Try our new beta!Click here
Submitted by edsmith1990 1038d ago | article

Adam Orth Was Right: We Need to Deal with Always-Online

Adam Orth, creative director at Microsoft Studios, resigned earlier this week after outraging consumers with comments about the next Xbox needing to always be connected to the internet. But despite the backlash, "always-online" functionality is a necessary and possibly revolutionary part of gaming's future. (Adam Orth, Dev, Industry, Microsoft, PS4, Tech, Xbox LIVE, Xbox One)

GamingAngelGabriel  +   1038d ago
I can't say I agree with that notion, as I feel that there is more potential for harm than good, but it's an interesting opinion.
Qrphe  +   1038d ago
"Adam Orth Was Right"

I stopped reading right there with the article.
edsmith1990  +   1038d ago
Then why should anyone listen to what you have to say about it?
geassdanny  +   1038d ago
No one said you have to listen to him, same way he stopped reading at a certain point!
TheTwelve  +   1038d ago
The internet is amazing! One day, this guy is a loon, the next day, people are trying to make him into a martyr! You can find whatever you like on the internet, folks!

Baka-akaB  +   1038d ago
why should he listen to morons more interested by "educating" its readership and always taking sides with publishers , than defending said readership and consumers ?
#1.1.4 (Edited 1038d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(0) | Report
MaxXAttaxX  +   1038d ago
It would be a problem in middle America and internationally.
JeffGUNZ  +   1038d ago
I really haven't read any tweets that stated you need to be connected to play a single player game. I think the other features are going to require an internet, like their TV idea, autoupdates, etc. Even in all the "leaked documents", I still have seen nothing that would require internet connection to play games offline. I don't know where that rumor original got spun, but if one uses common sense you can see this is an option they are not going to do especially the marketshare they got from this current gen.
flyingmunky  +   1038d ago
Know how I'm going to deal with always online consoles? By buying a console that doesn't require it.
GamerToons  +   1038d ago
Don't give this site hits.

Thats all they want.
rainslacker  +   1037d ago
I think it's the harm that really puts me off of the whole idea. I never thought online passes would be successful. When they were first announced, I thought the community outcry would be so huge that they would eventually die away. Instead, the internet, mostly as a whole, become company apologist and threw their consumer rights out the window.

This is much the same thing, only exponentially worse from a consumer standpoint. The article makes a point that it allows the content provider to control their content. This in itself isn't a bad thing, as piracy is a concern, but at the same time controlling content means controlling the consumer, and that I take issue with. Limiting choices should never be accepted by the consumer in general, and some people should look at the bigger picture instead of just how it affects them.

This move benefits no one but the publishers, and there is a big risk that it could end up harming them in a big way. If it doesn't harm them, then it will only harm us as consumers, and eventually we will just be "Dealing with it" to the point where it's just not worth it anymore.

CliffyB said that there is a whole new generation ready to accept whatever is put in front of them. They've grown up in the digital age...which is weird because the digital age isn't that old. It's sad to think that this new generation has more say than those that actually care about their own rights as consumers, or just hate the direction gaming may be going as a whole. I guess pushing out a large segment of the gaming community isn't that big a deal. What's the point in growing your user base when you can just replace them with a group that will do whatever they're told because they don't know any better.

Luckily, I don't think MS is going to go this route.
Ashlen  +   1038d ago
There is nothing necessary about it. All this always online defense is just a misinformation campaign.
SnakeCQC  +   1038d ago
first windows 8 and now all this stuff. It seems like ms should've been voted worst company
Godmars290  +   1038d ago
And the point is that some people wont have the option to just "deal with it".
STGuy1040  +   1038d ago
Unfortunately, you're right. There are some people who can't 'deal with it' and this may hurt Xbox Next sales. I hate to say it, but some hardcore Xbox gamers may forgo buying an Xbox Next because of this feature. This new feature is to obviously monitor Xbox Next consoles, among other things. While I am not against Microsoft protecting their IPs from hackers and piracy (I'm 100% for it), it just seems very restrictive to the consumer to make them stay online constantly.

