a console..that isnt even out yet...will be supported when its successor comes out..that also hasnt even been announced?? You are thinking way too far ahead man

      im sure they will not shut down the servers for a couple of years..much like the original xbox servers with the release of the 360. Plus if the Xb1's successor is x64..good chance there will be BC

        i completely get where he is coming from here. this is my point too. in 10 - 15 years time if i wanted to play through halo 5 again, will i be able to? at the moment, the answer is; probably not. once running a server is no longer profitable, it is "switched off". you won't be able to go to a store that specializes in old games for an xbone game, because of the authentication system that was put in place. servers off, xbone dead.
        the way i see it, you're almost renting the console and the games.

      historically, Microsoft has offered legacy support for older products well into the life cycle of the next. For example, the original XB's servers weren't shut down until 2010, 4 years after the 360 was rolled out.

      XP still gets security updates and it's been succeeded by 3 generations of OS's now. (inb4 vista and 8 are terrible)

      I know it's slightly different as the XBone requires a connection to the server, but it at least shows that MS doesn't have a record of burning their customers and forcing them to buy the newest version

        XP still gets updates because it is still the most used operating system out of all of Windows. Maybe only Windows 7 would be comparable in terms of usage. Windows 7 is the only thing worth upgrading to.

        Every job I have worked in for the past 5 years, all PC's have had XP.

        The Xbone will receive support for the next 10 years at least BUT, eventually the servers WILL get turned off, or switch to the new xbox after that.

          But then what happens, they must have some kind of plan in place. Release a patch that lets you play everything offline?

          As some one who collects games this has pretty much made it pointless.

            But then what happens, they must have some kind of plan in place.

            Must they? You're not buying a game that has to work under this system, you're buying a license with an agreement that allows them to terminate it at any time. When they want to shut down the XBOX One, which they may never do because it's easily carried to the next-gen like 360 profiles are now, they can turn around and say 'sorry guys, license expired'.

              And that there is exactly what I want to know before investing thousands.

                For me it's not okay even if they wrote a statement guaranteeing that all games would be playable after the console's "expiry date". The restrictions shouldn't be in place NOW.

              No, they don't have to. And under the terms they want us to agree with, you are right. And since I don't like that the games and console is a rental, I can go buy a system that I know as long as I maintain it I can keep playing my games without worry the company will one day just shut it down.

              See how that works? They are free to try such methods but I'm free to tell them they aren't getting my money for a system I think sucks.

                Im guessing they will implement a system similar to gaikai. Easy andhcheap to maintain while still keeping the people happy. Of this is just my speculation, but it makes sense.

          that just proves my point, MS won't burn the customer while people are still using the service (especially so while they are still making money off Gold subscriptions for it)

          by the way, Windows 7 overtook XP a year ago. most analysts put XP usage at 35-38% while Win7 is at 44%.. most are in agreement that Vista is still more popular than win8 but it's pretty close at around 4.5%

            Really? That's good to know. Like I said, Windows 7 is the only worthy upgrade. They cracked the mould with that one. Still has the typical MS bugs, but you get that. Vista and 8 are just steaming piles of crap.

    I'll be getting an Xbox One, but I agree that they've given little justification as to why it's a benefit to need to check in once a day. It's just DRM. I'm willing to pay the price of DRM, especially if I can instantly share games with friends anywhere in the country, but I've yet to hear a convincing reason as to how the 24 hr check in benefits gaming experiences.

      Haha. Instantly hey. Sorry but nothing happens instantly. The only way you can share anything is if you list someone as a family member, and that hasn't even been explained properly, but i suspect once you list that person as a family member, they stay that way forever. So I hope the 10 friends you choose as family are close friends.

      You know what though, you won't hear a convincing reason, because there is none. Like you said, it's for DRM.

        They said you can add and remove people from the list. And I know it's not instant and they'll have to download the game too.

          firstly, they will have to be on your friendlist for 30days or more. secondly, they will have to be able to get a copy of the game on disc to install (possibly your exact copy) otherwise downloading it would cost full price. finally, you cannot both be playing the same game at the same time and when they play your games or you play theirs you have to check in online every 1 hour.

          So it is not exactly as easy or as good as you might think

          Also, it wont be available at launch.

            You're mistaken. You don't have to be friends for 30 days first. And you don't need the disc to share the game. Your library is available online from any other console, no need for discs. And where did they say it won't be available at launch? I wasn't aware of that.

