But yea, to make this post shorter, if I have a choice between the two, I will obviously not choose always online. I much rather not have always online than do. I just don't see it as something big enough that would make say "Oh, fuck that, definitely not getting the new xbox now."

Some I guess don't understand that, and somehow think I'm crazy for even considering still buying the new xbox after hearing this, but I feel comfortable with my internet connection, and I have enough confidence in the reliability of xbox live, because I've practically never been disconnected from live while I was gaming. It happened once, and that was my fault due to me knowingly using a damaged Ethernet cable that couldn't stay fixed in place, so it just fell out. Honestly, I don't have any reason to doubt my ability to stay online and maintain a consistent internet connection, nor do I have serious enough cause to doubt xbox live. There are days I stay connected to that damn thing all damn day, without turning my console off.

Well, you aren't doing so bad yourself, as you conveniently sweep a lot of things under the rug regarding games you are anticipating, because you know deep down that when push comes to shove, you can't stand on principle and deny yourself the simple pleasure of a game you really want simply due to these minor things. Unless something has changed, Destiny doesn't strike me at all as an MMO. It strikes me as a Halo campaign, only one that's a perpetual co-op style experience, where you share the game world with others. And, if we're being fair, Watch Dogs has showcased that shared world feature, too. I wonder if people remember the trailer where you saw another player that was clearly a user controlled player in watchdogs. And if you pay attention to the names that show up on the cameras watching pierce, they are clearly user controlled nicknames, giving off the impression that other players are inside your world while you play watch dogs.

I mean, fair is fair. Everybody has their opinion on this. I think people are overreacting, and some clearly think I'm "taking it up the ass" :P We'll see what they ultimately end up doing. I think the execution of this whole thing matters a great deal.

"Inventing" reasons. I don't need to invent anything. Kinect (i hate motion gaming in general) rumours of no used game (i rent) and always online (my ISP is hardly great) these aren't invented. Rumours, sure, but invented? Lol.

I've always kinda laughed when people get all butthurt pver my preference in console. You know why? You why i laugh when people call me a fanboy...because the only people who actually give a shit about that sort of thing...are fanboys. If i'm a fanboy, then so are you, and sanex, and dc, and blackhawk, and majority of the people here. Those are the people who call me out on it, but they're just as guilty of doing the exact same shit, the same shit you're doing, the same shit i do. So if i'm fanboy in denial, that's exactly what you are, the difference is, this is the first time i've ever even brought it up. Because frankly, i don't care, everyone has a preference and i don't care what it is. Seems i'm not allowed to have one though because it clashes with majority of the people on this site. Once xboxsyde remember. Why does it matter so much that i voice my opinion on a game? If people get all emotionally hurt by my opinion (and that's all it's ever been) then they they need to grow the fuck up.

So yeah, keep pretending you're unbiased and objective. You're not. You're blind and delusional...but certainly not unbiased and objective.

If Xbox Live became a free service, I'd have less of an issue with the always online thing.
Otherwise the glaring problem with Live just multiplied with this news.

Any mention of that anywhere?

When it comes to downloadable games, I've always had an issue with the inability to access without Live. It's as if you don't REALLY own anything. You keep paying for them every month.

The always online thing is only truly offensive when we learn everything else too. I want to see if this machine is something none of us are expecting first.

Also, separately, why is it okay for Battlefield 4 to do this simply because most of us know that MP is where the real action is at with that game? Does this somehow change the fact that BF4 still has an SP campaign? We may know it's all about MP, but what about someone out there that doesn't expect Battlefield's SP to suck,and intends on really devoting time to it? I think this shows that, in some cases, particularly when the circumstances are more to our liking, even those against always online may find it acceptable.

And, just devil's advocate, what if the next xbox had 100% BC for all 360 games existing and upcoming, in addition to all XBLA purchases, how would people react to that? It's actually in their documented plans that seem to more or less be lining up the closer we get, albeit with a stronger GPU than the one in the earlier leaked document. I wouldn't care if it wasn't there, but considering the fuss Microsoft has always made about online and being connected, it would be a much bigger deal for them to not have BC than it would be for Sony, I think, as the entire XBLA stuff would be out the window for people that invested in it.

Here is where it gets interesting though. What if this isn't a Microsoft console wide requirement, like some of these rumors are saying, but instead is a requirement by some of the biggest publishers? Notice how some of the biggest next gen releases thus far from some of the biggest publishers out there all seem to be falling into this persistent online requirement, if they're all true that is?

