Always on-DRM but not mandatory to be used, each publisher can decide on their own
Sony may be the same way. Even if they don’t incorporate optional DRM at the console level, publishers may still be able to implement their own versions.
Sony pitched the PS4 as essentially “by developers for developers”. MS’s console should be the same, maybe even more so. Can’t be “for developers” without also being “for publishers”. I think publishers may have much more freedom to implement new marketing techniques, payment models, antipiracy methods, used game limitations, etc. than they have in the past. Seems like kind of a theme so far.
MS could kill multiple birds with one stone if they choose to do pricing like Steam. They could stop people from going to Game Stop for used games, devs could get a percentage of the sales, less fortunate or frugal buyers could enjoy the same games as others (just later in the life cycle of the game, as long as it does not take a year to get a half off price), etc.
This does have some people that would be left out on the opportunity along the lines as the always online rumor. Rural people might not have the bandwidth or consistant bandwidth to download a game without issues. Business travelers that want to kill some time while they are on the road, for example new games (not xbl titles) will probably be around 25+ gb's, (yes I am assuming blue ray disc for games)can you imagine trying to DL a 25 gb game on a crappy Ramada wifi internet?
To be fair that percentage (work traveler, rural gamer with crappy/inconsistant internet) is a low percentage of your overall population of xbox gamers, so it is not a major factor for MS.
can you imagine trying to DL a 25 gb game on a crappy Ramada wifi internet?
I can’t imagine that on a good residential connection either.
If Microsoft does the same approach Sony is using, that wouldn't be an issue.
Sony is doing a feature where as soon as the download has started the game can be played, and it continues downloading while you play. Now dial up wouldn't work, and the worst hotel wifi ever would be an unfortunate experience any way you look at it, but for residential speeds it'd work fine.
It's similar to renting a Netflix movie, and playing the movie less than a minute later. People aren't downloading the whole HD title in under a minute :)
However we all seem to agree that pricing is critical. I shouldn't have to pay $40 for Halo 3 today.
One thing I want to mention with pricing however is the consoles, but first some perspective through smartphones:
People with smartphones mostly fall into the Apple, Android, or Windows operating system categories. Between those you have millions of people with phones. When people buy more Android phones because there are so many different options, more affordable, and frequent releases they are at the same time reducing the market share of Apple and Windows phones. With more Android phones on the market, people will make more Android Apps. It all leads to market share growing or shrinking at accellerating rates. People gravitate towards ecosystems with more developers and support. Developers like to sell things to many customers, and market share growth will get more developers. They feed each other.
Now, for consoles it has become similar with Sony and Microsoft. Not only is this for games developed, but indie games, partnerships for services such as Netflix, ESPN, or Hulu, and even free applications. What Microsoft has that Sony doesn't is a large amount of money they can spend. Sony has been losing billions of dollars for years now, Microsoft is a profitable company.
So at the end of all this comes the realization that Microsoft has in its power to offer a full featured next Xbox console for a very cheap price. Let's say $200. They will take a huge loss per console at that price, clearly. However!! Sony cannot undercut or match that because they'd literally go bankrupt. That means Sony's console could cost twice as much or more than Microsoft's. Why is this exceptionally good though? It comes down to market share. If Microsoft gets a staggering amount more Xbox units into living rooms because of such a low price, they have a much larger market share. Customers buy the console more because that's where all their friends play online. Developers see one has millions upon millions more users that they can sell their games to and they make sure that's their first choice for making games. Services would rather launch on a console that has a vastly larger userbase because that means more potential signups for their service as well.
From there it would accellerate with more customers and more for the customers to have on the Xbox.
This is really the first generation this has been possible. The PS3 and Xbox 360 both had an ecosystem, but both companies were in good shape there. However, if you look at PS2 sales compared to PS3, and then consider the PS3's launch price being 600 dollars versus the expensive version of the Xbox 360's 400 dollars, you can see why Sony lost so much market share in this generation.
Between PS4 and Xbox - Sony isn't in good financial shape, but both have a relatively equal market share for console sales going into this generation. If Microsoft has a 50% less expensive console, and if it comes out even a month earlier, it could cripple not only the PS4 but Sony as a corporation.
All of that is of course a "what if" situation based on things that are possible. While Microsoft could go with a very inexpensive price compared to the PS4 I'm doubting they will do that. It'd be a very direct move to completely remove the PS4 from competition.
If Microsoft announces at E3 a $250 price point or lower you can bet Sony is going to feel very uncomfortable coming on stage after that to announce their price.
I dunno how they make it so you can play a game before it's all downloaded but they can. They may just transfer the core game data to you and then the first 25% of the FMV's and audio and such and transfer that while you're playing. There's a lot of stuff in every game that you don't get to see until later.
