Microsoft and the Xbox Rumors

On May 21st, Microsoft will unveil the new Xbox to the world and have gamers talking leading into E3 a few weeks later. And while there's no guarantee of what will be shown or announced, I'm sure it'll be similar to what Sony's PS4 conference had with spec information and some games, I think there will be some focus on the non-gaming aspect the new system will have along with seeing the box (since that's so important to Mr. Microsoft Major Nelson apparently). Not to mention, the name should be announced so people can stop guessing whether it's going to be Xbox 362, The Xbox, Xbox Infinity, etc.

So in this post, I wanted to highlight some rumors that I find either interesting or need to be discussed with a somewhat open mind without jumping to automatic conclusions.


1. Two Models: To Game, or Not to Game

While it's a given that the next Xbox will have both gaming and non-gaming capabilities, rumor is that Xbox will have two different models. One of those models will not include a disc drive as it will be more of a Roku or Apple TV type device that is used as a media center device to stream movies and shows. One rumor is from someone claiming to have worked on this set-top box saying they will have functionality allowing an individual to search using gestures and voice-recognition, which makes it sound like Kinect could still be integrated into this sku.

Microsoft has taken strides to become more and more like Apple as the gaming side of Xbox has dwindled but the functionality with other apps and programs has become increasingly important. Having a box that rivals Apple TV with some new bells and whistles could be another way in doing so while still using similar hardware already being put to use in the gaming market of Microsoft. Whether or not Microsoft decides to go this route will surely be seen later this month, but there's no reason to believe they wouldn't as they seem to have a healthy dose of products to put on such a device.


2. Backwards Compatibility Add-On

The past few generations have been spoiled with backwards compatibility. Back in my day, we wouldn't expect a new console to play old games unless they were re-released on the new console. But thanks to the Internet and vocal minorities becoming vocal majorities, it has become commonplace for people to clamor for backwards compatibility.

Not to say it's not logical. It makes sense as to why people wouldn't want to keep 16 different systems laying around the TV and switching them out to play a few games if you could keep just one that played all of them. And with technology improving with each new iteration, eventually one of these would be able to play old games with little effort, right? In the case of the PS3 it's understandable why the PS4 won't be able to due to completely different hardware, but why not everything else? Cost? Console design? Hell, I don't know. If I could answer this completely, I sure as hell wouldn't be typing up this blog.

While rumors say the new Xbox won't be able to play 360 games, there are talks of an add-on that could be hooked to the new box to do so. Either way, Microsoft might find a way to convince people to get rid of the old system, but keep the games and upgrade to new hardware. While this would be pretty great, let's not forget how the current gen backwards compatibility fared as only some games would work and others wouldn't. Hopefully, if they create an add-on device, they would work out the kinks to allow all current-gen games play, and not only a selection of them.


3. Two Year Contract

Microsoft announced a model last year for a $99 Xbox that would then have a 2-year contract for customers to pay. Easy money up front, long term commitment. And while the total payment would come out to more than what you would just forking it all out at once, it may have been a positive experience for them. They haven't released numbers specifically for that model, but it could have been the beginning of a good idea for the next gen console.

Some look at the overall price and realize that you will pay more in the long run, but most customers won't care. It's easy to pay monthly than one lump sum at the beginning, and that's enticing to many people. Sony and Nintendo would be smart to have a similar option, but nothing has been noted yet. Microsoft looks poised (and is rumored) to release this option with great success, as it will look like a great deal sitting next to consoles priced $399 and up.

On the other hand, consoles make for great presents for birthdays and holidays. I'm not sure how eager some people are to buy "the gift that keeps on giving.....you bills each month". But if Microsoft releases a brand new console with this type of option, it will be a winning formula for them.




4. Always-On

Yep. That's the error message Sim City players received due to the always online setup with the game. If Microsoft decides to go this route, you may be familiar with similar error messages.

But Microsoft wouldn't really do that now, would they? I think people give them a little too much credit. Microsoft knows people will pay for their service even if they aren't entirely sure what they paying for. If I had to guess, it would be more ads and more content I would never use. Yet they get rid of 1 vs 100 which was amazing but is the one device I have to pay extra on to watch Netflix. Something is a little screwy there. But how many people willingly fork out $40-$50 a year on a service for party chat and "better servers". Heads up folks, you aren't paying for "better servers", you are paying for "Internet capability" which just happens to have "better servers". Considering how cluttered the dashboard has become and slow everything seems to have gotten, clearly the money being put on Live isn't going where it should be. But people still pay, and that's how Microsoft knows they have customers hook-line-and sinker.

