MS Studios Director,"Get with the Times" Always Online

#TeamSony

I've flipped on this. Originally I couldn't care less, I'm always online anyway. Comparing it to the PS3 shutdown on 2011 though, makes it sound like a really dumb idea.

Anyway, how about we wait until we find out something official about the console before judgments about it?

What is this ..."Internet" you youngsters speak of?

This GIF from NeoGAF is pretty much fucking genius. Also, I wish I could just embed GIFs rather than people needing to click on them to start, but sure whatever.

Actually, here's a direct link to it instead: http://i.minus.com/iZ4Xc7uzxvJUA.gif

To be clear, "always online" isn't a big deal. Your cell phone is always online if you never turn it off. The detail I don't think people understand is having a box on all of the time can be an issue if not designed correctly to take into account noise and durability. Do I need to remind people how bad the RROD and how noisy the 360 is? Why would you want that device on all of the time??

My MacBook Pro is never shut off but that doesn't mean it is on all of the time and it also doesn't require an internet connection either. Having a set to box that actually on all of the time is kind of crazy. I have little faith that Microsoft understands the design considerations well enough.

Holy crap, I didn't exactly realize the extent to how much this has blown up. Link to a ton of articles: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=52765917&postcount=4688

I love this so much.

I love how in one generation companies have convinced people that "always online is a necessary future" to the point that people actually take it as an acceptable given and defend company honor and insults other consumers that have opposing views. This particular douche's comments aside. I don't get it. What about console games (or games in general) that isn't online in it's functionality would need to mandate such an idea?

Even in regards to digital distribution such notions are completely stupid. Ah geez. I don't even. And that fucking guy.

I sincerely hope they don't walk down that path.

@extomar: To be fair, a cell phone does not perform the same functionality in the same context as a video game console. I admire everyone making apples and oranges comparisons (to which they are both fruits), but the reality is that the problem lies in the fact that we need to be making apples to oranges comparisons (to which these fruits are not the same and very different kinds). A cell phone and a video game console may be both electronics devices, but they certainly aren't used the same way.

I'm not saying a video game console shouldn't be "always online" or otherwise, but I am saying that people need to be careful with what kinds of comparisons they are making. Frankly speaking, making apples and oranges comparisons is exactly what got this Microsoft creative director in trouble to begin with, regardless of his backpedaling is on saying that he was "just trolling with friends".

I love the idea that rolling over every time an arrogant corporation tries to force a DRM scheme on you and never speaking up for your rights as a consumer are how you "get a life".

Maybe you guys can just wait until they officially announce things?

We don't really know what DRM "features" either PS4 or the next XBox are going to have. We can only be sure that they'll both have some kind of DRM measures. Given the utter fiasco (from Sony's standpoint) of the PS3's encryption scheme, I could easily understand if Sony had gone off the deep end with digital restrictions for the next platform. Fortunately they seem to have kept their head... I'm pretty happy with what I've seen of the PS4 so far. But if it disallows used games or requires a network connection for all games then no sale. Same goes for XBox.

Frankly, I hope they try it so that it can fail so badly that no one ever seriously considers the idea again. Between Steam (relatively innocuous DRM) and the flood of DRM-free games coming out of Kickstarter, I can easily skip this console generation and still have more than enough games to fill my free time.

@grilledcheez said:

The fact is they haven't, so all we have to discuss—which people will naturally do because a new console is a big deal—are rumors.

Internet as a whole is not reliable enough for always on for a game console. I have Comcast and most of my devices are connected to the modem via a cat6 cable. Guess what happens every once in awhile, the internet goes down for some random reason. I might have to wait a few minutes or a maybe even a half an hour for it to comeback.

Rumors that Microsoft has made no serious effort to shut down, which only fuels the fire even more.

@heatdrive88: I didn't explain my thought enough. The "constant communication" part of any device isn't the issue because plenty of cheaper things do that already but they are designed in a certain way that do not look like consoles.

I added the thing about the MacBook Pro as a better example: I don't turn this thing off often (let alone reboot) nor does it require the Internet to function even though I often use it with the Internet. I don't 'have a lot of faith that Microsoft has taken enough time and consideration into the design of such systems given how the 360 went and how well Surface and Win8 are doing.