Yeah. Plenty of games do that already - from World of Warcraft to other MMORPGs. Sony is offering that for their entire upcoming game selection on PS4. So it's clearly possible.
The Wii had a terrible software attach rate. Often times people would only play the one game that came with it, so for a while the Wii's software attach rate was under 1.0. Yet, I think the Wii U will do worse.
Steambox would be where I'd place hope for sudden sales. That and if Apple announces a gaming console.
One of our site members is actually working for the company doing the design of the new box and has told us after the 5/21 release date he will come on the TnT show on 5/30 to help answer questions about the hardware. Now he can answer questions about what HAS been said or discussed during the May reveal. He is not sure what MS is going to say/reveal/show on 5/21 and save for E3 and questions about the software interface will be very very limited. But it will be cool to hear how things are designed, added, thrown out, redone, etc.
So be thinking of some good questions, what the reveal on 5/21 and if your question has not been answered (hardware related) pm me, Doodi or stop in the show and ask your questions in the chat interface.
One of our site members is actually working for the company doing the design of the new box and has told us after the 5/21 release date he will come on the TnT show on 5/30 to help answer questions about the hardware. Now he can answer questions about what HAS been said or discussed during the May reveal. He is not sure what MS is going to say/reveal/show on 5/21 and save for E3 and questions about the software interface will be very very limited. But it will be cool to hear how things are designed, added, thrown out, redone, etc.
So be thinking of some good questions, what the reveal on 5/21 and if your question has not been answered (hardware related) pm me, Doodi or stop in the show and ask your questions in the chat interface.
Was this posted yet? Grabbed it from NeoGAF. I know this is dreadful rumour mongering but a Halo title is mentioned and it actually sounds like the real deal to me. The rest of it sounds plausible and the notes about MS planning being in disarray and reactionary kind hit a spot for me. None of it really sounds that negative to me, even though that's the tone of the messages. Hey, I'm the glass is half full guy these days.
What I found interesting, DEEP, is that the two paste's conflicted. Especially consider the always online portion - one says the console needs internet, the other says games can run without it but they're better with it.
The memory amount and type differs between the two.
Either of the 'leaks' could have things that hit or miss. It's nothing ridiculously specific or suprising. It is completely based on rumors we've heard before - not one mention of some new feature or capability.
Also, the spelling errors and general voice of the text seems to tend towards someone that does not work with video games in a professional capacity. It sounds like someone who reads about computers and video games, and wrote some guesses and changes into a 'leak'.
Any of the things there coming true are coincidental, I'd say.
The system on a chip rumor of backwards compatibility with Xbox 360 dates back to an official Microsoft document that is dated from 2010. One mentions new Kinect updates, but doesn't bother to mention any of that. Instead, speculation on price and if the Kinect is bundled follows.
Nothing about the next Xbox sounds like it would be sold to break even, or at a profit as one of them claims. Especially at launch. That's what the Wii could do.
Finally:
"the slight of hand could be just as big as Sony in 2005 if things not gelled" If that quote doesn't stick out like a massive sore thumb to you, then feel free to believe these are game developers who somehow met the "excellent written and oral communication skills" such a job would require.
What I found interesting, DEEP, is that the two paste's conflicted. Especially consider the always online portion - one says the console needs internet, the other says games can run without it but they're better with it.
The memory amount and type differs between the two.
Either of the 'leaks' could have things that hit or miss. It's nothing ridiculously specific or suprising. It is completely based on rumors we've heard before - not one mention of some new feature or capability.
Also, the spelling errors and general voice of the text seems to tend towards someone that does not work with video games in a professional capacity. It sounds like someone who reads about computers and video games, and wrote some guesses and changes into a 'leak'.
Any of the things there coming true are coincidental, I'd say.
The system on a chip rumor of backwards compatibility with Xbox 360 dates back to an official Microsoft document that is dated from 2010. One mentions new Kinect updates, but doesn't bother to mention any of that. Instead, speculation on price and if the Kinect is bundled follows.
Nothing about the next Xbox sounds like it would be sold to break even, or at a profit as one of them claims. Especially at launch. That's what the Wii could do.
Finally:
"the slight of hand could be just as big as Sony in 2005 if things not gelled" If that quote doesn't stick out like a massive sore thumb to you, then feel free to believe these are game developers who somehow met the "excellent written and oral communication skills" such a job would require.
Most likely you are correct. The grammar issue I wasn't too concerned with because, for all I know, these two leaks were written by a janitor with PC skills. My post is blatant and unsupported rumour mongering. :)
I have only one thing to say, and it's relevence is probably limited. I have 18 yr old twin boys and 90% of what they play is PC based easily... and it's not cause daddy does, I play Forza easily 90%, and PC 10%, yes, rarely is there anything but Forza in my Xbox...I do a little Diablo/Minecraft.
