Next Xbox May or May Not Require Online/Allow Used Games (Update 4/25/13)

[quote name='Corvin']Is the rumor "allows all used games" or "allows used 360 games via the mini?" Big difference.[/QUOTE]

Again, nothing but rumors, but the latest as far as I understand it is that the Durango itself WILL allow used (Durango) games.

However, the Durango by itself is not backwards compatible. To fix that, they have the add on Stingray (a mini 360) which has no disc drive. Since this device itself has no disc drive, it obviously by itself will not allow used games (which may be how the whole "no used games" rumor started). However, when connected to the Durango via HDMI-in, it would allow Xbox 360 used games to be played by using the Durango's disc drive.

In reality we still don't know shit. Rumor is we may find out sometime toward the end of May.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='panzerfaust']Blunt, sensible honesty from a company representative? Fire his ass! And give us the lies and sugar coated PR we deserve![/QUOTE]

I get what you're saying and I somewhat agree. In the perfect world in my head people could say what they want, be completely honest, and people wouldn't get offended. It didn't really hurt anyone after all.

Since we're not in that perfect world though and we live in the real world people do get offended and whether it's right or wrong, fair or complete bullshit, the bottom line is that it reflects poorly on MS. They had to do something about it.

He told people to "deal with it" and mockingly asked why he would live in the mentioned places as if they were inferior to where he is or beneath him in some way. It was just a rotten thing to say at all, let alone to tweet it.

My own opinion and looking at some of his other tweets and hearing about his past, the guy is an insensitive prick and he got what he deserved.
 
[quote name='ShockandAww']
He told people to "deal with it" and mockingly asked why he would live in the mentioned places as if they were inferior to where he is or beneath him in some way. It was just a rotten thing to say at all, let alone to tweet it.[/QUOTE]

Why is it so offensive to tell the truth? There are places in America that have less population density, less wealth, less infrastructure and poorer Internet connections. I would never live in those places because I want to have 4G cell phone reception and fast Internet. Should I be fired from my job now?

I wouldn't be surprised if the people who claimed to take offense at that are the same ones who talk shit about rednecks in flyover country. I think that the vast majority of people who take offense are not really offended but feign offense in order to bolster their position.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Why is it so offensive to tell the truth? There are places in America that have less population density, less wealth, less infrastructure and poorer Internet connections. I would never live in those places because I want to have 4G cell phone reception and fast Internet. Should I be fired from my job now?
[/QUOTE]

I dunno, but would you feel comfortable telling everyone where you work and what your name is now that you've said that anonymously? The problem is that, willing or not, someone in his position is a de facto spokesperson for the company; they're tied to his comments.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I wouldn't be surprised if the people who claimed to take offense at that are the same ones who talk shit about rednecks in flyover country. I think that the vast majority of people who take offense are not really offended but feign offense in order to bolster their position.[/QUOTE]

No one is perfect. And at the end of the day, everyone is a hypocrite. We're just built that way. You're walking on rotten ice with that argument. It's fine to point out that mankind is fallible. It's another thing entirely to imply that there's no point in trying to improve.
 
It was a bad thing to say PR wise as you can't go around insulting/offending millions of potential customers.

Comment didn't offend me at all personally. I grew up in a shitty flyover state (WV) and would never go back. Not shit to do there if you aren't into outdoorsy stuff or aren't a stay at home introvert type, no variety in culture, largely ignorant population as anyone with a decent mind/education leaves the first chance they get, still no decent broadband options at my parents place etc. They call places like that fly over states for a reason. I'll never live outside of a major city again.

But again, I'm not in a position where I'm speaking on behalf of a huge corporation where such comments could alienate millions of potential customers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']

But again, I'm not in a position where I'm speaking on behalf of a huge corporation where such comments could alienate millions of potential customers.[/QUOTE]

You're also not expressing your views in a completely flippant manner, either...
 
I grew up in a shitty flyover state (WV) and would never go back. Not shit to do there if you aren't into outdoorsy stuff or aren't a stay at home introvert type, no variety in culture, largely ignorant population as anyone with a decent mind/education leaves the first chance they get, still no decent broadband options at my parents place etc. They call places like that fly over states for a reason. I'll never live outside of a major city again.
Click to expand...

Because there are definitely no ignorant people that live in cities, right?
 