The take away: A device requiring connection all of the time isn't the deal breaker. A box that is noisy, does things at 2 AM that requires the user to interact and does nothing or the wrong things until that happens, that requires multiple peripherals to hang off of it (I'm looking at you Kinect) in spaces that aren't appropriate (hint: wall mounted TV), and that break down because of prolonged heat are bigger issues.

I think it's to cushion the blow honestly. Remember all those leaks about the PS4 having no backwards compatibility, by the time they said it I had basically accepted it and moved on.

I'm not really seeing any reason to get a Durango at the moment anyway. I got most multiplatform games for the 360 this gen, but only because PS3 ports were usually awful, relegating the Triple to playing exclusives only most of the time. With their hardware most likely being almost identical this gen, the Quattro probably won't have that problem again.

And I just don't really care about any of MS' exclusive properties. If there is something I want, it might be ported to PC anyway. Sony has stuff I'm interested in. So I'll be going PC, PS4, Wii U this gen I guess. It's gonna be weird to not have every console.

@heatdrive88 said:

This GIF from NeoGAF is pretty much fucking genius. Also, I wish I could just embed GIFs rather than people needing to click on them to start, but sure whatever.

Actually, here's a direct link to it instead: http://i.minus.com/iZ4Xc7uzxvJUA.gif

This is amazing.

I'm hesitant to get on the hate train and write off Microsoft, as the XBox has pretty much become the ubiquitous games machine of this gen (at least in NA), but damn if shit like this isn't off-putting.

I'm hoping people won't take this lying down though. An always online console just isn't feasible for most people yet. I can really see them pulling a 'PS3' this generation and letting arrogance be their downfall. Especially when you combine this with smaller developers at least having heard NOTHING about the durango at all while Sony goes round to everyone at every event and basically asks what help they need.

Wouldn't surprise me if this was MS's way of floating always-on DRM as a trial balloon so that if enough people shoot it down they can say "it was that Adam's fault" and shove him out the door.

Despite the "everyone should get the internet" comment, it looks like he keeps saying "always on" not "always online"

Since it was between just the two of them, i guess he thought it was fun enough to reply to other peoples tweets about it.

@extomar: Yeah, that's totally reasonable. We can both definitely agree that it's not the "always online" part that is going to be the problem or 'dealbreaker' as you've noted. It's what it could potentially lead to as you've said, regardless if it's a positive or negative factor.

My argument was that the speculation as to what those factors are, is getting really out of hand because of the kinds of comparisons people are making based on some rather miscalculated reference points on what is feasibly related and what isn't. Your point is totally feasible for sure, and I can totally agree. I can't blame other people too much though - It's really easy for people to look at this the wrong way and make a lot of snap judgments.

@heatdrive88 The kicker is that people won't realize those things I mention are a problem till they bought it and put under their TV and find it beeping at 2 AM in the morning or finding it running for 18 hours straight, fans on full blast because it needed a user to hit "okay" or whatever. Given the issues with Win8 and Surface I am not exactly encouraged by their grand design schemes.

Required kinect and always on are two things that will make me skip the console. I really don't see why i would need or want kinect. Nor do i see why i would buy a multiplat game on a console that requires online when i can buy the same game on a PS4 and play it offline.

Unfortunately i think I'm a minority and the masses wont care.

Always online is kind of shitty for blackouts and stuff. In regards to my internet it has been spotty quite a few times, one time being down for a couple weeks because the network box packed in (civ 5 was the only game I could play on steam so racked up many hours on that). And even then thankfully my house is an unlimited data plan but can get throttled pretty bad at times, if its always online at what point does the constant data pinging start to eat your total limit?

In terms of always on I just wouldnt want that, I like to turn my computer off completely and other items within my room. The only thing which has an autostart is the ps3 with ps+ to update anything. With an always on system they would surely need to figure out some electricity standby modes as im not sure what the price is in the US but in the UKutilities are not very cheap.

Either way its very unlikely il get either console on launch as I would rather save that money to upgrade my computer as it really is starting to hang on to a lifeline here.