They are playing League, Smite, Neverwinter, Skyrim....
Things I don't mind: the always online, the no used games, the increase in fl,( i dont play often enough to get many friends.) Re setting of gamer score.
Which leads me to ask, will our gamer tags have to change? Keeping old 360 and having 720 with the same GT?
The pricing. If only $10/monthly fee if buying the $300 version vs $15/monthly.
Don't If I will be able to swing for the full price version upfront.
I am seeing Gamestop taking Pre orders for games that are coming out in Nov for the 360. But not for the 720 yet Hmmm?
Things I don't mind: the always online, the no used games, the increase in fl,( i dont play often enough to get many friends.) Re setting of gamer score.
Which leads me to ask, will our gamer tags have to change? Keeping old 360 and having 720 with the same GT?
The pricing. If only $10/monthly fee if buying the $300 version vs $15/monthly.
Don't If I will be able to swing for the full price version upfront.
I am seeing Gamestop taking Pre orders for games that are coming out in Nov for the 360. But not for the 720 yet Hmmm?
Just my 2 pennys
The less expensive version is less expensive because of the higher Xbox Live fee per month yeah. It's there for people, like yourself, who can't afford the entire full priced console outright. I'm pretty sure there won't be a difference between the two in terms of hardware, just the price. One is more affordable with less cash upfront and small payments over time that get you Xbox Live Gold. The other is a higher priced with no payments required over time. Xbox Live will be cheaper for everyone than 15/month. The people with the cheaper console would have to wait until the contract is up to get that cheaper price, though.
Think of it as like buying a smartphone. A two year contract gets you a much cheaper phone. Buying one without a contract is very expensive. Same thing here.
I would not worry about your gamertag. It'd be very silly to lose that for the next Xbox. However, for some relevance, consider Windows 8. When I sign in on a Windows 8 device that I've never touched before, with my existing Microsoft ID, it syncs all my settings, personalization, downloaded Apps, etc automatically. I bet Microsoft will leverage that for Gamertags as well. "Just sign into your new console the same way you already sign in on 360, and everything will automatically carry over seamlessly" That kind of thing. They already have the software that does it, in other words.
As far as your gamestop comment - you should realize that the next Xbox has not been announced yet. An event about Xbox is taking place May 21st is all that is confirmed. Expect gamestop to allow pre-orders for the console and games announced that day either on the 21st or within a day or two. That's what they did with PS4.
DEEP, I reread my earlier comment and hope it didn't come off as abrasive, especially towards you. I do appreciate any rumor I can find and your links. I mainly wanted to reinforce your view that it's pure rumor, while showing why I thought so.
Also, for pure unfounded speculation's sake I'll give you guys something unexpected: A Valve+Microsoft partnership that has Steam running on the new Xbox.
Now, this is not a rumor, a leak, and isn't even probable. It is completely possible however, which is why I find it interesting and perhaps staggering.
Steam, through HTML5 or other languages, can run full PC games from the extensive Steam library on almost any internet connected device. Games can be streamed, and stored via the Cloud, and attached to steam accounts. The hardware would only require control methods, such as a keyboard and mouse. Steam could be an App or service on Xbox that brings a massive PC library of games to Xbox owners on launch day. Thousands of titles, including free to play and PC only offerings, become available on Xbox. That's a staggering partnership, especially considering launch. Microsoft could say Xbox has 12 launch titles and ten thousand full PC games available day 1 for Xbox, inlcuding existing steam owners collections. Sony would have their dozen launch titles and..... Netflix?
Valve could enjoy massive increased users without selling additional hardware and without the users needing a gaming PC. They could sell a separate Steambox if they chose, but it'd be a great value for Xbox owners and a profit driver for Steam.
There are key problems that take this from godly awesome to "very unlikely to happen": Latency is the big technical one. Controls feeling sluggish for every game all the time through streamed PC games is a huge detractor. It's probably why the PS4 streams to local devices like Vita, rather than Sony streaming games to PS4.
Another problem is Valve strongly opposed to Microsoft's direction with Windows 8. Valve is pushing its Mac and now Linux games quite a bit lately. Their strained feelings towards Microsoft would be a big reason for this deal to never happen.
Monetization could be an issue. In my opinion, Microsoft should include Steam access with Xbox Live Gold and that's it. The increase in Market share would be worth it alone. Valve would enjoy increased users and sales, good enough for them. If one gets greedier, the deal wouldn't go through I bet.
In any event, the ability for an Xbox to have Steam in its exclusive partner stable would be an incredible surprise and game changer. However, this is all purely speculation on my part with not even a whisper of rumor to it. It is possible for it to happen, but I have absolutely nothing that shows it is probable or even being considered by either company.
