#1 Posted by frogdog (3246 posts) - - Show Bio

US Navy serviceman calls Xbox One’s 24-hour online check “a sin committed against all service members”

United States Navy serviceman Jay Johnson, who in the last last two and a half years has been deployed or detached for a total of 18 months, has written a rather emphatic plea to publishers who wish to employ some form of online authentication program into its games through Xbox One. He also expresses disappointment in Microsoft’s new console, calling its 24-hour “check in” process the “greatest sin” it could have “committed against all service members.”

His post on Gamaustra doesn’t mince words, stating Microsoft has ” single-handedly alienated” the militaries of the entire world.

“The single greatest sin Microsoft has committed against all service members [is] their surprising decision to require the Xbox One to receive a message from the “mother ship” every 24 hours,” wrote Johnson. “The reason that I am so infuriated about it is that I, and my brothers and sisters in arms, will not ever be able to play Xbox One when deployed or on detachment.

“No longer will the sounds of Master Chief saving the human race echo through the hallowed halls of the USS Abraham Lincoln, or any other USS Ship, when we have a few hours respite. No longer will you see Marcus and Dom sawing through the Locust Horde at the bases in Afghanistan after the Marines have returned from patrol and want to escape their reality for a bit.

“Those days are now firmly behind us. Microsoft has single-handedly alienated the entire military, and not just the U.S. military, the militaries of the entire world.”

Johnson said that despite his preference for previous generations of Microsoft systems, he will “not be buying an Xbox One at launch.”

“In fact, the Xbox One might as well be called the Halo-Box, because I simply will not purchase it until the next Halo game drops,” he wrote. “With developers focusing, more and more, on the multi-platform model, how much will I really be missing out on? None of the exclusives from either Sony or Microsoft excited me, except for the Halo tease. Simply put, outside of Halo and Forza, Sony has better exclusives.

“With developers like Quantic Dream, Naughty Dog, and titles like The Last Guardian looming on the horizon, all exclusive to PS4, I feel like I will be in much better hands with Sony. So, how much will I really be missing out on? While I think Forza is superior (so far) to Gran Turismo, the GT series is still very good, and I can play it when embarked on the ship. While I am a diehard Halo fan, the wait for the next iteration and my eventual purchase of my Halo-Box will give me ample opportunity to explore the Killzone series. Everything else, from Assassin’s Creed to Call of Duty, I can experience on the PS4, offline and tucked away in my little room on the ship, and without the concern of the programming complications that faced developers with the PS3.”

Johnson said that while the the military represent “less than one percent of the nation’s populace,” he feels the alienation of service members by Microsoft will have “more of an impact than they realize.”

“Although the PS4 will not have an online requirement to run, developers will still be able to make games that require persistent online authentication. Do not do this to us,” he wrote. “Don’t alienate us with online requirements for games. It will cost you money and respect.

“This is a lesson that Microsoft is, tragically, about to learn.”

Xbox One is out in November and PS4 is slated for a release sometime before Christmas.

http://www.vg247.com/2013/06/13/us-navy-serviceman-calls-xbox-ones-24-hour-online-check-a-sin-committed-against-all-service-members/

#2 Edited by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio

Of course they wouldn't like it due to the need for constant online connectivity and it's completely reasonable for them to argue that detail. I hope they make an exception for the armed forces in the future and I'm pretty sure they've mentioned doing so in the past. They deserve about everyone else.

Moderator
#3 Edited by Mr_Ingenuity (7416 posts) - - Show Bio

@deranged_midget: Although I have read that on blogs there has been no official statement from microsoft in my searches(going so far as to visit /v/ & /vg/ for sources).

#4 Posted by tupiaz (2180 posts) - - Show Bio

Of course they wouldn't like it due to the need for constant online connectivity and it's completely reasonable for them to argue that detail. I hope they make an exception for the armed forces in the future and I'm pretty sure they've mentioned doing so in the past. They deserve about everyone else.

If the don't do it for the military there is no reason to do it for anybody really.

#5 Edited by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio

@tupiaz: For the average consumer, there isn't really much of a reason to do it when the bigger issue is targeting those who have no chance of getting any sort of internet connection. Those serving in the armed forces should be the primary focus IMO.

Moderator
#6 Posted by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio

@deranged_midget: Although I have read that on blogs there has been no official statement from microsoft in my searches(going so far as to visit /v/ & /vg/ for sources).

