Xbox One will require online check every 24 hours

Microsoft has clarified its online validation strategy for Xbox One. It will require a check every 24 hours on your home machine, or hourly if you're accessing your library on someone else's.

92

Almost as soon as the Xbox One announcement ended, we started hearing contradictory tales from Microsoft regarding the system's connectivity requirements. The last two weeks have apparently given the company a chance to get its messaging straight, as it finally clarified today just how often the system needs to check in.

As confirmed on the official site the system will require an online check-in every 24 hours on your primary console. If you're accessing your game library on someone else's system, that window gets narrowed to every hour. The page warns: "Offline gaming is not possible after these prescribed times until you re-establish a connection, but you can still watch live TV and enjoy Blu-ray and DVD movies."

This is similar to what Phil Harrison told Kotaku, which apparently let the cat out of the bag early. Microsoft quickly told Polygon he was merely describing "potential scenarios."

More mundane details include the recommended connection speed (1.5Mbps), and the ability to sign in and install games from your friend's house to play them there. That's certainly convenient, but the one-hour check-in time might make it less welcoming.

Editor-In-Chief
Filed Under
From The Chatty
  • reply
    June 6, 2013 4:20 PM

    Steve Watts posted a new article, Xbox One will require online check every 24 hours.

    Microsoft has clarified its online validation strategy for Xbox One. It will require a check every 24 hours on your home machine, or hourly if you're accessing your library on someone else's.

    • reply
      June 6, 2013 4:47 PM

      Am looking forward to Major explaining how this will be a good thing.

      • reply
        June 6, 2013 4:50 PM

        TBA at a later date.

      • reply
        June 6, 2013 7:20 PM

        Free tip for Don Mattrick: don't try any overseas USO shows, because you'll get booed offstage for effectively taking away their Call of Duty.

      • reply
        June 6, 2013 10:04 PM

        http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license

        Discs are optional. You can access your games and saves from anywhere. You can transfer your license to other people.

        All of this obviously requires some way to periodically check that you're not abusing it. Imagine if you could gift the game to a friend with no limitations with now online check to verify that you weren't still playing it on your own box - you'd effectively be providing a built-in way to do piracy.

        They could add an offline mode - e.g. opt-in to tie your game to a specific console until you go online again, maybe, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort and extra confusion it would cause.

        The point is that they're providing features that have real value, and a consequence of those features is that you need periodic license checks to prevent abuse.

    • reply
      June 6, 2013 5:14 PM

      Why does it seem that Microsoft wants to drive gamers away from it's new console with every announcement?

      • reply
        June 6, 2013 5:16 PM

        Because the fan-boys will buy it any way and everything else is to attract the sheople.

        • reply
          June 6, 2013 5:44 PM

          Not true - I've owned all their consoles but this shit is just plain stupid.

          • reply
            June 6, 2013 7:16 PM

            You are less important than the sheople.

            • reply
              June 7, 2013 6:22 AM

              I thought you said that ironically the first time, jesus christ.

      • reply
        June 6, 2013 11:33 PM

        is it only about gamers? or is it expanding the intended audience? one that is online... all the time...

        which seems to also include "gamers" as a subset

    • reply
      June 6, 2013 5:19 PM

      This thing is going to sell like hotcakes.

      • reply
        June 6, 2013 5:59 PM

        Pretty much. I hate to say it but most customers won't care about the always online requirement. It will only affect them once in a blue moon, certainly not often enough to keep most people from buying it.

        So I REALLY hope Xbone doesn't get any good exclusives, because they will be unplayable in ten years when the servers are shut down.

        • reply
          June 6, 2013 6:38 PM

          Most customers will never even notice that this is a thing, I wager.

      • reply
        June 6, 2013 8:31 PM

        I guess this means I don't like hotcakes.

    • reply
      June 6, 2013 6:31 PM

      I don't know, every 24 hours doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. I don't think my 360 has ever gone 24 hours without a network connection. Even the times I've brought it to other places... I usually just connect to their wireless and I'll be online there as well. If it checked every few minutes and stopped in the middle of playing because my FIOS went down... then I'd be PISSED. But 24 hours seems reasonable I think.

      • reply
        June 6, 2013 9:27 PM

        It's more that this feature isn't being added for any user convenience. What do the consumers get from having to be online every day? The possibility of servers being down for extended periods (Rendering the device useless), not being able to resell games, no luck for people with poor and/or no internet connections, and also the chance that in 5-10 years all the games that they bought will magically stop working. What a deal.

        • reply
          June 6, 2013 10:08 PM

          This features *is* added for user convenience. Did you just skip reading the explanation?

          Here: http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license

          You may not think those features are important (personally, I'm more than ready to stop fucking around with discs), but they are all features that are there to make things more convenient for the user, and they require online checks to work.

          • reply
            June 6, 2013 10:24 PM

            They require online checks but not ridiculously often online checks. They could do exactly the same thing with a week or two check interval.

            • reply
              June 6, 2013 10:36 PM

              They require checks often enough that you couldn't feasibly finish the game in the offline time period.

              If you're a hardcore gamer you can finish a lot of games in less than 24h. I suspect this will already lead to widespread piracy in dorms and stuff where it's not too much trouble for hundreds of people to install the game and finish it in 24h. A week would be way too long.

              • reply
                June 6, 2013 11:29 PM

                Steam seems to get by ok.

                • reply
                  June 7, 2013 12:03 AM

                  Steam is different. It doesn't have ANY grace period. You have to be online to install the game.

                  • reply
                    June 7, 2013 12:55 AM

                    Have they confirmed that you don't need a check at first install? I missed that.

                  • reply
                    June 7, 2013 8:36 AM

                    I'm quite certain you'll have to be online to install an Xbox one game as well.