One thing that people are forgetting is Gamefly. Which is honestly where I buy 90% of my console titles from. Not only does the service allow me to try before I buy ( Anyone remember Superman 64? ), but also gives a good discount on the game when I do decide to "Keep it". All of the proposed DRM that the next gens have been tossing around would certainly cripple this service. It's bad enough that some companies make you buy an online pass for 800 points (10 dollars ) to try the game multiplayer on top of the 37 dollars we spend monthly for the rental service.
Developers make money from this service from jump street and now also on the backend with the online passes as well.This is a 67 billion dollar industry that is estimated to grow to well over 80 billion in the next few years. All of the cries that the companies are not making enough money are simply impossible to believe.
Honestly, take Call of Duty for example.
1)Original game 60 dollars ( If you don't get the shiny collector's editions with all of the "Exclusive" content.
2) DLC another 50 dollars ( If you actually want to be able to play with your friends that is)
Total = 110 dollars for a single game. If you cannot make money on that, there's something terribly wrong and you deserve to go out of buisness.
The claims that the industry is losing money because of resale is crazy. Not a single game hits the used games section of Gamestop or anywhere else without being purchased at full price first. Most people who buy used, cannot afford to buy new and stores like Gamestop stimulate the gaming economy by bringing people into the store with the lure of cheap games. Ask anyone who worked at these stores and they'll tell you that most people will come in for the used games but will sucked into prepurchasing the big titles too.
We also like to forget all of the unemployment destroying the resale market will create. All of those people who work at Best Buy and such have families to feed just like the developers do. It's not going to fix anything in the industry by putting thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people out of work. Gamestop alone has over 17k people working for those stores. Where exactly are they going to work when Microsoft and Sony run them out of buisness?
I think the rumour that MS is going to leave it up to the devs to allow used game play or not has the most likelyhood. It takes any blame off of MS, justifies the always online (nod to Kade for the distinction, I liked your explination between the two) option we keep hearing about and will create an extra source of revenue (ie season pass etc.).
I am not saying it is right, but it will help satiate the "FU MS if you make me be online to play my single player game" crowd or at least focus their rage to dev.
The "season pass thing" could also help drive down the bs pricing for the used game market (as far as gamestop goes). But more then likely they will just lower the price to offset the pass cost. You might even see things like a dev come out with a "dev used game access pass", so instead of just get a pass for one game you might get access to any used game from them during the year. For example EA might offer a 25 dollar a year pass and any used game you buy that they make, for the next year you get to play. Hell even if MS does not shift the permission to the devs for the used game thing, I can see them add an extra tier to the XBL service. Lets call it the Platinum level where you get to permission play all the used games you want AND you get to stream music/videos from their Entertainment library for 75 bucks a year. This would allow them to compete directly with Amazon/Netflix/Hulu.
It is still a giant bag of crap, but if the rumors are true about the no used games deal MS will do something to take the sting away or at least the perception to taking the sting away.
I dunno how they make it so you can play a game before it's all downloaded but they can. They may just transfer the core game data to you and then the first 25% of the FMV's and audio and such and transfer that while you're playing. There's a lot of stuff in every game that you don't get to see until later.
Could a game launch (temporarily) from the source server, then rely on freshly downloaded data for content? Or could devs make a slim version of a game’s core that download’s “quickly” and runs (temporarily) while stuff downloads?
Dunno. The concept still sounds a bit magical to me. May be feasible for XBLA titles. May be feasible for more robust titles later in the lifespan of the next console. Today’s technology doesn’t seem ready for me to spend hours and hours downloading (while playing) a ginormous AAA game while my daughters are online cyberschooling and my wife’s also online researching philosophy or watching videos of dudes kissing each other and stuff.
ArsTechnica says Xbox720 will play games even if you're offline according to a leaked internal microsoft email
Should single-player games, Blu-ray playback, and live TV viewing be possible on a gaming console with no Internet connection? Most gamers would say "yes," but they have been worried that Microsoft feels differently; the next generation Xbox has been consistentlyrumored to require a permanent network connection.
It won't.
According to an internal Microsoft e-mail sent to all full-time employees working on the next Xbox, "Durango [the codename for the next Xbox] is designed to deliver the future of entertainment while engineered to be tolerant of today's Internet." It continues, "There are a number of scenarios that our users expect to work without an Internet connection, and those should 'just work' regardless of their current connection status. Those include, but are not limited to: playing a Blu-ray disc, watching live TV, and yes playing a single player game."
The quotation also implicitly confirms another rumor: the next Xbox will sport an HDMI input, to allow cable boxes to be hooked up for live TV viewing. Our sources tell us that the console will be able to provide TV listings and similar information.
