Opinionated individuals who don't care what you think of them, will have a point from time to time.

Here's something everyone missed, because it was posted just before that Batman gif in the thread.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=52767606&postcount=4827

The best you can hope for from all of this back lash is that MS backs down and makes some adjustments to their systems. When Edge initially posted some information on this subject I also got my own confirmation that this was what MS was planning. I haven't checked since then, but since so many more people are coming out with this now, I can only assume that they are still planning on always online. Some people willy deny it like they did with the specs until it is smack dab in their face though.

This guy will probably get a slap on the wrist for this.

This is from AndyH

He's been eerily correct before: 

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1691527&postcount=17568

(As usual though, grain of salt with gaf insiders)

Yeah Andrew House usually knows his stuff.

I am more interested in see if this rumor is true what does MS get out of it. MS is a for profit business first, so if they are not getting profit, if they cannot sell the nextbox or have the console installed in as many homes as possible so they can sell you their content, then it doesn't make business sense.

Its not like there isn't a lot of evidences that the world is not ready for a console that can only be used if its connected to the internet. The always on always connected I can see that and I agree there are some benefits to a console always being on and connected. This actually will be the same model that the PS4 is using and there isn't anything bad with that approach.

What I would like for people to do is to separate the two issues. The one that I believe people are concerned about is that the console must be connected to the internet in order for you to use the console. These are two very different issues and only the later where I can see that as being bad.

People don't care about a console that can be always on. If they can use it offline aswell. Thats not the issue here at all, thats an expected feature:

But his analogies-> Vacuum does not work without electricity suggest  Xbox does not work without being connected. 

And what MS gains by that is obvious. Total control over every game you "own". You need MS to allow you playing the games you bought. That way MS ties you to them forever. 

Lets say they get stupid ideas and sell only 99 Dollar Xbox with 3 years Xbox Live Platinum for 99 a year. -> See the new office subscription which is 99 a year.

After 3 years your 99 Subscription runs out. You bought 30 Games for 1500 Dollar. Now if you don't refresh you won't be able to play the games you bought and if you want to keep your games forever you have to pay for the rest of your life 99 a year (at first). 

This is definetly MS endgoal in the future and always online is the first step.  You practically give up any control over your property its an insane concept. If I buy a game now I can keep it forever and play parts of it forever. In 50 years it will have insane value especially if nobody owns anything anymore. 

MS will give you everything stop paying and you will have nothing. MS is smarter than the people who buy their stuff (maybe not if always on fails). They take slowly all the control at first it won't be expensive and seem like a good deal but once they lock up all your movies/games they can slowly raise prices and take your stuff hostage if you dont pay.

Thats what makes people upset and cautios. And MS WILL DO THAT they just have to REEDUCATE the Consumer slowly and tie enough games and videos to their servers so that people rather shut up and pay instead of losing their expensive libraries

Sony does a similar thing with PS+ already MS will eventualy expand on that and force it on customers Xbox Live Gold was the first step.

Sony is no different they have the same idea brewing (Gaikai,PS+) but atleast they seem to give you options. If its always on it means MS forces you into dependance.

Even if Internet was as widespread and reliable as electricity, always on still is a bad thing. Customers should still have the option to decide if they want hand over the control of their games/books/movies to someone else. I rather pay a premium to own my stuff.

And maybe MS will take the risk with always on and lock down big parts of the US market at the cost of selling 25 million less worldwide

Maybe the box will be for free at some point. But who will stop paying the subscription once they could lose 100 games ? 

I am not saying nextbox will be always online. But it would not surprise me, that has MS tactics written all over it.

Edit:All ofhis was just one example how MS could profit from always on. Another -> ads maybe Kinect powered TV ads

When talking about MS direction, please do not use Mr. Orth as a spokesperson for the company.  MS is made of thousands of employees and each one has their own seperate opinion.  Instead look at MS as the business entity and how the company stands to gain.

Your point on subscription is a good one because it would lower the risk for MS, gives MS a very agressive starting price and allow them to sell less consoles but still make money.  This model have put millions of cell phones in people hands so its not like the model isnt' tested and proven to work.  The key would be will this user in a different type of console where it can be upgraded each year or 2.  Will MS only provide the console on subs or will they allow you to purchase out right (probably the later).