          • reply
            June 7, 2013 1:23 AM

            Mandatory sign-ins even for offline games isn't convenience. We had installs and digital downloads on the 360, and there wasn't a mandatory sign-in requirements then. Why can't it just be an option for people who wish to use it? Install a game, select 'Make this game available on the cloud', THEN require a heartbeat for when the game is played. Unless, of course, it's not for our benefit.

    • reply
      June 6, 2013 6:40 PM

      [deleted]

      • reply
        June 6, 2013 7:27 PM

        Until the hard drive fails, and you're stuck redownloading up to 500 GB of data.

        • reply
          June 6, 2013 9:06 PM

          Isn't that what The Cloud and extended warranties are for? After having two Xbox 360's die on me, you can sure bet that I'll be backing up my saves to the cloud and getting a no-nonsense extended warranty on my Xbox One...should I choose to buy one at launch.

        • reply
          June 6, 2013 10:13 PM

          [deleted]

        • reply
          June 6, 2013 10:14 PM

          Well if you still have your discs you can just use those to install the games again.

          I don't think I'll ever buy another disc again, personally. The risks are outweighed by the benefits, but if you disagree you still have the option of using discs for speedy installation.

        • reply
          June 6, 2013 10:47 PM

          you can install the game from the disc if you don't want to download that much data.

      • reply
        June 7, 2013 9:53 AM

        Same here, I don't mind having my console check in once a day if, in return, I get to play all my games on any Xbox I want just by signing in to my profile.

    • reply
      June 6, 2013 9:01 PM

      Uh, I'm going to try and be original and look at this in a "glass-half-full" sort of way. At the end of the article regarding game licensing, there are a couple of paragraphs that seem pretty gloom and doom, but I see them very differently than perhaps most of you do:

      "As we move into this new generation of games and entertainment, from time to time, Microsoft may change its policies, terms, products and services to reflect modifications and improvements to our services, feedback from customers and our business partners or changes in our business priorities and business models or for other reasons. We may also cease to offer certain services or products for similar reasons.

      In the months ahead, we will continue to listen to your feedback as we meet with our partners in the ecosystem to bring additional detail about our policies."

      The key sentences I'm seeing here are: "Microsoft may change its policies, terms, products and services to reflect modifications and improvements to our services, feedback from customers....we will continue to listen to your feedback as we meet with our partners..."

      Yes, the bits that talk about business partners and so on seem a little shady and self interested, but one thing I can say about Microsoft and Xbox is that while the company and the console hasn't always gone in the direction I would have liked, there are many examples with both the original Xbox and Xbox 360 where Microsoft has clearly listened to gamers and improved and innovated their services to satisfy them. Friends Lists were increased. Cross-Chat and Party Chat were introduced. License Transfer waiting periods on the Xbox 360 were shortened, and so on. My point is, this 24-hour limit could easily be expanded to 48 hours, 72 hours, or more, if Microsoft gets enough feedback from customers. And that's just one way in which it may open up. The Xbox 360 of today may not be as lighting fast as it once was in 2005, but it is far more flexible than it was back then too. It's all software, people.

      • reply
        June 6, 2013 9:37 PM

        That bit of text is to give you the feeling you just had: that maybe it's not that bad and maybe they'll listen to the public and fix their shit.

        It's bullshit, pure and simple. And this is why: once they start signing deals with publishers to behave a certain way, they will be locked into that way forever.

        I wish that consumers would vote en masse with their wallets and tell both Microsoft and Sony that these types of anti-consumer shenanigans were unacceptable. But of course, that won't happen and both consoles will be moderately successful at a minimum, and the next round of consoles will be even worse.

        And before one of you responds "but steam", please remember all of the things that steam gives you in exchange for the right of first sale.

        • reply
          June 7, 2013 2:29 AM

          [deleted]

          • reply
            June 7, 2013 2:40 AM

            the steam comparison is bullshit. Steam is pc software. Doesn't require a constant internet connection, doesn't lock you out of other PC functionality when internet is gone

            • reply
              June 7, 2013 2:49 AM

              [deleted]

              • reply
                June 7, 2013 2:59 AM

                its a 400 quid or whatever piece of kit that plays games but requires constant internet checks for the sole purpose of restricting the consumer.
                but I can still watch freeview.

                its a bad deal for us

                • reply
                  June 7, 2013 3:21 AM

                  That seems the same as Steam to me, the price is irrelevant to the discussion. If I don't have internet before I put steam into offline mode I'm screwed. Sure I can still do other things on my computer but I don't want to, I want to play that game on steam.

                  That said, it's still a shitty thing to have to deal with, especially on consoles where we haven't been used to it. We seemed to get used to it pretty quickly on Steam though.

                  • reply
                    June 7, 2013 3:34 AM

                    arghh i still think the comparison is bullshit. Steam is a storefront that is built around an internet connection. It's not the device that plays the games.
                    people use it because the way it operates appealed to consumers; not because of restrictions forced onto us.
                    buying a steam game for 5 quid in a sale and having the option of better resoltuions more control options sometimes more functionality, for generations down the line; is almost an entirely different type of market than buying a console game and having the disk to rent/swap/trade. You try to place the same restrictions on the consoles and all it does it make the PC version more appealing.

                    Everything I own that is internet enabled, including the PC, has core functionality without arbitrarily checking for a connection but uses the internet to enhance its features. If the icecube maker in my fridge didnt have a water supply, it wouldnt arbitrarily cease to function as a fridge (I assume)

                    • reply
                      June 7, 2013 4:02 AM

                      They are perhaps different markets and products but the line of contention is that without internet, I can't play game X. That scenario can happen in both environments and sucks in both cases if it does. Whether you attribute "superior functionality" like being able to change resolutions and control options to the price of tying the game to the steam service is another thing, thats your way of justifying it. To me I still can't play it if the builder down the road has drilled through my internet cable. I think we're used to that scenario by now.