            Last edited 15/06/13 6:56 pm

              i think you are the one who is mistaken. go check the official PR by microsoft about the xbox one's policies, its all there. And think about it, its microsoft we're talking about, just because you're family member bought a game do you really think they'll let you download that game for free? no. unless u actually get a game disc to first install the game on your console

                You mean this PR?


                "After signing in and installing, you can play any of your games from any Xbox One because a digital copy of your game is stored on your console and in the cloud. So, for example, while you are logged in at your friend’s house, you can play your games.


                Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend’s house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time."

                No mention of a 30 day friends list requirement for sharing games with family members. And they've specifically said that the discless play is a thing set up to work in situations like a house with multiple consoles without having to move discs to each console.

                Phil Spencer said: "The idea is that ten people in your family group can all share your games. Think of it like a loaning system, but you're not loaning anyone a phyiscal product. If you're in my family group, you can play my games, and vice versa."

                That's the idea of discless play. Once it's installed it's licensed to you and your family members can access that library. At that point the disc is useless.

                Yusef Mehdi said: "We're trying to do something pretty big in terms of moving the industry forward for console gaming into the digital world. We believe the digital world is the future, and we believe digital is better." ... "a family member doesn't have to be a "blood relative. For another, they don't have to live in the primary owner's house—I could name a friend that lives 3,000 miles away as one of my "family members""

                And he also said the features would be available at launch.

                So, like I said, you're mistaken. Prove me wrong.

                  @jimmy I dunno sources, but from my osmosis over the last week I was under the impression that the 30 day cool-off thing only applied to giving away a game to a friend wholesale, rather than the lending process.

                  See, Shadow, instead of all that stuff in the quotes, Sony's policies seem to be much simpler. :)

      Or you could at least hold off on buying the xbox. If sales are bad enough, MS will try to make concessions (they have done so before but they wait until the sales numbers are very obvious that something is wrong).

      The fact that you can share your full game library with 10 of your friends (and they can with you) easily outweighs the extremely minor I convenience of a once a day check in thats as easy as wirelessly tethering your phone.

      No more need to sell or loan games. Just monitor the sales and tell you friends when the licenses to your games are cheap and vice versa. Simply awesome. No need to loan your mates the disc as they can install from the cloud. Super freaking awesome.

    Slowly and reluctantly, maybe, but as we’ve already explored earlier this week, gamers will let a company do almost anything to them if the experience is worth it.

    That's a mighty big if.

      I think what he actually means is, gamers will let a company ass fuck them as much as they want, if that console plays Call of Duty.

    Can anyone remind me of that website that sorted your games collection by their lengths?

      I would recommend http://www.howlongtobeat.com
      Can be a bit time consuming to get your library in there but once there you can rack and sort stuff to see total time and estimated time for 100% or just main quest. Have a look and see if that will work for you

    Sim City
    Diablo 3
    pretty much every MMO launched. The Xbone launch will be HORRENDOUS

      Say what you want about the XBone, but Xbox Live has a pretty damn good track record for staying up over big launches.

        We are talking about consoles here, not PC. Therefore, your argument of "OMFG XBOX LIVE IS SO FUCKING AWESOME" is obsolete.

          What he's saying isn't that XBOX Live is the greatest, it's that historically XBOX Live has weathered the big traffic storms that lead to all the 'authentication failed' errors we normally see with games like Diablo/SimCity and MMOs. For instance Modern Warfare 2's launch was huge but it didn't break XBOX Live like Diablo did Battle.net and SimCity did Origin.
          Regardless of what you think about the XBOX One or XBOX Live in general, XBOX Live is stable (along with PSN for that matter). Granted with the money it generates and the statistics on how many consoles are out there I wouldn't expect it to be unstable.

            I think so few people are buying the Xboff that there won't be a problem of a server onslaught.

            Last edited 15/06/13 10:52 pm

            Yeah, but with the money that Microsoft has generated from Xbox Live accounts, you would definitely expect them to invest it in server performance.

            Which is why I believe we will see a greater level of quality from the PSN servers on the PS4.

      Try comparing it with xbox live, a service that has been up and running for over 10 years... thats exact what it is btw.

    Take the console’s mandatory online check-in. For nearly every single one of you, that will never be a problem, at least on your end

    You are making the same mass (and incorrect) generalisation as Microsoft. Not even close to nearly every single one of us will have an internet connection and might actually, you know, want to play video games. I guess for those people they get the "bone" out of XBone.