Microsoft would be foolish to have the next console be always-on, especially after the disaster that was Sim City's launch. Factor in every Christmas where the influx of new users makes the system crash (or the release of a new Halo game) or just cases where it doesn't work where they don't really explain why; having the system be always-on would be the biggest slap in the face to their customers, not to mention the ones who don't have Internet. The negatives far outweigh the positives, and there is no benefit that anyone can muster except Microsoft...because it benefits them.

As much as I want to dismiss this rumor, there have been a lot of rumors about this. Adam Orth helped fan the flames with his twitter ramblings, docs have been released saying it's always online, Dev kit screenshots show always-online capability...there's just a lot coming out to simply dismiss this. If Microsoft thinks they can do this and do it well, best of luck to them. But they are playing with fire, and as Frankenstein knows, you don't want to piss off a mob of people who have fire.


5. Used Games

If the always-on concern doesn't frighten you, then perhaps the talk of no more used games does. I'm on the fence when it comes to used games. I love having the ability to sell my games to purchase a new one, but at the same time, I understand publishers need those purchases so stores will buy more games from them to sell.

But both PS4 and the Durango have had rumors about them not playing used games. Jack Tretton for Sony said used games will be playable on the PS4, and while it's not as definitive as that, Gamestop seems enthusiastic about the new Microsoft console. And if Gamestop is happy about it, then my guess is that it will play used games.

Cut and dry, right? Not quite. Not long ago, something was added into some games that caused a collective groan among gamers. Online passes. Once they were redeemed, other gamers wouldn't be able to access the online portions of the game if they purchased it used. Some would luck out as the passes weren't redeemed, but most gamers would have to fork out an additional $10 to use any online aspects of the game.

Now what if both Sony and Microsoft were being honest in that the consoles can play used games? The caveat being: You buy it used, you have to pay a little extra to be able to play it. Not an online pass, just a game pass in general. As criminal as that may sound, nobody can really complain in the long run. Gamers who had a problem with no used games would still have the ability to sell them to Gamestop, Amazon, wherever. Gamestop would still have sales coming in from used games. Publishers would receive a little something for used games whereas in the past they didn't. Everyone seems to win a little bit, even if it's not a perfect scenario for everyone. So while I think the rumor of no used games is bogus, I think there could be a possibility of some information being held back until the last possible moment.



In just a few short weeks, we may have an answer to a few of these rumors. Some answers may hide crucial information to see the full picture, but some rumors will definitely be put to rest. Microsoft will have some momentum going into E3, and the gaming world will be in full frenzy until the release of next generation of consoles.

The Backwards Compatibility Enigma

The recent talk about the looming next generation of consoles have brought up a topic that has led to heated discussions. It involves the ability to play games one already owns on a new system that is being released. Many have gone on record saying that if the new systems are not capable of playing older games then they will not bother purchasing them. We all know how that will turn out, but for the sake of argument, let's say that's true. I want to quickly go over the backwards compatibility discussion and state that it shouldn't matter whether or not it's available in upcoming systems.

1. If you have the games, keep the system

There's this false assumption that with every iteration of a new console, the big three companies MUST put backwards compatibility in it. I think what most of these gamers forget is that backwards compatibility is a luxury, not a standard for consoles. Think about it. To my knowledge, the PS2 was the first console to really allow gamers to play games from the previous generation. We never had that with the transition to other consoles like the NES to SNES, the Genesis to Saturn, SNES to Gamecube, etc. You could argue that handhelds for the most part has been able to do that, but there's iterations there where that isn't true.

The problem is, most companies hear consumers complain about the price. In their effort to make the systems cheaper, they have to cut out parts of the system. If gamers are concerned about playing old games, shouldn't they have the system for those games already? If not, why get rid of it since there shouldn't be any guarantee the new system can play them? Companies are not held to any obligation to keep old system hardware in a new hardware iteration. This isn't anything new, and has happened for quite some time. The transition from VHS to DVD. Cassette tapes to Cd's. This is just going to be another transition where they held on to the ability to do it for a while, but it's time to phase that option out. Gamers need to get over it and keep the system they want those games on or realize that companies need money to function. One of their ways to capitalize on this idea, is by offering new methods to pay for old games.

