That's an easy one...buy the hard copy of your game. They can easily eliminate that 24 hour check in, so that really doesnt even have to be an issue.
I had a Nintendo 64, switched to GameCube, got a PS2, moved to Xbox 360. Then RRoD. PC is something I've used the entire way. You have an insufferable bias against Sony. You're sitting here bashing Sony and praising Microsoft. Stop. It's a video game console. Stop with the brand loyalty.
sony bashing?? well that sucks sinse there is absolutely no microsoft bashing going on anywhere on the internet...
If Xbox 360 have all that and at a $299 price point people would love that, but it's not what MSoft is releasing. I've been a fan of PS3 since last generation, I think I bought an XBox 360 (the $150 get $75 GC target deal) and gave the system away because I really didn't care. I have a Gaming PC rig and most exclusives 360 had, it was on PC. I also don't play shooters and liked adventure/Jrpg more so that also contributed to the lack of draw X-Box 360 had for me. It didn't have some of the PS3 exclusives pushed me to PS3. Also and for some games like SF4, I would play on the PS3 once in a while online but it's convenient since I don't have to pay a fee to play it once in a long while.
I agree, it doesn't have to be but they made it an issue. They should've copy Steam and just give you an offline mode option. Side note: PC Gamers for the most part LOVE STEAM, all the companies that want to go digital should look at what Steam does and learn from them.
No. It's not that simple. When I do get an XBone, yes I will be getting physical copies of every game that is offered as a physical copy. That does not eliminate concerns that I might be unable to play them years down the line. Yes, Microsoft theoretically *could* put out some kind of patch at end of life that makes it so you the DRM check is shut off and you can now play your physically owned games offline. But they are not guaranteeing it. If they have, please do point me to it. After all, the system is currently designed to not play anything off the disc! It's merely an install disc. Thus theoretically, it's possible no one would even bother to design XBone games with streaming data off the disc in mind. Hence maybe they couldn't easily shut off the DRM. If they did that, I could buy the disc once, then pass it around to my 100 friends to install on their system. Even though the system would obviously be end-of-life at that time, I'm pretty sure MS doesn't want their entire library to all of a sudden be effectively free. Especially with all the money folks make these days off HD re-releases. Point is, I don't want to have to speculate whether or not I might be able to play my own games later on because MS decided to turn off some servers. You might be confident that won't happen. I'm not.
People probably would like that new 360 (though it can keep the cloud...no reason to remove it since it isn't really that special/unique). Each generation of systems has essentially been more powerful versions of previous hardware...and people have enjoyed that. Industry has grown very strongly with that model. Keep the console relatively gimmick free (or if you do want to put in gimmicks, make it optional to keep the price down), and let developers create games that take advantage of this new hardware (and software). Also doesn't stop you from pushing Kinect apps/games, TV services, digital downloads, cloud processing, etc., but ideally you keep that as an optional service/package so not to detract from the core experience. edit: Of course, a lot of bashing for the Xbone comes from its DRM policies, which essentially makes it more restrictive than the 360 (so yeah, a 360 would be better). How can they easily eliminate the 24 hour check in? (Hint: I'm not so sure it is that easy. Ask DIVX folks.) More or less what I was going to say. Also imagine the scenario where you keep your Xbone in storage (OMG! OFFLINE! HOW COULD YOU?!), then decide to pull it out after a few years. Will that "enable offline patch" still be available? Assuming it was even made available to begin with anyway.
If the cloud is the new generation of gaming than why on earth does that mean that we are going to lose our purchased games when the next console comes out? What if when the new Xbox comes out it will feed off the same servers and cloud storage.... Wouldn't these keep our games intact and scratch free for the rest of our lives? We would never lose discs and we would never have to worry about backward compatibility because most likely the same console will be able to play it off the library.... Why would Xbox start new servers at the end of One's lifespan? And who can guarantee that PS4 games will play on PS5..... Backward compatibility has always been an issue on some level and the only way to truly be able to always play the games you love is to keep that system and hopefully it wont break down with time. Xbox may actually change this from here on to where the next console may just simply go off our same library but just simply bring more advanced hardware and graphics for Xbox Two?...... If the servers don't die and the next Xbox is going to run off the original storage and library would you admit that its probably something really convenient? Something that does not limit your ownership and collection but actually expands it? I can see this happening with Xbox.....