Ubisoft - Watch Dogs, AC4
EA - Battlefield 4
Activision - Destiny

I guess the potential influence goes both ways, but can Microsoft really convince these publishers and developers to do this against their will? I do also wonder about these requirements, if coming from publishers, are they really something that just Microsoft will have to abide by? It's hard to say until we are much closer to release of these consoles and games, but it's so much easier to say some things while not saying certain controversial others when there's so much time before release. In Microsoft's case, up until this last guy, they technically haven't said anything. Some might think if it isn't true, why doesn't Microsoft shoot it down? But if it isn't, and they know it isn't, why would they necessarily have to rush to shoot down something they can easily take care of when they announce? What are people going to say if it isn't true? Well, we still thought it was true for awhile there, so no cookie for you? I'll tell you one thing I'm not buying: 3 minutes of offline time. That sounds like the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. My prediction is you have to go online to register the game with your console, or you can't play it at all. And then after you register online, you can play offline, but only on that console that you registered it with, and there may be some online check every now and then, but not in silly 3 minute intervals if you aren't online, I think more along the lines of an hour or half hour. Online registration to check against a database to see if the game is pirated or already registered for use on another system. That's what I think is going on.

And there's no disputing the Apple TV online requirement. You must be logged into your Itunes store account on your computer AND on your Apple TV in order to perform video streaming from your iTunes library. This is how home sharing is activated, hence online is a requirement. I use this thing every single day. That's how it works. I'd be most interested in exactly how Phaethon directly disputed that point.An argument centered around the developer that is investing resources into making a singleplayer component, somehow believing it to be a joke, but still investing all the time and effort into that SP component anyway, one they've been saying how much more effort they're putting into it, isn't a strong testament to your debating skills. :)

The fact is your argument, because you couldn't explain the hypocrisy, is weak, and I think you know that. And, no, I'm not coming to terms with anything. I still believe always online is mostly a non-issue. I'm just taking notice that you're on very weak footing with your argument when it concerns a game you really want to buy, and probably will buy no matter what. You, in advance of any PR attempt to rationalize making even people that will play BF4's SP, have to maintain a persistent online connection, are basically saying the developer knows the SP portion of the game they are making is a joke, and everybody knows it's a joke, so it's no big deal that there is a persistent online requirement, which you're suppose to be against in all its forms. It seems like you only support it when you think it's convenient for you. Whatever happened to all the millions of people that you had so much concern for before? Could you be nothing more than the same as most selfish consumers that have the nerve to make up their own minds on a case by case basis?

You didn't even attempt to form a decent argument to explain how easily you flipped on the matter. Sounds like you are spouting some PR nonsense of your own, while also eating it wholesale.A good way to debate is to pick out and isolate the weakest portion of your opponent's argument, thus invalidating the larger point they are attempting to make, which is being weighted down by their own apparent hypocrisy.

BF4 possibly a persistent online game? GriftGFX's reaction: #dealwithit

And, as is the case with most rumors, until it's actually confirmed, it isn't actually confirmed. Nor is any of this stuff regarding BF4 or Watch Dogs etc. That's the funny part. We don't even know for sure what's true and what isn't.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/04/05/microsoft-c...Tell me you aren't silly enough to believe this... A simple gloss through certain gaf threads would tell you that this won't be the end of it, even if Microsoft shoots it down lol.

With regards to tin foil hats, I could say the same for you, always willing to believe the most negative possible rumor whenever you see one. Don't get me wrong, it's not like we should totally dismiss everything that we see from all these various sites, especially when that guy from MS gives off the impression that this stuff could be true, but it isn't confirmed until it's actually confirmed, and I happen to think the specifics from the company themselves are important. Not spin, specifics. If they are going to do some kind of online registration of games, I would like to know how it works before I whine about it.

These are all things that matter and things we should know before we go jumping to conclusions, but that has never stopped you before.

Hmmm, seems a lot of people are getting really worked up over rumors. I get that people can feel strongly about the "always online" deal, but none of this stuff is confirmed.

I certainly won't be buying a new Xbox if it can't be played offline( I can only imagine losing a connection, or having a spotty one, and not being able to use something I payed hundreds of dollars for). That would be sad- as I am a super Halo Whore, lol...
Man, Waiting for this BF3 matchmaking tonight is killing me. Hopefully I don't suck like I did the other day...

I agree that it does speak volumes, but then this same guy has a history of defending personal views that are in direct contradiction to the company he may work for, or even if not in total contradiction, his packaging of that opinion tends to do more harm than good.

It's funny that you call it a debate, when you never truly debate on much of anything. Your idea of a debate close to 100% of the time is to attack anybody that disagrees with you. You don't ever "debate" much of anything. You talk shit. Big difference. You talk about ignoring important points, when you literally ignore 90% of what I say 100% of the time, not because it isn't a valid argument that is in line with my own experience, but because you automatically decide "We aren't going to agree, so fuck him." If I address every single point you bring up in full, you'd just ignore it as you always do, saying it's too long. So, if from time to time I do things the way you do it, which is to pick and choose what I want to respond to, and generally ignore the rest, because, hey, we don't agree, then you'll have to deal with how annoying that might be. I deal with it all the time, and you rarely see me bitch about it. My posts are long, but you get a full picture of where I'm coming from, not a half assed get in and get out response. If you have an opinion, and you stand by that opinion, why the hell should you hesitate to put that opinion out there for criticism just because not everybody will read, much less agree with it?