2. Collections and Classics

There's been an influx of video games coming both digitally and retail involving the purchasing of old video games from previous generations. For example, you can purchase old Final Fantasy games on PSN from the PS1 Classics part of the store. If you enjoyed games like God of War or Devil May Cry, both have had HD collections of past games on a disc. Gamers who've already played these games see it as a money grab from them, but they forget there's new gamers who have never experienced these games. If anyone should be buying these, it's those gamers. Not the smitten ones.

This is yet another reason why the companies will keep the systems from having backwards compatibility. Why allow them to play old owned games from systems they didn't feel were worth keeping around when they can release them again to be purchased? Final Fantasy 4 is the perfect example of this as it's released on practically everything. It's become such a staple for a console/handheld that it should be mentioned up there with the likes of Ridge Racer and it being a release day game.

It's easy for them to make money off of love for old games. Add in something like achievements or better graphics in parts (not all, even) of the game, and it's likely to still sell. That will be one benefit the companies see in phasing out backwards compatibility and offering these games again for not only cheap, but slightly better versions of the game graphically.


3. Forced to Buy

Customers have this warped sense of logic when it comes to re-release of old games. They believe that if a company removes backwards compatibility and releases the game digitally or on disc, then they MUST purchase the game. Customers apparently have all free-will stripped from their souls when companies do this, because they have no choice but to purchase these games they release.

It's all utter nonsense as the companies aren't forcing gamers to purchase anything. Just because they don't allow the game to be played on a new system and are releasing it in new formats doesn't mean it's the only way to play it now. If you have the game, go play it on the system it was created for. This selfish and ridiculous belief that the game you own is unplayable now and the new release is the only method to experience it is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

It's one thing to dislike the company for removing something you felt was a bonus, but it's something else entirely for an idiotic notion that it's the only way to play the game now. These gamers need to rethink what they say before they spout these imaginary realities of how consumerism works.


4. It's a Bonus

I have to reiterate this. These console developers are not obligated by any means to incorporate ways to play old games. The consoles are being created to play new experiences with possible means to play older games. If those means are to repurchase the games, then so be it. That is their decision to make. If consumers don't like it, they have other means to play the games. Either by the console the game was created for or emulation. The first option would be preferred, but some games I can't really frown on by using the latter.

If this generation of consoles didn't allow for users to play old games like the original models allowed (which didn't work on 100% of games anyhow), would this still be a problem? Probably. The Internet wasn't really available to everyone in earlier years of gaming, so I'm not sure how loud the outcry is over backwards compatibility between consoles, but I'm sure it was still there. But it's loudest now because it became a reality. But it's something the companies gave their consumers as a bonus and never once did they say they will continue to release consoles with the ability to play older games. We as fans seem to ignore that and expect it. We are greedy, but like to project our greed on companies to make them seem greedier.


5. Fans Do Have a Point...

Companies shot themselves in the foot by showing it's possible. They can't really blame the consumers for wanting something as great as backwards compatibility for new consoles when they showed it's possible to do so. Gamers want a reason to buy a new console and ditch the old one. Why do they want 8 different consoles in their home when they can condense it down to two or three? And why would they want to purchase the same game on different platforms when they already own a copy?

Piracy and emulation is something that a lot of publishers and developers may frown on, but when gamers already own one (or in some cases many) copies of a game, they don't want to purchase it once again. They will go to more extreme measures to play the game especially if they feel cheated by big wigs who don't look at it from their point of view. You take into consideration that some of these games are no longer in print, their copy has stopped working, or any other potential problems, the fallback solution may not rub those looking to sell another copy the right way.

Consumers should be heard. It's their money being spent on games that are changed very little but have the same going price as a brand new game from 15 years ago. If they can purchase a used game off eBay for $5 for the Gamecube, why would they want to then spent $29.99 on the same game for the WiiU especially if there were no changes other than it being put on a different disc format? Fans are not hesitant to verbalize their feelings on the statement, and it's not unreasonable for them to do so either.

As a fan, backwards compatibility is fantastic. It allows me to sell or trade in an old console and buy a new one and reduce the number I have lying around my TV or shoving into the back of my closet. I can spend my money on newer games instead of games I already have in my collection and I also have games to fall back on while newer games are in production. But as someone who also sees the side of the companies, it makes sense for them to take the option off. It lowers the price of the console like most gamers want and gives them the ability to re-release games to not only give the experience to new gamers, but also make money off of anyone who wants to play the game on the new system. However, it is their right to take out backwards compatibility and re-release old games whenever they want. It is their product and they can make it however they choose.