Top
170°

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.

Read Full Story >>
ibtimes.co.uk
The story is too old to be commented.
GamingAngelGabriel1173d 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.

Qrphe1173d ago

"Adam Orth Was Right"

I stopped reading right there with the article.

edsmith19901173d ago

Then why should anyone listen to what you have to say about it?

geassdanny1173d ago

No one said you have to listen to him, same way he stopped reading at a certain point!

TheTwelve1173d 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!

12

Baka-akaB1173d ago (Edited 1173d 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 ?

MaxXAttaxX1173d ago

It would be a problem in middle America and internationally.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1173d ago
JeffGUNZ1173d 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.

flyingmunky1173d ago

Know how I'm going to deal with always online consoles? By buying a console that doesn't require it.

GamerToons1173d ago

Don't give this site hits.

Thats all they want.

rainslacker1173d 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.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1173d ago
Ashlen1173d ago

There is nothing necessary about it. All this always online defense is just a misinformation campaign.

SnakeCQC1173d ago

first windows 8 and now all this stuff. It seems like ms should've been voted worst company

Godmars2901173d ago

And the point is that some people wont have the option to just "deal with it".

STGuy10401173d ago (Edited 1173d 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.

rainslacker1173d ago (Edited 1173d 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".

Godmars2901173d 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.

rainslacker1173d ago (Edited 1173d 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.

Godmars2901172d ago (Edited 1172d 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?

Edit:
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.

maniacmayhem1173d 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.

Show all comments...
The story is too old to be commented.