As far-fetched as this may sound, there are still people out there (especially in the US) where their internet service is still spotty, and staying connected is a problem for them. It would be terrible for any consumer to lose the ability to play their shiny new Xbox because they can't 'deal with it'. Dealing with it isn't necessarily an attitude for some gamers, it's a situation that causes them frustration because they know they will have problems if this new technology is implemented.

I realize none of this is Microsoft's problem, but the aforementioned scenario (and others being debated here) should be taken into consideration by Microsoft.
#4.1 (Edited 1038d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
rainslacker  +   1037d ago
I would hope MS, as a business that provides a consumer product, would find ways for people to "Deal With It" so we wouldn't have to. It's not really up to the consumer to sell the product to themselves, but for the company to make their product with the convenience of the consumer in mind to make it attractive to them to pick up.

Just think of any build-your-own furniture piece. Some companies are really good about making it convenient to put together, others aren't. Or better yet, Ever notice how, for the most part, the most popular brands of electronics are extremely easy for the consumer to use or set up?

That being said, it wasn't actually MS saying we needed to "Deal With It". I know a lot of people are inferring that, but realistically it was just a guy being insensitive to other people's situations.

Here's a tip to all the "Deal With It'ers"

Despite what a lot of these defenders are saying, there simply are too many people that either DON'T WANT TO, OR CANT "Deal With It".
#4.2 (Edited 1037d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Godmars290  +   1037d ago
The problem, the actual problem with this, is that in attempting to broaden its market MS could be limiting overall access to it. That they might be gambling that they can increase the majority of Xbox owners and XBL subscribers by excluding a minority.

They're not trying to find ways, they're just making it more appealing for those who can to deal with it. Likewise the do not want people can go screw themselves as well in their eyes.
rainslacker  +   1037d ago
That's assuming the rumor is true. But yeah, in that case you'd be right. It's a very large gamble, and while MS is huge, it's not like their hands in a lot of places when it comes to gaming.

With Windows they can afford to have a miss. They can carry on their sales with support of previous iterations(or the next service pack/version), or through other forms of their OS or server software.

If they screw up on the Xbox, then it could literally remove them from the gaming market if they do so early in the consoles life. This would ultimately impact their overall plan of being the center of people's living rooms, which isn't something I feel that they are willing to risk given how long they've been trying to achieve that goal. I remember reading about that when I was still in high school...over 20 years ago.

If this was a combining of two different aspects of the MS product line, like say they had this media functionality for the living room prior to Xbox, then it would be much different, but in this scenario, the Xbox is a way for them to inject this new product into the market.

Given all that, it seems that it's not really necessary to exclude the market that doesn't want to, or can't, deal with it. It seems perfectly reasonable to allow it to be optional, thus including everyone. This would go a long way in adoption rates on this new media functionality, as well as not exclude the gamers that have come to support them through their Xbox efforts.

This strategy has benefited Sony for 3 generations, and many technologies they've given with their consoles have gained widespread(or even commonplace) acceptance. It's only reasonable to assume MS would see this same strategy working for them, if not better given their more aggressive marketing.
#4.2.2 (Edited 1037d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Godmars290  +   1037d ago
Again, MS's attention seems to be entrainment over games. They made money on XBL subscriptions which by all reasonable counts is about a third of 360 owners (80m total, 50m online w/half gold accounts) where games have apparently been a repeated a loss overall despite big sellers like Halo and COD. If they can make all of the current online accounts Gold accounts, add more subletting a cable box, what's the 30m odd out gamers who weren't making them money in the first place?

Guess I should have said, "the majority of 360 owners of interest to them" earlier. Since this is about a minority they're seeking to expand.
#4.2.3 (Edited 1037d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
maniacmayhem  +   1038d ago
I don't care about always online as long as it doesn't block used games or restrict my gaming in any way.

