If it has to be always online, then I won't buy it. Simple.
I donno man, there are a lot of things I'm not happy with, doesn't mean I'll stop completely...well, not until there's just nothing for me out there, which is almost the case right now but I still keep gaming as a casual hobby.
I'm just saying, the gaming industry is very exciting to me regardless and we're just about at a point where a lot of our dreams may be coming true...you know, big worlds, persistent environments, massive online modes...just the way gaming was supposed to be (and goddamn this gen was supposed to be grrr)...just going to get better as generations go past.
Why would you want to miss that? Gaming is the best hobby I have! Isn't it yours?
Yes, I do care. What if my internet goes down from a storm or something? What if I want to connect my ethernet to my PS3 (Cause I switch between the two regular btw) **** all that noise. It isn't needed. So yes, I do care.
Well, I would hope there is always some avenue of gaming for me. Whether it's a console, PC, handheld, phone, iPad/tablet, etc. I think I'll be covered; I HOPE.
Always on? Though i had run into a post about the female time of month. My bad....lol.
Yes I would care... I wouldn't buy a console supporting that. Well actually, I would buy only one instead of 2.
I do 90-95% of my gaming while I'm at work where the wiring is ****ty as hell and my internet connection goes off every 10-15 minutes for undetermined amounts of time.
I would buy the home console for the kids as usual but most of my software purchases are for my own gaming. Basically, better pull out HW that you make profit on right away because you will not get $ back from me on software I can't use!
Sorry, but its just plain stupid. Even the best connections get outages from time to time, periods of time when you can't do anything and DNS Errors.
Usually when my Internet goes out like this I rely on my console for some offline entertainment while I wait for it to sort itself out. This is a major shot in the foot let alone all the other obvious reasons why it is the worst idea MS could do. The infrastructure isn't there.
If all consoles went "online-required" I might have to just stick with PS3/360/PC (legacy games) and replay and play the 'good old games' (current-gen games).
Will probably do my BJJ training wonders if I had to quit buying new games (and my wallet). :snicker
I also won't choose one over the other when it comes to console. I will always want to play the new Uncharted and the new Halo.
Between Diablo 3 and Sim City, the online always aspect has been killed for me software wise. PERIOD. I refuse to buy into that again.
We paid for this game. Your servers are giving errors and we can't play the title. "We are working hard to resolve the issue. We are not pleased to let our fans down...
but we already have your money and you can't sell the game. #dealwithit"
You know what though, we don't even know if PS4 won't have that as well. Maybe not right now but you never know, if it takes off, consider it being there.
What happens to the games when you take those servers down?
If it's a game I'm interested in, the addition of an "always online" feature is unlikely to dissuade me from purchasing and playing it. So no, in actuality, I don't care if companies decide to move forward with such a feature. However, I think there are a slew of legitimate concerns surrounding these types of things that have already been mentioned.
You're saying that now lol. There are going to be some games that will make you think twice. I've had the same thing with PC games...as much as I try to avoid, they've almost taken me back. If it weren't for the PS4 reveal, I'd been close to getting a gaming PC ready.