Indeed! I just know that I read it somewhere but Microsoft's marketing has been rather poor as of late considering that their best feature has been poorly represented :P

If they do make an exception, it should be for those serving.

Moderator
#7 Posted by Glitch_Spawn (17132 posts) - - Show Bio

Constant online requirement is an insult to the common gamer.

#8 Posted by SC (12961 posts) - - Show Bio

They shouldn't be doing this to any sort of gamer, I am glad there is such a vocal backlash since its really the only way to pressure large companies into possible rectifying the situation. Apathy or apologist attitudes won't help the common gamer or gamers in more complicated scenarios/situations (service members and other people in similar situations) - even then the idea of having devices that can collect so much data so often maybe too profitable with advertisers and with too many gamers who may not care, be ignorant or be too biased they will get enough money to put up with pissed off fans even if those fans start to look like a majority rather than a minority.

Moderator
#9 Posted by tupiaz (2180 posts) - - Show Bio

@tupiaz: For the average consumer, there isn't really much of a reason to do it when the bigger issue is targeting those who have no chance of getting any sort of internet connection. Those serving in the armed forces should be the primary focus IMO.

Constant online requirement is an insult to the common gamer.

I rest my case.

#10 Edited by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio

@tupiaz: I most definitely see where you are coming from but don't you think it's kind of contradictory when the majority of complaints come from those who are in constant use of the internet?

Just saying.

Moderator
#11 Posted by Xanni15 (6758 posts) - - Show Bio

Who cares? They're one select group of people, let's make changes to suit them! Not. Nobody made them join the military, plus maybe they should have bigger concerns than playing video games. I love that this guy is so outspoken over Xbox1 but allows other crap to go on and remain quiet.

If they do make an exception, it should be for those serving.

IF they do, it would be a nice gesture, though I wouldn't have an issue treating members of the armed forces exactly like everyone else, you know, cause they're not special.

#12 Posted by mk111 (3140 posts) - - Show Bio

Xbox One is even more of an epic fail than I though!

#13 Edited by SideburnGuru (1338 posts) - - Show Bio

@xanni15 said:

Who cares? They're one select group of people, let's make changes to suit them! Not. Nobody made them join the military, plus maybe they should have bigger concerns than playing video games. I love that this guy is so outspoken over Xbox1 but allows other crap to go on and remain quiet.

@deranged_midget said:

If they do make an exception, it should be for those serving.

IF they do, it would be a nice gesture, though I wouldn't have an issue treating members of the armed forces exactly like everyone else, you know, cause they're not special.

Wording.
Really trying to say armed forces aren't special, and they don't deserve something against... let's say... some spoiled teenager who can afford the X-Box One with ease?

Or hell, even just some worker at McDonalds? Because I disagree. Everyone is special, but there are levels of special. Armed Forces is a speciality.


#14 Edited by Xanni15 (6758 posts) - - Show Bio

Wording.

Really trying to say armed forces aren't special, and they don't deserve something against... let's say... some spoiled teenager who can afford the X-Box One with ease?

Or hell, even just some worker at McDonalds? Because I disagree. Everyone is special, but there are levels of special. Armed Forces is a speciality.

Was fine.

Members of the armed forces are not privileged individuals, they're human beings like the rest of us. They also get paid for their "service" and other perks, and like I said shouldn't they have bigger concerns than playing video games?

I guess they were wrong in school that you should treat everyone the same, that we're all supposedly equal.

#15 Posted by SideburnGuru (1338 posts) - - Show Bio

@xanni15 said:

@sideburnguru said:

Wording.

Really trying to say armed forces aren't special, and they don't deserve something against... let's say... some spoiled teenager who can afford the X-Box One with ease?

Or hell, even just some worker at McDonalds? Because I disagree. Everyone is special, but there are levels of special. Armed Forces is a speciality.

Was fine.

Members of the armed forces are not privileged individuals, they're human beings like the rest of us. They also get paid for their "service" and other perks, and like I said shouldn't they have bigger concerns than playing video games?

I guess they were wrong in school that you should treat everyone the same, that we're all supposedly equal.

Didn't think belittling Armed Forces exactly seemed like correct wording, to each their own however.

However, their service is getting cut back as well. They do have bigger concerns than playing video games, however why would it truly bother you if they got a little bit of a gift while being deployed? They're not always fighting. Some of them are just stationed in certain areas when deployed. It's a nice little gift. I feel as they can have it.