How far this offline support will extend still isn't clear. It could take the form of a fully offline mode akin to that on the Xbox 360 (insert optical disc, install game, play, all without an Internet connection) or it could be more like Steam (install and activate online but enable subsequent offline play once this has been done).
While one could argue that "installing a game" is one of the "scenarios" that gamers "expect to work" when offline, a more Steam-like approach would be consistent with rumors that the next Xbox will use its Internet connection to block installation of secondhand games.
Still, though the next Xbox won't make everybody happy, it looks like fears that the console will be useless when your broadband goes down have been overblown.
There was no benifit to an absolute requirement for online connection on the new Xbox. It was guaranteed to cost customers. Awesome online features can benifit Microsoft. It's better to entice than to force.
As for play while downloading games - Steam had quite a few titles that did just that a couple years ago I believe. Single player games included. However, it required developer support and wasn't worth the hassle so it was discontinued. With consoles that could be a different story - especially considering Sony has already declared their intent to do this.
Mostly it involves downloading the absolute core files of a game, and have things like audio, textures, later areas/levels etc be downloaded while the things required for the game to run and the initial area of the game to be loaded.
It's already been done, it's being done again, there's little reason it can't be done on an Xbox :)
One thing to note though is that the next Xbox had the ability to require online always - according to the leaked email. The mention of making sure that single player games don't require it supports that.
Anyways, it's taking too long for the 21st, it'd be nice to actually have official information to discuss for once! ha
Yeah, someone commented that you don't release an email telling your imployees to continue noto doing what we were already not doing. That's an indicator they've changed their minds on that due to all the online griping. Or atleast they want to appear they have.
Sony may be the same way. Even if they don’t incorporate optional DRM at the console level, publishers may still be able to implement their own versions.
Sony pitched the PS4 as essentially “by developers for developers”. MS’s console should be the same, maybe even more so. Can’t be “for developers” without also being “for publishers”. I think publishers may have much more freedom to implement new marketing techniques, payment models, antipiracy methods, used game limitations, etc. than they have in the past. Seems like kind of a theme so far.
MS could kill multiple birds with one stone if they choose to do pricing like Steam. They could stop people from going to Game Stop for used games, devs could get a percentage of the sales, less fortunate or frugal buyers could enjoy the same games as others (just later in the life cycle of the game, as long as it does not take a year to get a half off price), etc.
This does have some people that would be left out on the opportunity along the lines as the always online rumor. Rural people might not have the bandwidth or consistant bandwidth to download a game without issues. Business travelers that want to kill some time while they are on the road, for example new games (not xbl titles) will probably be around 25+ gb's, (yes I am assuming blue ray disc for games)can you imagine trying to DL a 25 gb game on a crappy Ramada wifi internet?
To be fair that percentage (work traveler, rural gamer with crappy/inconsistant internet) is a low percentage of your overall population of xbox gamers, so it is not a major factor for MS.
I can’t imagine that on a good residential connection either.
If Microsoft does the same approach Sony is using, that wouldn't be an issue.
Sony is doing a feature where as soon as the download has started the game can be played, and it continues downloading while you play. Now dial up wouldn't work, and the worst hotel wifi ever would be an unfortunate experience any way you look at it, but for residential speeds it'd work fine.
It's similar to renting a Netflix movie, and playing the movie less than a minute later. People aren't downloading the whole HD title in under a minute :)
However we all seem to agree that pricing is critical. I shouldn't have to pay $40 for Halo 3 today.
One thing I want to mention with pricing however is the consoles, but first some perspective through smartphones:
People with smartphones mostly fall into the Apple, Android, or Windows operating system categories. Between those you have millions of people with phones. When people buy more Android phones because there are so many different options, more affordable, and frequent releases they are at the same time reducing the market share of Apple and Windows phones. With more Android phones on the market, people will make more Android Apps. It all leads to market share growing or shrinking at accellerating rates. People gravitate towards ecosystems with more developers and support. Developers like to sell things to many customers, and market share growth will get more developers. They feed each other.
Now, for consoles it has become similar with Sony and Microsoft. Not only is this for games developed, but indie games, partnerships for services such as Netflix, ESPN, or Hulu, and even free applications. What Microsoft has that Sony doesn't is a large amount of money they can spend. Sony has been losing billions of dollars for years now, Microsoft is a profitable company.
So at the end of all this comes the realization that Microsoft has in its power to offer a full featured next Xbox console for a very cheap price. Let's say $200. They will take a huge loss per console at that price, clearly. However!! Sony cannot undercut or match that because they'd literally go bankrupt. That means Sony's console could cost twice as much or more than Microsoft's. Why is this exceptionally good though? It comes down to market share. If Microsoft gets a staggering amount more Xbox units into living rooms because of such a low price, they have a much larger market share. Customers buy the console more because that's where all their friends play online. Developers see one has millions upon millions more users that they can sell their games to and they make sure that's their first choice for making games. Services would rather launch on a console that has a vastly larger userbase because that means more potential signups for their service as well.
