I understand that Phil Spencer needs to project confidence, but if MS isn't freaking out at least a little bit internally, then they are totally out of touch with their PR situation. MS has never excelled at PR, but they need to do something aggressively to change perception. They need to correct the misconceptions that are out there, make the case for how their model is better for gamers, and maybe even backtrack on some of their restrictions as part of an honestly apologetic response to the concerns of the gaming community. I think there's a good case to be made for the Xbox One, but Microsoft is doing an amazingly lousy job of making it.
Either that, or they need to whip out a big, game-changing surprise in the next couple months.
@Pockets69 @nparks @EchoStation So, I assume that you own no devices with either cameras or microphones, right? No webcams or mics plugged into your PCs or installed in your laptops? No tablets? No cellphones? All of these devices could be used to spy on you 24/7...
The obvious solution is to have dual DRM mechanisms. As long as a valid disk is in the drive, let anyone on that console play the game. If the game is downloaded or played from the hard drive without the disk, then verify online that it is licensed to the account playing it. The most anyone could abuse that system is to get two people playing off of one purchase, so there's not much threat, and this enables sharing and trading of disks just like today, but also enables people to just install and play without them. As long as there's also a way to transfer a license to someone else, or to cancel it when selling or trading in a game, that's covered as well. MS could use that process to ensure that retailers kick something back or contribute to the publisher as well, if they want to, ensuring the game makers get at least a cut of the secondhand market sales. It's only a problem if they're worried about a lot of counterfeit or copied game disks possibly being in circulation.
This is total speculation, and I have no idea what MS's policy will ultimately be, but that seems like a common sense approach that would allay everyone's fears and still enable next gen access and functionality. Here's hoping the only thing keeping an announcement of something like that is their work to finalize deals with the Gamestops and Best Buys of the world.
@davrealdeal @nparks So? The question is connectivity, not mobility. My 360 is plugged into my home Ethernet. It is always online when powered on. I guarantee you my WiFi Nexus and iPad spend a lot less time connected to the internet than my Xbox. My Nokia is a different story as it has a 4G and is therefore almost always connected (except when hitting one of AT&T's spotty coverage zones, which are more common than I'd like).
@Daemoroth @nparks Isn't that basically what Microsoft has said? You need a connection for the online features, and there will be more online features than ever, but that won't necessarily prevent you from enjoying offline content and features if you for some reason can't get a connection for an extended period of time. Continuous days or weeks of internet outage (without a corresponding power outage or similar issues that would completely disable any box anyway) should be fairly rare.
@Ravenlore_basic @nparks The point would be that different interfaces facilitate different experiences. Tablets are geared to a close-up, small screen, mobile experience, consoles for a large screen living room experience. There will be some overlap, especially in media consumption features, and there will be other features that better fit one or the other. Both can benefit from connectivity to the internet and the power of cloud services, so I don't see a big difference there.
Nobody will ever buy an iPad or Android app. You'd have to (gasp!) connect to the internet. And you wouldn't be able to sell it or trade it in afterwards! Poor, poor, Apple and Google, pushing your failed platforms. Nobody wants powerful cloud services or connectivity. Kind of like how World of Warcraft was such an utter failure. They should have known that "always online" would never fly. Nobody ever wants to play games with other people who aren't in the same room. It's just absurd. Of course, Microsoft should have known this already since everybody quit using Windows or Office when they introduced internet activation.
@AndThn3 The Booker Dewitt timeline that leads to Anna being born after rejecting baptism remains, and we see that in the closing. However, this introduces a paradox: if Elizabeth is eliminated along with Comstock, then who goes back in time to drown Comstock at his birth?
Some version of Elizabeth must still exist with super-powers intact, which is why we get the ambiguous ending. Is Anna there? Even without Comstock, the Luteces would still probably end up mucking with the multiverse...
nparks' comments