Your point on if the subscription runs out on games you purchase and you cannot play them anymore unless you renew will not happen because the market today does not support such a thing and consumers would not as well.  If you changed that to the Playstation plus model where you can download and play games for free for a sub price but only play those games if you keep your sub is more reaslistic.  MS already have a Zune service that has a sub model like that for music an music videos.  If you purchase a song its yours no matter if you keep your zune sub or not.

The key is that MS cannot do something that would allow their competitors to do it better.  This is why competition hones companies to supply consumer features to one up their competition so gain market advantage.  PS Plus is a great example.  Sony created PS Plus as competition against XBL.  They created basically a game rental services for 50 bucks which is a clear advantage over MS current structure.

Here is what a lot of people are not thinking.  Unless everybody does it, then there is no advantage for MS to do it.  If Sony could advertise that their system does not inconvience the customer with online only then that would be a clear advantage to Sony and MS will not give something like that up unless they gain someting significant.

It cannot be something like MS gets to provide DRM on their console unless they can get publisher commitment to develop exclusive on their console.  If Sony get the same games without this restriction then advantage to Sony.  This is not rocket science stuff and its not like MS would not know the pros and cons of any mandatory feature on the console compared to what the competition might do.

Another key would be that MS does not exist in a vacuum.  They have real threats like Apple, Samsung, Host of Android gaming machines and of course their big dogs, Sony and Nintendo.  Every decision put into the nextbox you can believe was vexx on what the competition is doing and what they could do.  Features that do not benefit the customer isn't something any company will take lighly.

@Machiavellian

I wasn t using this MS guy as spokesperson I was merely trying to answer your question:

 "I am more interested in see if this rumor is true what does MS get out of it"

So I had to operate under the same assumption "if this rumor is true" 

Also you said:

 "What I would like for people to do is to separate the two issues. The one that I believe people are concerned about is that the console must be connected to the internet in order for you to use the console. These are two very different issues and only the later where I can see that as being bad."

You correctly distinguished those two always on definitions but the uproar is only caused by people being concerned about not being able to use their console without online connection. due to Oarths comments, and rightfully so. The other type of always on is not a concern to anyone.

And as I said before the possibilities to capitalize on an always connected Xbox are endless. Even if they sell 25 Million less due to always on. Customer lock down and selling personalized TV Ads to the Cable provider could easily make up for the difference. Kinect could just choose ads based on general information about number of persons (children) without even sending specific data somewhere  this wouldn't even break any laws but could be marketed for absurd amounts of money and its only possible if the console is always on.  

"Your point on if the subscription runs out on games you purchase and you cannot play them anymore unless you renew will not happen because the market today does not support such a thing and consumers would not as well."

Assumption. Maybe MS doesn't see it that way see Gold. Seems like the Market did support paying for a traditionally free feature. Why won't ghe market support an always on console which requires a subscription to work ? Also MS is taking  probably babysteps maybe: 

Last Gen: Paying for Online

 This coming gen: Always on

 Next gen:  Xbox Live subscription only

"Here is what a lot of people are not thinking.  Unless everybody does it, then there is no advantage for MS to do it.  If Sony could advertise that their system does not inconvience the customer with online only then that would be a clear advantage to Sony and MS will not give something like that up unless they gain someting significant."

You mean like paying for online ? And as I said MS can gain alot through  always on. Even if they lose some marketshare to Sony. You think MS is satisfied with the puny consol market ? Sony and MS always wanted full control over the formats and media consumption of the people using it. Always on is the next logical step. Sony is just more gentle about it (if MS follows through).

So yes it makes sense for MS to do that, its not unlikely. Even if Sony doesn't. Its not suicide if you have a plan. 

Do not forget that MS was the first (ok technically sega was) to have a Online infrastructe with the First Xbox.  When you start something you are free to do what you want to see how the market takes it so MS created Gold for Online play.  Do not forget this was done with the first Xbox not 360.  Online consoles and services today are nothing new and competition are bringing out new services that competes with MS stragety.  I will be surprise if GOLD remains the same or continue to tie online multiplayer but we will see.

