Always-on: Not Always Awful?

If you are any sort of gamer, you’ve probably heard about the “demonic” and “communist-esque” always-on products. Over the recent years, the very concept has (arguably deservedly) garnered plenty of negativity, that’s been effectively drilled into many a clueless skull across the video game fandom. See, most gamers will tell you that ‘always-on’ is a horrible, horrible thing (including most of us at AlienLion) but it seems that very few are able to explain just why. Well, let’s argue with ourselves for a moment. Is it honestly that bad? I mean, sure, it’s inconvenient in most cases, but will always-on really mean the end of gaming as a whole and bring on an age where no Internet means no video games?

Read Full Story >>
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
Irishguy952501d ago

I love online. I would prefer an option to be offline. Simple as.

3-4-52500d ago

Exactly...They are trying to take that choice from us.

When they control something, they can control/change how that make money off of it.

Companies like this don't know how to stop trying to control things. They have devolved into that and they aren't intelligent enough to figure out another way, so they push these ideas on us and try to spin it as if it's not that bad.'ve been good to me in the past. I don't care who you are though, your screwing with us and we aren't going to stand for it. Therefore a lot of us won't be giving you are money anytime soon.

Congrats. your own fault. not the media's.

Thank for ego.

rainslacker2500d ago

I'm sure the people that don't have internet, have internet caps, or have crappy internet could explain to this author just why it's bad.

I'm sure the people who were affected by the Sony hack could explain to this author just why it's bad.

I'm sure the people that just don't want to be connected to the internet for some reason personal to them could explain to the author just why it's bad.

I'm sure the people who bought SimCity or Diablo, can explain why always-on could explain to the author just why it's bad.

The author seems to base his entire point around the fact that it means we can now interact with all the wonderful people in the world. So, I'm sure the people who don't care about that kind of thing could explain why they don't want to be forced to.

Anyways, to the authors point...Always-on isn't always awful...I concede that. Required always-on is. The difference is in the option.

Kingthrash3602501d ago (Edited 2501d ago )

old article I think......but I hate to buy things then have someone tell me what to do with it. it is mine if I don't want to have it online the it shouldn't make me do it. if I want to microwave it then I could do that.. and so on. if I paid then it's my choice or I dont buy....

GribbleGrunger2501d ago (Edited 2501d ago )

Whichever console I end up buying, I will inevitably end up with it being always connected to the internet. I just want to know that I can still play my console if I end up without internet. That's the issue here. All these articles are missing the point. Given a situation that I end up not being able to afford both, I'd then have to make a choice ... and given that I can't play my console WITHOUT the internet, the choice would be made for me: 'internet'.

blib2501d ago

FU always online. FU spycams. FU bogus DLC that should have been in the base games. FU any type of consumables. FU ads. FU all the bells and whistles being showcased as something that gamers actually give a crap about. FU DRM. FU licensing agreements. FU declaring our purchases still belong to you, and are subject to your whims. FU major game companies. THE END IS NEAR! Folks, we're going back to PCs and Indie.

dumahim2501d ago

" but what did you expect from a game that had 12 million pre-orders in a span of six months? Who could possibly have predicted that so many people would order and play this in such a rapid succession?"

It's called a PRE-order. These did not just all of a sudden all happen on release day. There is a clear build up to such a day.

Also the aritcle seems to focus on one game. One game is not a big deal. Every game for an entire console is a huge deal. There's a large area of the US that does not have access to high speed internet. Also, how about our military? This was posted by someone on a different board I frequent.

"In 20 years of being in the Navy, I went on 5 deployments, 3 of them post 9/11. The last 4 of them being at the point where I had some sort of internet connection to send email. The connectivity was laughable at best.

The last 2 of them, I could go and load up a web page, hit control-alt-delete, lock the computer, go for a smoke, and the page would be loading up still. I could not count the number of XBox and PS's there were on the ship, it was in the hundreds. Those guys did not have access to an internet connection and they swapped games around like they were exchanging reading material. The Exchange was cleared out of every game that was hot or not before a battle group deployed.

If XBox goes down that route, I can see them losing a huge fan base of the guys and gals in uniform overseas and/or deployed that don't have access to crap or it's worse than dial-up if they do. That passing by word of mouth might cause more damage than they can count on."

Does Microsoft really want to go with the attitude that the military is not eligible to play their games anymore? No internet? Get with the times and deal with it.

Show all comments (14)
The story is too old to be commented.