From there it would accellerate with more customers and more for the customers to have on the Xbox.
This is really the first generation this has been possible. The PS3 and Xbox 360 both had an ecosystem, but both companies were in good shape there. However, if you look at PS2 sales compared to PS3, and then consider the PS3's launch price being 600 dollars versus the expensive version of the Xbox 360's 400 dollars, you can see why Sony lost so much market share in this generation.
Between PS4 and Xbox - Sony isn't in good financial shape, but both have a relatively equal market share for console sales going into this generation. If Microsoft has a 50% less expensive console, and if it comes out even a month earlier, it could cripple not only the PS4 but Sony as a corporation.
All of that is of course a "what if" situation based on things that are possible. While Microsoft could go with a very inexpensive price compared to the PS4 I'm doubting they will do that. It'd be a very direct move to completely remove the PS4 from competition.
If Microsoft announces at E3 a $250 price point or lower you can bet Sony is going to feel very uncomfortable coming on stage after that to announce their price.
Microsoft just unleashed a bunch of xbox 'fusion' domain names, wonder if that's the name of a new service or maybe even the name of the new Xbox.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/03/will-the-next-xbox-be-called-fusion
How can you play a game while it downloads?
Its not like every level is independent of each one. A game is just the same bunch of Textures, Sounds, Model's, Physics ect used over and over.
Anyhow I hear what you say about priceing although us EU guys normally get done over as they normally match the price.
If they mark it up as $250 over there it will be £250 over here which is about $400. :-\
Oh yeah don't forget the sleeping giant that is the Wiiu.
Its time is upon us.
I dunno how they make it so you can play a game before it's all downloaded but they can. They may just transfer the core game data to you and then the first 25% of the FMV's and audio and such and transfer that while you're playing. There's a lot of stuff in every game that you don't get to see until later.
Yeah. Plenty of games do that already - from World of Warcraft to other MMORPGs. Sony is offering that for their entire upcoming game selection on PS4. So it's clearly possible.
The Wii had a terrible software attach rate. Often times people would only play the one game that came with it, so for a while the Wii's software attach rate was under 1.0. Yet, I think the Wii U will do worse.
Steambox would be where I'd place hope for sudden sales. That and if Apple announces a gaming console.
That is because the game is played on a server. Everything is on that server. You only need the client.
Tomb Raider: Legend. If that's an online game played on a server then I'll stand corrected.
Not that it needed correcting in any event, since Sony already announced it for every single retail PS4 game.
Touche`
Ok then I stand corrected.
Wiki time
just a side note to all of this.
One of our site members is actually working for the company doing the design of the new box and has told us after the 5/21 release date he will come on the TnT show on 5/30 to help answer questions about the hardware. Now he can answer questions about what HAS been said or discussed during the May reveal. He is not sure what MS is going to say/reveal/show on 5/21 and save for E3 and questions about the software interface will be very very limited. But it will be cool to hear how things are designed, added, thrown out, redone, etc.
So be thinking of some good questions, what the reveal on 5/21 and if your question has not been answered (hardware related) pm me, Doodi or stop in the show and ask your questions in the chat interface.
I was hoping he'd talk about it. awesome :)
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/05/microsoft-next-xbox-will-work-even-when-your-internet-doesnt/
#Sweet!!
Will try to watch this one live
Thanks for the heads up on that, I'll be paying close attention on 5/21 and will direct my questions this way :)
Was this posted yet? Grabbed it from NeoGAF. I know this is dreadful rumour mongering but a Halo title is mentioned and it actually sounds like the real deal to me. The rest of it sounds plausible and the notes about MS planning being in disarray and reactionary kind hit a spot for me. None of it really sounds that negative to me, even though that's the tone of the messages. Hey, I'm the glass is half full guy these days.
What I found interesting, DEEP, is that the two paste's conflicted. Especially consider the always online portion - one says the console needs internet, the other says games can run without it but they're better with it.
The memory amount and type differs between the two.
Either of the 'leaks' could have things that hit or miss. It's nothing ridiculously specific or suprising. It is completely based on rumors we've heard before - not one mention of some new feature or capability.
Also, the spelling errors and general voice of the text seems to tend towards someone that does not work with video games in a professional capacity. It sounds like someone who reads about computers and video games, and wrote some guesses and changes into a 'leak'.
Any of the things there coming true are coincidental, I'd say.
The system on a chip rumor of backwards compatibility with Xbox 360 dates back to an official Microsoft document that is dated from 2010. One mentions new Kinect updates, but doesn't bother to mention any of that. Instead, speculation on price and if the Kinect is bundled follows.