                      I guess the biggest issue for me, like you said, is the Xbox as a generational platform. What happens to my games in the next generation if they are tied to this weird online service. They certainly don't ever seem too interested about backwards compatibility, and I don't want to have multiple pieces of hardware around just to play the 3 games I like on that console.

            • reply
              June 7, 2013 5:49 AM

              Their offline mode is almost always broken though.

              • reply
                June 7, 2013 5:57 AM

                [deleted]

                • reply
                  June 7, 2013 6:08 AM

                  Yeah it's the not meant to work when it unexpectedly goes down part that's always the problem. You can't send it into offline mode manually. But if you exit and try to log in it'll dump you into it. That just seems like some really poor implementation or at least lack of will to fix it. Don't get me wrong I like valve and steam and I trust them a fuck ton more than I do Microsoft.

          • reply
            June 7, 2013 2:55 AM

            [deleted]

            • reply
              June 7, 2013 3:17 AM

              steam isn't a console. its not even the only way to play videogames on pc

              • reply
                June 7, 2013 3:23 AM

                [deleted]

                • reply
                  June 7, 2013 3:29 AM

                  Except for like, all those other ways.

                  When my internet gets funky on my PC, I can play all the stuff I've purchased from GoG, and a number of games that I own not through Steam, in addition to just running Steam in offline mode.

                  • reply
                    June 7, 2013 4:11 AM

                    [deleted]

                    • reply
                      June 7, 2013 4:22 AM

                      I honestly don't know. When I work from home through a VPN, I can't get online through Steam, so it just goes offline and I can still play most games. There are exceptions, but those are game-related, rather than Steam-related.

                      I think the reason people treat Steam differently is that it's merely one way to play games on a PC. On a console that requires online access to play games, if your internet is spotty or down, you simply cannot do anything with the console. On my PC, if the internet is down, I may not be able to play some games, but it largely functions as normal and even if online-only programs won't work, there's plenty of other stuff that will.

                      I like the way things worked this generation, where I could play downloaded games on other systems if I get online, but could play anything in my library on my home system even when offline.

                      I just don't see any benefit being granted to me by what MS is trying to do here.

                      • reply
                        June 7, 2013 4:48 AM

                        [deleted]

                        • reply
                          June 7, 2013 5:01 AM

                          It probably depends a lot on the kind of gamer you are. Generally when I'm in the mood for gaming, it's just that, gaming in general. Rarely do I feel like "Oh man, I really want to play _____ right now.", so as long as either my PC, PS3 or 3DS are functioning, I'm good to go.

              • reply
                June 7, 2013 3:24 AM

                The service and access to the games is surely why the comparison is relevant, just because it isn't the only way I can play games on my PC doesn't make it different. If I can't play Bioshock Inifinite because my internet is screwed and steam isn't in offline mode, having the ability to play Bioshock 1 from a disk doesn't solve my problem, I still want to play the other game!

                • reply
                  June 7, 2013 3:40 AM

                  i think losing the ability to play Half life 2 and dawn of war and whatever other steamworks games there are is hugely different from losing the ability to play ALL games.
                  If your a midtier or indie game on the xbone you are going to have the same restrictive DRM as the huge games that demanded it.

          • reply
            June 7, 2013 7:36 AM

            Steam gives me:

            - all of the social features of xbox live, but steam itself is free (ie, invites into arbitrary games, joins in progess, see what my friends are playing, community features, achievements, etc)
            - no disc in the drive when I play
            - no physical media cluttering up my house
            - unlimited redownloads of my games on any device I own. And also devices I don't own but have access temporarily (which matters to me because I travel a lot for work and use other people's machines)
            - no (other) drm needed
            - offline mode that works forever.
            - cloud saves for games.
            - cloud saves for settings.

            And they did ask me to give up my right of first sale. Sorta. I could still keep it if I really wanted to:

            1) Create an account.
            2) Buy a single game.
            3) Play the game.
            4) Sell the account.
            5) Repeat 1-4 as needed.

            It's just not worth it to me to do that.

            • reply
              June 7, 2013 7:53 AM

              [deleted]

              • reply
                June 7, 2013 9:28 PM

                Except about half of them which they've said explicitly won't be there?

            • reply
              June 7, 2013 9:00 AM

              Something else I thought of this morning is when I upgrade my PC my Steam purchases follow me and in most cases performance is improved on previously purchased games. There are very few PC games that won't work on a future 8 or 12 core processor I may purchase down the road.

              However with a XBone (or PS4) I may lose my entire library moving to whatever successor comes out 7 years from now unless I keep my original Xbone. Now the DRM schemes get ticker, can I give my son my XBone to play Halo5 down the road and I can play the new XBTwo games at the same time? I'm guessing not because both games would be tied to my MS account.

              This shit is seriously stupid and I can't imagine they anticipate that much more revenue after all the infrastructure and support costs go into this for what will be a near 10 year period of time. It's way too complicated and even with so many IT PROFESSIONALS on the shack it's confusing.

      • reply
        June 6, 2013 9:49 PM

        What it means to me is: We'll lighten up before launch, then revert back to the suckage once you've paid us.

        I think historically, it's the only accurate supposition to make.

    • reply
      June 6, 2013 9:48 PM

      u got x-boned: http://www.abload.de/img/drm4yjrw.png

    • reply
      June 6, 2013 9:52 PM

      no thanks, the principal of this is gross

    • reply
      June 6, 2013 10:01 PM

      I've been everything Xbox since it's existence. At the rate they're going with this stuff, I'll come full circle back to PC ..or hell...I'll buy a PS4.