Even if MS fixes what they now.know are bad ideas, the PR damage is done. They will need to have am.awesome E3 showing.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
But again, I'm not in a position where I'm speaking on behalf of a huge corporation where such comments could alienate millions of potential customers.[/QUOTE]
Was he speaking on behalf of a huge corporation? Does putting "Microsoft employee" in your bio make you a PR person?
 
[quote name='Spokker']Was he speaking on behalf of a huge corporation? Does putting "Microsoft employee" in your bio make you a PR person?[/QUOTE]

When you post on a Twitter account which is subtitled "Microsoft Creative Director" then yeah your words carry a little more weight than say, Microsoft Janitor as a title.

Furthermore, you're operating under the assumption he was fired, whereas some reports are speculating resignation. He screwed up, he acknowledged it and (likely) resigned his position because of that acknowledgement.
 
[quote name='phantomfriar2002']Because there are definitely no ignorant people that live in cities, right?[/QUOTE]

Let me put it this way. I'm an academic. Super liberal. Atheist. Despise children. Etc.

Definitely a lot more like-minded people to hang out with and girls to date in big cities than rural shit holes (or suburban areas for that matter). Plenty of ignorant people in cities too of course. But most of them are living in shitty areas. And there's just less racism, homophobia, bible thumping etc. due to the diversity vs. rural area that's 95%+ white, very Christian etc. like where I grew up as ignorance stems from lack of exposure to diversity.

Add in the lack of culture (ethnic food, theaters that show more than Hollywood blockbusters, plays, concerts, pro sports, museums, art galleries, craft breweries etc. etc.) and there's just absolutely no way I'd ever consider living anywhere but a major metro area, and preferably in a trendy neighborhood in one like where I live now.

Rural areas are great if you just want to stay at home, raise a family, enjoy outdoor stuff etc. Just doesn't fit my lifestyle since I'm never having kids and don't enjoy outdoor stuff that much, don't like staying at home all the time and have a wide array of interests.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='RedvsBlue']
Furthermore, you're operating under the assumption he was fired, whereas some reports are speculating resignation. He screwed up, he acknowledged it and (likely) resigned his position because of that acknowledgement.[/QUOTE]

I do believe he technically resigned, but we may never know if there was pressure involved. It could also be that he was already on his way out and had something else lined up.

That being said, I wish there was a site or blog or whatever that tracked people who lose their jobs to such controversy and see what becomes of them. What are the true consequences? I mean, do you truly become unemployable and you become homeless or does nothing really happen and you just get a job somewhere else? I would love to follow up with some of these people.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']And there's just less racism, homophobia, bible thumping etc. due to the diversity vs. rural area that's 95%+ white, very Christian etc. like where I grew up as ignorance stems from lack of exposure to diversity.[/QUOTE]
Just because the city's demographics look diverse does not mean that these cosmopolitan people are exposed to diversity in their usual haunts. Or perhaps ordering a meal prepared by some Mexican is diversity to them. I mean, ethnic food? That just makes you a cultural tourist.

I think that my day is far more diverse than the average academic city dweller's day, you know, the ones who scream about white privilege and bible thumpers, and I'm a racist in the modern sense for saying naughty things. Tim Wise, who lives in a 97%/0% black neighborhood, is a popular example of this.
 
Fair points all around. I don't have a lot of interest in surrounding myself with diversity of view points (bible thumping etc.). I have my worldview and little use for people who don't share it--which is one of the main perks of an ivory tower job.

I want diversity/variety in dining and entertainment options at my doorstep, and minimal exposure to social conservative fucktards, religious whack jobs etc. That's why I choose the big city lifestyle and would love to move to Europe at some point.
 
[quote name='Spokker']
That being said, I wish there was a site or blog or whatever that tracked people who lose their jobs to such controversy and see what becomes of them. What are the true consequences? I mean, do you truly become unemployable and you become homeless or does nothing really happen and you just get a job somewhere else? I would love to follow up with some of these people.[/QUOTE]

That would be cool to see. I feel like most of those that resign or get ousted from higher up positions do fine afterwards. Folks like Mark Hurd come to mind. As far as Orth is concerned, while I don't agree with him and think he's now regretting his comments, others have done a lot worse and still been hired by another company.
 
[quote name='highoffcoffee496']:wall::wall::wall:

Wonder if this is a hint at the rumors being true...good thing I'm mostly a PlayStation gamer. Such a shame if Microsoft takes this route[/QUOTE]

You can click through at the bottom and read the actual guardian article that's quoted. The Guardian has more depth on other topics but the "always online" stuff is pretty well summed up by the GI article.
 