I think MS will also go the route of leaving it up to the developer to make these decisions.
cee773  +   1038d ago
Adam néeds to deal with unemployment lol
spaceg0st  +   1038d ago
you don't get unemployment if you resign! =D
Godmars290  +   1037d ago
But if you're a senior executive you get payout and stock options.
KwietStorm  +   1038d ago
No no no. Always online may very well be an inevitable future. We don't know either way at this very moment in time, but we can say we are the most connected we've ever been, and we've been moving in that direction. But to say it is necessary is completely false and unnecessary. The only way Orth was right in having to deal with it, is if you buy a specific product or service. Then you would have no say in the matter, before or after the fact.
#7 (Edited 1038d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
krontaar  +   1038d ago
How about no?
Bigkurz85  +   1038d ago
This whole "deal with it" thing is crap and just plain not true. I liken it to a few years back when people were saying we would just need to "deal with" all TV and videogames moving toward 3D. Well guess what? Consumers didn't buy it, and it's being abandoned--even Sony isn't really talking 3D anymore.

So now, we don't need to "deal with it." We can fight it and ensure it doesn't happen. If MS really does this, then stick it to them and get a PS4. Let's see how they deal with that!
Bigkurz85  +   1038d ago
Disagrees = Lemmings willing to accept anything
Jaqen_Hghar  +   1038d ago
A man proposes we make things always online when everyone has fast internet with no caps rather than leaving a lot of consumers out to dry. Good thing there's Nintendo and Sony to offer an alternative.
jronj  +   1038d ago
I can see verifying your own personal copy/key for a game once but every single time you want to play.. Can't they just add the game to your xbox's game registry and automatically let it play instead of checking with xbox live every time?
Jek_Porkins  +   1038d ago
I am all for optional always on, my Xbox 360 updates and continues downloads once I've technically turned it off, but forced DRM is a problem because society isn't ready from a technical standpoint yet.

We are the consumers, we dictate what we want, when Sony came out with a digital only PSP people responded by not buying it, that sent a clear message. If we don't want DRM games or consoles, we should close our wallets up.
FAT MAN GO BOOM  +   1038d ago
Always online is a load of shit. It is uncalled for and is not needed...

EA MS and other like Ubisoft are pushing it with misinformation...

Gamers are being told what they want. Sheep need to wake up. leave that money in your wallet and give it to games that do not support DRM, always online, Free to pay, Pay to win, Freemium and other BS buzzwords...
pissed999  +   1038d ago
Or you can vote with your money and have Microsoft "deal with it". Simple really.
M-M  +   1038d ago
Woah, I actually agree with you for once.
geassdanny  +   1038d ago
"always-online" functionality is a necessary and possibly revolutionary part of gaming's future.

Necessary for what? Only if you are a major company wanting to FORCE drm, that is the only logic i see behind always online. But they will spin it such as "this is necessary for better social integration for our game or platform". Optional online is a necessary functionality, even then some games don't even need it.

Revolutionary? How so? Pretty sure always online didn't revolutionise sim city, nor Diablo 3.
brave27heart  +   1038d ago
Taxes we have to deal with
Death we have to deal with
Justin Bieber, unfortunately, we have to deal with
A games console, an optional purchase, I dont have to deal with.
Bakkies  +   1038d ago
Deal with it? Like kneel next to the router and pray?

Or is it a case of "oh, my internet cuts out, but I can fix it by pushing my network cable in deeper. Nah, I'll deal with it later..."

Or like a dictatorship says half of the population must go work in a salt mine, deal with it.
Neko_Mega  +   1038d ago
My internet says otherwise, anyways. I don't think I want a console thats online all the time, I'm happy to be offline.
thecurseddevil  +   1038d ago
maybe he was wrong,
whatever he said was his personal opinion.
he too has a family.
it shouldnt have cost him his job just because some angry xbox fanboys got upset on his personal opinion on an unannounced project.
#19 (Edited 1038d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
ThreshStar  +   1038d ago
There is absolutely no NEED for always-online gaming at the moment. The idea of being connected to a service (Steam, Xbox live, PSnetwork, etc) that can update files for you, download games, etc. is a great ADDON to the gaming experience.