    • reply
      June 6, 2013 10:34 PM

      My interest has waned to zero

      • reply
        June 6, 2013 11:32 PM

        yuh holds no appeal for me now. Now im just worried how much the PS4 is gonna be similar

        • reply
          June 7, 2013 3:00 AM

          If its true that this is coming from the big publishers (and every sign points to that) then I dont see how sony's system can be any different unless they're turning their nose up at EA / Activision / Ubi Soft etc.

          Now it seems kind of obvious why EA isn't developing any titles for the Wii U, its not just the install base, they don't want to undermine their new DRM standards on other systems.

          • reply
            June 7, 2013 3:11 AM

            I'm guessing all the big game are going to come with an online requirement built into the game. Can't play campaign without some highscore integration, or developer tweets scrolling across the main menu.
            But sony have at least made a point about showing they've been talking to all types of publishers and developers and asked directly what they want in a console. So we can hope it won't be online required for ALL games.

            • reply
              June 7, 2013 3:26 AM

              Yeah that is one possibility.

              Frankly one of the reasons i'm so interested in the PS4 is that it is being pitched as a haven for indie developers, which is all i'm interested in really. I've missed most of the big AAA titles of this generation from not having either console, and there has only been a couple i've really regretted having access to. Mainly Sony first party titles.

              The blockbuster stuff from Ea / Activision don't even register with me anymore.

      • reply
        June 7, 2013 4:39 AM

        Yup same here. In fact this has actually caused me to gain more interest in the Wii U and possibly PS4 depending upon what they do.

    • reply
      June 6, 2013 10:54 PM

      i wont be buying xbone

    • reply
      June 6, 2013 11:31 PM

      Does the Kinect detect communists?

    • reply
      June 7, 2013 3:22 AM

      I must say, they are doing their best to kill my interest in getting one

    • reply
      June 7, 2013 4:15 AM

      They might go to great lengths to streamline it, but at the end of the day, it just sounds like a hassle.

      • reply
        June 7, 2013 6:58 AM

        So this essentially kills game rentals. Wonder what happens to the xbone when its third party support starts to flag like the wiiU.

        • reply
          June 7, 2013 7:42 AM

          no rental kills a lot of my console playtime. Obviously I get most stuff on PC, but if its console exclusive or I'm on the fence it's super easy for me to rent it.

          Gonna suck missing out on some of them games where you have no expectations but they turn out amazing.
          Like nier

    • reply
      June 7, 2013 5:47 AM

      It's pretty much dead to me at this point.

    • reply
      June 7, 2013 6:09 AM

      Ha ha ha. Because who wants to connect to the internet every day? Amirite?

      People will wail and gnash their teeth over how terrible Michael Bay movies are right up until they gross a billion dollars. It literally doesn't matter how bad the last few Star Wars movies were, every nerd is going to dutifully line right up to see the new ones. The games industry is figuring out what Hollywood has known for years, that consumers are liars, their actions do not follow from their rhetoric.

      How did that MW2 boycott over dedicated servers work out? All this crying over used game support and always being connected is going to shrivel up and blow away just like the MW2 boycott. If you want to play modern video games you're going to have to support these types of systems, whether it's steam or xbox.

      • reply
        June 7, 2013 6:14 AM

        Bottom line for some people is you have to have an internet connection to play even single player games on the XBOX One, it's the first game console to do this (require an internet connection) if I'm not mistaken. Steam and PC Gaming have been doing things different for years. The tradition here being broken is tough for many to swallow and it's a bit bet MS is making.

        I know plenty of folks that play the XBOX 360 and do not have a constant internet connection or one at all for various reasons.

        • reply
          June 7, 2013 6:18 AM

          I don't think it's a big bet MS is making, Sony is going to have a similar system.

          I think the issue here is MS may be going a for a consistent user experience, since they know anything less would be confusing for consumers. Sony seems like they have systems in place, but are "leaving it up to the publishers" which means for most titles, it will be exactly the same. Some may not, but then they have an inconsistent user experience, and for most consumers it will not make any difference because they would assume they all work the same way.

          • reply
            June 7, 2013 1:35 PM

            I'm willing to bet that Sony has a similar set-up in place, give or take a few stipulations here and there, but they are letting MS take all the heat in the lead-up to E3...perhaps even afterward. I can't see how Sony is going to be able to release a PS4 that does not adhere to the same standards that the Xbox One does if Gamestop is already on board with MS's "Always On" strategy. There will be similar DRM on Sony's console, of this I have little doubt.

            And even if Sony has the stones during their conference to break rank and say "We won't be using online DRM", what if the publishers and developers who are keen on MS's strategy say "Uh...well then we're not developing on your console, because that wasn't part of the deal we had", Sony might be in for a world of hurt. Would Sony be willing to gamble losing EA for an initial launch boost? Monday is going to be VERY INTERESTING....I cannot wait, either way. It's gonna be a bloodbath ; )

        • reply
          June 7, 2013 6:28 AM

          Exactly. I think I hooked up my Xbox360 to the internet a grand total of three times. Each time I got some huge-ass dashboard update which managed to both slow it down and gay it up even more at the same time, so I stopped plugging the network cable in.

          I really didn't see the point in connecting it. The only real need - multiplayer - is irrelevant on the Xbox. I don't particularly want to play games online on a console when I can play the same game for free on the PC with a better frame rate, better controls, shorter load times and more communication options. Especially when I have to pay a fee for the privilege of playing online (what in the flying fuck?)

        • reply
          June 7, 2013 6:50 AM

          I can already see the consumer rage coming on that front even if it sells decently at launch. I've known plenty of people that don't have the 360 connected or even know or care much about that. Also when it comes to the internet it's a really big crap shoot once you start getting into rural areas. The whole thing just seems like a PR nightmare waiting to happen.

