Originally Posted by lacrossewacker
Originally Posted by RagingCain
Your point was to argue with another member who said it included Silver memberships, so he was right.
Look up if you have forgotten. I was merely pushing you back to his comment:
"No, that includes Silver." ~ Brutuz.
I am just in this thread occasionally fact observing.
So if both Gold and Silver memberships are counted (multi-accounts and all) then PSN's accounts (which have to connect online with the service) all count too. Estimates are 125 million. So definitely more than each console that has been sold. So the community is just as large, if not larger or smaller, as the Xbox community. However, I would probably estimate closer to 50~60 million (unknown how many Plus memberships there are.)
The point I'm trying to convey is that those accounts can't be accounted for unless they're tied to a console connected via broadband. So out of 77 million consoles, 60% have online registered accounts. Let's say 10% of those have multiple accounts, still roughly half. What I'm also pointing out is that the number of people connecting online has doubled-tripled-quadrupled in a short period of time. More and more people are going online.
Here are my silly thoughts on the matter:
More and more people are being born, coming of age etc. too. What is available now a days wasn't available 10 years ago (or even 2005~2006 at launch.) Nothing changes the fact that not everyone plays every day. Not everyone plays online every day. Not everyone has a stable connection (even if they have an Xbox Live / PS+ account.) Not to mention that price gouging by ISPs or Cellular networks is on the rise, not decline. People are downgrading their connections to save money all the time. As a military veteran, I can't stress enough how much an Xbox 360 meant to me on Naval deployments in the middle of the Atlantic, Mediterranean, and the Baltic. While I am not "upset" with what Don recently said about Nuke Subs, but it does re-emphasize that they don't really care or think we matter.
The different technologies out there such as 4G Hotspots, WIFI Max, Satellite, and some DSL internets have very low data caps on most of them. These people can play maybe once or twice a week, yet now they are forced to connect. Not to mention, connection reliability is not fantastic on the majority of these devices (exception of landline DSL.) On the cable side of things, companies have seen the trend of rising data consumption and have figured out ways to charge overages on bandwidth usage or P2P connections established.
Now I am not against the idea of a device that uses internet at all. However everything I have read from MS and statements made is, there is a quick check in and that is it. These quick "check ins" do what exactly for consumers? A couple of seconds to send magic packets is not enough for actual patching. It is not enough for content. It may be enough to refresh the ads and urls in the advertisements plastered all over Xbox Marketplace. It is enough to tell if I have tampered with my device or what software version I am using. It is also enough bit/bytes to allow me to continue using the machine. Lets be honest, the online check-in is a machine DRM. It is not for the consumers best interest, it is Microsofts interests, and their's alone.
Now lets say I am wrong. Lets say it is not a quick DRM check in. Lets say it is live patching the one of my three OSes (or all three.) Lets say the patch daily is 5MB just for the OSes (with the updated RSA style code). That is reasonable. This is also more than likely a frequent patch job. Let's say its every day once every 24 hours. This is 150MB a month, before you have used anything at all (given that it is 30 days). Let's then say games are patched. What is the average patch size? 10MB? A 100 MB? 1 GB? It could be any and all between. Are you able to disallow such a patch? Are you able to disallow this patch and play your game as is (offline)? These questions keep coming up because of this requirement to always be online. If I have to be online, it probably means I have to receive patches. Where does it end? Do I have to pre-download the ads or trailers for videos I am forced to watch as Ads? I don't mind have these as features/settings if I can turn off and on (I would turn them off). Some of these are pretty convenient. Patch Tuesday @ 3 AM while I sleep so I am ready to game when I get off of work Wednesday sounds awesome. However, internet outage Friday, no gaming Saturday is not the price I am willing to pay for in order to have this convenient auto-patching maintenance system. So even if THIS is what Microsoft intends to do, I am not choosing it. I also don't believe that Microsoft is doing, since the specs and layering have been online to represent small data transferring once a 24-hour period. The only thing these can be is health data monitor and transmission of internal systems and potentially an RSA style encryption packet that changes every 24 hours instead of every 15 seconds.
And this is just ONE of the many issues I, and the majority of people (gamers), have with Microsofts policies this generation.
They aren't recording Kinect information for example and sending to Microsoft? Really? Just like Apple wasn't sending information back to Apple from Iphones? Just like Android handsets weren't sending data to publishers without notice to users? All cases reported were true, and were only found out after the fact. Microsoft has recently received a lot of attention due to NSA meta data gathering and their lack of using Warrants to obtain such data. Now they have a camera that has been collecting all this data for... what exactly? Not to mention the NSA has facial matching algorithms that would make you never want to leave your house. You don't think "national security" won't be pushed a few times before they start looking either at the Kinect data mines or better yet, directly through your Xbox One camera and microphone searching for "keywords" such as bomb and president together in a sentence, flagged for further review by operation data miners.
Now, all that said, you are fully allowed to embrace this new always connected console. There isn't "anything wrong with you". However, the spirit of the device is not pro-consumer and a lot of people can't argue against us that it is, not at least until it is seen in action and well into post launch. A lot of us don't need to stick our hands into a potential fire to know it will burn us for example. Sometimes fires do end up being illusions, but that is how the majority of us see this console.
My personal choice, if I get either anemic console, is going to be the PS4. Even if I really want the Microsoft exclusives lineup (I am huge Dead Rising fan myself). I don't feel I have a real choice in the matter if I want to game next-gen (with console exclusives, god knows I am gaming on this rig mostly.)Edited by RagingCain - 6/14/13 at 11:21am