An eGamer journalist comments on the Microsoft Creative Director (Adam Orth)situation, talks about the implications of always-on for a console and explains why Orth was in the wrong.
I think he just related his experience with PCs and mobile phones to consoles in general. I can see where he was coming from, my PS3 has been hooked up to my router for the past 5 years since the day I bought it and effictively its always-on. With the exception of PSN outages. :D
I can understand that viewpoint, I mean my PS3 is also permanently connected at my home, but the thing is it's different for everyone and there are many scenarios where you won't have access to an internet connection at all or even just a reliable one depending on your situation. For instance: - You could be using wireless - You may want to take your console on the road - You may be moving and finding yourself without internet for a while - Your service provider may have a problem - Microsoft could have technical faults - The area you live in could be unreliable for good and stable internet - You may just not have regular access - You have may limited usage Those are just some scenarios. Now while these above reasons can exclude you from playing multiplayer, it's completely unfair and insane to have these prevent you from playing a single-player game. Diablo III, SimCity, Assassin's Creed II, they all suffered greatly trying to enforce always-on.
There is nothing to defend, this gen games were made to be played online + added features to be used online, social became important and that's online aswell, nextgen what would you expect is to go further than that, so logical step would be always on...
Also things happen in life where other bills can take precedence to having your high speed internet always on. I know I pay right at $65 a month and if something was to happen that would be the first expense I'd have to cut. Trust me I've been there... That would mean no Xbox for me :-(
I get that it's "different for everyone," but truth be told, I personally don't care about everyone (pardon me for being selfish). Both my PS3 and 360 have been "always on" for 6 years. I'll get a PS4, and I plan on keeping it always on, and assuming MS won't do anything too crazy during their announcement, I plan on getting a 720 too, since each will have great titles the other won't have. If somebody out their is still rockin' PS3 and 360 firmware ver 1.0 because they have no internet, I feel bad for them, but for nearly everybody on this site, we'll all be fine with always on. I'M NOT DEFENDING IT, but if I HAVE to have a 720 connected, it will be no different for what 90% of current PS3 and Xbox owners have been doing the last 6-7 years. EDIT: Oh, and paying for internet is an awful excuse to bash always on. I KNOW the economy is tough but if you can't afford a $40 internet bill, you have NO business buying a $400-$500 console and $60 games. Priorities are food and shelter, so if things are really that tough, you need to be cutting out games entirely until this economy gets better for you.
Used to having it online or not , there is no defense worthwhile here . People forget something that should be asked first . Does switching to a perpetually online system even benefits you ? If it doesnt and is just a used game deterrent screw them . I dont even fathom state of mind making anyone rush to a corporation's defense , when they havent told you yet if there is even something to gain from it . The only always online feature we know so far are auto logging stuff , wich can be done in alternative fashion . And no .. social crap features , facebook or otherwise , and rankings arent worth that
@Crazy Larry. The keyword is IF. If something was to happen or if I was to lose my job and things get tight the internet expense would have to be the first to go. Might as well get rid of the console also (for about a quarter of the price you paid for it) because without the internet it's useless. This is all hypothetical debate anyway. Let's just wait and see what happens.
@sik Plenty of games were made this gen that didn't require any online. Even if they included a multiplayer component, there was almost always a single player component. Multiplayer took off this gen, no doubt. But that doesn't mean everyone, or even the majority want to play online. There are many people who don't care one bit to play online. I'm one such person, and I see no reason for there to be a required always on connection outside of trying to control the consumer. Logical step is to keep it the way it is now. Make it optional for the people that want it, but don't restrict those that don't care to be always on, or just don't always have the means.
While I can certainly understand people not seeing the problem with this (I am always online myself), I think too many people can't see past their own situation. Personally the biggest issue I have with "always on" is how easy it's to have a problem with it. I don't know about anyone else, but every now and then someone will pull the internet power cord to plug something in or accidentally removed it (it's pretty bulky after all). Obviously this is a harmless action and terrible if I am playing online, but I don't need to instantly stop everything to resolve it. Thats the main problem with always online as a concept... it has too many situations where things are useless. At the VERY LEAST they should offer something to make up for this short coming, though I can see that not happening.
Always on is a horrible idea. All the rhetorical spin can't justify it. If MS does indeed go this route it will hurt them. I honestly don't understand what the R&D team is thinking. MS needs to fire them and 86 this idea. This is as bad as Sony not going all out for a full online infrastructure right out of the gate. Does everyone remember Phil Harrison complaining that Sony (Japan) wasn't focusing on online features and options for the PS3 before it was released? These companies need to learn from each others mistakes and not create new ones.
It's not about always on, people are missing the point entirely. Always on is a DRM. The always on function is to authenticate games to keep you from playing used games. That's the only reason always online is needed.
"The always on function is to authenticate games to keep you from playing used games." I don't see many missing this point. Not being able to play used games or rentals would be the kiss of death for me with MS. 80% of the games I play are either from GF or purchased used. If MS does in fact go this route it will save me space on my entertainment cabinet. I didn't get a Wii U and I will pass on the "Next Box" if these rumors turn into facts. I might purchase one just for the Forza series but my gaming library will be anorexic. I want resale value. The only way this (Always On - No used games or rentals) would be viable for me is if MS sold their games 25 to 35% cheaper than their opposition. I can't see Ms going this route. Think about it. Sony offers near identical services as you with equal or possibly more power. The same games, more developers, not always on, used and rentals will work (AKA resale value on your titles) and possibly still have the option to game online for free. <- If this is the case Sony will run away with the next generation.