      • reply
        June 7, 2013 6:15 AM

        [deleted]

      • reply
        June 7, 2013 6:17 AM

        You're not wrong, but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't voice their annoyance when they lose a bunch of things, and gain close to nothing. Also, there's PS4 in the picture here. Sony has a chance to find out for good if what you just said is literally true - if they come out without a comparable DRM system and so forth, and Xbox still outsells them, then I guess all hope is lost. Until that time I'm going to be upset about the shit MS is pulling, because it upsets me, and I wish things were otherwise.

        • reply
          June 7, 2013 6:20 AM

          You'll watch your transformers and you'll like it!

      • reply
        June 7, 2013 6:19 AM

        ha ha ha so funny

      • reply
        June 7, 2013 6:19 AM

        Because the one's bitching aren't the ones they are targeting anyway. People don't like the truth that communities like this are the minority. Most people have no fucking clue what 'DRM' even means

        • reply
          June 7, 2013 6:23 AM

          every community on the internet that has expressed any interest towards these consoles are bitching about it. It's on youtube, its on newspaper article comments, its on hobby forums, its on reddit. I dunno about people who don't have the internet, but they wont be able to use one anyway.

          I don't think its just us dorks that microsoft have missed

          • reply
            June 7, 2013 6:38 AM

            The point is that simply bitching about it is not enough. Until those communities show a real willingness to change their habits, no sane corporation will give in to them. A next generation console that plays used games without online checks already exists. I don't see much talk around here about everyone flocking to the Wii U.

            • reply
              June 7, 2013 6:44 AM

              I guarantee you the Xbox One is going to be the most popular console on this message board. So the bitching is just that - bitching. It's not a legit promise not to buy the console.

              • reply
                June 7, 2013 7:21 AM

                We won't know until these things launch but people can be really fickle. Hell look what happened to the Wii U and the PS3. Sony pretty much dominated the market with the PS1 and PS2 then fell to third place with the PS3 partially because of the pricing. The Wii was pretty much a runaway success at launch but a generation later the Wii U for the most part has been a disaster. Hell if you want to go further back look at Sega and Atari. We'll have to see what Sony does at E3 as they've generally avoided saying much of anything and aren't strangers to implementing shit at the last minute ala the Move.

                I'll honestly say that this one has a high chance of Microsoft fucking up. I don't think they could do a much worse PR job than what they've done so far. But I really think it comes down to how Sony plays their hand.

                • reply
                  June 7, 2013 7:31 AM

                  At this point I think it's a given that Sony has some similar DRM scheme.

                  I think the gamble both companies may be making is this:

                  1. MS is making this a uniform system, for a consistent user experience.
                  2. Sony may be taking a "hands-off" approach and leaving this "up to the publishers", which could make for a less consistent user experience. This might make the "hardcore" happy, but honestly, when you talk about mass-appeal this will mean next to nothing with the other masses. The big titles will be restricted just the same, and Joe Consumer will assume ALL PS4 titles work this way, regardless if they do or not.

                  • reply
                    June 7, 2013 7:35 AM

                    If it's coming from the publishers I would expect nothing less from Sony.

                    Question is - are the ones bitching willing to avoid BOTH consoles or will they simply go "oh, guess it doesn't matter then" and buy one?

                    • reply
                      June 7, 2013 7:44 AM

                      The ones bitching are going to buy both consoles. Don't be fooled.

                    • reply
                      June 7, 2013 7:50 AM

                      I think it's going to be the lesser of two evils. If Sony comes in with no online requirement, maintains or improves their PlayStation Plus service, shows quality games, has a reasonable launch price, and generally runs from the used games thing as much as they can they could do some damage. I owned a 360 but I really thought PlayStation plus offered more bang for your buck than Xbox live ever did. Hell if Sony doesn't seize this chance to undercut Microsoft they're insane.

                      • reply
                        June 7, 2013 7:54 AM

                        I'm really curuious what the xbox live/PS plus stuff will be. I'm somewhat surprised people have put up with an almost required gold subscription for this long.
                        I think I cut that cord once I stopped playing halo 2.

                        • reply
                          June 7, 2013 9:09 AM

                          I've had xbox live gold for years it's what 30 bucks for the whole year? Who cares I spend more on food throughout the week on lunch. People bitch at the most mundane thing.


                          Also it's 50 bucks for the year which I am aware but just look at slickdeals and you will find a whole year for 30 bucks it comes out at least once or twice a month every month.

                          • reply
                            June 7, 2013 9:13 AM

                            I think it's a fair argument though, regardless of price- back with the original Xbox it had value because the integrated voice chat and matchmaking was unparalleled. Now it's not that unique so why should I have to pay annually to play online multiplayer?

                            • reply
                              June 7, 2013 9:16 AM

                              Yeah I am not sure what they can do to differentiate themselves at this point. They cannot hold back the cloud features because it is such an important part of the new console. I also doubt they will take on the Plus stuff because that is almost admitting defeat. Maybe make multiplayer free, but charge to use dedicated server features?

                            • reply
                              June 7, 2013 9:31 AM

                              The subscription service brought Xbox players a lot of advantages over their PS3 counterparts who paid nothing. Things like faster patches and faster service. The ability of logging on the xbox and knowing the servers won't be down or slow. Also downloading from the marketplaces was much faster on xbox than it was in PS3.

                              I had PSplus and the one cool thing I did like from them was the fact that they threw in old games for the service.