Yeah, it would be great and fine if MS kept up the authentication servers for all the games ever released on their systems going into the future. That could indeed be more convenient than physical discs if you could guarantee it would happen. But at the end of the day, you'll never get MS, or any other business, to guarantee service forever. Even assuming MS keep releasing game systems for the next 50 years, they may stop supporting older games. Beyond that, there isn't even a guarantee Sony and Microsoft and Nintendo will stay in this market forever. A lot can happen in a few decades. Can you envision that Nintendo might eventually leave the console market? I can. Maybe they'll eventually stop with the consoles and go exclusively handheld. Maybe they'll become software-only, like Sega did. Sega was amazing in the Genesis days, then they lost twice with the Saturn and Dreamcast and they were out. As far as I'm concerned, Nintendo is already on loss #1 with the WiiU; where will it leave them if they release their next hardware iteration and that's a flop too? You just never know. No business is invincible. So what if a company, like Microsoft, handles DRM this way and then later ducks out of the console market? Then what's their incentive to keep those servers on? End of the day: I'm speculating. You're speculating. My point is we shouldn't even need to have this conversation. I should be able to purchase a game, and know that I can play with it as long as I want. I shouldn't have to wonder if MS will eventually take it away from me after I have paid them my money.
One of the XBone programmers mentioned, in an interview, that the 24 hr check can be seen as too strict and that there is the possibility that MS backs off that stance and extends the check in period to once a week or something along those lines. He didnt say he sees MS agreeing to that, but he left it up as a possibility. I dont see why that would be difficult to do if they can implement a 24 hr check in...how is that different than implementing a 72 hour check in or a 1800 hour check in...or no check in?
one thing ive learned about programmers, is what might seem like a simple task to us may actually be something that is so deep into the code or whatever that it is an absolute chore to change. often programmers will scratch the previous code altogether and start a new one just to change some minor stuff.
Drex already pointed to the problem with no check-in. Could they do it? Sure the could. The problem is that since their hard discs/physical copies are only install discs, then if Microsoft ever eliminated check-ins completely, then they could no longer control someone buying a single copy of an install disc and then giving it to all 20 of his friends for free. All games would essentially cost nothing because one copy could be passed around to every XB1 in the world. By eliminating the check-in Mcrosoft would be guaranteeing that they would never get any more profit from XB1 games ever... them or their third-party developers (and how do you think those developers would like that, hmm?). So with this model, they've basically backed themselves into a corner. In order for games to remain playable a decade or more down the line, they will either 1) have to maintain their XB1 servers forever, or 2) decide to lose any possible profits off of XB1 by turning off their authentication servers and thus basically making all of their games available for free to anyone. Now, really, what is the liklihood of these two things happening? They would be exceedingly dumb to go with door number 2, considering how much money HD remakes of old games are netting. As for option 1, I don't see that happening either. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see it as far more likely that they'd treat it much like PS4's Gaikai thing, where you can play old gen games on your new console -- but you'll need to buy them again, even if you have a copy for your old system. I also don't see them supporting every single old game on the new systems, only the ones that were popular enough, meaning if you liked a niche game, you're probably out of luck. Suffice it to say, this is a thorny problem. And it's for this reason that I have to roll my eyes when people say things like "XB1 is a more future-proof or forward-looking console"... because this core problem means exactly the opposite. It means that 20 years down the line it may literally be a useless piece of junk that can no longer perform its primary function of playing games because some servers were shut down.
Yeah, understand your points...I see what you're saying. Only thing is that 20 years from now, every system will be a piece of junk. We've never had any systems that werent "junk" more than 15 years later. I dont need my PS2 to be able to play some of those games. There are enough emulators and such to be able to play an old classic, if I really wanted to. A very, very, very small percentage of people will actually want to play a game that was from that long ago. Sure, we all have our list of games that we want to play...I'd love to play be some Vice City...but the reality is that I can play it if I wanted to, yet there is a better chance that I never get around to playing it because new games are constantly getting added to my list. I think the topic of wanting to play your XBone/PS4 games during the era of XBox Four/PS7 is pretty much unnecessary because A) There will be some way to play those games even if you dont actually have that system in your basement and B) the smallest fraction of gamers will really want to dig that deep to play those games. I can go the rest of my life and never play another original Nintendo game...there is a nice nostalgic factor to it. But there is a fine line between reality and fantasy. In other words, who really cares about the current consoles 20 years from now? They'll all be "worthless".