Schools taught contradicition. They taught everyone is equal, yet in numerous moments, special students with a higher education could present themselves more often, and would get gifted more often. They would get praised more. Then the school would go on, and try to teach that everyone is equal. Truly, I missed the equality lesson in my school.

#16 Posted by russellmania77 (14998 posts) - - Show Bio

99 problems wt the Xbox one

Online
#17 Posted by Xanni15 (6758 posts) - - Show Bio

@sideburnguru said:

Didn't think belittling Armed Forces exactly seemed like correct wording, to each their own however.

However, their service is getting cut back as well. They do have bigger concerns than playing video games, however why would it truly bother you if they got a little bit of a gift while being deployed? They're not always fighting. Some of them are just stationed in certain areas when deployed. It's a nice little gift. I feel as they can have it.

Schools taught contradicition. They taught everyone is equal, yet in numerous moments, special students with a higher education could present themselves more often, and would get gifted more often. They would get praised more. Then the school would go on, and try to teach that everyone is equal. Truly, I missed the equality lesson in my school.

Not belittling, more like shifting focus, but I could see how you got that.

It doesn't really bother me, it would be a nice gesture by Microsoft but it is by no means required or necessary on their part. Why do they need more perks? Maybe give them a discount on games while we're at it, or perhaps just give them a system. Nobody forced them to join, I am assuming they did it with good intentions so video games shouldn't even be a concern for them. We can agree to disagree.

Of course it's a lie but treating everyone the same is in my opinion usually best. Military members are often praised for their bravery, but there's plenty of brave people stateside who go unnoticed, I doubt they're writing letters. Members of the military are human beings, why do they deserve this accommodation over say someone who is poor? How about someone that lost their parents and is living in an orphanage? Maybe that handicapped kid down the street should be allowed a special console too? It has to stop somewhere. Maybe this guy should write to his superiors to get internet on board the ship, to improve moral or whatever other reason.

#18 Posted by SideburnGuru (1338 posts) - - Show Bio

@xanni15 said:

@sideburnguru said:

Didn't think belittling Armed Forces exactly seemed like correct wording, to each their own however.

However, their service is getting cut back as well. They do have bigger concerns than playing video games, however why would it truly bother you if they got a little bit of a gift while being deployed? They're not always fighting. Some of them are just stationed in certain areas when deployed. It's a nice little gift. I feel as they can have it.

Schools taught contradicition. They taught everyone is equal, yet in numerous moments, special students with a higher education could present themselves more often, and would get gifted more often. They would get praised more. Then the school would go on, and try to teach that everyone is equal. Truly, I missed the equality lesson in my school.

Not belittling, more like shifting focus, but I could see how you got that.

It doesn't really bother me, it would be a nice gesture by Microsoft but it is by no means required or necessary on their part. Why do they need more perks? Maybe give them a discount on games while we're at it, or perhaps just give them a system. Nobody forced them to join, I am assuming they did it with good intentions so video games shouldn't even be a concern for them. We can agree to disagree.

Of course it's a lie but treating everyone the same is in my opinion usually best. Military members are often praised for their bravery, but there's plenty of brave people stateside who go unnoticed, I doubt they're writing letters. Members of the military are human beings, why do they deserve this accommodation over say someone who is poor? How about someone that lost their parents and is living in an orphanage? Maybe that handicapped kid down the street should be allowed a special console too? It has to stop somewhere. Maybe this guy should write to his superiors to get internet on board the ship, to improve moral or whatever other reason.

Ah, proper misunderstanding then. My bad.

I can come to terms with that. Again, agreeing to disagree also works.

Never said there wasn't brave people. Again though, different levels of bravery. Not putting them down, I say putting them all around on different levels, all of the same though. It could be fully up to them to write letters. I mean, we see brave people on the media every day. People who save lives, etc. I'd fully like for them to get some sort of special recognition. There's two sides on the blade for a poor person. Either the person deserves it in some sort of way, or they're just being treated poorly. Again, it all depends on situation. Not saying it makes it any better. Don't the kids who live in an orphanage get some kind of help once they get older? Not saying it makes it better, again. Just wondering though. And that handicapped kid down the street should be getting a disability check.

I can agree with that idea though. Maybe he should.

#19 Edited by The_Legendary_SuperSaiyan_Hulk (9883 posts) - - Show Bio

The amount of stupidity focused into the Xbox One continues to amaze me...