Lest we forget the PC versions of Assassin's Creed 2 and Splinter Cell Conviction were the progenitors of always online single player DRM a full 3 years ago, before Sim City and Diablo 3.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/235596/blog/ubi-drm-their-side-of-the-story/?site=pcg

Of course, the dark side of that story was the DRM was cracked almost immediately at launch and there were problems with servers so the legitimate purchasers couldn't play their game while the pirates were able to play the game just fine...
 
[quote name='sp00ge']Well, without always online, how are they supposed to update all those ads in real-time? :/[/QUOTE]
I think everyone here is well aware by now that I hate the idea of always online. That said, I could see a case for it IF that allowed them to subsidize a cheaper console. You know all those ads you get fed on the dashboard? Those don't help you at all....unless they do something like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Paperw...ie=UTF8&qid=1366040605&sr=8-1&keywords=kindle

If they're willing to have 2 versions, one ad supported that's always online and is cheaper and one that's IDENTICAL but not ad supported, costs more, and IS NOT always online then FINE. I don't think that's how they would implement the "service" though.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']You can click through at the bottom and read the actual guardian article that's quoted. The Guardian has more depth on other topics but the "always online" stuff is pretty well summed up by the GI article.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for that I checked it out too. Imho, I have always seen Microsoft as anti-consumer (which is why I only own 3 Xbox games) :lol:

I want to look at both consoles objectively for this next-gen before making my decision but it seems like Microsoft is doing all the right things to make me hate their unannounced console. It just needs to be shown off already... :roll:
 
[quote name='highoffcoffee496']Thanks for that I checked it out too. Imho, I have always seen Microsoft as anti-consumer (which is why I only own 3 Xbox games) :lol:

I want to look at both consoles objectively for this next-gen before making my decision but it seems like Microsoft is doing all the right things to make me hate their unannounced console. It just needs to be shown off already... :roll:[/QUOTE]

Agreed, they really should just put it out there. They're letting Sony dominate the news cycle. If they have anything at all good to say about it, they need to put it out there. I honestly can't BELIEVE that they would put mandatory always online into the console after all the negative feedback.

edit:
Let me add, this is Ubisoft and we all know they love this kind of DRM...
 
[quote name='Spokker']I do believe he technically resigned, but we may never know if there was pressure involved. It could also be that he was already on his way out and had something else lined up.

That being said, I wish there was a site or blog or whatever that tracked people who lose their jobs to such controversy and see what becomes of them. What are the true consequences? I mean, do you truly become unemployable and you become homeless or does nothing really happen and you just get a job somewhere else? I would love to follow up with some of these people.[/QUOTE]

It's very obvious Ortho was pushed out so as to save face, MS offered him the chance to turn in his resignation before being terminated.

It's very common in corporate America to end ties this way. It's cleaner this way. The corporation doesn't look as "evil" by firing the employee and the employee has the ability to put his prior experience on his resume. When he applies for another position, the background checks would not reveal a firing but rather confirm a resignation. If you got terminated from a company, the last thing you would want is for your next employer to know that your last employer fired your butt.

At my last job my senior manager was considered a poor performer. The company was going through some budget cuts and pressured him to "resign." Had he not resigned, the company was going to fire him anyways. It was mutually beneficial for both parties to go about it that way than a full fledged termination.

He then worked as a contractor for at least a couple of years before I lost track of him. I suppose he landed on his feet but I'm pretty sure he made a lot less money after. It was actually pretty sad. He was a kind soft spoken guy.
 
[quote name='Donut2922']It's very obvious Ortho was pushed out so as to save face, MS offered him the chance to turn in his resignation before being terminated.

It's very common in corporate America to end ties this way. It's cleaner this way. The corporation doesn't look as "evil" by firing the employee and the employee has the ability to put his prior experience on his resume. When he applies for another position, the background checks would not reveal a firing but rather confirm a resignation. If you got terminated from a company, the last thing you would want is for your next employer to know that your last employer fired your butt.

At my last job my senior manager was considered a poor performer. The company was going through some budget cuts and pressured him to "resign." Had he not resigned, the company was going to fire him anyways. It was mutually beneficial for both parties to go about it that way than a full fledged termination.