And what's wrong with me having a different opinion on always online? Literally every device I have that is capable is always connected to the internet consistently 24/7, and I don't encounter any disconnections. I have FIOS and my connection is rated at 50Mbps/25Mbps, and I consistently exceed my caps on both Download and Upload speed. My connection is ideal for this kind of thing. When I used Steam pretty much every day, I literally stayed connected to that service 24/7, and that was mostly when I had a slower Optimum Online connection. I'm one of those people that doesn't shut off my computer when I'm done with it. I just put up the password lock screen and then turn off my monitors. With the exception of my Apple TV, none of my other devices are required to be online to do that which they do best, that much is true. That said, I still don't see a thing wrong with me drawing examples from my own personal experiences to support why a requirement such as a persistent online connection is practically a non issue for me. I'm use to it, because that's basically how I live right now. Every time I turn on my 360, even if it's just to stream a movie from my computer, I'm always connected to xbox live. Even my HDTV is always logged into to my Samsung online account for when I use the Allshare play streaming feature on my television. I already know what persistent online on the next xbox would be like. It would be exactly like my current experience with the 360, playing mostly singleplayer titles while still connected to Xbox Live at all times. That's the core point I was trying to make when I pointed out an example of Phaethon messaging me while I'm playing blue dragon or Halo 4. I'm never truly offline on the Xbox 360, even while I'm playing singleplayer titles or just watching a movie.

What we are discussing here in the grand scheme of things is the equivalent of that which people have already been capable of doing on their pcs for years and years, which is gaming at the exact same time that they're logged into an online gaming service of some kind, such as Steam and Origin and having that connection to that service on the provider's side, in far more cases than not, being pretty damn reliable enough for you to be confident that when you sign in, you'll stay signed in until you decide to exit of your own free will. We are already doing this on Microsoft's current console with Xbox Live. This basic criteria has already been achieved and, yes, it's reliable and proven. There have been very rare instances where while playing a game of CS 1.6, I've lost a connection to steam, but those were pretty damn rare. And, if I think really hard, there might have been one day out of all my days on the Xbox 360 where while gaming there were intermittent disconnections from Xbox Live that maybe lasted for an hour or more, can't say for certain. That's just how rare it is, I can't even recall when the damn thing happened or for how long. I couldn't even tell you the year or what I was playing at the time.

And, on top of this, what else are we discussing here? Yes, Xbox Live and Microsoft may have some shitty ass business practices, nobody is trying to defend all of that. The point I'm making though is that Microsoft properly supports Xbox Live. Yes, a lot of that crap is behind a silly pay wall, but they properly support live. They respond to problems and fix those problems. Updates on Xbox Live are pretty regular and often come with meaningful changes and imrprovements. Even if a situation should arise where Xbox Live is not getting the job done, you think Microsoft lacks the ability or desire to fix that problem as quickly as possible? We aren't dealing with a shitty or unreliable service here. Xbox Live, if nothing else, is reliable in the area of keeping people connected to the greater network, which is all that would be required of a persistent online Xbox. And then here is another thing to consider: Who says Microsoft can't just as easily add an offline mode with a system update, that is, of course, considering they would be so bold as to not have an offline mode in the first place, since Steam and Origin both have an offline mode, even if it's something that people rarely, if ever, have to take advantage of. Yes, I agree that it's nice for the option to be there. I haven't been saying that I don't want the option to be there. I'm saying that, based on my experience, I don't think I would be that seriously affected, if at all by the lack of it, and nor would a lot of other people. That's all. I just gave my opinion on how seriously affected I think we would all be if there was none, which, again, I believe is not very much at all. Feel free to disagree.I really wonder if you comprehend how backwards this sounds. So, we're discussing a rumor; that much is clear. However, in the process of discussing this rumor, nobody is allowed to express a view where they don't believe it would be the end of the world if it happened? There is such a thing as overreaction. This is a prime example of it. My opinion hasn't changed on a thing. I'm just using how quickly you accepted and rationalized persistent online for BF4, and the terrible reason you gave in an effort to dismiss the SP portion possibly falling under this same requirement, as a clear example to showcase that you obviously aren't as opposed to this as you claim. It isn't me somehow changing my view and thinking that persistent online is now a terrible, terrible idea that could never, not in a million years, work. Since I literally used this post to say everything that was on my mind regarding my thinking on this subject, you should be quite clear where I'm coming from if you choose to read it. That said, there isn't too much more to say until Microsoft themselves confirms or denies the information.

Fuck, dude brought it on himself. And, yes, my last post is crazy long, but I figured I'd just say fuck it, and say it all. I don't have to say it again now. It's all in there lol. Wow, this thread is truly now complete with that youtube vid LOL.