      It's the principle of having to connect, not the ability to.

    Xbox One has the power of 10 Xbox360 consoles, when online. But if someone was to go wrong or just happen, like moving house, it has the power of a brick. Even when a game only includes one player and not tens of thousands of them.

    I can see Xbox One having possibilities with online gaming MMOs and such, but it doesn't justify having to be online with single player games too. The gaming community has always hated that aspect ever since DRM was introduced.

      The Xbone doesn't have any further possibilities with MMO's than any other platform does, an MMO is by design always online, therefore having an always online console doesn't mean anything to an MMO.

      If the console NEEDS cloud computing to be successful, then what's the point?

      There is no reason for the online checkin at all, other than to enforce DRM. People need to realise that.

        If the console NEEDS cloud computing to be successful, then what's the point?

        I'm not defending always on, but it does mean that games can increase in power without hardware upgrades. If the Cloud actually makes an XBOX One 10x more powerful today, which I'm skeptical about because general 'power' doesn't multiply like that, it could potentially make an XBOX One 100x more powerful tomorrow without requiring a hardware upgrade that would traditionally fragment the install base.
        Developers could all start using that 100x boost in all the games they release from that point on without having to include a dumbed down mode for players who didn't get the hardware upgrade because the upgrade is on the Cloud end.

        I could potentially soften the gap between generations and help console games remain competitive spec-wise with PC games.

        Really that's the point they should be bringing up, but like I said in my earlier comment that doesn't actually work within the 24 hour check-in rule. It's just an online only game.

        Last edited 15/06/13 1:28 pm

          That point is moot as soon as someone says... well PS4 and PC could do the same thing without having the mandatory 24 verifications... why does the Xboff need it?


            the answer is right here! the ps4 can do cloud computing too! without the 24hr check!

              What sorcery is this?! =P

              I will say that Microsoft's Cloud will almost certainly kick the snot out of Sony's. Although what difference that will make is pretty hard to determine. Especially when you factor in that they've promised single player gameplay won't be interrupted by internet problems.

        The benefits far outweighs the cost of a once a day check in. Shared game libraries with 10 of your friends. Epic.

    It's not worth the trade off.

    also https://www.facebook.com/AmazonVideoGames?v=app_153839431317646&rest=1
    Great success.
    I can't vote cause I'm not on there.

    Here's another article that outlines some advantages of the online DRM of the Xbox One. Hopefully, it will inform you about a few more features that come with the always online component.

    Last edited 15/06/13 12:02 pm

      That's not an advantage of DRM, You can do all of those things on windows without forcing you to connect to the internet every 24 hours.

      That is what Microsoft is offering you to try and make you accept their DRM. There is a difference.

      That article reads like it was written by Microsoft them self it is so biased.

      WHOLEY CRAP. I have NEVER seen such a bunch of Microsoft Fanboy biased opinions EVER. Seriously I am not even kidding. And nearly every single person in the comments section actually agrees with him. Like wow, are american's so dumb? They will let Microsoft rape them, just to play the next Halo?

      I can point out SO many things in that article that come off as fanboy trash, and aren't accurate.

      Took me a few minutes to realise that it is a Microsoft website. SO you can't trust any opinion on it, especially when it comes off so biased.

      Last edited 15/06/13 1:34 pm

        So much this, even my friends are being like this. It's driving me insane. Their excuse is simply "It has good games" completely disregarding the always online component, the inability to sell used games the fact that Microsoft are a bunch of assholes.

          Ahaha. So when they say good games, are they really talking about Call of Doody and Halo?

        So, you're not gonna be on Xbox? GREAT! You're just as obnoxious as a 12 year old on CoD! I can go on as to say why I'll get Xbox but I don't want to sacrifice myself to the circle jerk.

          Considering the Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty was renowned for its masses of obnoxious 12 year old's I fail to see the comparison.

          I'm not obnoxious though, I simply see facts, and the facts are, right now, the XBone has given me NO reason to buy one, and plenty of reasons not to. Especially when the only game that looks good right now is a timed exclusive (lulz, like 99% of them on Xbone). If you sit there and ignore all the bad things about the Xbone, simply because you want it, then I'm sure you'll be very happy sharing CoD with those obnoxious 12 year olds.

    This sounds like Peter Molyneux talking about the first Fable. I need to see actual examples before I give up my console's functionality.