@maskedarcstrike

In terms of server side load I am pretty sure microsoft can handle it a launch. They have done pretty well with all the COD releases which im going to predict now as being a much larger userbase connecting to servers than the nextbox or ps4 (varying factors of launch consoles, price, launch titles, recessions, the total number of people already with a ps3/360 and happy for the year)

I'm shocked by all this if its true. Sony's hubris, although gross, was at least justified by the PS2 being an absolute juggernaut leaving 2 consoles in its wake. MS only has the market share in NA. They've sold less units than Nintendo, and as of January, I believe PS3 surpassed them in worldwide sales (although that may have been in units shipped. Either way, they did not dominate). They should still be in predator mode trying to finish what they started this generation. Instead they seem complacent to push away smaller developers and alienating potential customers. Not a great business strategy. Especially since their 2 workhorse franchises show more and more signs of consumer fatigue each year. They can't expect Halo and CoD to carry them through another generation

If any of this ends up being true I think Microsoft should kiss their video games division goodbye. Though now due to all of this bad press and examples like Sim City and Diablo 3, there is no way in hell they'd go through with it. But I could still corporate execs who don't know shit about games loving the idea enough to go through with it anyways!

NBC News. (It's a contributor, but still)

Look y'all, this is all bent out wrong. I can't really wrap my head around the console having to connect to a server or it bricks, but I like the used game ban. I have a fantasy scenario where this is a good thing:

Alright, so I'm a developer or publisher. I make creative content and push it on the masses for profit, competing against others doing the same for the same dollars. Problem is, I get a unit manufactured, someone buys it for $60, then maybe some second runs sell new for $40 or $30.

However, what is the ratio of owners/players to purchases on a typical release? It has to be pretty strong, let's say 3 or 4, 5, whatever. So me the developer, I'm getting a crap deal there over the long term.

Bam, it's 2014. I've got to figure some consoles and pricing strategies for my new release. Well, okay, I've got 1 or 2 I can put it on that allow used games. I better mark that shit up as much as I can, because that's all I'm ever going to get paid on.

Let's say there's this other one that doesn't allow used games. Well, I can sell that shit on the cheap now, because I get paid for every use. So maybe I can sell that new for $40, and slide the price down the scale as the game ages and there's other competition.

What's the bottom line? EVERYONE WINS. You get software for cheaper. Devs get rewarded for their content, particularly if people can't pirate the shit out of it. Now, the whole always-on thing does still kind of weird me out, but the only one who would suffer in the scenario is Gamestop. Of course, they could still screw with you and keep the price fixed at 60 forever. That would blow..... But of course, if you're forfeiting your resale rights when picking between consoles for a software purchase, publishers will necessarily offer it to you at a cheaper price to make up the difference; it's just economics and they'll get that.

So what's the problem here with this scenario? Would you buy Box games at a major discount versus a WiiU / PS3 full price? Because I feel like publishers would either only go with Box, or they'd have a steep price differential.

@tackchevy: I think even in that world (and if it may be true in the case of the nextbox having this) you will still see the same launch price for the game in line with the ps4. Steam who we can turn to for this kind of argument (with steamguard you kind of have to be connected to the internet to play your games) Is usually £5 more for preorders or newly released games than outlets like amazon or play.com.

Sure steam do their annual megasales but the way games have been dropping over here (the uk) after a few months (which is roughly when games that sell well on steam take to start getting half price sales) you can also find some pretty cheap prices at amazon or greenmangaming etc.

Also in regards to some peoples previous threads of $60 actually being fine in relation to the price of games yesteryear and why $70 for next gen games makes sense due to inflation (which does not tie in to how much people are earning but thats a different topic which has been discussed here) and the price of game development in this day and age I dont see many of the large companies dropping their price because they are guaranteed unused sales (simcity on launch was £35 when it is pretty typical to get a pc game pre ordered for £25 or £30 on steam)

EDIT: Spaced it out a little so its not one giant block of words

@extomar: I think you have the concept of "always online" a little twisted. It doesn't mean the machine has to be switched on all the time, just that when it is on it must be connected to the internet to function. If you don't want that shit on at 2am then you can still turn it off...

