Always on DRM?

Has anyone ever made an argument that made "Always On"-DRM seem like a positive for the consumer? Could they ever?

How could "Always On" ever be better than "Sometimes On" or "Most of the times On"? What incentive is there for a consumer to be forced into owning a product that requires 100% On to function? I challenge anyone to come up with an argument that makes sense for always on. Anyone and everyone.

I guess your games could automatically update? I dunno, lets just hope it doesn't happen, i doubt it will anyway.

I do not accept your challenge.

No one is going to complete this challenge because there are no benefits.

Your games could update automatically anyway. Your game/system can be online all the time without it being a requirement.

I don't think anyone even wants to play devil's advocate for this. DRM is only still implemented by companies who can't understand that it doesn't really work, which is unfortunately most of them. Because there's no way that making something more convenient for the consumer will actually entice the consumer to invest in your products, is there? CD Projekt Red pretty much disproves that, but The Witcher doesn't make Call of Duty money so it won't make a difference.

If we assume piracy is inherently bad and always-on DRM stops piracy, then one can conclude that always-on DRM is a good thing.

Network centric games like MMOs or Online FPSs can get way with "Always On"-DRM and make it sound positive, as the whole experience is centered around the Internet. Games like World of Warcraft, Borderlands and Left 4 Dead can or could get away with it with minimal to no complain from consumers.

You either need to take the indirect 'It's good for the industry and therefore eventually good for gamers' angle, or the 'We're creating an experience which can only be achieved in an AO environment'. The former is a tough sell and a bit of a stretch; the latter is a little easier and sometimes even true.

#dealwithit

@jeust: You know that eccentric means "not centred" right?

@prapin: Not to destroy that argument, but it punishes everyone for the actions of a few.

No one can really justify always online DRM. It doesn't help anyone.

yeah i think the problem is that with a cellphone or something, the fact that is always (or quite often) on is beneficial for the consumer. it allows them to make phone calls, check the internet whatever. with a console it is solely anti consumer and a means of trying to restrict the consumer.

How about if you use the servers to help simulate stuff that is too advanced for any individual computer, in any city, to handle?
Yup, I'm that smooth...

If there is any reason it is implemented other than to stem piracy I'm all for it..

That's why I was really cautious with my wording.

The answer is simple: Digital Rights Management protects "rights" of the producer.

@prapin: I couldn't really play devils advocate with this argument.

Good on you for trying!

I don't think anyone ever will make a compelling arguement for it. Just a hunch.

@jackg100: Are you really wanting a good argument for it or are you simply speaking rhetorically?

Because I do think there are gameplay and game features reasons that always-online would be a positive for consumers in certain games. But I don't want to expound on that if this is just trying to be an expression of incredulity at the idea of such an argument.

I am honestly wondering. Certainly for MMO-games it makes perfect sense, but... take SimCity for instance. A game where there is no real value in adding forced multiplayer, to still add it and claim it is for the benefit of the consumer without making (as far as I have seen any way) a valid argument as of why it is better with the always online-stuff than it would have been without it completely or with non-forced onlinestuff.

Compared with Dark Souls which I think benefits greatly from playing always online, you still have the option of playing it offline if you want, and that works perfectly fine.

I have no problems with stuff being always online if it makes sense, but for a console to be always online makes no sense to me. I cannot see any kind of argument where it would make sense, so if anyone else got one I would love to be enlightened. I am likely to disagree with your argument if you come at me with it, but I've got an open mind and aren't set on always online necessarily being a negative thing. I just have a hard time seeing it as necessary for anything but an MMO-game like WoW, Planetside etc.

inb4 jdh5153

Yep. Thanks for noticing though.

@jeust:

lol

He resigned (I'm sure it was either that or get fired).

One way to look at it is the guy did us all a favor. Without his Twitter yammering, this detail would have been swept under the rug where now it is at least out and known.

It was probably a "quit or we'll fire you" situation.

I'm completely against always online consoles, but I can imagine two arguments that could be made for it.

1. Same argument that people make that Kinect should be included with every Xbox can extend to always online also. Most people would agree that Kinect is poorly implemented into gameplay but is a great concept that developers don't build functionality for because they need to design the game for the entire user base. If a developer knows that this feature is a requirement for every player they could work the functionality into the game play. Most of the time this has proved to be an epic fail like Sim City, but it does work for MMOs.

2. Allows the platform owner to more easily update the OS and send game patches. Developers allows seem to praise the ease of patching their games on Steam and complain about Microsoft's stinginess. This probably has a lot to do with the system architecture being built around always on connectivity. Instead of making one large patch, a lot of small tweaks can be made on a rolling basis. On Steam I rarely ever need to launch a game to get a patch, it just downloads in the background any available updates.

Both these reasons are flimsy to me, but I've heard them made in the past.