                              Other than that. I felt I got more for my buck with xbox live. They have more applications than the PS3 has. They have more content it feels like and if it wasn't for their subscriptions they wouldn't be able to provide all that. Running services for apps like ESPN or HULU or Netflix cost money. Xbox has more due to its players while PS3 is always lagging behind because they can't afford the same products to give to their players. I use my xbox more as a media device now than playing games. Of course I am not speaking for the general masses here but in my opinion I feel having xbox live has gotten me exclusives than PS3 has. COD all the mappacks came out a month before on xbox why? because they had more money to buy that exclusive deal again thanks to their subscribers. PS3 has now learn that lesson and will charge for their service which again I don't mind sometimes paying for a services gives you more than not paying.

                          • reply
                            June 7, 2013 1:45 PM

                            Here in Canada a 12-Month Live subscription sells for $60 but you can usually find it on sale periodically throughout the year for $40. My brothers and I usually stack up on membership cards during those sales. I just renewed and I'm saving the other card to either add a second year or use it for my wife's account (which she barely uses so I let it lapse back to a Free account). I guess what I do will depend on how Live will work on the Xbox One with Family Members.

                            That brings up a question that's been bugging me for a while now. Will family members be able to earn their own achievements on their own account if they are playing a game in your shared library? Or are they simply your guests, unable to earn achievements? In the case of my wife, that won't matter so much, as she could care less about achievements, but that might irk some people. Will family members be able to chat online? Will they have access to your other services (e.g. Netflix, Skype, etc.) if you allow them, or will they require their own Gold Account for that?

                      • reply
                        June 7, 2013 7:57 AM

                        "I think it's going to be the lesser of two evils"

                        So they aren't going to vote with their wallets - gotcha. If you hate this DRM, don't buy it.

                        • reply
                          June 7, 2013 8:25 AM

                          From a pricing standpoint I doubt we're going to see much difference. It's not like they're pushing something like blu-ray or even using an exotic architecture this time around. Hell they were willing to take massive losses on the PS3 just to establish blu-ray as the primary format.

                      • reply
                        June 7, 2013 7:59 AM

                        let's say sony "runs from the used games thing". wouldn't a developer/publisher prefer to develop for the system that has the restrictions in place?

                        • reply
                          June 7, 2013 8:01 AM

                          And what developers do we lose there? EA? Oh noooo!

                          Ubisoft is still making WiiU games so we know they aren't going that route yet.

                          • reply
                            June 7, 2013 8:05 AM

                            every single developer and publisher wants to recoup used game losses. don't be fooled. they might not come out and state it but it's in all of their interests. whether they'll be swayed by perception and develop for the more open (speculation) system and hope that increased sales on that platform will make up for used losses is up to each publisher.

                          • reply
                            June 7, 2013 8:09 AM

                            imo that's an extremely short sighted view , thinking that it will only be EA

                          • reply
                            June 7, 2013 1:49 PM

                            Systems have lived and died in the past on whether they had support from EA. Remember the Dreamcast? Look at what is happening to the Wii U right now as well. Granted, there's Activision and Indie games, but EA still carries a lot of weight in the industry. And remember, EA owns the NFL license as well as the Star Wars license exclusively, and with FIFA they might as well own all soccer (sorry PES). The console that does not have EA on their side is going to miss out on a LOT of opportunities in the coming generation. Don't underestimate EA's power.

                        • reply
                          June 7, 2013 8:08 AM

                          As I said in another post, I have yet to see anyone explain how that would make any sense. Eliminating used sales is nice and all, but removing yourself entirely from a platform just means losing out on a bunch of customers, even if some of them don't buy new.

                          • reply
                            June 7, 2013 8:10 AM

                            so look at it from another perspective -- how does it make sense that microsoft implemented something like this? did they do it to attract developers to their console, knowing that sony wouldn't follow suit? did they do it to just "give the middle finger" to gamers? why would they do this?

                            • reply
                              June 7, 2013 8:33 AM

                              I'm sure publisher pressure plays a role, but again, I just don't see big publishers with shareholders ignoring a huge chunk of potential sales just because they don't get as much control over purchases as they'd like.

                            • reply
                              June 7, 2013 8:34 AM

                              Because they thought people would tough it out because of COD sales? Who knows.
                              This is Microsoft you're talking about, the company that is the definition of inconsistency.

                              Now on Sony's side, we know that it'll be the same. They've said so:
                              http://kotaku.com/sony-wont-answer-these-questions-about-ps4-drm-and-use-510477281
                              "At a roundtable this morning, Sony's game studios chief, Shuhei Yoshida, told reporters that any requirement for users to register a game online in order to play it would be left to game publishers. Sony won't require that."

                              It's up to the publishers.

                              • reply
                                June 7, 2013 8:39 AM

                                So basically we are getting mad at Microsoft , for something that is essentially up to the publishers

                                  • reply
                                    June 7, 2013 8:51 AM

                                    I think that's a fair statement but by integrating it at a system level, it might be more "streamlined" / efficient , or basically... Works better ?

                                    • reply
                                      June 7, 2013 8:55 AM

                                      It's like steam. Would you rather each game have it's own shitty DRM, or just require steam? I know which I prefer

                                      • reply
                                        June 7, 2013 9:16 AM

                                        Yeah get that and love Steam for the same reasons we all do. I also feel like MS is taking it to another level and just adding so many complications especially when I go to a store and purchase a disc and just want to play.

                                        It's ironic I remember people saying one reason console games were making more money than PC games is because you "pop in the disc and play" and even tried to develop some standards on the PC to do just that. Now they're requiring you to install a game, tie it to an account before you play.

                                        As shackers who have kids, you know how often kids share games all this will do is put a lot of roadblocks on that but I know of several times sharing games has equaled a game sale because they liked it.

                                • reply
                                  June 7, 2013 9:01 AM

                                  I think in my case it's more the 24hour thing, which the PS4 does not share.

                                  But even then, I don't really care. I never buy used games so that part is a null point.