@rollingzepplin I'm on my phone and accidentally clicked to flag a post of yours on the first page and I can't undo it. >.< sorry

I don't know. I think it's awful, but I bet most people would accept it anyway. I would have said the same thing about charging people to play online. 'Why would they pay when it's free everywhere else?'

Sim City and Diablo 3 got made fun of a lot, but they both still sold a lot of copies. I can't see people really sticking with those games, but it's probably got to do with game quality more than any DRM annoyances.

@tackchevy:

What have any publishers done lately for you to give them the benefit of the doubt like that?

Why are video game publishers special and exempt from the realities of the second-hand market that everyone else understands and works around?

If they can't figure out a working business model it isn't the consumers fault. Rather than adapting they choose to force the customer to adapt and this seems like the only market where people are big enough doormats to let someone get away with it.

While i personally do not feel I would be badly affected by an 'always on' console, if the reception was poor enough, it would make the competition a clear favorite, and thus, the home of the best games of its generation, and thus, the right console to buy.

Below are some case studies I developed as to why an always on connection is a bad idea.

Case Study #1

My wifi goes out Friday night. Verizon FiOS tell me they can't have a guy come out until Tuesday between 9am and 3pm. Besides going out and enjoying life I also want to play a few video games until I'm back online. I know I can't get on multiplayer but hey single player sounds nice and then I remember oh God...no internet means no Xbox...well that sucks.

Case Study #2

I'm on a tight budget and only have an unlimited data plan through my cell phone carrier. I choose not to get internet. I can't play Xbox.

Case Study #3

I live in a location where my internet signal is weak and rather than pay for a piss poor signal I save my money and opt not to get internet at all. I can't play Xbox

Case Study #4

I'm 12 years old and my parents say the internet is nothing but trouble. Thanks to the hate and name calling in COD multiplayer they setup parental controls on our internet services to block me from connecting until I'm 18. No internet. I can't play Xbox.

Case Study #5

I got an Xbox for Christmas from my grandparents hooray! Unfortunately, my family can't afford internet right now. My new Xbox is now a dust box. I can't play Xbox.

Case Study #6

Bad weather knocks out my internet but I still have power, great let me play my Xbo...oh crap!

Case Study #7

I have wired DSL internet for my PC in my living room. All I do is check email and read news online. I don't want to pay for high speed internet or a router. Guess that means I can't play Xbox.

Case Study #8

My router died...I can't play Xbox.

Case Study #9

Ninja's stole my internet...I can't play Xbox (this one actually happened to me)

Case Study #10

I need to devote all internet resources to downloading "things" from a torrent and a website for adults...I guess I can't play xbox.

Think that would be a disasterous route for them to take, which they will end up back-tracking on and trying to recover from for the rest of the generation. But we'll see I suppose.

Yes they (both) want to put a storefront in your living room and sell you everything directly, but step one of that is actually getting people to buy the box. You may as well have flipped a coin to decide which console to buy this gen (between PS3 and 360), they were that similar, but if the only meaningful difference between their successors is that PS4 works offline and 720 doesn't, then that's a massive leg up for Sony right out of the gate.

Victory in what sense though? I'm not so sure always-on is a huge deterrent to the masses.

So I could rant about how I didn't have internet for years despite living outside a major midwest city and how this kind of requirement still irritates me...

However, I would like to mention that I can dig out my NES, Saturn, PSX, PS2 etc and play any of them whenever I want. If a system comes out with an always online requirement, than one day down the road you won't be able to come back. Preservation of gaming history is already overlooked sadly, this future would only make it much worse.

Thats exactly why I am against it too. They should at the very least provide an option to take the game offline after an initial activation. So I can keep my games and play them when nostalgia hits me 20 years down the road.

The weirdest thing about this to me is that Microsoft is allowing all this negative press to be the only message about the Xbox Durango/Infinity/Whatever going whilst Sony are in control of their message and have people mostly focussing on excitement about the games. How long are Microsoft going to be willing to put up with this situation?

One would hope so but you never know. It does seem like that the success of the 360 might have gone to their heads a little bit.

"The truest characters of ignorance are vanity, and pride and arrogance" - Samuel Butler.