"And as I said before the possibilities to capitalize on an always connected Xbox are endless. Even if they sell 25 Million less due to always on. Customer lock down and selling personalized TV Ads to the Cable provider could easily make up for the difference. Kinect could just choose ads based on general information about number of persons (children) without even sending specific data somewhere  this wouldn't even break any laws but could be marketed for absurd amounts of money and its only possible if the console is always on." 

This would only depend on if MS is looking to prevent the reach of their console to a lot off different markets.  There isn't any benefit to only online outside of DRM.  MS get everything you just mentioned without the need for Only online.  Making your console so it cannot be played without a internet connection would be a huge risk. 

"Your point on if the subscription runs out on games you purchase and you cannot play them anymore unless you renew will not happen because the market today does not support such a thing and consumers would not as well."

Assumption. Maybe MS doesn't see it that way see Gold. Seems like the Market did support paying for a traditionally free feature. Why won't ghe market support an always on console which requires a subscription to work ? Also MS is taking  probably babysteps maybe: 

Lets just say that both of our positions are assumptions.  I will base my assumption on what the market supports today and what the competition supports today.  For MS to go your route they would have to convince people that they do not own their content and must go through MS first which any competition would have a respond.

You mean like paying for online ? And as I said MS can gain alot through  always on. Even if they lose some marketshare to Sony. You think MS is satisfied with the puny consol market ? Sony and MS always wanted full control over the formats and media consumption of the people using it. Always on is the next logical step. Sony is just more gentle about it (if MS follows through).

Yes, MS and Sony wants to be the big dog in the living room.  The key is you have not presented a case where MS can sell this type of plan over what the competition is doing or will do.  MS want to rule the living room but you cannot rule the living room unless you can get there.  What does MS offer that will get them into the living room above their competition if they do not provide important functionality that their competitor will.

I am not saying that MS will not have a online only console or they will not go in that direction.  What I am saying is I have not see any evidence that they could or would go that route now.  If MS could sell the nextbox for 99 bucks and Sony comes in at 400 to 500 then that would be something where MS could do an only online console.  If MS can sell the nextBox to cable companies and they are given to users just like any box then that would be a good case for an online only box.

Actually I can see MS restricting the cable/ sub next box to online only and allowing people to purchase a nextbox at full retail price that does not have this restrictions.

Always On is the only way to tie your customers to you permanently also always on makes sure every box is guaranteed to be connectedand marketable data for personalized Video adds through Kinect can be sold that way.

MS could easily make a 99 Console and Gold pricier and mandatory. Or maybe even give it away for free. 

Its just a question of if MS wants to do it mandatory. 

Obviously everything I said is purely speculation but its a real possibility and nobody knows if the market would accept or deny such a model because it wasn't done before in that way.

PS: Sony also had an online service with the PS2. MS Infrastructure is based mostly on Matchmaking servers and hardly an expense that justifies a paid membership.

Online only is not the way to tie customer to you permanently. Making content that is tied to an account where users can only access using your services is the way you permanently get customers to stay with you. If customers are purchasing your content and services then by choice the customers would be tied to MS. I still do not see for the console to be online only other than for DRM purpose and really for Purchased disk based games.

The reason the market dose not support what you are saying is that the market already have sub based systems like phone, tablets, which all allow you to play your content offline if no net connection is present. This would mean that MS would have to go against whats already established and sell it to consumers who already have devices that give them this ability.

The only way to justify doing it different is if you can provide something customers need as a result. Making GOLD a service like PS Plus where you can basically play any game you want for the Sub price. Think about services like Hulu and Nextflix, where you can watch what you want for the sub price but those are basically rental type of services which if MS wanted to go down that road they could do. Or they can do what they do with their Zune music service. You can download all the music you want and play it offline for a month. At some point during that month if you connect to the internet to verify your sub then all is good. If the month ends and you have not verified your Sub then the service would ask you to connect to the net before allowing you to play your content.

MS already have models for their subscription service and none of them require you to be online only in order to use the content. For MS to change what they already do would mean there is some competitive advantage to do so. The market doesn't show it so it would have to be something new.

I do not remember being able to play any multiplayer games for the PS2 until after the Xbox. It was the main reason why MS could start with the whole GOLD thing in the first place.