However, don't be fooled - it WILL happen. WHY? More control from gaming organizations / console companies. The ability to prevent possible piracy, include more advertising within product, or just gathering statistics in any way/shape/form is the industry's desire.

Remember, they're here to make money. Judging by what the industry has become, it will EVENTUALLY become the norm. The only way to stop it is for us know....not buy their products.

So in closing: We're screwed.
fossilfern  +   1038d ago
I think people are forgetting about how reliable the servers are on their end. You may have the best connection in the world but if the servers are under heavy load they could either crash or you would have to queue up just to play your game.

There are far too many variables for "always online" to become viable.
Soldierone  +   1038d ago
Thats going to be an issue for a while, when they fix it (if they fix it) will be unknown. If always on is true, then expect almost every major game release to be covered with "no one can play due to server over loading." Follow those articles up with "more people are playing than expected" from the developers, which is a.k.a. "we skimped out on servers, deal with it."
rainslacker  +   1037d ago
Not only that, but it puts an unknown expiration date on the game and the machine itself. EA has closed servers to push a new product, so what's to say that someone else couldn't do the same for an entire game machine and it's library of games. There's no guarantee or right to BC, so it could render your entire collection of purchased content completely useless.

There is no way that a company is going to maintain their servers indefinitely, even though they may maintain them for quite a while. If MS were to decide to get out of gaming for whatever reason, eventually they would just shut it all down.

This is the main reason I don't support DD as the future. It takes away ownership, and leaves us at the whims of the company providing the content itself. Read any TOS of these companies(all of them), and you will be appalled that you do not own a damn thing. It is within their right to deny you content at any time.

Unfortunately, I just do not trust companies enough to provide me with my legally purchased content for the long term. Will it matter to me in 20 years? I don't know. But I want the option to be there in case I do. Right now I can still play every single game I own all the way back to the 2600 if I so choose. I find that to be a good thing.
cleft5  +   1038d ago
I will deal with it by not buying an always online nextbox. The rest of you can spend your money however you like.
Soldierone  +   1038d ago
Even if he was right, he didn't need to go throw a temper tantrum about it. It's like MS went "maybe we shouldn't do that" and it broke some of his ideas, so he turned to Twitter to go "you guys are stupid, thanks a lot!"

How about simply talking about the positives and supporting the idea instead of making fun of everyone and saying "deal with it?"
oldassgamer  +   1038d ago
Current consoles are "always on". The issue rests with the rumor that a connection is required to play games. If I can't play my games because I don't have an internet connection, then that is a big problem. I find it hard to believe that MS would require a connection to play a campaign. If "always on" doesn't disrupt my ability to play games, then no harm, no foul.
Welcome2Die  +   1037d ago
Why does Adam Orth look like Cyril from Archer?
Main_Street_Saint  +   1028d ago
Dear console makers,

When the internet is steady and is everywhere (aka like television/radio signals), then maybe we can talk about this always on thing. Until then, I think I'll deal with an optional online.

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

Monster Avenue – New CCG board game launches on Android worldwide

1h ago - MMOculture: Monster Avenue, developed by Korean studio IVEXT and published by XTEN Games, recentl... | Android

Marvel's Diablo Plays Better With A Game Controller Too

1h ago - Kotaku: "Diablo-esque MMO Marvel Heroes recently kicked off its 2016 season with a massive update... | PC

Track the Release Date for PlayStation VR

Now - Sony is yet to reveal the exact release date for PlayStation VR. Start tracking it now using | Promoted post

Rick Fox's Terrible League of Legends Team Has Five Weeks To Save Its Season

1h ago - Former NBA player Rick Fox' team is trouble this season. | PC

What Gamers Want for the Week of 2-15-16: New Video Game Releases

1h ago - EB: There are plenty of new video game releases coming out this week, but you may have only heard... | PC

Unravel Review | Press Start Australia

1h ago - PSA: Unravel, developed by Coldwood Interactive, is clearly a work of great passion. I fell in l... | Unravel