So my best hope here is this: if the backlash over the next several months leading up to launch is super-bad, maybe they could go to a system of one-time check on install, then no more more check-ins, and you are able to play offline. Then if you wanted to sell a game back, you would have to perform a "check-out" before selling to a participating retailer. That wouldn't be so bad. It would be pretty good, in fact. It would be kinda like Steam, but you can still re-sell your games. First of all, if you get the game installed, you can't ever lose it unless your system breaks. Secondly, I'd feel way more confident that MS would keep their servers up anyhow, because the quantity of transactions they'd be handling going forward would be so drastically reduced. If they move to that model: great, sign me up. But until they do, I'll only be a grudging customer. That's perfectly fair to say. This is just a matter of different priorities. It's not a big deal for the majority of people. It is to me, though. I readily admit I'm probably the vocal minority on this issue. I mean, as I keep buying and playing all these new games, my best hope is always "is this RPG going to be as good as Chrono Cross or Xenogears?" Almost always the answer is no. But occasionally, a Valkyria Chronicles comes along. A Demon's Souls comes along. Those games that are just so awesome to me, they transcend generations. I play games in the hopes I'll run into another great one. And the great ones I just keep going back to. There are Genesis games I still play. Today. Powerball is still one of the most interesting sports games to ever exist, IMO. And there still hasn't ever been a better side-scrolling beat-'em-up than Streets of Rage 2. And you might say that in most cases those classics are going to be back via re-release later. That's true (Streets of Rage 2 and Powerball, for example, were both re-released). But games, like books or movies, are art. They're subjective. The whole world might think a particular game is crap, but you think it's the greatest thing EVAR! I've never played Suikoden 2, for example, but I plan to soon, seeing as a fair number of smart folks seem to think it's an all-time great. That's never been re-released anywhere. What if it was also tied to a DRM scheme like this, so instead of needing to pay a premium for a rare copy, you simply *couldn't* get a copy?
And I likewise see what you're saying. You're right that most people won't care much if at all about games that old. But some people do, and I am one. In fact, just a few days ago I was playing through a 1995 PS1 title on my PS2. An 18-year-old game. So for me it is a practical concern rather than merely a philosophical concern. Do I play current-gen games more often? Hell yes. But not only are there certain genres of games that age better than others (like JRPGs where I couldn't care less what the graphics look like, and that I will likely want to continue to play in perpetuity), but given the fact that each console generation from now on seems like it will be less and less an upgrade over its predecessors (for instance, the leap from PS1 to PS2 is waaaaay bigger than the leap from PS3 to PS4), that only makes it more likely that these newer-gen games will retain long-lasting appeal. In any case, it is what it is. I have no problem with anyone preferring the XB1 over the PS4. I just think that people need to understand that Microsoft's model will likely make all of their games that you paid good money for unplayable eventually, even though it would be something that only happened way down the line. But if you understand that and it doesn't bother you or you think you'll get over it, then whatever. Water under the bridge.
Aw we sure it's such a small minority? Games are always being re-released in bundles or as classics or "HD" versions. (FABLE HD for instance) and this is a trend that continues so people are willing to even buy the game again to replay it or maybe experience a classic for the first time. Heck, Nintendo's Wii catalog of classic games was one of it's best features and we are talking about games that are older than some of the people playing them at that point. I know "Yeah but that just proves that digital downloads is still the future because we can still get the games we want by buying them again." and you know it's probably why these systems don't seem to make much effort for backwards compatibility because they'll just resell the games any ways in some classic bundle.
I forgot, I wanted to mention, this is a really good idea. I wonder if it's even occurred to Microsoft.
But how are servers shutting down in 20 years different from an aging console and physical media..... Because you buy something physical does not mean you will have it forever. Things don't work that way... Electronics especially... These consoles are not like an NES.... Its not just a simple circuit board.. Eventually wear and tear will happen and these consoles will break.... Media discs always run the risk of a scratch or something getting on them. This also makes them a non guarantee for future play.... I don't see how a console that can play physical media is going to "last forever"..... Nothing lasts forever.
And now that I think about it..... Sure you can keep the game forever.... But will it last forever? Will PS4 or Xbox One last forever.... Okay, will they last for the rest of our life times.... Doubt it..... But when people saw this.... The crowd erupted...
Some of the others have commented about other aspects of this, but I wanted to touch on something else. I don't doubt that it is a relatively simple code change to make (well...whatever "relatively simple" means). How do you roll that out though? That's the difficult part. The sooner, the better. But as I mentioned earlier, if they decide to do that 15 years from now, how will those "Xbones in storage" get the update? Will it still be available 5 years later, when someone decides to take their system out of storage to play Quantum Break? The game can last forever (or pretty close...people already commented on playing games from 15-20 years ago). You might need to buy a new (old) system or use an emulator (or whatever). All that works fine, unless the game needs to check in to a server that is no longer listening.