    Hahahahaha. Another fluff article. Seriously all the Xbone articles on Kotaku are starting to sound like they have been send by Microsoft's PR department.

    Seriously, this is NOT a justification, all he has done is explain how MMO's work hahaha. Seriously, we already know friend. We know exactly why they require a 24 hour check-in, it has nothing to do with persistent worlds, it is to enforce their DRM system.

    Try and talk your way around that all you like, there is no changing that fact. This article actually has nothing to do with the 24 hour checkin, its just talking about what the advantages of being always online are.

    Also, another piece of inconsistency, is this article says that 24 hour checkins "won't be a problem for nearly all of you". That right there, goes against everything everyone has been saying, including this site itself. There are a substantial amount of people who don't have, nor want internet connections, while they still want to play video games.

      Agreed, beyond all that I think it's just the morals of the whole thing. The check-ins only serve to degrade the users experience not improve it, therefor the check-ins shouldn't exist.

      Ok so a check in is a pain, but easilyonle id pay for the awesomeness of shared libraries. Also takes care of needing to trade or sell games. When im sick of a game, I download one from my friends list that he stopped playing a couple of weeks ago and play to my hearts content.

    We need justification on policies and everything regarding the xbox one so everyone who comments on games sites can stop making up falsities like the kinect will abduct you and othe ridiculous things.

      Wait, so the Kinect WON'T abduct me?!

      Shit. So you're saying I can take my tin foil hat off now?

    so their excuse for the online check is that some games use online, that not only doesn't explain why I need it for games without online, but also fails to explain why i need it when the online games aren't running, I see no reason why the online game needs to check every 24 hours when it's already checking every time it's played.

      It needs net access to bit coin farm.

    oh for fucks sake, everyone knows the reason why it has to be online, its because of fucking piracy in previous gens, how they lost millions to it, now they have to instill such a method to hope and try stop piracy. Its not Microsoft fault its all the fucking dickheads who rip the game, upload it, but least to say its all of the fucking idiots who end up downloading it that have ruined it for the rest of us.

    Don't fucking kid your self. You damn well know why this has happened. Fucking double standard bastards.

      "They" haven't ruined it for Sony users. Or Nintendo.

      Last edited 15/06/13 4:27 pm

    And it'll just get hacked and piracy will continue. Except the pirates will get a better experience than the paying customers because they won't be saddled with bullshit DRM. Punishing paying customers is not the answer.

    Piracy has been the 'Killer' of gaming for decades now and I'm still waiting for it to die. The current generation (360 & ps3) in my experience has been far less common for piracy on consoles than the rampant ps2/xbox generation - This DRM is there to combat 2nd hand gaming more than anything else IMHO and therefore maximise profits>
    This is all spin - If you want to support a company that has such obvious anti-consumer principles - Buy an xbox - and don't be surprised if the trend continues

    To me the major advantage I read of this is that, unlike Gaikai which is basically a low latency remote control and viewing system, this is intended to extend the base power of the console through having anything that can be performed by their servers, instead of the local console, to do so.

    This not only frees up local resources that game dev's can make use of, but also allows a potentially vast amount of computation to be added, and could be scaled over time to continually bring better and better games. This usually happens anyway (like if you compare some of the first PS2 games with some of the last ones ever made), but in this case could be significantly more pronounced. One downside I see though is it would probably degrade things like how the game looks for ones using the technology, if your internet connection was poor or had quality issues, but it still wouldn't look any worse than what the developer could do with the console alone, so it's kind of between a rock and a hard place..

    An interesting idea, I still don't see why there's a mandatory check in every day either though.

      But that's kind of the point of Gaikai, too. They can upgrade the hardware on the server side as much as they want and you can keep playing on your local machine because it's not doing any of the work. Theoretically they could make PS5 and beyond just by upgrading the server side and we all keep playing on the old PS4 (or even PS3) hardware.

      But unfortunately both MS and Sony's solutions are at the mercy of Internet speeds, and there are few places on earth where they are reliably fast enough to make either of these approaches viable any time soon.

    *cough* *cough* *cough* Oh sorry. You'll have to excuse me *cough* *cough* I'm allergic to PR bullshit.

    This is like saying obama isn't unpopular now, because of the scandals he's involved in, it's just because he's too stupid to explain himself properly.

    Hint to Luke: It's Microsoft's POLICIES that are causing the tide of negative public opinion.


    No amount of spin, or blaming it on "messaging", is going to change that.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now