Nothing about the next Xbox sounds like it would be sold to break even, or at a profit as one of them claims. Especially at launch. That's what the Wii could do.
Finally:
"the slight of hand could be just as big as Sony in 2005 if things not gelled" If that quote doesn't stick out like a massive sore thumb to you, then feel free to believe these are game developers who somehow met the "excellent written and oral communication skills" such a job would require.
Kind of up and down read for me.
SO its backwards compatable.
Not always online
more RAM
and its going to be cheap.
But it wont be the best? and can overheat
Head hurts
I have only one thing to say, and it's relevence is probably limited. I have 18 yr old twin boys and 90% of what they play is PC based easily... and it's not cause daddy does, I play Forza easily 90%, and PC 10%, yes, rarely is there anything but Forza in my Xbox...I do a little Diablo/Minecraft.
They are playing League, Smite, Neverwinter, Skyrim....
Things I don't mind: the always online, the no used games, the increase in fl,( i dont play often enough to get many friends.) Re setting of gamer score.
Which leads me to ask, will our gamer tags have to change? Keeping old 360 and having 720 with the same GT?
The pricing. If only $10/monthly fee if buying the $300 version vs $15/monthly.
Don't If I will be able to swing for the full price version upfront.
I am seeing Gamestop taking Pre orders for games that are coming out in Nov for the 360. But not for the 720 yet Hmmm?
Just my 2 pennys
The less expensive version is less expensive because of the higher Xbox Live fee per month yeah. It's there for people, like yourself, who can't afford the entire full priced console outright. I'm pretty sure there won't be a difference between the two in terms of hardware, just the price. One is more affordable with less cash upfront and small payments over time that get you Xbox Live Gold. The other is a higher priced with no payments required over time. Xbox Live will be cheaper for everyone than 15/month. The people with the cheaper console would have to wait until the contract is up to get that cheaper price, though.
Think of it as like buying a smartphone. A two year contract gets you a much cheaper phone. Buying one without a contract is very expensive. Same thing here.
I would not worry about your gamertag. It'd be very silly to lose that for the next Xbox. However, for some relevance, consider Windows 8. When I sign in on a Windows 8 device that I've never touched before, with my existing Microsoft ID, it syncs all my settings, personalization, downloaded Apps, etc automatically. I bet Microsoft will leverage that for Gamertags as well. "Just sign into your new console the same way you already sign in on 360, and everything will automatically carry over seamlessly" That kind of thing. They already have the software that does it, in other words.
As far as your gamestop comment - you should realize that the next Xbox has not been announced yet. An event about Xbox is taking place May 21st is all that is confirmed. Expect gamestop to allow pre-orders for the console and games announced that day either on the 21st or within a day or two. That's what they did with PS4.
DEEP, I reread my earlier comment and hope it didn't come off as abrasive, especially towards you. I do appreciate any rumor I can find and your links. I mainly wanted to reinforce your view that it's pure rumor, while showing why I thought so.
Also, for pure unfounded speculation's sake I'll give you guys something unexpected: A Valve+Microsoft partnership that has Steam running on the new Xbox.
Now, this is not a rumor, a leak, and isn't even probable. It is completely possible however, which is why I find it interesting and perhaps staggering.
Steam, through HTML5 or other languages, can run full PC games from the extensive Steam library on almost any internet connected device. Games can be streamed, and stored via the Cloud, and attached to steam accounts. The hardware would only require control methods, such as a keyboard and mouse. Steam could be an App or service on Xbox that brings a massive PC library of games to Xbox owners on launch day. Thousands of titles, including free to play and PC only offerings, become available on Xbox. That's a staggering partnership, especially considering launch. Microsoft could say Xbox has 12 launch titles and ten thousand full PC games available day 1 for Xbox, inlcuding existing steam owners collections. Sony would have their dozen launch titles and..... Netflix?
Valve could enjoy massive increased users without selling additional hardware and without the users needing a gaming PC. They could sell a separate Steambox if they chose, but it'd be a great value for Xbox owners and a profit driver for Steam.
There are key problems that take this from godly awesome to "very unlikely to happen": Latency is the big technical one. Controls feeling sluggish for every game all the time through streamed PC games is a huge detractor. It's probably why the PS4 streams to local devices like Vita, rather than Sony streaming games to PS4.
Another problem is Valve strongly opposed to Microsoft's direction with Windows 8. Valve is pushing its Mac and now Linux games quite a bit lately. Their strained feelings towards Microsoft would be a big reason for this deal to never happen.
Monetization could be an issue. In my opinion, Microsoft should include Steam access with Xbox Live Gold and that's it. The increase in Market share would be worth it alone. Valve would enjoy increased users and sales, good enough for them. If one gets greedier, the deal wouldn't go through I bet.