The other major issue with your argument, Ashlen, is that always-on doesn't really benefit us. The example you used helps us in no way whatsoever as gamers and consumers. In fact, it's a restriction on us, and because of the problems with always-on, poses many possible inconveniences. Always-online isn't needed. It's something enforced for control reasons.
You mentioned the PSN outages, well Microsoft also went down during Christmas for like 2 weeks and it happened again following that consecutive year. Now imagine the console is always online. Are you okay with not being able to play games that you paid $60 for, assuming you didn't buy a collector's edition for $100? The problem here isn't just the network experience on the side of the consumer, but that major gaming companies like Microsoft, Sony, EA, and Activision Blizzard don't have a stable enough network architecture to maintain an always online service smoothly. If Microsoft wants to use always online drm, than they need to be able to guarantee customers that their network infrastructure is solid enough for them to be able to deal with the server demands of having a mass amount of people constantly connecting, no matter what time of year it is. The reality is that there is no way for them to do this and this is why always online drm is a terrible idea and why I will not buy a nextbox if it does have always online drm. Once the network infrastructure exist for them to be able to do this type of drm reliably, than and only than, should they consider it.
they really didnt go out at all back then. Xmas 2007 it had connection problems because so many people were overloading the servers at once. I was playing COD 4 every day for a few weeks before xmas and xmas day I couldnt connect. I thought it was my Internet but it worked fine later that night when less people were on. I hear people mention this live outage all the time, but it was working. I know because I actually experienced this so called "outage" and the PSN one too, big difference. I will probably not buy the next xbox for a while and maybe not ever if it is always on. I enjoyed diablo 3 even though it wasnt as good as diablo 2. Lots of people hate on it but I think it was pretty good besides the stupid RMAH and the worst, always online. Lag, even in SP and servers that go down at least 1 time a week and they were down alot when the game launched.
Yea but when your internet connection goes out or is crappy that day, your not locked out of gaming. You can still use your PC without the internet. Full functional. X720 EX: Playing a game and internet acts up in middle of game...it just stops working or shuts down or exits out... What if that was a cutscene or a Boss battle or important dialog and now it's just ripped you right out of that experience. ^ That situation is going to happen to people. Not all but enough that it will piss people off. EX: I just bought this $60 game can't wait to play it.....wait the local internet is in the area fixing something and the internet will be iffy for today and maybe tomorrow ? Now I can't play my game ???? ^ How doesn't Microsoft Comprehend this ?
"You may want to take your console on the road" BINGO!
Or you are military and get orders to move.
I think by now, with a blocked Twitter and removed Link-in account, he has some idea. Question is does MS realize how bad an idea it is. Enough so that they'll continue it.
I have Comcast and they are so big that they don't care that they are an unreliable ISP. Troubleshooting your Internet for a couple of hours after work when you only want to relax and play a couple of games is enough to make me avoid an always connected console like the plague.
Time Warner was much the same for me. When it was working, which was a lot, they were very solid. However, not a week would go by where they wouldn't go down for an hour or two, and sometimes for a whole night. I'm currently using AT&T U-Verse, and it's connection is up about 99% of the time, but a few days ago it went down for the whole night. Usually when it does go down it's for about an hour or so. It's also worth pointing out that even the smaller companies which may care about service still use the larger providers networks to deliver their feeds, so your still at the mercy of the bigger infrastructure.
the horse is dead
So is the idea to make XBL and always-on internet required and free, or will people still have to pay a sub for XBL and thus to play their new 720? Hard to justify a large payment for the hardware, then a mandatory sub for XBL to be able to use the hardware. Will XBL silver (free) still exist, but simply be a requirement?
It was just his opinion, he said that we have to move on to the latest, while i agree with that, not everyone has internet... But his view point is valid. its like saying lets still release movies on VHS instead of DVD. Basically we will eventually have a world with internet everywhere but i dont think that is the time right now...
The guy wasn't defending an always on console, he was saying that he liked always on and thought everything should be always on. Not sure if it was ever made clear if he was speaking about "always on" or ALWAYS ON, where you are forced to be online in order to play something. It'a his own opinion, so that cant possibly be wrong, I might not agree with him, but he's entitled to think what he wants, unfortunately he isn't allowed to speak his mind on the subject.
I would have to agree with you. You really can't say he is wrong when it is his opinion. When you think about it most things in your house are always on such as cell phones,Xbox360 and the Ps3 if you have plus. Only real difference is you can turn those off if you choose to. I like the idea of constantly connected, but if there is no option to turn it off that is when I have an issue. Recent games like Diablo 3 and Sim City come to mind that completely break gameplay requiring the always on model. I think once this starts effecting gameplay in a negitive way it is a problem.
Glad you understood what I was trying to convey, always on as an option is great, but forced is wrong and would alienate a lot of people. He wasn't clear if he was speaking about DRM or just how cell phones, 360, PS3 and all of those can be always on, like my Xbox 360 is always on, but I can play games with it offline.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.