He then worked as a contractor for at least a couple of years before I lost track of him. I suppose he landed on his feet but I'm pretty sure he made a lot less money after. It was actually pretty sad. He was a kind soft spoken guy.[/QUOTE]

The downside to voluntarily resigning is if you don't get a severance package, you have zero chance at obtaining unemployment since you left your job under your own will. If you get fired, it's still a battle, but it's not an instant "No."
 
[quote name='Donut2922'] The corporation doesn't look as "evil" by firing the employee and the employee has the ability to put his prior experience on his resume. When he applies for another position, the background checks would not reveal a firing but rather confirm a resignation. If you got terminated from a company, the last thing you would want is for your next employer to know that your last employer fired your butt.[/QUOTE]
At my company the employee handbook states that the company will not say anything about your employment there except to confirm what position you were and the dates of employment. They will not tell a future employer you were fired.

So I guess before you get fired for politically correct nonsense, brush up on the handbook.

And in your example, the guy was fired for poor performance, not offensive speech, so I would only expect him to get back on his feet if he improves his performance.
 
[quote name='elessar123']But aren't there questions on applications asking if you have ever been fired? Are you telling people to lie?[/QUOTE]
Fired for what? If you feel you were unjustly fired, what should you say?
 
[quote name='Spokker']Fired for what? If you feel you were unjustly fired, what should you say?[/QUOTE]

Layoffs/Downsizing. In my experience, companies will only verify your employment dates.
 
Instant "no buy" for me if they do any of that BS. I'll be going back to PS3 without hesitation. But since it looks like false information... no worries. :)
 
[quote name='mitch079']Layoffs/Downsizing. In my experience, companies will only verify your employment dates.[/QUOTE]

You are correct. Most companies are not going to give out anything more than that, and the company calling likely won't ask for anything more.
 
[quote name='TooPoor']I hope a Kanye figure will just rush on the stage at their May conference and ask if used games are allowed :evil:[/QUOTE]
I'm sure they'd reveal if used games will be allowed.
 
As we get closer and closer to the reveal, always online seems to gain more and more probability of being true. This is exciting.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Maybe the next Xbox will have a GOG app and blow everyone away.[/QUOTE]

Why would a company who advocates no DRM be locked to a system?
 
[quote name='elessar123']Why would a company who advocates no DRM be locked to a system?[/QUOTE]

Well, yeah, I was kidding.
 
If this is true, imagine all the soccer moms caving in to their child's request, buying the $500 console and finding out it can't work in their living room.

Also, I found the whole rumored "DRM (or blocking used games) is up to the publishers and developers, we are just providing them the tools" an extremely disgusting move. If you want to do it, just man up and do it, and take the blame and consequences.
 
Read the updated OP. Unbelievable. Everyone was saying "it's just rumors".
Internet-connected. The next Xbox must be Internet-connected to use. This is the source of the “always on”/“always online” rumors and isn’t as Draconian as many seem to believe.

I like the "isn't as Draconian as many seem to believe" part. It's pretty draconian. My question: Will my Xbox work if I NEVER hook it to the Internet? If yes then draconian else not draconian. It's really as simple as that.

299.99 for the subsidized console seems decent, especially if it's only 10 a month. Everyone was expecting 15 a month as the price. At 10 a month you're only paying $240 for live + $300 for the Xbox. That's only $540. So $40 total or $20 a year to finance it over two years isn't really that bad. Especially when you consider that sales tax doesn't apply to the subsidized portion of the price ($200) so that narrows the price gap a bit more.
 
Gonna have to wait and see if the $300 package and $500 package are the same, though. I am gonna have to assume that MS will sweeten the deal for the $500 package.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']Gonna have to wait and see if the $300 package and $500 package are the same, though. I am gonna have to assume that MS will sweeten the deal for the $500 package.[/QUOTE]

Bigger HDD maybe?
 
Probably. That seems the likely the move, IF the rumored dollar amounts are all true. If not, there's no real reason not to go the $300 route. Sure, you're locked into paying for Live for 2 years, but you'll end up paying slightly more for the console over that time, with the benefit of 2 years of Live. If you were to buy the $500 console and 2 years of Live, even with good deals, you're still going to pay, at least, $550.
 
I doubt the pricing on the supposed $300 model is true. There's no way it would cost less than the $500 model over time. The point is for it to be cheap up front but cost more over the allocated subscription period.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']I doubt the pricing on the supposed $300 model is true. There's no way it would cost less than the $500 model over time. The point is for it to be cheap up front but cost more over the allocated subscription period.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. The number don't add up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top