                              • reply
                                June 7, 2013 8:48 AM

                                "its up to the publishers" is so vague to me. To me the biggest question is did Sony develop and include tools in the PS4 that publishers can choose to use or will it require publishers to devise their own DRM schemes on the PS4? It's clearly obvious MS has done that with the Xbone.

                                If Sony (like Microsoft) builds a DRM scheme into the system and offers the infrastructure but it's "up to the publishers" to use is almost entirely the same thing IMO. Yes, it's not a certification requirement but they still developed and support the DRM scheme right into the system which means they put resources into developing and prepared to support this technology.

                                I'd applause Sony or MS more if they don't build any DRM tools to use and honestly 100% rely up to the publisher if they want to do their own thing.

                                • reply
                                  June 7, 2013 8:55 AM

                                  They just want the best games. They don't give a shit how that happens, even if it requires DRM.

                                • reply
                                  June 7, 2013 8:55 AM

                                  it's also a lot more attractive to publishers to have either a built-in mandatory system (xbox) or a built-in "optional" (but in theory all major pubs will use it) one (PS4).

                            • reply
                              June 7, 2013 10:25 AM

                              From every comment I've read on the internet so far, they obviously did it just to give gamers the middle finger. There is literally no way that the publishers had anything to do with this, and there is no way they will implement something similar on the next PlayStation.

                        • reply
                          June 7, 2013 8:17 AM

                          I think it would come down to sales it would be a gamble but if Sony ran with it and gets out ahead of Microsoft it would be very hard for publishers to just ignore them. It would come down to how well they market it and Microsoft has been teeing this one up for them from a PR standpoint.

            • reply
              June 7, 2013 10:08 AM

              Your Wii U comment is spot-on; if the so-called core gamers were really interested in a pure gaming system, they would all be going towards Nintendo right now.

          • reply
            June 7, 2013 10:06 AM

            "Every community"

            I wasn't aware that every single community and comment on the Internet was opposed to the system.

      • reply
        June 7, 2013 6:23 AM

        Ye olde posteth and username accompaniment doth maketh glorious bedfellows!

      • reply
        June 7, 2013 6:37 AM

        I'd say it's a factor for me when it comes to buying. It's a hell of a lot easier to justify spending a few bucks for a popcorn movie than buying a 300-500 dollar console. I owned a 360 I liked it well enough but this next one has so much baggage that it has really killed any interest for me. I'd don't really consider myself to even be terribly picky about things.

        Call me crazy but I really see this backfiring for Microsoft if Sony has sense enough to undercut them. Otherwise I'll just stick with the PC for the foreseeable future if I have to pick my poison. With some die hards buy it? Sure without a doubt. But I really get the feeling that the Xbox One is missing the mark for a lot of people.

      • reply
        June 7, 2013 8:33 AM

        I think one of the largest tech companies in the world, who have a huge cloud-based infrastructure for Enterprise and Education customers might know a thing or two about designing a robust network.

        • reply
          June 7, 2013 9:06 AM

          Save that every single year Xbox Live goes down during christmas, or its unexpected outage last month.

          Or how Office 365 keeps going down. It was out for 2 days a few weeks ago. Our parent company had no access to their email (we run our own server, so we were fine).

          Their history is exactly what makes this more concerning, but I do not see them fucking up the XbOne launch, frankly, because I don't expect they'll have or sell enough units to make an impact.

          • reply
            June 7, 2013 9:08 AM

            I would agree with you if a large expansion of the Live infrastructure was not coming with this console launch.

            • reply
              June 7, 2013 9:35 AM

              You mean like the last few times?
              Each time they're promised to make it better.
              2007 christmas outage, 2008 christmas outage, 2010 Live outage, 2012 christmas outage, 2013 April outage.

              I'm sure they'll get it right this time.

      • reply
        June 7, 2013 9:00 AM

        That's not a good article.

        Microsoft already has a shitload of traffic from their consoles. Day one buyers of XBOne numbers will pale in comparison to the number of current XBox owners.

        Adding a small authorization check will barely be a blip on the radar in terms of traffic increases.

        Being "hacked" (DOS) is a decent concern, but Microsoft already has to deal with tons of attacks as it is I'm sure, so I have a fair amount of faith that they can handle it.

        • reply
          June 7, 2013 9:14 AM

          It is a good article and a very valid point. Ignoring the small data requirements, even the biggest company with the largest network can have an unforseen failure.

          • reply
            June 7, 2013 9:18 AM

            Seriously; search the web for "Azure outage". MS has hopefully built the XBox One authentication infrastructure with much higher availability than pkain jane Azure.

          • reply
            June 7, 2013 9:48 AM

            It's a fear mongering tactic based on "WHAT IF!"

            It's the same kind of shit people said about Steam in the beginning. Now no one gives a shit about Steam. If there's a problem on launch day everyone rallies behind Steam and screams about how they shouldn't have to support infrastructure for 24-48 hours of excessive load and that you were an idiot if you thought it was going to work right on launch day.

            Now all of a sudden we're going to preemptively question if Microsoft can handle it as if it's going to be the downfall of the console.

    • reply
      June 7, 2013 9:07 AM

      reminds me of the PA on diablo 3 ... people sperging out about online requirements... when they are online 24/7/365.

      • reply
        June 7, 2013 9:09 AM

        and it sold over 12 million copies...every single one of them required to be online to play.

        • reply
          June 7, 2013 9:20 AM

          and millions of people couldn't play the game day 1

          • reply
            June 7, 2013 9:21 AM

            they still bought it knowing it was online-only

            • reply
              June 7, 2013 9:21 AM

              (ie gamers are huge hypocrites and reactionaries and ultimately buy things anyway)

              • reply
                June 7, 2013 9:40 AM

                There is no alternative to Diablo >:(

                • reply
                  June 7, 2013 10:22 AM

                  TL2 I've been playing coop since I got back has been way more fun than D3. More loot, move faster, and just seems less claustrophobic.