#20 Edited by tupiaz (2180 posts) - - Show Bio

@tupiaz: I most definitely see where you are coming from but don't you think it's kind of contradictory when the majority of complaints come from those who are in constant use of the internet?

Just saying.

There is difference between being forced to and choose to. Until MS changes their plans about used games restriction, restriction on how often I need to be online and who I can borrow my game to , I will be against Xbone simply because I mean it hurt the gaming culture as a whole. Giving the navy the opportunity to play isn't enough.

#21 Edited by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio

@tupiaz said:


There is difference between being forced to and choose to. Until MS changes their plans about used games restriction, restriction on how often I need to be online and who I can borrow my game to , I will be against Xbone simply because I mean it hurt the gaming culture as a whole. Giving the navy the opportunity to play isn't enough.

I'm not seeing the biggest of differences. The biggest complaint that I can acknowledge is directed towards those without suitable internet, not those who are on the complete opposite side of the spectrum.

Moderator
#22 Posted by tupiaz (2180 posts) - - Show Bio

@tupiaz said:

There is difference between being forced to and choose to. Until MS changes their plans about used games restriction, restriction on how often I need to be online and who I can borrow my game to , I will be against Xbone simply because I mean it hurt the gaming culture as a whole. Giving the navy the opportunity to play isn't enough.

I'm not seeing the biggest of differences. The biggest complaint that I can acknowledge is directed towards those without suitable internet, not those who are on the complete opposite side of the spectrum.

The problem is if the can let people without internet play offline single player and also renting games without a problem then why can't I do it?

#23 Posted by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio

@tupiaz said:

The problem is if the can let people without internet play offline single player and also renting games without a problem then why can't I do it?

From what Microsoft has been saying, they want to eliminate used games and physical copies in general, hence the focus on installing the physical copy to the hard drive and thus rendering it moot. The constant "check up" is to reinforce their policy on determining if the copy is used or not.

It's obviously different from the norm and that's the scary part to people. Change is something they do not like to accept.

Moderator
#24 Edited by Bogey (946 posts) - - Show Bio

Of course an military serviceman would complain, biggest welfare queens out there.

#27 Edited by tupiaz (2180 posts) - - Show Bio

@tupiaz said:

The problem is if the can let people without internet play offline single player and also renting games without a problem then why can't I do it?

From what Microsoft has been saying, they want to eliminate used games and physical copies in general, hence the focus on installing the physical copy to the hard drive and thus rendering it moot. The constant "check up" is to reinforce their policy on determining if the copy is used or not.

It's obviously different from the norm and that's the scary part to people. Change is something they do not like to accept.

The thing is I want to own a thing when I buy it not rent it I want to rent it to my friend and get it back and play some more. MS is giving you a box that can rent games. Not buying that. What do I do when a game is oop or the aservice is put down? No more gaming.

#28 Posted by Nova`Prime` (4165 posts) - - Show Bio

Former Navy vet here and this is what I hear from that post, "Waaaaahhh I want play xbox... microsoft bad" useless tin can sailor, try spending three months underwater with no sun and then cry to me about a game console. And he wants to play halo and gears of war... use a 360.

#29 Posted by frogdog (3246 posts) - - Show Bio

#30 Posted by Ms. Omega (4437 posts) - - Show Bio

#31 Posted by Nerx (15088 posts) - - Show Bio

@frogdog: goddamn m$ apes, they don't deserve to be a part of the human race

#32 Posted by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio

@tupiaz said:

The thing is I want to own a thing when I buy it not rent it I want to rent it to my friend and get it back and play some more. MS is giving you a box that can rent games. Not buying that. What do I do when a game is oop or the aservice is put down? No more gaming.

That's a legitimate concern but can extended to almost any service that depends on digital distribution to an extent. Although, family sharing plays quite well to compete with the used games and sharing of physical copies that Sony is retaining.

Moderator
#33 Posted by tupiaz (2180 posts) - - Show Bio

@deranged_midget: Sony is much less at least you can rent Sony's own titles. Nintendo has as far as I know nothing like this.

#34 Posted by Deranged Midget (17599 posts) - - Show Bio

@tupiaz said:

@deranged_midget: Sony is much less at least you can rent Sony's own titles. Nintendo has as far as I know nothing like this.

Haha yes, Nintendo has virtually no restrictions at all.

Moderator
#35 Posted by Nefarious (19714 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm not surprised. It was inevitable.

Online
#36 Posted by Nerx (15088 posts) - - Show Bio

Please have an armed protest and kick m$ ass