Because that isn't what will happen.

removing used games removes significant pricing competition from the market, so game prices will likely go up to 70 +DLC or perhaps higher. Without that competition there is no pressure on publishers to hold that 60 dollar price threshold which they've been trying to break for twenty years now.

Sony I seriously doubt will undercut Microsoft on pricing, the two generally match pricing moves. So if Microsoft games go up, they probably will too.

Imagine what would happen it used cars and homes weren't available. Do you you really think that new ones, which have a very slim margin now, would go down in price in the absence of competing high quality used options? They also have multiple owners so game makers need to get over this entitled feeling they have of only having one user per sale. Resalability is the market expectation consumers have for most physical products, even if they don't intend to use it (You might not ever want to or expect to be able to resell a can of Pringles but you know you always could).

It's not like there is true competition out there, there is basically only 4 platforms you can buy AAA games on and two of them (the pC and WiiU) service very different markets than the big 2.

Not to mention there will be fewer sales of games, because study after study has shown that a very large % money gained in selling back games is used to buy new ones. Which will do two things. Reduce exposure for non AAA titles and two it will shrink the gaming market.

This will start a negative feedback cycle. How large will it be? I dunno. My guess is enough to knock one or two console makers out of the game, which may happen anyway.

furthermore there is less value for the consumer now with significantly more risk. Before with your 60 dollar purchase , you had retained value by having the the option to resell it. Now you have nothing which makes the decision harder to justify and perceived as riskier. Especially when you factor in that it is getting increasingly difficult to return a game if you don't like it.

Microsoft official response from Game Informer

" [Update] We received an official statement from Microsoft, via the company's PR firm Edelman, concerning the tweets sent by Microsoft Studios' creative director Adam Orth last evening.

The statement reads as follows:

'We are aware of the comments made by an employee on Twitter. This person is not a spokesperson for Microsoft, and his personal views are not reflective of those of the company. We have not made any announcements about our product roadmap, and have no further comment on this matter.' "

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/04/05/report-more-sources-say-next-xbox-will-require-always-on-internet-connection.aspx

Notably they did not mention at all anything about always-online. Take from that what you will

I love everybodys pointless butthurt about this

I just don't get it. Why would you shrink your market to those users that always have internet all the time? Do they really not want to sell it those of us in inconsistent-internet places, or is there some plan for that we haven't guessed yet?

He should go sit on a mace, then proceed to fuck himself.

It's not a matter of the power going out like the dumb cunt thinks. If the power goes out chances are you're not even going to be playing games anyway. It's the point of bandwidth caps, and restrictions on the internet that are ever growing both from companies and potentially the government, and speed limitations within North America (we're not Japan or South Korea, we don't get 1 GB download speeds), and servers going out for the entire console itself essentially making the entire console and it's library dead. Then there's the whole thing about THEIR servers going down, either for maintenance or because of excess traffic around... oh I don't know... Christmas. It's happened in the past. Unless they can absolutely 100% guaran-fucking-tee in writing that this bullshit in no way, shape, or form will ever inconvenience their customers it is not, and never will be, acceptable.

When will they learn? We've already had TWO examples of this shit in the past year with Diablo III and SimCity. Fact is those died down because the traffic to those games died down. But when the traffic is to your service and your service covers ALL of the games it won't die down. Are they fucking retarded? WE. AREN'T. READY. YET. Fuck off with the always online bullshit. Until the internet infrastructure is improved worldwide, not just in the US, it is unacceptable.

The range of targets in the fallout seems to be expanding a bit.

Arthur Gies started chiming in a while ago. Suffice to say, his statements have made him a definite secondary target of the controversy- he too is now being bombarded.

One of his recent tweets: "The biggest game of 2004 is still online, and has always been always-online."

https://twitter.com/aegies

Reading through a bunch of Arthur's tweets- it seems like a lot of people are targeting him hastily. Cause he's openly said he's not defending Microsoft here. He's just saying that the detractors of always-on haven't made a cohesive/readible argument yet. (At least not from his view)

Microsoft seems to be fine with the image of being a company run by gigantic douchbags. I'm pretty confident I'll be skipping their system this time around.