                • reply
                  June 7, 2013 3:24 PM

                  Pretty much this. Gamers really had no other choice for a quality Diablo game. And the fact that the game was by Blizzard and called "Diablo" helped sell a bunch. But gamers got pretty burned at first, and then burned again with Sim City. Now if Sony gives players a viable alternative, it might become the console of choice since I would assume a lot of players have become wary of online only.

              • reply
                June 7, 2013 9:52 AM

                This is true and there are a several examples of this including the one above. I know myself as much as I hate some of this shit I am interested in a PS4 and maybe it will be less evil? My game time is so limited as of now so we'll see but i'm sure there will be a ton of PS4 exclusives over it's lifetime that I will want to play.

                I do wonder though after all the infrastructure costs, support costs over 7-10 years how much more money will they make in game sales to cover that plus a profit. I'm really curious and I know we would never see it but there is a cost to them to have all this in place.

                I can see a lot of people getting frustrated with all the limitations and really for what benefit to the consumer? Kind of sucks something so easy to use now has all these wizz-bang limitations, technology is supposed make things easier for the consumer not more difficult.

      • reply
        June 7, 2013 9:16 AM

        I recall not being able to play at all on release day.

        • reply
          June 7, 2013 9:38 AM

          indeed, like WoW or SWTOR or Simcity. the back end engineers don't play for day 1 blitzes very well, but the overall architecture of "we require this to be online all the time" isn't anything new, and people should stop sperging about it.

          • reply
            June 7, 2013 10:03 AM

            SWTOR if I remember correctly did a gradual release and had no problems on lauch. And when servers started to fill up, they added a fuckton more which eventually lead to many ghost towns.

            • reply
              June 7, 2013 10:22 AM

              I was on the early release and the longest I had to wait during the whole release was maybe 20 minutes.

        • reply
          June 7, 2013 9:42 AM

          It'll be pretty lol if that happens with the new Xbox.

          • reply
            June 7, 2013 9:53 AM

            It won't, they won't have the numbers for that to happen. I'll be shocked if they have enough consoles to meet demand on launch day.

    • reply
      June 7, 2013 9:34 AM

      Eurogamer has a really good article on why the Xbox One is going to be bad for gamers: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-07-microsoft-kills-game-ownership-and-expects-us-to-smile

    • reply
      June 7, 2013 9:41 AM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      June 7, 2013 9:52 AM

      The worst part about this is that means one day Microsoft can stop "supporting" the console, rendering it completely useless. If there's no server to connect to in order to authorize it every 24 hours, then you have a useless paperweight.

      It will be like how City of Heroes stopped being supported for example, but with hardware.


      Fuck. That.

    • reply
      June 7, 2013 9:52 AM

      Question - will games be locked to a specific user account? Does this mean that my wife couldn't play a game that I purchased and linked to my account? I'm assuming the kinect will be used to figure out which account is active.

      • reply
        June 7, 2013 9:54 AM

        I think that's the point of family accounts. Also you've been able to log on and use local games on regular 360s, I don't see why that would change.

        • reply
          June 7, 2013 9:54 AM

          So I'm going to have to pay extra for xbox live so my wife can play games that I buy?

          • reply
            June 7, 2013 10:11 AM

            I'm not sure it's really be stated. It seems like the "family account" might be going away and a new type of family designation is going to be made, but I don't think it's really been explained.

      • reply
        June 7, 2013 10:00 AM

        No, anyone using that console can play your games.

    • reply
      June 7, 2013 10:33 AM

      The 10 users sharing a game is interesting.

      First person to set up a website that facilitates reciprocal sharing using this functionality will be the person who causes it to be disabled.

    • reply
      June 7, 2013 9:29 PM

      They better have a damn good reason for this. Im pretty burnt out on every one of my devices being connected all the time.
      My fucking cell phone(s3) has like 6 different lines of communication and can be reached from 4 different numbers through my companys pbx. I also have wifi passwords saved for pretty much everyware in my city because of work The data coverage is really good in my area and its always online and always with me. I fucking hate emails while im fishing.
      I have 2 gaming computers one big ass laptop and my desktop The laptop comes everyware with me and has every wifi password remembered. The desktop never moves but its always online.


      ...... you know I even have internet at the cabin. Perhaps this really Is not such a big deal for me with the xbox. But I still think its stupid.

      Sorry this is more of a rant than a post.

    • reply
      June 8, 2013 11:56 PM

      This is a horrid idea, one single major internet outage and you
      cannot play the games you paid for, that's theft if you ask me,
      if i steal your car but return before you go to work does that
      make it ok? its the same principle, im so tired of people agreeing
      that what we buy isn't even ours anymore, why would you want
      a world where you can buy something but not even actually own
      it at all? pc gaming is different in many ways but you know what
      is great about pc gaming? i can get around all their BS if i want to,
      i buy games and then download a cracked copy, that way i avoid
      that DRM and any annoying online checks, i customize anything
      i want to, i play it the way i want to and when i want to internet
      or no, any chance they might have had to lure me back into the
      console market is flat out gone on the xbox front, i will be keeping
      an eye on PS4 to see if they will still actually make a product im
      not just renting, the prices they charge for a dedicated gaming
      system are already high, now it wont even do what its suppose to
      if the internet is down for more than 1 day, yeah great idea.

      So far the US hasn't seen a major internet outage but its
      bound to happen, while the console crowd are twiddling their
      thumbs and watching that same blu ray for the 150th time
      i will be happily playing skyrim on my pc, or starcraft 2, or any
      number of wonderful games i can play any time i darn well please.

Hello, Meet Lola