The latest Simcity and Diablo 3 should be enough reason. If Microsoft's servers go down (that HAS happened before) or anything else you won't be able to play your game at all. If you lose your internet connection for whatever reason, same thing. If you are going on a trip, leave the Xbox behind.
In fairness, 1. there may very well be internet at whatever place you're traveling to, and 2. I've never been much for transporting the big consoles on trips anyway -- that's what handhelds are for. Still, doesn't change the fact that I'm not interested in an always-online console.
I think its been rehashed many times. -Not everyone has internet -Not everyones internet is reliable -Many people use internet with Fair Access Policies (ie: data limits) -Sometimes you might bring your console where there is no internet available -It requires microsoft servers to have 100% uptime I really don't understand why Microsoft requires AOL, outside of greed reasons.
I personally prefer cell phone games and such over actual hand held games. I prefer consoles to both. The place you are going to may or may not have accessible internet, so it may be more of a hassle to bring it along any ways. ces can be boring...the option of just connecting to WiFi is not a option. Also Space Ghost is right that some people's internet is not reliable and some have data restrictions.
some of you are way too trusting of technology. Maybe I'm paranoid, but asking to have 24/7 access with the internet is just another way to get into my life where I'd rather not. Pass.
I only buy the bolded ones as legit. Anyone that can afford an xbox console has internet access and one that's reliable enough to be online. Where are you bringing your xbox with no internet access? I personally never play my xbox unless I'm online
It's not in the sense that lots of people with an XBOX and Live are pretty much only using it online anyway. However, in terms of games themselves, save for the massive multiplayer stuff the always online/drm combination has been a cluster****, often resulting in technical issues and not even getting to play what you paid for (even single player). If there are technical issues preventing people from doing things that aren't actually requiring online, people will reject it. Otherwise I think the majority won't care.
Interesting. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'm not online with my consoles unless I have to be. I play a lot of single-player games, and I also play a lot of multiplayer games offline against the computer. Not to mention that I've never had X-Box Live because I refuse to pay a fee for online play when Sony offers it for free.
I pointed out many troops play overseas. Most places, there is no internet. They probably won't have them for a while, but many would be donated soon. Or, they would be donated but they won't function.
Im still looking for a legit reason why it needs to be AOL. Its easy to look at it from your own personal experience and perspective. But the fact remains there is a good share of people who do not have internet readily available to them, whether its kids on vacation, soldiers stationed overseas, parents refusing to have it online all the time or a myriad of other reasons. I have no dog in this fight so it doesn't matter to me. I just think its a dumb idea. I was considering getting the new SimCity, but decided against the AOL/DMR. Definitely do not regret that decision.
I guess you're always at home with a constant reliable connection in a metropolitan area. There are places that aren't like that. Whether it's to be portable, Internet outage, rural, or not at your house, always-online is a terrible idea.
The thing is why does it need to be always online? For what reason and what are the benefits? Hell at least Simcity tried to make up a valid excuse saying it's a multiplayer game...but when I'm playing Elder Scrolls 6 what is the purpose of being online?
I agree that I dont see why it must be online...I just find myself fortunate enough to not be affected by this, haha.
Not everywhere in the world had super highspeed internet - it would just be a major burden. In addition to the fact that not everybody has unlimited downloads, so being online all the time will cost bandwidth that people would rather use on something else. There are heaps of objections.
This isn't true. Think outside of the US, in Australia for example, in rural areas people can afford xbox's but the internet connection is slow and unreliable. I don't know if this is the same for many other countries, but I assume the further away from the big cities you are the worse your connection is. Also, an example of when people bring their xbox's with them when there is no internet connection: visiting relatives or grandparents for extended stays - parents normally bring the gaming console to keep them occupied.
I still think it's pretty foolish to have such a hard stance on something that hasn't even been released/unveiled/fully explained yet. Not saying that your opinion will change, but it might, and I feel like Microsoft should be given at least some benefit of the doubt seeing as how successful Xbox Live has been. I will take a logical stance and at least wait to hear their reasoning for this, and how they're going to go about it before I write them off after years of success in the online gaming industry.
This is the first question which comes to mind: how does it benefit Microsoft to require such a thing? The way the 360 is now seems to work pretty well, so what is the big drive to change it? I seriously doubt the aol requirement ever sees the light of day. It has been a disaster every time it has been tried. On the other hand, maybe things like this will finally push the money-grubbing ISPs to get rid of data caps. Data caps are unreasonable in a world which is only getting more and more online-data-centric.