In any event, the ability for an Xbox to have Steam in its exclusive partner stable would be an incredible surprise and game changer. However, this is all purely speculation on my part with not even a whisper of rumor to it. It is possible for it to happen, but I have absolutely nothing that shows it is probable or even being considered by either company.
Food for thought :)
One thing that people are forgetting is Gamefly. Which is honestly where I buy 90% of my console titles from. Not only does the service allow me to try before I buy ( Anyone remember Superman 64? ), but also gives a good discount on the game when I do decide to "Keep it". All of the proposed DRM that the next gens have been tossing around would certainly cripple this service. It's bad enough that some companies make you buy an online pass for 800 points (10 dollars ) to try the game multiplayer on top of the 37 dollars we spend monthly for the rental service.
Developers make money from this service from jump street and now also on the backend with the online passes as well.This is a 67 billion dollar industry that is estimated to grow to well over 80 billion in the next few years. All of the cries that the companies are not making enough money are simply impossible to believe.
Honestly, take Call of Duty for example.
1)Original game 60 dollars ( If you don't get the shiny collector's editions with all of the "Exclusive" content.
2) DLC another 50 dollars ( If you actually want to be able to play with your friends that is)
Total = 110 dollars for a single game. If you cannot make money on that, there's something terribly wrong and you deserve to go out of buisness.
The claims that the industry is losing money because of resale is crazy. Not a single game hits the used games section of Gamestop or anywhere else without being purchased at full price first. Most people who buy used, cannot afford to buy new and stores like Gamestop stimulate the gaming economy by bringing people into the store with the lure of cheap games. Ask anyone who worked at these stores and they'll tell you that most people will come in for the used games but will sucked into prepurchasing the big titles too.
We also like to forget all of the unemployment destroying the resale market will create. All of those people who work at Best Buy and such have families to feed just like the developers do. It's not going to fix anything in the industry by putting thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people out of work. Gamestop alone has over 17k people working for those stores. Where exactly are they going to work when Microsoft and Sony run them out of buisness?
I think the rumour that MS is going to leave it up to the devs to allow used game play or not has the most likelyhood. It takes any blame off of MS, justifies the always online (nod to Kade for the distinction, I liked your explination between the two) option we keep hearing about and will create an extra source of revenue (ie season pass etc.).
I am not saying it is right, but it will help satiate the "FU MS if you make me be online to play my single player game" crowd or at least focus their rage to dev.
The "season pass thing" could also help drive down the bs pricing for the used game market (as far as gamestop goes). But more then likely they will just lower the price to offset the pass cost. You might even see things like a dev come out with a "dev used game access pass", so instead of just get a pass for one game you might get access to any used game from them during the year. For example EA might offer a 25 dollar a year pass and any used game you buy that they make, for the next year you get to play. Hell even if MS does not shift the permission to the devs for the used game thing, I can see them add an extra tier to the XBL service. Lets call it the Platinum level where you get to permission play all the used games you want AND you get to stream music/videos from their Entertainment library for 75 bucks a year. This would allow them to compete directly with Amazon/Netflix/Hulu.
It is still a giant bag of crap, but if the rumors are true about the no used games deal MS will do something to take the sting away or at least the perception to taking the sting away.
Could a game launch (temporarily) from the source server, then rely on freshly downloaded data for content? Or could devs make a slim version of a game’s core that download’s “quickly” and runs (temporarily) while stuff downloads?
Dunno. The concept still sounds a bit magical to me. May be feasible for XBLA titles. May be feasible for more robust titles later in the lifespan of the next console. Today’s technology doesn’t seem ready for me to spend hours and hours downloading (while playing) a ginormous AAA game while my daughters are online cyberschooling and my wife’s also online researching philosophy or watching videos of dudes kissing each other and stuff.
ArsTechnica says Xbox720 will play games even if you're offline according to a leaked internal microsoft email
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/05/microsoft-next-xbox-will-work-even...
There was no benifit to an absolute requirement for online connection on the new Xbox. It was guaranteed to cost customers. Awesome online features can benifit Microsoft. It's better to entice than to force.
As for play while downloading games - Steam had quite a few titles that did just that a couple years ago I believe. Single player games included. However, it required developer support and wasn't worth the hassle so it was discontinued. With consoles that could be a different story - especially considering Sony has already declared their intent to do this.
Mostly it involves downloading the absolute core files of a game, and have things like audio, textures, later areas/levels etc be downloaded while the things required for the game to run and the initial area of the game to be loaded.
It's already been done, it's being done again, there's little reason it can't be done on an Xbox :)
One thing to note though is that the next Xbox had the ability to require online always - according to the leaked email. The mention of making sure that single player games don't require it supports that.
Anyways, it's taking too long for the 21st, it'd be nice to actually have official information to discuss for once! ha